top of page
Search

The People's Party, COVID-19, and Free Speech

ree

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted an unprecedented global response, with governments enacting a wide array of public health measures to curb the spread of the virus. In Canada, this response involved a combination of federal, provincial, and territorial initiatives that significantly impacted the daily lives of citizens.


The People's Party of Canada (PPC) emerged as a prominent voice of opposition to these measures, framing them as a significant overreach of government authority that infringed upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.

This essay will explore the PPC's COVID-19 policy as it relates to the perceived overreach of the Canadian government, examine the ways in which Canadians experienced increased restrictions on their life, liberty, and security of the person, and discuss the potential political and civil remedies for the restoration of individual civil rights as defined in the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.



The People's Party of Canada's Stance on COVID-19 Measures

The People's Party of Canada, under the leadership of Maxime Bernier, adopted a platform that was vehemently opposed to what it termed "authoritarian" public health measures. The party's core argument centred on the principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and the belief that the government's response to the pandemic was disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the virus. The PPC's official COVID policy advocated for a "rational and scientifically based approach" that focused on protecting the most vulnerable populations while rejecting widespread lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine passports.


The PPC argued that lockdown measures, school closures, and other restrictions were not only ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus but also caused significant collateral damage.

They pointed to the negative repercussions on Canadians' physical and mental health, economic well-being, and the erosion of their fundamental rights and freedoms. The party contended that these measures would lead to a greater loss of life in the long term due to factors such as delayed medical procedures, increased rates of depression and suicide, and economic hardship.


A central tenet of the PPC's platform was its opposition to vaccine mandates and passports. The party argued that both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals could contract and transmit the virus, thereby negating the rationale for what they described as a system of "segregation, constant control, and surveillance." The PPC's position was that forcing individuals to receive a vaccine or disclose their vaccination status to participate in society was a violation of their bodily autonomy and right to informed consent. This stance was a key driver of the party's increased support during the 2021 federal election, as it resonated with a segment of the population that felt alienated and disenfranchised by the mainstream political consensus on pandemic management.


Maxime Bernier's personal actions mirrored the party's official stance. He actively participated in and organised rallies against public health orders, leading to his arrest and a fine for violating regulations in Manitoba. Bernier framed his defiance as a principled stand for the freedoms of all Canadians, arguing that the public health orders were "unconstitutional and immoral." This confrontational approach solidified the PPC's image as the "get back to normal" party and attracted a following that was deeply skeptical of government authority and scientific expertise.



Increased Restrictions on Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person

The Government of Canada, in conjunction with provincial and territorial authorities, implemented a range of measures that significantly curtailed the freedoms and daily activities of Canadians.

While these measures were enacted with the stated goal of protecting public health and preventing the health care system from being overwhelmed, they raised serious questions about the balance between collective well-being and individual rights.


Restrictions on Movement and Assembly: One of the most significant impacts on the lives of Canadians was the imposition of lockdowns and stay-at-home orders. These measures restricted freedom of movement, limited social gatherings, and forced the closure of businesses, schools, and places of worship. The right to peaceful assembly, a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Charter, was severely curtailed as protests and other public gatherings were often deemed to be in violation of public health orders. The imposition of travel restrictions, both domestically and internationally, further limited the mobility rights of Canadians.


Mandatory Health Interventions: The introduction of vaccine mandates for federal public servants, employees in federally regulated industries, and for domestic and international travel represented a significant intervention into the personal health decisions of individuals. These mandates were framed as a necessary measure to ensure the safety of workplaces and the broader community. However, for those who chose not to be vaccinated for personal, medical, or other reasons, these mandates resulted in significant consequences, including the loss of employment and the inability to travel freely.


This raised concerns about the right to "security of the person," which includes the right to make decisions about one's own body without coercion from the state.

Surveillance and Enforcement: The implementation of vaccine passport systems, which required individuals to show proof of vaccination to access a wide range of non-essential services, created a new form of social stratification. This system was criticized for creating a two-tiered society and for its potential to lead to increased surveillance and control over the lives of citizens. The enforcement of public health orders also led to concerns about over-policing and the disproportionate impact of fines and other penalties on marginalized communities.


The cumulative effect of these restrictions was a significant shift in the relationship between the individual and the state. The government's actions during the pandemic demonstrated a willingness to impose far-reaching limitations on individual freedoms in the name of public safety, a development that was viewed with alarm by civil liberties organisations and a segment of the Canadian population.



Political and Civil Remedies for the Restoration of Civil Rights

The perceived overreach of the Canadian government during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broader conversation about the need for mechanisms to protect civil liberties during public health emergencies. There are several potential political and civil remedies that could be pursued to address these concerns and work towards the restoration of individual rights as defined in the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Political Remedies: The most direct political remedy is through the democratic process itself. Elections provide an opportunity for citizens to hold their elected officials accountable for their actions. The rise in support for the PPC during the 2021 federal election, while not resulting in any seats, demonstrated a growing public discontent with the government's pandemic response. This political pressure can influence the policies of all parties and lead to a re-evaluation of the balance between public health and individual rights in future crises.


Another political remedy is legislative action. Parliament and provincial legislatures have the power to amend or repeal the laws and regulations that were enacted during the pandemic. This could include a review of the Emergencies Act, which was invoked for the first time in Canadian history to address the "Freedom Convoy" protests.


A federal court has since ruled that the government's use of the Act was "unreasonable" and violated the Charter rights of Canadians. This ruling could lead to calls for greater oversight and stricter limitations on the use of such extraordinary powers in the future.

Civil Remedies: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides a powerful tool for individuals and groups to challenge government actions that they believe infringe upon their rights. Section 24(1) of the Charter allows anyone whose rights or freedoms have been infringed or denied to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain a remedy that the court considers "appropriate and just in the circumstances."


Throughout the pandemic, numerous legal challenges were launched against various public health measures, including lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine passports. While many of these challenges were unsuccessful in the lower courts, they played an important role in raising public awareness and forcing the government to justify its actions. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that even in times of public emergency, fundamental freedoms cannot be suspended and the state's response must be proportionate to the risk.


Civil liberties organisations, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), have been at the forefront of these legal battles. The CCLA challenged a range of pandemic-related measures, from restrictions on family visits in child protection cases to the creation of a police database of COVID-19 test results. These organisations play a crucial role in holding the government accountable and ensuring that the rights of all Canadians are protected, even in times of crisis.


Joining the CCLA in this legal fight was the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), a legal advocacy organisation that gained significant prominence for its aggressive litigation strategy against COVID-19 restrictions. The JCCF launched dozens of legal challenges across the country, representing individuals, churches, and small businesses who were fined or otherwise penalised for defying public health orders.


Their work focused specifically on what they argued were clear violations of Charter-protected rights, including freedom of religion, peaceful assembly, and mobility.

The JCCF was particularly active in challenging vaccine mandates, including the federal government's travel mandate, arguing that it unconstitutionally barred millions of Canadians from travelling within their own country. By providing pro bono legal representation to those directly affected by government mandates, the JCCF became a key institutional player for the movement opposing government overreach, amplifying the voices of those who felt their fundamental freedoms were being unjustly sacrificed.


The process of seeking legal redress can be long and arduous, but it is a vital component of a healthy democracy. The precedents set by these legal challenges will help to shape the legal landscape for future public health emergencies and provide a bulwark against potential government overreach.



The Legislative Horizon: A Chilling Effect on Free Expression

The debate over government overreach during the pandemic has bled into a broader and arguably more enduring controversy surrounding the federal government's legislative agenda to regulate online and public speech. Critics, including the aforementioned civil liberties groups, argue that a suite of bills, both past and present, represents a coordinated effort to curtail freedom of expression under the pretext of protecting Canadians from harm. This legislative trend, encompassing bills like the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11, formerly C-10) and the more recent and highly contentious Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), signals a move towards greater state control over the digital public square, which many fear could be used to stifle dissent and legitimate political debate.


The potential outcomes of this legislative push are far-reaching. The Online Streaming Act, now law, grants the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulatory authority over online audio and video services, including user-generated content on platforms like YouTube and TikTok.


The stated goal is to promote Canadian content, but concerns persist that these "discoverability" requirements could lead to the algorithmic suppression of content that is not deemed to align with government priorities, effectively creating a form of soft censorship.

The more significant threat, however, comes from the proposed Online Harms Act (C-63). This bill proposes to create a new Digital Safety Commission with the power to regulate, investigate, and penalize online platforms. More alarmingly, it seeks to amend the Criminal Code to create staggering penalties—up to life imprisonment—for speech deemed to be hateful and introduces a controversial provision for "peace bonds" that could place restrictions on individuals who are feared to potentially commit a hate speech offense in the future, a measure critics decry as a form of pre-crime punishment.


The cumulative impact of such legislation could create a profound chilling effect on the freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, and association in Canada. The vague definitions of "harmful content" and "hate speech" could lead individuals and platforms to self-censor out of fear of investigation or prosecution, thereby narrowing the scope of acceptable public discourse. Political criticism, satire, and unpopular minority opinions could become targets of complaint-driven processes, turning the law into a tool for political activism rather than a shield for public safety.


As more of our assembly and association occurs online, the regulation of digital speech becomes a de facto regulation of these fundamental freedoms.

The ability to organise protests, form political associations, and criticise government policy—actions central to a functioning democracy—could be severely hampered if the digital platforms on which they depend are subject to intrusive government oversight and the constant threat of punitive action. This legislative trajectory, therefore, risks entrenching a culture of caution and conformity, undermining the very freedoms that the Charter was designed to protect.


Conclusion

The People's Party of Canada's staunch opposition to the Canadian government's COVID-19 policies brought to the forefront a critical debate about the limits of state power in a free and democratic society. While the government's actions were motivated by a desire to protect public health, the far-reaching restrictions on the life, liberty, and security of the person raised legitimate concerns about the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms. The legal challenges mounted by organisations like the CCLA and JCCF underscored the deep divisions within the country and the vital role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional norms.


The experience of the pandemic has highlighted the need for a robust public discourse on how to navigate future crises in a manner that is both effective in protecting public health and respectful of the rights and freedoms that are the bedrock of Canadian society.


This discourse is now more critical than ever, as the expansion of state power witnessed during the pandemic appears to be continuing through legislative efforts to regulate speech.

The political and civil remedies available to Canadians, from the ballot box to the courtroom, provide a pathway for citizens to hold their governments accountable and to ensure that the lessons learned from this unprecedented period are not forgotten. The restoration and preservation of individual civil rights will require a continued commitment to vigilance, advocacy, and the unwavering defence of the principles enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Sources:

Here is a list of potential sources for citation, categorised by the relevant sections of this essay.


People's Party of Canada's Stance

Canadian Government COVID-19 Measures & Restrictions

Civil Liberties, Legal Challenges, and Court Rulings

Legislation on Online Speech (Bills C-11, C-63, etc.)

- - - - - Make Your Mark! - - - - -

Invest.

Innovate.

Inspire!

  • Share your PPC Photos

  • Wear your PPC Colours

  • Share or Print this Article (links below


1 Comment

Thomas Richard
Thomas Richard
Oct 15

Herding the sheep......

Like
bottom of page