Premier Danielle Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery recently announced plans to amend legislation governing professional regulatory bodies in Alberta. In a video, they expressed concerns over regulated members subjected to investigation and disciplinary action for stating opinions on political and religious issues.
During the video, they referred to well-known media personality Dr. Jordan Peterson, who was reprimanded by his regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario. In response to the announcement, NDP Justice Critic Irfan Sabir accused the UCP of “dog whistle and divisive politics.”
While Peterson’s case is politically charged, I cannot agree with Sabir’s dismissive attitude toward reform or his views that the government’s intentions are merely about protecting the right of professionals “to say vile things.”
During the announcement, Smith and Amery also referred to the case of Carolyn Brost Strom, a registered nurse from Saskatchewan who was fined by her regulator because she made Facebook comments about the care facility where her grandfather spent his last days. Her case eventually went to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal where it was unanimously overturned, but only after some very stressful years for this innocent RN.
I’ve gotten to know her and assisted her appeal by approaching the Canadian Constitution Foundation to act as an intervener. She has since bounced back from her experience and is now an NDP candidate in the upcoming provincial election.
The good that came from her ordeal is a well-reasoned decision by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that directly addressed the rights of regulated professionals to speak publicly. The court specifically noted that her regulator had failed to recognize that her comments, in which she stated she was a registered nurse, were “intended to contribute to public awareness and public discourse.”
In other words, it was precisely because she was a nurse that her public comments had value.
What happened to her should not happen to others. This isn’t to say that professional regulators should never regulate the public speech of their members. Where public statements by individuals claiming a professional expertise clearly misrepresent their expertise and lead the public astray, regulators should be able to act. This is especially the case in medicine, where expert opinion is often based on area specialization — a dermatologist should not be making public statements about matters within the expertise of an immunologist or cardiologist.
But on broader issues of public concern, including legitimate professional and academic questioning of standard practice or policy, debate is better — even if it turns out that the questioning was mistaken. This includes debate about professional regulation itself.
Despite Sabir’s naysaying, governments across Canada, as well as internationally, have been wrestling with reforms to professional regulatory bodies for some time now. A leader in this area is the NDP government in British Columbia that has taken significant action to reform its professional regulators, though not without pushback from some professionals.
Even here in Alberta, when Tyler Shandro was health minister, he introduced reforms based on the B.C. initiatives to increase public accountability among health profession regulators and commissioned a study by the Health Quality Council of Alberta to review patient complaints processes.
A review of professional regulation can bring benefits to Albertans, regulators and professionals. I encourage those affected to make their views known.
Here’s my contribution: currently, all health regulators are subject to review by the Office of the Alberta Ombudsman. As a lawyer, I recommend the Alberta government extend this to my regulator, the Law Society of Alberta.
Better to have the discussion than another RN on the ropes.
Collin May is a Calgary lawyer and former member of the Provincial Council of the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta. In 2023, he was appointed Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Calgary for his work on secondary harm caused by unfair complaints processes related to professional regulators.