November 27, 1979

NDP

Rodney Edward Murphy

New Democratic Party

Mr. Murphy:

According to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he is running the Post office. That is a big department. It brings up another problem. We have a Minister of the Environment, but he is too busy with other things to look after the environment of this country. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) does not have faith in those sitting on the back benches on his side. It is unfortunate that a number of ministers each have two major portfolios. As a result, the people and the environment are not protected. The veterans of this country are concerned that they do not have a minister in this House to protect them. As a result, we have to wonder what is happening.

Back to the legislation we are discussing-the Minister of the Environment is not here to speak on it. 1 wonder if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) consulted him. How concerned are the backbenchers in the Conservative party? The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had a concern on a number of issues ever since the dinosaur issue. That is the type of thing missing from this legislation. We need protective legislation, not weak legislation, to protect the interests of the environment in this country.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Pursuant to Standing Order 37(2), I must inform hon. members that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

William James Kempling (Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Kempling:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if necessary could we agree unanimously not to see the clock in order to allow the minister to finish his remarks?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I see no problem. My interpretation of the order adopted yesterday for consideration of second reading of this bill was that later today all questions necessary will be disposed of. As far as I am concerned, today ends at midnight.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Minister of Transport)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

said at the outset, this is a piece of legislation which requires the co-operation of both jurisdictions, and this was done to prevent conflict with the strong provincial legislation dealing with remedial powers. By establishing adequate transportation regulations over the identification of such products, their labelling, packaging and movement, these preventive measures should assist and complement the provincial powers in complying with environmental protection. Also, for what it is worth, the protection of the environment is automatically achieved when public safety is promoted.

To put it quite bluntly, although protection of the environment will often be a consequence of the provisions of the act or the regulations, the action we have taken was in response to questions raised at the provincial level as to the jurisdiction of the minister and of the federal government with regard to the environment. Reference, to the environment remains in the schedule in order to allow the department to include environmentally hazardous substances in the safety standards classification. This, we feel, would enable the environmental and transport agencies to assume complementary roles in achieving the ultimate objective of this bill.

The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) raised the question of whether this bill would apply to interprovincial trucking. The answer is yes. The legislation is enabling in nature, but there is also a provision whereby, if agreement between the federal and the provincial jurisdiction is not reached after consultation, the federal government, under clause 28, can invoke this measure so that interprovincial trucking is covered. As 1 said at the outset, the bill covers all modes of transport. That is the intent of the measure. 1 am sure that if the hon. member reads the relevant portion of the legislation he will find that both his concerns are adequately answered.

Finally, the question of the regulations was brought up by a number of members. They are quite correct. The regulations are the core of this legislation. I can assure all members that a lot of work has gone into their drafting-I believe two or three drafts have been compiled. They are very comprehensive in nature. For the information of the Flouse I might mention that they cover about 1,200 pages in total; that includes a whole list of the chemicals, special packages, tank cars, truck designs and use and so on. While I want to co-operate with the committee in every way I can, I am not at all sure whether the members of the committee will be prepared to digest the contents of those hundreds of regulations adequately.

We have taken part in discussions with a number of provinces, municipalities and associations throughout the country, so the code which is being established has not been put forward in an environment of lack of consultation. There has been a high degree of input from all quarters. Hon. members have suggested that the legislation might have been watered down as a result of the degree of consultation which has taken place. I assure them, this is a case where the legislation is only as good as the degree of support it receives from the industry-we cannot have enforcement officers in every caboose or trailer truck so we have to promote the bill in an environment

Adjournment Debate

where we are working together as government, industry and carriers, to make sure that its ultimate objective is achieved. To be honest about this piece of legislation, I think it has received the co-operation and support of literally every segment of our society, including the provinces, the industry, and the carriers.

1 wish to conclude by assuring the House that I will deal with this legislation in committee and in this chamber in the spirit of full and open co-operation for which I am known by most hon. members. I believe the debate tonight has been conducted at a very high level. It has not been partisan but constructive, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it will be in that spirit we shall proceed to the next stage because I believe all members share one common desire, that is, to develop the best possible legislation to provide for the safest possible transport of both passengers and goods. I thank all hon. members for their support and for their contributions to the debate.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-VIVISECTION OF HUMAN FETUSES

LIB

Ursula Appolloni

Liberal

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):

Mr. Speaker, page 1550 of Hansard records my question to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding research reports which reveal that human fetuses from ten to 25 weeks' gestation were victims of vivisection in the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre for purposes of scientific experimentation.

These reports appear in detail relevant to this debate on page 74 of the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 1973, Volume 37, on page 60 and following pages of the same journal, 1976, volume 42, and page 9 and following pages of the same journal. On November 22 I rose on a question of privilege and offered at that time to table these reports. I subsequently gave copies of them to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie).

Although the acting minister said, and I quote, "I think it is important that there be a full exposition of the facts of this matter," I fear, judging from his answer to me, that such an exposition will not be possible because the acting minister himself seemed unaware of the initial facts. Nor, in fact, did he even attempt to answer my first question, which was

November 27, 1979

Adjournment Debate

whether or not such experiments are still being funded by the Medical Research Council of Canada.

In fact the reports raise several other vitally important questions, not the least of which is the reason why hysterotomy was chosen as the method of abortion, especially on babies of less than 12 weeks' gestation. Surely other methods would have been less traumatic for the women.

We are told that hospital laws state that abortions cannot be done after 20 weeks, yet these same research reports themselves specify, especially on page 614, that there were two babies well over 20 weeks' fetal age and probably more like 26 weeks of obstetrical age by estimating their crown rump length. These babies would certainly have been viable and might have had a chance of survival.

This raises another question. If some of these babies were big enough by both fetal age and/or crown rump length to survive, then were the proper resuscitation measures not indicated, or did the procedures subsequently carried out cause or hasten their deaths? As, by the procedure of hysterotomy, they had completely proceeded in a living state from the body of their mothers, were they not, under section 206 of the Criminal Code, human beings within the meaning of the Code and therefore to be protected by law? Could eight cubic centimetres of cardiac blood have been removed from a tiny heart unless that heart was still pumping? Many experts believe this to be highly, highly improbable.

We are told, furthermore, that each hysterotomy was performed because of gynecosocial indications on otherwise healthy pregnant women. Does the Criminal Code permit abortions for such reasons?

We are told that the mothers signed a general consent form stating that tissues removed would be subjected to a pathological examination. It appears they were not told that their babies would be subject to heart puncture and the removal of glands, including the pituitary, the adrenals, the ovaries or the testes, yet medical experts, including a fetologist and a neonatologist, tell us that some of the babies subjected to these operations would certainly have been viable and might have had a chance of survival. However, the actual operation of the removal of the adrenals and gonads would certainly have caused or hastened the deaths of these babies.

How, then, did these babies actually die? We know they were born alive because hysterotomy implies just that. The first report in particular mentions the fetal age of 25 weeks, and all three reports reveal that the tests were performed immediately-not immediately following death, but immediately following live delivery. When and how, then, did the babies die? Where are the death certificates required by the Manitoba Vital Statistics Act?

I believe this entire question is one of fundamental human rights. If a baby is born alive following an abortion, then all available medical treatment must be given to assist and sustain that life. Until these and all other questions are addressed, and until appropriate guidelines have been developed, I believe that

a moratorium must be imposed on all scientific experimentation on human fetuses.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   HEALTH AND WELFARE-VIVISECTION OF HUMAN FETUSES
Permalink
PC

Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the question of the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) concerning the vivisection of human fetuses, in particular to her reference to reports from the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre.

I agree that this is indeed a very sensitive and important issue, and for this reason I would like to provide additional clarification with respect to the matter.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, section 206:

A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.

A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Under section 215, abortions are permissible when, in the opinion of the members of a therapeutic abortion committee of an approved or accredited hospital, the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would be likely to, endanger the life or health of the woman.

The laws of Canada, therefore, protect the lives of individuals and of the fetus, while excluding certain instances under a controlled authorization such as a medical intervention in the case of an abortion.

In terms of general policy, the federal government does not regard abortion as an acceptable method of birth control. It does, however, recognize that unwanted conceptions may occur as a result of failure to use an effective method of contraception or any contraception at all. In these cases, there may be justification for therapeutic abortion, not because the pregnancy was not planned but because it may have given rise to conditions which, in the opinion of a therapeutic abortion committee, provide appropriate grounds for termination in accordance with the Criminal Code.

My colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald), has already provided substantial information concerning the context in which these studies were carried out, although all the direct questions that the hon. member has put tonight have not been answered, and as more information does become available the hon. member can rest assured that the minister will inform the hon. member and the House.

It now appears that the matter is being handled in the most appropriate manner, that is, it is being considered by the attorney general of the province of Manitoba.

[Translation}

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   HEALTH AND WELFARE-VIVISECTION OF HUMAN FETUSES
Permalink

AGRICULTURE-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM QUEBEC FOR REDUCTION IN POULTRY IMPORTS

SC

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert

Social Credit

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):

Mr. Speaker, on November 9 last, several hundred poultry producers from Ontario and Quebec marched on Parliament Hill to protest

November 27, 1979

against the Canada-U.S. agreement providing for an increase in chicken imports from the United States. On November 20 I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) but his answer did not seem to satisfy producers entirely, since according to a telegram we received on November 23, the Quebec Poultry Producers' Union is again protesting against this agreement which is far from satisfactory, despite what the Minister of Agriculture may say.

To show that the agreement is really not satisfactory, let me draw attention to the fact that in the early seventies chicken imports from the United States were approximately 7 million pounds a year. In 1974, they reached over 11 million pounds, in 1975, 20 million and in 1976, 52 million pounds. During those years, Mr. Speaker, producers succeeded in promoting a marketing system for their products, the cost-sharing provincial programs that logically led to the establishment of a national board in charge of them all completing the provincial organization for the orderly marketing of a farm product through interventions on the interprovincial and international markets.

However, Bill C-176, allowing the establishment of national marketing boards, was used for the production of poultry and a national chicken board exists since the end of 1978. Setting up all those agencies was not an easy task, I remember it well, but the aims spurred us on. It was encouraging to see the producers get organized and use this act that had been passed by Parliament. The Canadian producers adjusted their production to the demand, assigned shares of the market to the provinces according to criteria agreed to by all provinces. This restriction of production had the advantage of making the sale of products secure and costs more equitable and stable.

According to Bill C-176 the volume of annual imports must be representative of traditional imports. So, the average should have been between 25 and 30 million pounds, all classes, fresh or cooked. The unilateral decision of the federal government will have very serious economic consequences on the farming industry in Quebec. Large poultry production and slaughtering facilities, particularly in Quebec, whose investments in each area exceed $100 million, will lose a good part of their efficiency. With respect to the marked effect on prices, in my opinion and in that of the producers themselves, an import volume of that order will reduce producer prices by 15 to 20 per cent and will have an impact on the up and down ends of that production. The fact that producers will have to reduce production in Quebec to avoid unnecessary production surpluses will result in fewer food sales, less slaughtering, less distribution, consequently less manpower, hence more unemployment.

The decision of the federal government is based on the import volume of the last two or three years. On the one part, producers would quota their production, and on the other part,

Adjournment Debate

brokers seeing the import quotas coming did everything they could to increase their volume.

Mr. Speaker, that decision does not take into account the facts of reality, the need to produce or the consequences that can bring. That looks like a decision made not to offend our southern neighbours. According to the reports we get, producers in the Quebec area and other provinces do not accept that decision. On the other hand, we must not destroy what has been built either-provincial organizations, joint programs, the national agency, sales security, equitable prices, production and slaughtering facilities, creation of jobs, huge capital investments. All this has been done by producers to meet consumer needs and also arrange to have profitable businesses. It would be unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, if as a result of that agreement a provincial government should feel compelled to withdraw from the agency to protect the interests of farm producers in its province.

Once again I would like to urge most sincerely the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret), to get in touch at once with the national marketing agency to see if it would not be possible to change the agreement so as to offer better protection to our producers; otherwise, if that is not done, what is going to happen is that one of these days the United States may no longer be able to supply us, our producers will be disorganized, and we will have a shortage. It will be our fault because we did not act advisedly.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM QUEBEC FOR REDUCTION IN POULTRY IMPORTS
Permalink
PC

Gary Michael Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs);

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able to respond to the hon. member's question for my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).

On November 20, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) questioned the minister about any representations that may have been made to him on behalf of Quebec poultry producers by the Quebec minister of agriculture. The minister in response stated that he is, indeed, in communication on a fairly frequent basis with his provincial counterparts and, in fact, he had just recently received a telex message from the minister of agriculture for Quebec. However, this communication did not state that Quebec was ready to withdraw from the National Chicken Marketing Agency. Indeed, as the minister pointed out, if the press reports had been correct in that this is what Quebec is thinking about, he hoped that Quebec would seriously reconsider its position as one of the signatories to this national agency.

In the communications the minister from Quebec had with our colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, there has been the concern raised over the issuing of supplementary permits for the importation of chicken to Canada. I may state here on behalf of my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. de Cotret), that in

November 27, 1979

Adjournment Debate

addition to the global import quota for chickens there may, at certain times, be a requirement to issue supplementary permits if domestic requirements cannot be sourced locally.

The normal procedure would be that the applicant makes his request known to the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency as well as to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The agency would then have 72 hours to attempt to source domestically the quantities of the product specified by the applicant. If the agency can supply the product requested by the applicant, then no supplementary permits would be issued. However, if the agency cannot supply the product, then supplementary permits would normally be issued. Of course, if the agency can partially fill the applicant's requested quantity of product, then the supplementary permits would normally be issued only for the balance.

In the longer run my colleagues and I see the need for supplementary permits for chicken imports being sharply reduced or even eliminated. This will, of course, depend on how well the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency is able to supply Canadian market requirements. If the agency ensures that adequate domestic supplies are available, at competitive prices, then there will be no need to implement supplementary permits. In a situation as just described, actual imports may even fall below the global import quota level.

For the information of this House, if I may, I would like to give some figures concerning the annual import quota which was established as follows. For the period October to December, 1979, 8.75 million pounds eviscerated weight will be allowed for chicken import; for 1980 total year import permits will be allowed for 48.5 million pounds eviscerated weight; and for 1981 this will increase to 52 million pounds. The quotas will be allocated to individual importers on the basis of their imports during 1976, 1977 and 1978. On a quarterly basis, importers would have to use their basic quota entitlement prior to being eligible for consideration for supplementary permits.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM QUEBEC FOR REDUCTION IN POULTRY IMPORTS
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member as his allotted time has expired.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM QUEBEC FOR REDUCTION IN POULTRY IMPORTS
Permalink

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-AID IN CONSTRUCTION OF FROZEN FISH PLANTS IN SENEGAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION

LIB

Jean-C. Lapierre

Liberal

Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):

It is with pleasure that I repeat tonight the question I asked on November 19 and for which I could not obtain an answer for several reasons, including the noted and notable absence of the minister responsible for Cl DA. As we know, it is very difficult for members of this House to obtain answers on Cl DA since the minister responsible does not sit among us. This is a situation that 1 deplore and that is to the disadvantage of all members of the House.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) told me that she would take my question as notice and give me an answer later. Indeed, she sent me a letter on

November 22, but in fact my question of November 19 was only one of two questions I wanted to ask. What I wanted most of all was to obtain details about the Joal project. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that this project has been in existence for only one year. However, I know from reliable sources that this project has been going on for much longer than one year. It began several years ago when the Canadian government provided motors for the canoes of the Senegalese fishermen. Since then, there has been a surplus of fish in Senegal and there have been many losses because of a lack of facilities to process this surplus.

Since 1976, at the request of President Senghor, a group within a non-governmental organization called Granby and its twin cities, whose headquarters are located in my constituency, has been closely interested in this project and has made many representations in favour of its implementation. The figure of $12 million has been mentioned. President Senghor gave his approval, and in September, 1978, the assurance was given that the city of Joal would be considered as the site of a future fish processing plant.

Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for External Affairs makes no reference to Joal, answering in a most evasive way, that five other fish processing plants will be built under those projects. Mr. Speaker, this does not answer in any way my question. What 1 want to know in particular is whether the Joal and Fadiouth plants will be built.

As I said earlier, the Minister of State for CIDA (Mr. Asselin) was not available in this House. I do not think he is outside the House either, because since June 16 the people from that Granby association and its twinned cities have been trying in vain to meet with that famous minister. They have been seeking an appointment for more than five months. Among others they have representations from the government of Senegal to bring to the minister. They must be content with a mere acknowledgement stating the letter will be brought to the minister's attention as soon as he comes back to Ottawa. The letter is dated June 16 and I hope that the minister's new obligations have not been keeping him outside the country since that date. This is why I am asking for answers. On November 19, the day I put my question, I had a complete delegation from the Granby groups and its twinned cities who had come to Ottawa in the hope of meeting with the minister. They still have not been able to meet him, and they were disappointed with the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

In their names and on my own behalf, I would like to know what CIDA's real intentions are? A lot of hope was created among those people from Joal and Fadiouth. There was a commitment to build that famous fish treatment plant, but then no answer is forthcoming. 1 think a clear answer would help.

I am informed that the Minister of State for CIDA will travel to Senegal in a few days. I would have rather liked he

November 27, 1979

met the delegation from Granby and its twin cities which is well informed about the Senegal files. He has chosen to ignore them and it is too bad for him. However, I would like to know if the city of Joal is still under consideration as it was at the outset. I would also like to know if the minister intends to make concrete proposals regarding the five other fish processing plants to be built. We would like to know that. 1 have been asking that question since last June 16 but he does not answer his mail. Ever since he became a minister he does not answer questions from hon. members and I think it is the role of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to keep herself informed about these projects. I know that she is absent tonight but she must certainly have someone to speak in her name and I hope the answers will be more encouraging and, above all, much more direct and pertinent.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-AID IN CONSTRUCTION OF FROZEN FISH PLANTS IN SENEGAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink
PC

David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald). My intervention is in line with the letter the hon. Flora MacDonald sent on November 22 to the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) in which she gives him useful

Adjournment Debate

information regarding a frozen fish plant in Senegal. As she stated in her letter, this project started in August, 1978, with the building of an administrative centre near Dakar and of a fish processing plant at Kayar, a small fishing village 50 kilometres from Dakar. A start is also scheduled, some time during the coming 30 months, for the construction of five other fish processing plants. In addition to the construction of the buildings, this project supplies technical assistance with a view to assisting the Senegalese co-operative movement which will ensure a system that is better adapted to the marketing of non-commercial fishing.

I should like to point out finally that this project was defined in co-operation with the Senegalese and that it ties in with the perspective of progressively reducing the food deficit of that country. A more appropriate processing of the fish, achieved thanks to the realization of that Canadian project, will give better supplies of fresh fish to the peoples who live inland.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-AID IN CONSTRUCTION OF FROZEN FISH PLANTS IN SENEGAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink

November 27, 1979