Veterans Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2013

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you very much for being here.

I have a couple of questions and they have to do with the testing. Did I hear you correctly when you said that there was testing that was available at Memorial, but then it disappeared? Do you have any idea why it disappeared, and did VAC provide any explanation?

[Steve Dornan]

Patricia Horan was the doctor looking after testing at Memorial University. To do testing...I understand it's not like sending in a sample. There actually has to be a group of samples to be able to run this type of testing, whether it's 10 samples.... For them to cost-effectively do their studies, you need a group. So doing one-off samples isn't even available.

Why Memorial University stopped it, I don't know. It was actually done not only on Canadian soldiers, but Memorial was doing it on British soldiers as well. So you need to talk to her about that.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

There have been so many contradictions in what we have heard. For example, the U.S. reports that personnel exposed to DU in friendly fire haven't experienced any extensive or lasting effects, and yet you have in your work here a page that says that any worker, soldier, or civilian exposed to DU may apply for a federal government pension, that “Presumptive Causation” is considered, and that $8.3 billion in compensation has been paid out to DU workers and vets.

If it's so harmless, why is the U.S. paying compensation, and why are they looking at exposures to depleted uranium?

[Steve Dornan]

My wife just said, “Why don't you ask Dr. Morisset?”

I don't know. The U.S., by far, has thousands of soldiers who have been exposed, so their liability is far greater than ours is. The U.S. is only one of four countries that use depleted uranium. They're one of the only four countries that actually voted against the moratorium. We just had another moratorium in the UN vote. In 2012, Canada, again, did not vote to support the U.S. in this. We've never supported them. So our policies are out of kilter.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. Dornan. We appreciate that.

We'll now move on to Mr. O'Toole, please, for a couple of minutes.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've written down to try to be quick, to use my time effectively.

First, to echo comments from both sides, thank you very much for appearing.

Steve, certainly as a young officer I learned a lot from the AESOps I served with, whether I wanted to learn something or not.

[Steve Dornan]

I know what you're saying, sir.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Rosanne, as General Hillier once said best, the families serve on the family front as much as the folks deployed serve, so thank you for serving and for your advocacy.

It's very difficult for all of us here as MPs, particularly for an MP who's a veteran and passionate about these issues, and for Veterans Affairs, the minister himself. We have to use science and we have to try to get experts, and I think it's important.

Do you know why this report was commissioned?

[Steve Dornan]

We do. In fact, prior to Pascal Lacoste getting this going, we actually received a letter from Jean-Pierre Blackburn saying that he was going to start this scientific committee. In fact, I believe we submitted that letter to you.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I'd like to express my appreciation, because I know, Rosanne, your advocacy in the chair's office and Pascal's led to this study. Minister Blackburn and Minister Blaney commissioned it. We have to rely on the science.

I have not seen your VRAB findings either, so they're probably getting translated.

[Steve Dornan]

They are all there.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I'm going to have a couple of questions based on the report, two specifically, and I'd like the chair's indulgence.

Page 18 of the report deals with lymphomas, and their conclusion is that there is a lack of strong evidence. I would take it you disagree with that conclusion.

[Steve Dornan]

I do, and in fact you've seen it right here with regard to the study done by the French, which shows a clear.... And those are human studies, not animal studies. Those are human studies saying that, yes, reprocessed uranium or uranium oxides definitely will increase your risk of cancer.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

But the U.S. studies with DU did not show that incidence.

[Steve Dornan]

That's actually not correct. The studies they quoted are from the IOM studies. There are a number of studies, more than that, and in fact the president commissioned a comprehensive review to include the IOM studies and the studies that did not make it into the IOM.

If you look at the back of this, you'll see a list of different facilities that were tested. There are a number of facilities that were discovered that were not included and with the presidential order had to be included, and they all showed significantly higher levels of cancer incidence. When those came out, that is when the U.S. changed their policy and started a warning for their workers.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. O'Toole. We're already past the clock here, and I do like to give your parliamentary secretary a chance to bat cleanup, as we say.

Sorry, Mr. Dornan.

Ms. Adams.

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

Mr. and Mrs. Dornan, thank you very much for coming before us today. I echo the comments of my colleagues in saying thank you very much for your service, but, more importantly, how profoundly sorry we all are that you are struggling with cancer. It's a terrible disease, and I'm sure every member here has someone in their family who they have lost to it. I am profoundly sorry for your struggle.

Thank you for being so detailed in reviewing the report. There are seven conclusions in the report. Do you mind if I run through them? If you could, enumerate for me whether or not you agree or disagree with the conclusions.

The first conclusion of the study was, “Depleted uranium (DU) is potentially harmful to human health by virtue of its chemical and radiological effects.”

I would take it you concur.

[Steve Dornan]

We all agree with that, and all the scientific studies agree with that.

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

The second conclusion is:

Within a military setting, the highest risk of exposure to depleted uranium is in those who were: in, on or near vehicles hit with friendly fire; entering or near these burning vehicles; near fires involving DU munitions; salvaging damaged vehicles; or involved in clean up operations of contaminated sites.

[Steve Dornan]

Agree. That's A on the list.

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

It sure is.

The third one is, “It is unlikely that Canadian soldiers have been exposed to levels of depleted uranium which could be harmful to their health.”

[Steve Dornan]

I disagree with that, and I could actually run through the numbers for what I exceeded when I was in that vehicle, because I have them.

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

Four, “There is no consistent evidence from military cohort studies of adverse health effects that could be attributed to depleted uranium.”

[Steve Dornan]

We disagree with that because the cohort studies are...they've admitted in those cohort studies that they were not complete, especially the Canadian ones.

[Rosanne Dornan]

They weren't included in this report, many of them.