More from Michael Harris available More fromavailable here

The Mounties may always get their man, but they shouldn’t always get what they ask for.

That includes warrantless Internet snooping.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson wants warrantless access to online subscriber information. That, in itself, is not remarkable. Police always want fewer obstacles between their work and the people they pursue — more John Wayne, less Perry Mason. It’s the old argument: It’s plenty hard enough to catch the bad guys, we’re told, without bureaucrats putting roadblocks in the way of the good guys.

It wouldn’t surprise me to find small graven images of Stephen Harper and Vic Toews on Commissioner Paulson’s desk, given how much he sounds like them. Harper and Toews both saw the world the way Paulson does, in binary black and white: Give the police the power they ask for and forget about the implications for civil liberties.

Harper simply didn’t give a hoot about privacy issues from the point of view of the individual. This is the man who gave us Bill C-51, after all. Harper’s approach to privacy law always came down to reduced protection for individuals online and far more power for police and other security services. Bill C-13 (the so called ‘cyberbullying’ law) and Bill S-4 (the Digital Privacy Act) were all about invasion of privacy without consequences for the invaders.

RELATED Goodale making no quick calls about online police powers

How could it be a good idea from a consumer’s perpective to give police the power to compel warrantless disclosure of subscriber information by Internet Service Providers? C-13 even included an immunity provision against any criminal or civil liability incurred by a company that disclosed personal information without a warrant. S-4 allowed organizations to disclose personal information without consent or a court order to any investigative body looking into a potential violation of any law. That’s a loophole the size of Donald Trump’s ego.

Commissioner Paulson seemed unimpressed with reasoned arguments from experts like Michael Geist about the serious constitutional concerns associated with expanding voluntary and warrantless disclosure. Paulson’s respect for the Supreme Court of Canada doesn’t appear to be any greater.

In June 2014, the SCC issued a unanimous decision in R v. Spencer upholding Internet privacy, the privacy of subscriber information, the right to anonymity and the requirement for police authorities to obtain a warrant before accessing subscriber information.

And it wasn’t just a matter of names and addresses, as the old Harperites and the police always insisted in their zeal to pursue a bad idea. It was high-tech snooping without due process or independent oversight. The high court saw far greater values to protect than the right of police to snoop.

Two parliamentary committees examined this issue. Then there was the unanimous Supreme Court decision. What part of ‘unconstitutional’ doesn’t Commissioner Paulson understand? Two parliamentary committees examined this issue. Then there was the unanimous Supreme Court decision. What part of ‘unconstitutional’ doesn’t Commissioner Paulson understand?

Commissioner Paulson says his aim is to protect children from sexual predators online. Sounds familiar — we’re either with Paulson or we’re with the child pornographers. That drivel didn’t work out so well for former public safety minister Toews. It’s that kind of intellectual bad faith that tends to get people laughed off the stage.

One is left wondering whether Paulson not only missed the Supreme Court decision but the recent federal election as well. What on earth did he mean when he told a security conference in Ottawa this week that it’s time for a public conversation about fighting crime in cyberspace?

Two parliamentary committees examined this issue. Michael Geist appeared before both of them. There was a public hue and cry about Harper’s plans for increasing electronic surveillance and a great deal of editorial debate in the press about privacy reform. At last came the unanimous Supreme Court decision ruling against what the Commissioner is still asking for today. The debate has been held already. What part of ‘unconstitutional’ doesn’t Commissioner Paulson understand?

As Harper learned, the law and the courts are not simply political tools in service of governments or special interests — even when those special interests are the police or the security establishment.

Harper himself demonstrated time and again his utter disdain for both the courts and the rule of law. He not only kept sending unconstitutional legislation to the Supreme Court, he even covered illegal acts by the RCMP with “retroactive” legislation. He finally blew a tire when he openly attacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in a spurious and spiteful way over his own botched appointment to the high court — an embarrassment from which Beverley McLachlin tried to save him.

There’s another big reason why the RCMP should never be given warrantless access to online subscriber information: They can’t be trusted to do what they say they’ll do with the information they collect.

In Canada, the Communications Security Establishment is only mandated to monitor foreign communications for intelligence purposes. But they cave in to Little Red Riding Hood logic: what big ears you have. All the better for listening to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Cutting through the bureaucratic BS spread about by people like CSEC’s former boss John Forster (now deputy defense minister), we find that is exactly what this shady agency does. They track Canadian communications, including millions of phone calls and emails each day. They even got caught spying on this country’s citizens by tapping into airport wi-fi. As for those who say collecting metadata isn’t spying, remember what Ontario’s former privacy czar, Ann Cavoukian, had to say about that: No interception is permitted and the rules should be rewritten to expressly forbid the collection of metadata.

CSEC goes about its legal and dubious snooping with virtually no oversight. It answers to a lone commissioner, a supernumerary judge, with a staff that could fit in a canoe. The commissioner’s review of CSE’s activities is only submitted to Parliament after it is approved by the minister — who has already approved CSE’s activities. You get the picture. The public hasn’t got the foggiest idea what these people are doing — except what they tell us themselves. Comforting, yes?

Commissioner Paulson says that the RCMP has been “very respectful” of citizens’ rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mahar Arar might have a word or two to say on that subject.

Nor would the “Trust Us” argument work with Americans post-Edward Snowden. The monstrous domestic espionage efforts of the National Security Agency he unveiled were routinely shared with domestic police forces like the FBI. In the end, information ostensibly gathered as “foreign intelligence surveillance” was used to dilute the constitutional standards for criminal investigations in the United States. Secrecy has a way of withering freedoms.

Commissioner Paulson also said that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2014 prohibiting warrantless access to online subscriber information has “put a chill on our ability to initiate investigations.”

So put your coat on, sir, get those warrants and get on it with it. It’s called due process. And it beats all hell out of the surveillance state.

Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his “unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us.” His nine books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare ambition, Lament for an Ocean, and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. His new book on the Harper majority government, Party of One, is a number one best-seller and has been shortlisted for the Governor-General’s Literary Award for English-language non-fiction.

Readers can reach the author at [email protected]. Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.