Alberta Introduces “Neutrality Act” (Bill 13) to Protect Free Expression Across Regulated Professions – Why It Matters For Unions And Public Servants Across Canada
As Alberta moves to “protect free expression” for regulated professionals, many unionized workers across Canada still feel unsafe speaking openly about contentious issues.
TL;DR — Alberta’s Regulated Professions Neutrality Act (Bill 13)
Alberta introduced Bill 13 (Regulated Professions Neutrality Act) on Nov. 20, 2025.
It is not yet passed but is moving through the legislative process.
The bill would protect regulated professionals from disciplinary action for lawful off-duty expression, except in narrowly defined cases (threats, criminal offences, professional boundary violations, misuse of professional status, certain sexual misconduct).
It applies to dozens of professions: health workers, engineers, teachers, accountants, geoscientists, lawyers, psychologists, real-estate brokers, skilled trades, etc.
It limits regulators to training strictly tied to competence and ethics, restricting mandatory DEI/bias-training unless justified under the Act.
It introduces a correctness standard of review, giving courts more power to overturn regulator decisions involving Charter/Bill of Rights issues.
Alberta government frames it as protecting professionals from losing their careers over personal opinions or social-media posts.
Critics argue it may shield problematic speech or undermine regulators’ ability to address harmful conduct.
Relevance for unions and federal public servants: many members across Canada now self-censor, fearing that posts or opinions on vaccines, DEI, MAiD, economics, or politics in general could affect their career or union support. Bill 13 raises the national question of how to balance free expression, competence, ethics, and public trust.
1. What Just Happened In Alberta?
On November 20, 2025, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery introduced Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, at a news conference in Edmonton. According to the Government of Alberta, Bill 13 would set “overarching principles” for how professional regulators oversee their members and is explicitly framed as legislation to protect free expression for regulated professionals. (Alberta.ca)
The official government summary states that, if passed, Bill 13 would:
Ensure regulated professionals “may freely express themselves while still being entitled to fair treatment by professional regulatory bodies.” (Alberta.ca)
Apply across a very broad range of professions, including health professionals, teachers, engineers, accountants, geoscientists, skilled trades, and many others. (Alberta.ca)
The government’s own “latest news” page headlines this as: “Free expression for regulated professionals – New legislation will ensure regulated professionals may freely express themselves while still being entitled to fair treatment by professional regulatory bodies.” (Alberta.ca)
Status:
As of November 23, 2025, Bill 13 has been introduced but not yet passed. The Alberta.ca legislation page lists the status as: “Bill 13 was introduced November 20, 2025” and notes that it would take effect “upon proclamation” if passed. (Alberta.ca)
This is therefore proposed legislation, not yet in force—but it is already attracting national attention.
2. What Does Bill 13 Actually Do?
2.1 Off-duty “expressive conduct”
At the heart of Bill 13 is the idea of “expressive conduct.” The Alberta government defines expressive conduct as behaviour that conveys or attempts to convey meaning, explicitly excluding physical violence and property damage. (Alberta.ca)
The bill would:
Prevent regulators from disciplining professionals for expressive conduct that happens off-duty, except for a narrow set of serious categories. (Alberta.ca)
Those exceptions include off-duty expression involving: (Alberta.ca)
Threats of physical violence
Misconduct involving professional boundaries
Misuse of professional status with intent to harm an identifiable person
Certain forms of sexual misconduct
Conduct for which the professional has been convicted of an offence
In other words, discipline for off-duty speech would become the exception, not the rule—and only in defined circumstances.
Premier Smith has publicly framed the rationale very directly:
“Professionals should never fear losing their licence or career because of a social media post, an interview or a personal opinion expressed on their own time.” (Canadian HR Reporter)
The government and commentators have explicitly linked this to high-profile cases across Canada, including disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, and complaints against nurses and other professionals for off-duty social media posts. (Canadian HR Reporter)
Not surprisingly, some media outlets have already labelled Bill 13 “the ‘Jordan Peterson law’,” capturing both its intent and its controversy. (Global News)
2.2 Limits on mandatory training and DEI requirements
Bill 13 goes beyond speech. It would also restrict what kind of training regulators can force professionals to take.
According to the Alberta fact sheet and legislation summary, the Act would: (Alberta.ca)
Limit mandatory education or training to matters of professional competence and ethics.
Prohibit regulators from making cultural competency, unconscious bias, or diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training mandatory unless it is directly tied to competence or ethics and meets specific conditions set out in the Act.
Prohibit regulators from assigning “value or blame,” or giving preferential or adverse treatment, in order to achieve DEI outcomes based on characteristics such as race, ancestry, political belief, religious belief, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
This is a substantial shift. It effectively codifies a requirement that regulatory bodies stay “neutral” on political, cultural, or ideological questions, and focus instead on the core functions of competence, ethics, and public safety.
2.3 A tougher legal standard of review
Another highly technical but important change: Bill 13 would impose a “correctness” standard of review for certain regulatory decisions.
The Alberta summary explains that courts and internal appeal bodies would apply a correctness standard when reviewing decisions that involve: (Alberta.ca)
Whether a regulator complied with the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act; or
Questions involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Alberta Bill of Rights.
A correctness standard means courts do not defer to the regulator’s judgment; they may replace the regulator’s decision with their own if they conclude it is wrong in law. (Alberta.ca)
This is a significant recalibration of power between regulators and the courts, particularly on rights-related questions.
2.4 Who is covered?
The list of affected professions is long, and that is part of the political message.
The Act and its accompanying amendments would cover, among others: (Alberta.ca)
Engineers, geoscientists, architects, accountants and other technical professions
Teachers and teacher leaders
Lawyers and students-at-law
Health professionals: physicians, nurses, psychologists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, social workers, and many more
A wide array of skilled trades and licensed occupations, from electricians and welders to funeral directors, real-estate brokers, and early childhood educators
The message is clear: Alberta is proposing to standardize how off-duty expression is treated across virtually all regulated professions in the province.
3. Why I’m Watching This Closely As A Union Member And Public Servant
I am writing this for my DG4VP Substack because, as a federal public servant and union member, I personally know many colleagues who now feel unsafe expressing themselves publicly—even on their own time, on their own devices, outside of work.
These concerns span a wide range of topics, including:
Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) and end-of-life ethics
Economic policy, public debt, and fiscal sustainability
Public safety, policing, and national security
The safety, effectiveness, and reasonableness of vaccines and other public-health interventions
Broader questions about civil liberties, pandemic responses, and the proportionality of government measures
In conversations in hallways, on encrypted messaging apps, and in private phone calls, I hear the same themes:
“I’m afraid to post anything on social media that might be interpreted as ‘controversial’.”
“I worry that asking the wrong question publicly could be used against me in a staffing process.”
“I don’t trust that my professional regulator, my union, or my employer would defend my right to express deeply held but unpopular views if they conflict with a dominant narrative.”
Whether these fears are fully justified or not, the chilling effect is real. Many people who entered public service or regulated professions out of a sense of vocation now feel that expressing conscience, skepticism, or minority viewpoints is a career risk.
Against that backdrop, Alberta’s Bill 13 is not just a provincial story. It is a test case for a broader question:
How do we reconcile genuine protections against harm, discrimination and misconduct with a healthy space for legitimate dissent, conscience, and debate among professionals?
4. The Union Dimension: Who Actually Protects Free Expression?
One striking element in the coverage of Bill 13 is that Premier Smith explicitly referenced unions. In at least one interview, she highlighted that professionals who belong to regulatory bodies “shouldn’t have to worry about getting in trouble with their union for saying what’s on their mind” in relation to politically sensitive topics. (CityNews Calgary)
This is an uncomfortable reflection point for organized labour.
4.1 Unions as protectors – and sometimes silencers
Unions are traditionally seen as defenders of member rights, including:
Freedom of association
Fair processes and due process
Protection from arbitrary discipline
Yet, during and after the COVID-19 period, many members across Canada experienced something different:
Expressions of concern about mandates, vaccine policies, or workplace safety measures were sometimes treated as reputational risks rather than legitimate union issues.
Some members felt they were discouraged from speaking publicly, even when they believed they were raising issues of genuine public interest.
In some cases, grievances related to conscience, speech, or discrimination were not advanced because they were viewed as unwinnable or politically sensitive.
In my own professional circle, I have spoken with union members who say very bluntly:
“I feel safer saying nothing.”
“I don’t know if my union would stand by me if my social media post offended the wrong person.”
This is not an accusation; it is a reality of perception. And perceptions matter.
4.2 What Alberta is doing – and what it is not doing
Alberta’s Bill 13 does not directly legislate unions. It focuses on professional regulatory bodies and the legal standard for reviewing their decisions. (Alberta.ca)
But the spirit of the bill is clearly aimed at a broader ecosystem where:
Regulators, employers, and sometimes unions
All play a role in shaping what is “safe” or “acceptable” to say as a professional.
By explicitly carving out a protected space for off-duty expression—subject to narrow, serious exceptions—Alberta is attempting to draw a line:
Regulators should focus on competence and ethics, not on policing personal beliefs or lawful off-duty opinions.
Whether one agrees with the exact drafting or not, it raises a legitimate question for unions and professional associations across Canada, including at the federal level:
Should unions be actively advocating for similar clarity and protections for their members?
How do we ensure that defending human rights and equity does not slide into punishing dissent or honest disagreement?
5. Risks, Criticisms, And Open Questions
Any serious discussion of Bill 13 has to acknowledge the concerns being voiced.
5.1 Fears about shielding harmful speech
Critics worry that limiting regulators’ ability to respond to off-duty speech could:
Make it harder to address hate speech, harassment, or serious misinformation that, while technically off-duty, may affect public trust in the profession. (Global News)
Send a signal that professionals can publicly promote discriminatory or harmful views with reduced professional consequences.
Some professional bodies and advocacy groups are already describing Bill 13 as a step that may “give a pass” to harmful or bigoted speech so long as it occurs outside work hours. (X (formerly Twitter))
5.2 How narrow are the exceptions?
The legislation includes exceptions for threats, boundary violations, certain sexual misconduct, misuse of professional authority, and criminal convictions. (Alberta.ca)
But complex real-world cases are rarely clean:
What about a health professional who repeatedly promotes misleading medical information online?
What about persistent demeaning comments toward a protected group, even if not clearly criminal?
How will regulators prove “misuse of professional status” or “intent to harm” in practice?
These are real implementation questions that courts, regulators, and lawmakers will have to grapple with.
5.3 Charter, federal context, and public servants
For federal public servants, another question looms:
If provinces are now experimenting with explicit statutory protections for off-duty expression for regulated professionals, what does that mean for federal employees whose speech is governed by a mix of employment law, internal codes of conduct, and unwritten norms?
Alberta’s Bill 13 also interacts with the Charter and the Alberta Bill of Rights via its correctness standard of review, effectively inviting courts to scrutinize regulators’ rights-related decisions more closely. (Alberta.ca)
This could set interesting legal precedents that other jurisdictions will watch closely.
6. Why I Think This Debate Is Necessary – Regardless Of Where One Stands On Bill 13
I am not writing this article to endorse or oppose Alberta’s Bill 13. I am writing it because:
I have seen first-hand how many union members and public servants now self-censor on fundamental questions—from assisted dying to vaccine policy, from economic sustainability to national security.
I believe that healthy democracies and ethical public services require space for good-faith disagreement among professionals, not just compliance with institutional messaging.
I see Alberta’s initiative as an important data point in a broader Canadian conversation about how far regulatory and institutional authority should extend into our private beliefs and off-duty speech.
Whether we ultimately view Bill 13 as a model to emulate, a warning, or something in between, it at least forces us to ask the right questions:
What are the legitimate limits of professional discipline for off-duty expression?
What role should unions play in defending—not suppressing—members’ lawful speech and conscience, even when it is unpopular?
How do we uphold human rights, safety, and non-discrimination without turning regulators and unions into ideological enforcement bodies?
For my part, as a public servant and union member, I want us to talk about these questions openly—without people fearing that simply raising them will harm their careers.
References
Government of Alberta – “Protecting freedom of expression for regulated professionals”, Bill 13 overview and status (Nov. 20, 2025). (Alberta.ca)
Government of Alberta – Regulated Professions Neutrality Act Fact Sheet (Fall 2025). (Alberta.ca)
Canadian HR Reporter – “Alberta pushes to protect free expression in regulated professions” (Nov. 21, 2025). (Canadian HR Reporter)
CityNews Calgary – “New Alberta ‘Jordan Peterson law’ would ban professional sanctions for employees’ off the clock comments” (Nov. 20–21, 2025). (CityNews Calgary)
Global News – “‘Peterson law’: Alberta bill to limit power of regulatory bodies on member behaviour” (Nov. 20–21, 2025). (Global News)
Law Society of Alberta – “Regulated Professions Neutrality Act and Legal Profession Act amendments” (Nov. 20, 2025). (Law Society of Alberta)
CPAC – “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Announces Regulated Professions Neutrality Act” (Video archive, Nov. 20, 2025). (cpac.ca)
Disclaimer
This article’s opinions are those of the author and do not represent the views of any Canadian agency, union, or organization. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.
Acknowledgment
This article was written with assistance from ChatGPT using the prompt:
“Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, alongside provincial Justice Minister Mickey Amery, hold a news conference in Edmonton to announce the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, which will protect the right of regulated professionals to free expression while ensuring regulatory bodies focus on competence and ethics—not personal beliefs. Find me new details about this new neutrality act bill, which I think it was passed or will be passed in Alberta. Write article for my DG for VP Substack in WA prompt indicating that I personally know many union members who feel unsafe, talking or posting publicly on any issues related to anything from assisted suicide to economy to safety and a figure of vaccines and reasonableness of any thing that happens in the country.”
Based on approximately 400–600 words and 5–10 minutes of narrated input and clarification with the author.
ChatGPT was also used to help ensure political neutrality, factual accuracy, and alignment with the Public Servant Code of Values and Ethics.
Read more about why and how I use ChatGPT to write my Substack articles here.
Other Possible titles:
When Speaking Becomes Risky: What Alberta’s “Neutrality Act” Signals For Regulated Professionals And Unions
Bill 13 In Alberta: Protecting Free Expression Or Redefining Professional Discipline?
From Alberta To Ottawa: What The Regulated Professions Neutrality Act Means For Unionized Professionals
Possible subtitles:
Alberta’s Bill 13 would limit regulatory sanctions for off-duty speech. Federal public servants and union members should pay close attention.
As Alberta moves to “protect free expression” for regulated professionals, many unionized workers across Canada still feel unsafe speaking openly about contentious issues.
A case study from Alberta that raises a national question: who protects professionals when conscience and competence collide with institutional messaging?
Support This Work
If you believe in open dialogue, informed choice, and exploring under-reported perspectives, you can help keep the conversation going by following and sharing this article on your preferred platform.
You can follow and support my work here:
LinkedIn · Facebook · Twitter/X · YouTube (@Dr.Dmitry.Gorodnichy) · YouTube (@IVIM) · YouTube (@DivyaTrikona)