Alberta lawyers must take Indigenous education course tied to TRC. New legislation could change that

A little more than five years ago, the regulator for Alberta’s lawyers made an announcement: moving forward, all active lawyers in the province would be required to take mandatory Indigenous cultural competency training.

The law society is governed by 24 individuals known as benchers. Those benchers had agreed that all Alberta lawyers, as “key contributors to the socio-economic fabric of society,” had a responsibility to be informed, whether a lawyer’s practice involved Indigenous clients or not.

“The justice system [has] an obligation to share a baseline understanding of how Indigenous clients experience the law in our province and across Canada,” reads a letter attributed to Kent Teskey, who was the president of the Law Society of Alberta at the time.

Teskey explained the decision was tied to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's “calls to action.” Those are 94 action items laid out a decade ago, intended to repair the harms caused by residential schools.

For the law society, the action item in question urged organizations like theirs to require education on “the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal-Crown relations.”

The training that emerged for the law society was called "The Path," a one-time requirement that takes about five to six hours to complete. It’s been in place since 2021, and the Law Society says the majority of active lawyers have completed it.

But things could be changing.

On Thursday, Justice Minister Mickey Amery introduced Bill 14, legislation that aims to introduce a suite of changes to the province’s political and legal landscape.

Some of those changes are tied to the law society.

The legislation says the law society must limit the education and training it requires to a law degree or qualification certificate, the bar admission course, education or training for specialized roles, and education for training imposed because of disciplinary proceedings.

All of those must comply with the restrictions imposed in Bill 13, the government’s Regulated Professions Neutrality Act (RPNA), which was introduced in late November. It states that regulators can’t require “cultural competency, unconscious bias, or diversity, equity and inclusion training.”

The law society declined an interview request, citing a need to review the new legislation to “fully understand” what it means for the group and Alberta’s legal profession.

Neil Singh, press secretary for the Advanced Education Ministry, wrote in a statement that if passed, the government expects all professional regulatory bodies to comply with the act.

“If a regulator is not faithfully adhering to the RPNA, a regulated professional may raise concern with the regulator and, if necessary, seek judicial review of a regulator’s decision,” reads the statement.

Singh also referenced psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was sanctioned in 2022 by the College of Psychologists of Ontario for statements he made online.

“This and similar incidents became a catalyst, confirming the need for clear legislative boundaries that protect free expression while preserving professional standards,” he said.

Previous petition and judicial review

It’s not the first time The Path has been challenged.

In 2023, 50 of the province's 11,100 lawyers petitioned the law society to remove a rule that allowed the regulator to mandate legal education.

Glenn Blackett, a Calgary-based lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, wrote a blog post at the time, calling the course "re-education, or indoctrination, into a particular brand of wokeness called 'decolonization.'"

The law society held a “special meeting” around that petition, and more than 3,400 lawyers logged in. It resulted in a vote of 864 for and 2,609 against removing the power for the regulator to mandate continuing education.

One of the lawyers involved, Roger Song, sought a judicial review, which was dismissed by a judge in September.

Song previously told CBC News that he thought the government’s Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, didn’t go far enough when it came to prohibiting mandatory training like The Path.

“Generally speaking, the legislation does not seem to prohibit wokeness or other political agendas which is tragic because wokeness creates uncertainty in Canadian law about land ownership and promotes racial segregation,” Song wrote in an email on Nov. 24.

“Bill 13 is drafted in such a convoluted way that it is basically no use to stop the law society from going woke. I hope Bill 13 will be amended to address these serious issues.”

Concerns Alberta will fall behind

In 2022, after The Path was implemented, Jessica Buffalo joined the Law Society of Alberta as its first Indigenous initiatives counsel.

Today, she’s the academic director at the Indigenous Community Legal Clinic at the University of British Columbia.

She said she’s concerned the changes will be interpreted to mean that mandatory Indigenous training is only relevant to certain areas of law.

“Indigenous people aren’t just relegated to criminal and family law. We intersect with all areas of law,” Buffalo said.

“Alberta’s going to fall behind in having those cultural competency requirements for lawyers if they do this, if this is imposed.”

Buffalo said it’s unclear to her why this is being advanced now, given the previous vote from the law society.

“It’s a tiny subset that doesn’t want this education … I don’t understand why there would be pushback about learning about something that is relevant to your practice, is relevant to your community, and is relevant to Canada as a whole and continuing with reconciliation,” she said.

She added she expects there will be opposition from the legal community should changes advance.

Defence lawyer Paul Moreau argued the government should leave it to professional regulators to determine the appropriate training requirements for their members, as they have traditionally done.

“The government has a lot to do. They can't be everything to everybody and they shouldn't try,” he said.

The legislation also aims to see appeals of law society disciplinary decisions be heard in the Court of King’s Bench, rather than by the benchers who govern the society.