UNDER THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA, ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN UNREVIEWABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY, CAN AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF A PERSON FOR AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME. ELECTRONIC BUGGING CAN BE APPROVED BY COURTS IN ORDINARY CRIMINAL CASES. SINCE THE ELECTRONIC BUGS CANNOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ACTION, THE VULNERABILITY OF PERSONS BEING MONITORED INCREASES. THE FAILURE OF WIRETAPPING AND ELECTRONIC BUGGING IN CONTROLING ORGANIZED CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES IS CITED, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ELECTRONIC BUGGING ONLY BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH GRAVE CRIMES, AND THE PERMISSION OF A COURT OR INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE A PREREQUISITE. IN 1974, LEGISLATION WAS PASSED IN CANADA REQUIRING THE POLICE TO NOTIFY THE PERSONS BEING BUGGED WHETHER OR NOT CHARGES WOULD BE MADE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF AN INVESTIGATION; THE IDEA WAS TO ENABLE AN INNOCENT VICTIM OF BUGGING A CHANCE TO SEEK REDRESS, AND TO DISCOURAGE UNNECESSARY BUGGING. IN 1977, THE LAW WAS MODIFIED TO ALLOW THE POLICE AT ANY TIME, EVEN AT THE OUTSET OF A BUGGING OPERATION, TO REQUEST A 3-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY. IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS 3-YEAR PERIOD IS TOO LONG, AND THAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN CHANGE DURING A 3-YEAR PERIOD WHICH WOULD NEGATE JUSTIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVELLIANCE. RETALIATION OF INNOCENT PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN BUGGED IS IMPEDED BY THE WIRETAP LAW WHICH PROHIBITS ACCESS TO THE MATERIAL UPON WHICH A WARRANT WAS GRANTED. ALTHOUGH THE WIRETAP LAW REQUIRES EXCLUSION OF RECORDINGS IN COURT, IT DOES ALLOW ADMITTANCE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE RECORDINGS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT POLICE HAVE MORE POWER, AND CIVILIANS FEWER SAFEGUARDS, THAN THEY RESPECTIVELY NEED. (DAG)