A new bill in Alberta seeks to safeguard the free speech rights of regulated professionals, a move that has sparked discussions about the limits of expression in the workplace. The Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, also known as "Peterson’s Law," was introduced by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and passed its first reading recently.

The legislation aims to prevent professionals from losing their licenses or facing disciplinary action for expressing personal opinions outside of their work. Smith emphasized the importance of free speech, stating, "No professional should fear losing their license, their reputation, or their livelihood because of a personal opinion, a social media post, an interview, or open dialogue outside of working hours."

The bill includes exceptions for threats of physical violence, hate speech resulting in criminal conviction, and issues related to sexual misconduct or professional boundary violations. These exceptions are designed to balance the protection of free expression with the need for public safety and professional integrity.

The push for this legislation comes amid concerns that professional regulators in Canada have been selectively punishing individuals for their off-duty speech, particularly when it contradicts prevailing ideological views. This has been exemplified by the case of psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson, who faced potential loss of his license due to comments made on social media that were unrelated to his professional duties. Peterson has criticized the regulatory body for its actions, describing them as ideologically motivated and detrimental to free expression.

The sentiment shared by both Peterson and other professionals is that regulators should not have the authority to discipline individuals for their personal beliefs or expressions. Advocates for the new law argue that a climate of fear and self-censorship stifles open dialogue and the exchange of ideas, which are essential for progress and democracy.

The introduction of the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act has been met with mixed reactions. Supporters believe it is a necessary step toward ensuring that professionals can engage in discussions without fear of repercussions, while critics argue that it may undermine accountability and professional standards.

As the debate continues, many are calling for similar legislation to be adopted in other provinces across Canada, highlighting the need for a more consistent approach to free speech protections for regulated professionals. The outcome of this legislative effort could have significant implications for the future of professional conduct and expression in Canada.