Tonight on The Ezra Levant Show: Why was Mark Carney so desperate for a majority government? What did he plan to do with all that power? The answer is not just ugly, it is a direct assault on parliamentary democracy and your freedoms. 

Last year, Mark Carney won the election with just 43 per cent of the vote. That delivered him 169 seats out of 343 in the House of Commons, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. Canadians deliberately gave him a minority government. Sometimes voters do that on purpose, wanting to keep a politician on a shorter leash and force him to work with Parliament rather than dominate it.

But Carney was not content with the verdict of the electorate. While the political establishment spent years warning that Donald Trump might refuse to accept election results, Carney set about changing his own. By persuading a string of opposition MPs to cross the floor, he secured the majority Canadians had declined to give him at the ballot box.

The obvious question is why? Justin Trudeau governed for nearly a decade without a formal majority, relying on NDP support to pass budgets and survive confidence votes. There was little reason to believe Carney could not have done the same. The answer, according to critics, is that Carney wanted something more than legislative support. He wanted the ability to shut down parliamentary scrutiny itself.

That is now on full display.

This is why Carney bribed the opposition MPs to cross the floor. This is what they wanted but couldn’t get without a majority: secrecy, authoritarianism, and the right to spy on Canadians.

Thanks @CdEntremontMP @jeneroux @MarilynGladuSL you quislings. https://t.co/csdWLUYogL

— Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 (@ezralevant) June 16, 2026

Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The legislation would compel technology companies to retain user data for up to a year and make that information available to government authorities. Civil liberties advocates have raised serious concerns about privacy, government overreach and the expansion of state surveillance powers.

The concerns are hardly theoretical. Canadians have already witnessed a government willing to freeze bank accounts and invoke extraordinary powers during the trucker protests. Mark Carney himself, while living in Europe at the time, wrote in The Globe and Mail that Ottawa should take a harder line against convoy participants and their supporters. It is therefore not surprising that critics view Bill C-22 as part of a broader push toward greater state control.

What makes the situation particularly troubling is not only the substance of the legislation but the manner in which it is being advanced.

The government has introduced a motion declaring that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-22 will be pushed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable. In plain English, the normal rules are being set aside.

Committee members will have just 30 minutes to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Any remaining amendments will be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. The legislation will then move rapidly through report stage and third reading with strictly limited speaking time for opposition parties and virtually no opportunity for extended scrutiny.

No quorum calls, no procedural delays, no meaningful ability to slow the process down. For a bill that critics describe as one of the most significant expansions of government surveillance powers in Canadian history, Parliament is being afforded remarkably little time to examine the details.

Professor Michael Geist, one of Canada’s leading experts on technology law and digital policy, has publicly criticised the government’s approach. Geist argues that hearings are being cut short, amendments are being rushed through without proper discussion and the public is being denied the transparency normally expected during the legislative process. His warning is not about partisan politics but about the erosion of parliamentary accountability.

This is why Carney needed those extra seats.

The issue is not merely that opposition MPs crossed the floor. It is what those additional seats are now being used to accomplish. Critics see a double violation of democratic principles: first, altering the balance of Parliament after voters had already spoken; and second, using that altered balance to restrict Parliament’s ability to debate, amend and scrutinise legislation.

The implications extend beyond a single bill. Across Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, governments are increasingly embracing online surveillance measures, age-verification requirements and expanded regulatory control over digital spaces. These initiatives are almost always presented as necessary protections for children or public safety yet they also require citizens to surrender more privacy and give governments more information about their online activities.

It is a stark contrast to the vision of technological progress championed by figures such as Elon Musk, who promote innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence and the expansion of human potential. One approach sees technology as a tool of freedom and advancement. The other increasingly treats it as something to be monitored, regulated and controlled.

This is what an unchecked majority can look like under Mark Carney: Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, debate curtailed, privacy placed at risk and major legislation rushed through with minimal scrutiny.

Canadians deserve better.

The democratic process only matters if it is respected when it becomes inconvenient. If Parliament is no longer permitted to properly examine legislation, question witnesses or challenge the government of the day, then the institution itself is diminished. That should concern every Canadian regardless of political affiliation.