Veterans Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2013

[Pascal Lacoste]

I think the report is absolutely incomplete. My impression is that there was a goal and that the report is not neutral. The goal was to minimize the effects of radioactivity on people. I don't understand.

I think the report is really incomplete, considering the case law. Canada has previously recognized that its veterans were poisoned with uranium and the department's charts disappeared in 2005. Why do we need to redo the work that has already been done? Veterans have already been recognized. Why does this report trivialize the effects of uranium poisoning?

I will be honest with you. I was expecting this type of report. I went on a hunger strike because I wanted the government to make a statement and give its opinion on uranium poisoning.

Believe me, I am hard at work. I am putting together a team and we will call the report into question because it is incomplete. How do you explain that a doctor told me that my sterility is strictly linked to uranium poisoning and that the report does not mention uranium? How can you explain that the report claims to keep veterans informed, but that it does not even tell us what the maximum radioactivity level is for us to stay healthy? Why are we not told about the signs and symptoms that we are going to experience? The report only talks about what uranium doesn't do. This report does not tell us anything. I am not sure who it is for, but it is not for us. This report does not do anything for veterans. I get the feeling that its purpose is to support a predetermined opinion.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I'm not sure if you're aware, Mr. Lacoste. It was put together by an independent scientific committee, but then it was also circulated to other leading experts in the field who all commented on it independent of one another. So they're putting their resumés on the line as they offer their written commentary on it.

[Pascal Lacoste]

Usually, an impartial report should contain arguments on both sides. I have seen other reports. This report only looks at the cons.

There is something ironic. In his testimony, Dr. Pierre Morisset himself said that there are contradictory reports. That's great. Why are there no contradictory reports in the file? There is a paradox. Why does the file suggest that they hold the truth? The doctor himself said that there are contradictions. Why aren't they in the report?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Finally, Mr. Lacoste, as we assemble our report on this study, do you have any recommendations for this parliamentary committee?

[Pascal Lacoste]

Thank you for your question.

The report uses the word “unlikely”. I for one have had four assessments, both physical and psychiatric. The four groups of specialists said that the only cause that can explain my state of health is uranium poisoning. My file is available on the Internet. Everyone can access it. I can sign as many powers of attorney as you want. I would really like the Minister of Veterans Affairs to send a strong message about veterans. He talks about reform and about changing the department's way of doing things. That's great. So the government must comply with its own laws, give us the benefit of the doubt and take care of us.

I would like to make two recommendations. My first recommendation is to agree to take care of us, regardless of where the uranium comes from. I have never debated the origin of the uranium, whether it is Canadian or not. I don't even want to get into that. Give us the benefit of the doubt and provide us with proper care.

Here is my second recommendation. The rehabilitation program is supposed to provide care to veterans even though it is not directly linked to their pension conditions. Give us the care.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Lacoste, at your convenience, might we request the names of those four specialists?

Could you provide us with their names?

[Pascal Lacoste]

They are the specialists at the following hospitals: Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis and Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal. I even went to a hospital in Ontario—I can't remember which one—and the clinic in Fall River where the Fox doctors—father and son—work. If you want still more information, you can contact Sister Rosalie Bertell's team and Dr. June Irwin's team.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much, Ms. Adams.

Monsieur Lacoste, on behalf of the committee, thank you very, very much, sir, not only for your service to Canada but also for presenting your personal situation here with us today. I know at times it was hard to reflect on some of the concerns, but rest assured that your testimony will be taken very seriously by all of us on the committee.

We do thank you very, very much for your time, sir, and wish you the very best. Merci.

[Pascal Lacoste]

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair]

To the committee, I've just been advised that in order for us to discuss the proposed travel for Washington, that request has to be in tout de suite. We have about 12 or 15 minutes for it.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Again, Mr. Lacoste, thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]