Following his recent byelection victory in Alberta, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre made a strong statement on social media, labeling the regulation of professional speech as "authoritarian censorship." This comment reflects ongoing concerns about free speech in professional settings, highlighted by two recent cases involving healthcare professionals in Canada.

In British Columbia, nurse Amy Hamm faced disciplinary action from the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives. The college found her guilty of unprofessional conduct for her advocacy on gender issues, specifically her views on sex-based rights for women and children. The disciplinary panel's decision indicated that while it is possible to advocate for these rights, it must not come at the expense of transgender individuals. The panel stated that prioritizing biological definitions over gender identity could be seen as discriminatory, effectively arguing that all self-identified women, including transgender women, must be included in discussions about women's rights.

In a separate case, Ontario physician Kulvinder Kaur Gill received a caution from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for her online comments criticizing government responses to COVID-19. Gill had expressed concerns about lockdowns, which she deemed harmful and unscientific. The CPSO had previously instructed physicians to align their views with public health guidelines, raising questions about the balance between professional obligations and free expression. Gill challenged the committee, asking, "Which of these ethical and moral obligations should I have set aside since 2020, and moving forward, to avoid such cautions?" However, she did not receive a response.

Both cases illustrate a growing trend where professionals face repercussions for expressing dissenting opinions. In Hamm's situation, she lost her job at a Vancouver hospital after colleagues, who held opposing views, campaigned for her termination. Following a year-long investigation, she was dismissed without severance, while her accusers faced no consequences.

The regulatory environment has led many professionals to self-censor, fearing disciplinary action for their views. Some choose to keep their social media private or attend courses on "professionalism" to avoid scrutiny. Hamm was ordered to pay over $93,600 in legal costs to the college, highlighting the financial burden of defending oneself against such accusations.

Critics argue that the current system allows a small group of regulators to control the speech of a wide range of professionals, from social workers to teachers. This raises concerns about the erosion of free speech rights in Canada, as the courts often defer to the decisions made by these regulatory bodies.

Gill attempted to appeal her caution to the Supreme Court but was denied. This lack of judicial oversight raises alarms about the administrative state's ability to regulate speech without accountability. Advocates for free speech argue that all individuals, including professionals, should have the right to express their views, even if those views are unpopular.

Poilievre's statement emphasized the need to restore free speech in Canada, asserting that a free country requires free expression. As the executive director of the Free Speech Union of Canada, the fight for these rights has become a personal mission. The ongoing debate over the balance between professional conduct and free speech continues to be a critical issue in Canadian society.