Mr. RALSTON:

And other things too- ships and so on. .

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

You are not to talk about that, or things of that sort. That is quite all right. But we have reached the stage where any telegram I send to any of my political friends is copied, and the contents may 'be submitted to some minister across the way. Surely this sort of thing cannot go on. I am not disloyal; I am not dealing in treason. I may be at times engaged in political warfare, but I am certainly not dealing in treason. Nobody will for a moment think I am. If I were, I would be unworthy to occupy not only this position but a seat in this house.

I do appeal to the Prime Minister to have some review made of this whole position. I sent for an official of the company the other day and he was good enough to come and see me. I had been warned that my conversations were being tapped-I think that is the word-and I know from investigations I have made in New Brunswick that it is quite possible to do that. Anybody can listen in. In operating the telephone they can listen in and they do listen in. I made it my business as director of the New Brunswick Telephone company to inquire once pretty thoroughly into the question, because complaint had been made to me, and the party making the complaint had just cause for doing so. I found out what the modus operandi was. I did not think it was right, and that was in peace time. I certainly raised cain so far as I was able to in connection with it.

Mr. POWER:

Who does the tapping, the telephone company or some employee of the government?

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I found out that, so far as anything transmitted out of this building is concerned, there is no tapping. I was therefore reassured and I was very much relieved. The minute you take down your telephone you are automatically put in touch with central in Ottawa and there is no intervention. I am assured that there is no opportunity for intervention in this building. That of course is a relief. At the other end of the wire there may be opportunity for intervention.

Mr. POWER:

By the telephone company?

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

It must be with the cooperation of the telephone com-

Censorship oj Members' Mail

party. Out of Halifax, there is no doubt about it that the officers were sitting right in. We have had the spectacle of a prosecution of one of the leading citizens of Halifax on the basis of a telephone conversation. I do not know much about the merits of that case, but this gentleman was prosecuted and he was found not guilty. The government has appealed that decision. There may be sound grounds for that; I do not know, but I am informed that that was a case which should never have been brought up. Of course opinions may differ about that. Counsel may have been asked to give an opinion, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may have felt strongly, or it may even have come up to the government itself. I do not know. However, the situation exists. That is what I am referring to and I think we should know something more about it.

On the point of censoring letters to or from members of parliament let us have an end of that. On the question of telegrams, it is well to be forewarned. I suppose we shall have to get a secret code. I do not want every member of the government to know what I am sending out to Mr. Meighen, we will say. I just mention that in passing. It would be terrible if we were to have this espionage go the extent of including long distance telephone messages. Liberty in this country will be gone. Surely we are confined enough now; we are regimented enough. I am willing to take my share with anyone in that regard on my personal prerogatives and freedom of action. But this is spying; this is espionage, and I object to it. I want it to end if I can possibly have it ended.

I renew my request with added force to-day for the production of the regulations in regard to this matter so that we may know under just what system we are living.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

May I say to my hon.

friend that when he brought this subject up the other day I immediately spoke to one of my colleagues in reference to having the whole situation carefully reviewed. It was pointed out at the time that it concerned different departments of the government, and in order to have a complete review I have waited until inquiry could be made- sufficiently comprehensive to give my hon. friend a reply. I will try to see that the review is expedited and an answer given to him in a day or two. But I would say to my hon. friend that I do think he is unduly concerned about the extent to which others are interested in his mail or his conversations.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I would hope nobody is. But apparently they are.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I mean so far as the government is concerned. The last thing I should wish, and I am sure any of my colleagues or any members on this side of the house, would be to have the slightest knowledge of any matter which my' hon. friend regarded as confidential.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That is a fair statement, of course.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I would say first that as far as the safety of the state will permit all his confidential correspondence should be kept so. I agree that every precaution must be taken to preserve the absolute right of every citizen to have his mail kept free from censorship as far as possible, but there are certain military obligations that have to be observed at this time. I suppose that by degrees we shall overcome the difficulties that arise in that connection. I would say, however, that spying or espionage is not a part of what the government is seeking in this connection.

Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

I should like to support the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in this matter, and I should like the Prime Minister to make a much more definite statement than that he will give the leader of the opposition a copy of the regulations or even make further inquiry and give further consideration to the matter. Under the circumstances I do not think that is good enough.

I can see a reason why letters, telegrams and so on from certain defence areas should be censored, but I cannot see why letters addressed to members of parliament should be censored even when they come from those particular areas. We are here representing the Canadian people. If there are those among us who are suspect, they should be dealt with in another way. May I add that I do not think there is any such member in the house. But for my own part, for example, a soldier who has written to me on matters concerning himself would hesitate to write to me at all if he knew that the letter was going to be opened and a paragraph from it forwarded say to the Minister of National Defence, who in turn might forward it to the soldier's commanding officer, and the man would then undoubtedly receive some penalty or reprimand for having written to a member of parliament. We are fighting for democratic rights, and surely one of the democratic rights a citizen possesses, whether he is in

Censorship oj Members' Mail

uniform or out of uniform, is the right to approach his elected representative in this house without let or hindrance.

I strongly support the leader of the opposition in the protest he has made. I regret that the Prime Minister has not given a more categorical assurance that this interference *with mail, at least mail addressed to members of the House of Commons, will cease immediately. The situation is much too serious to be allowed to rest simply with a promise of consideration. In saying what he did I am sure the leader of the opposition, as I did, was speaking not merely on behalf of opposition members of this house; I have heard expressions of opinion from members on the government side which coincide very closely with the opinions we are expressing. Let us not in this struggle for liberty and democracy allow these elementary rights of citizenship and parliamentary representation to be taken from us or interfered with.

I strongly urge upon the Prime Minister that he give a categorical assurance to this house that at least so far as members of this house are concerned this interference with the right of the citizen to approach his member unhampered, unhindered and unsupervised will cease immediately.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I do not think my hon. friend can have quite caught the purport of my reply to the leader of the opposition. I did not say the matter was receiving consideration; I replied that I intended to make a full statement when the review which is now being made of the situation is completed. May I add that I did express to the Postmaster General the personal view that I thought all letters addressed to members of parliament should go without censorship altogether and that I should like him to have that aspect of the situation inquired into particularly and let me know if there is any reason why that rule should not prevail.

My hon. friend spoke of the tapping of telephones. I do not mean to pose as an authority, but some years ago I, along with another gentleman, was appointed a commissioner to inquire into certain conditions of employment obtaining among telephone operatives. The commission learned at that time that one aspect of telephone operations as conducted by the company itself was to have as part of a regular procedure what was known as a listening board, at which operators sat and took down parts of conversations. It was considered part of the regular business of the telephone company.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I do not think that is true to-day.

44561 - 4*

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Let me finish, because it may serve my hon. friend's purpose as well as my own. I have kept it in mind ever since. The explanation which was given was that the company was interested in knowing whether telephones were being used for private purposes or for purposes of business, there being a higher rate charged on telephones used for business purposes than on those for domestic use. Upon the report made by the commission this parliament subsequently passed an enactment making it an offence to disclose any information obtained over a telephone in that way. Parliament did not do away with the listening boards. I do not know whether they are still used, but I know that at that time it came as a surprise to everyone

this was some thirty or more years ago-to discover that while there was such a law with respect to disclosing contents of telegrams, it did not apply to disclosure of telephone conversations. It may be that conversations over the telephone are listened to still, but I would certainly not countenance the government listening in on telephone conversations unless for very exceptional reasons.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The fact is they do. Recordings are made of conversations in Canada to-day in certain areas. I am not unreasonable about that. There may be sound reasons for it, because this country is full of spies. I have no doubt of it. And they are not hiding up in this gallery listening to the twaddle that goes on in this house. They are down where there is business going on that might interest their nation. I agree with that. But so far as we are concerned here why should there be any attempt to censor our telegrams or our telephone conversations?

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :

I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when it is expected that the war appropriation bill for the next fiscal year will be introduced. Will there be a supplementary war appropriation bill for the present fiscal year, and if so when will it be brought down?