More from Devon Black available More fromavailable here

In the United States, the debate over revelations that the NSA is collecting information on American citizens is still going strong. After learning earlier this month that Canada helped the U.S. and the U.K. spy on foreign delegates during the London G20 summit in 2009, it might not be unreasonable of us to ask who else our government is looking at.

The answers we have to that question so far are not reassuring.

Our government has conceded already that it spied on Cindy Blackstock, an advocate for First Nations children. Ms. Blackstock filed a human rights complaint in 2007 alleging that the federal government discriminates against First Nations children. Soon thereafter, government officials began monitoring her social media presence — something Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart called a violation of the Privacy Act.

In response to new questions about how broad the government’s surveillance reach is, we’ve heard platitudes about how Canadians aren’t being targeted. It’s hard to believe those reassurances — not just because of Ms. Blackstock’s experience but also because our Conservative government has told us repeatedly that when it comes to government action, we have nothing to fear … so long as we also have nothing to hide.

That tired reasoning has been trotted out every time new infringements on Canadians’ liberties are proposed. With the passage of Bill C-309 earlier this month, it’s now illegal to wear a mask at a riot or an “unlawful assembly” — which is so broadly defined in the Criminal Code that protestors now need to fear wearing masks even at entirely peaceful protests. Say goodbye to those iconic Guy Fawkes masks; apparently that sort of free expression is just a little too expressive.

Then there was the news that Defence Minister Peter McKay approved an electronic eavesdropping program that had been placed on hiatus due to concerns about infringing the privacy of Canadians. But never mind all that; it stands to reason that terrorists are the only ones who wouldn’t want the government snooping through their data trails, right?

The premise that only guilty people need to hide from the government depends on the government being trustworthy to begin with. But in a democracy we’re not supposed to trust our government completely — we’re supposed to hold them accountable.

And who could forget Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews defending a bill that would require Internet service providers to inform on their customers without even the courtesy of a warrant: Critics could “either stand with us, or with the child pornographers,” said Toews. Naturally, those are the only two sides in a privacy debate.

That lazy reasoning — that only guilty people have anything to hide — sounds good in theory but falls apart in practice. Government surveillance of its own citizens, conducted without transparency or judicial checks on power, almost invariably ends up being corrupted. That misuse is something to which Ms. Blackstone can attest, given that she was targeted after exercising her right to hold the government to account.

Worse, surveillance by government has a chilling effect. People who might otherwise be attending a protest, or trying to hold the government to account, or even just making controversial art, might think twice about exercising their rights if there’s a risk the government might turn around and use those innocent actions against them.

Then, of course, there’s the matter of who individuals might want to hide from. The premise that only guilty people need to hide from the government depends on the government being trustworthy to begin with. But in a democracy we’re not supposed to trust our government completely — we’re supposed to hold them accountable. We’re supposed to monitor our representatives, not the other way around.

This is the terrible irony of our current government’s position. They tell us that only the guilty have anything to hide, and then they do everything they can to hide their decision-making from public view. Omnibus bills, mystery expenses, gags on government scientists — all calculated, it seems, to keep us from exercising our right and responsibility to know what our government is up to.

The funny thing is that the terrible consequences of government monitoring citizens are reversed when citizens are the ones monitoring their government. Government works better when it’s watched closely: It’s more accountable, more transparent and more responsive to the needs of citizens. The chilling effect on government chills misbehaviour, not the reasonable exercise of rights.

Canadians asking questions about their government ought to be encouraged, not dismissed. Right now, our government seems to treat the privacy concerns of its citizens as childish interference, instead of as responsible questions from engaged citizens. That kind of paternalistic attitude has no place in a healthy democracy.

If our government wants to be trusted on issues of privacy, it needs to treat citizens as equal partners in the project of governance. If our government wants to watch us, we need the ability to watch them back.

Devon Black is studying law at the University of Victoria. In addition to writing for iPolitics, Devon has worked for the Canadian International Development Agency, Leadership Africa USA and RamRais & Partners.

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.