Veterans Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2013

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

Yes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay.

Ten years after a theoretical exposure to depleted uranium, is it scientifically possible that there would be high levels of uranium in somebody's hair follicles?

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

The only people who test positive for depleted uranium are those who continue to have embedded fragments of depleted uranium. So in those individuals, yes, of course—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Of course.

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

—we continue to measure depleted uranium in their urine, for example.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Sure. But very specifically those are the ones who would—

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

The only ones.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The only ones.

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

The U.K. has done studies, our allies have done studies, and no—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Absolutely. So other than that, there's pretty well a zero per cent possibility that that would be—

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

Minimal.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Yes, very good.

Okay. I think that covers it.

When we started this process—when the minister kicked off this study, but long before the committee saw this—I think public opinion wanted us to look at how this has impacted a Canadian Forces veteran.

Now that the scientific facts have been presented, it must be a great relief to those who are sick from depleted uranium that they can now continue on their path toward wellness, looking for whatever that symptom is that's causing them to be sick, whether it's something deeper in their physical being or a mental issue that needs to be dealt with.

From my standpoint, the study's been helpful. Testimony like yours today reiterates the fact, for about the tenth time, that depleted uranium is not the cause of health issues for Canadian Forces veterans.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Do you wish to comment, Dr. Lalonde, on his comment? Thank you very much.

Mr. Lobb, thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Chicoine.

Very quickly, Mr. Chicoine. We'd like to give you, and then the parliamentary secretary, a chance to ask a quick question, because at 9:35 we must conclude to move on to our next witness.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

There are reports on depleted uranium that were not taken into account in the study. Recently I learned that several studies had been conducted by the military college in 2000-2001. A report was also published further to decontamination of the site on the base at Valcartier. These studies were not taken into account.

Are you familiar with these studies?

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

No, I do not think so. I do not think they dealt with human health.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

They did not deal with human health, but they did deal with depleted uranium.

The Valcartier site was decontaminated in the 1990s, probably further to an exposure to depleted uranium. Recently I learned that a report had been produce on this, but I have not managed to consult it. I wondered whether you knew about these reports.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you.

Very quickly, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't have a question of the witness, but I do have a question of you. It's become abundantly clear that we are looking at a situation that is not realistic in terms of our study. Over and over again we've heard that depleted uranium is not causing the sickness of our veterans. I wonder whether there are future witnesses coming to this committee who could discuss the other issues, the other possible causes, and the things that we should be looking at.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

That's a good question, Ms. Mathyssen. We did agree as a committee, or may not have agreed, that there would be a total of 12 sitting days. I believe that was the object of that.

How many days have we had so far? We'll have to double-check.

We can get back to you right away on that, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, because I think we should be using the time wisely.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Ms. Mathyssen, I'll put that in referral right now and get back to you as soon as possible.

Ms. Adams, please.

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

Thank you, Dr. Lalonde, for coming here today.

We've had the opportunity to hear from a variety of witnesses—from veterans themselves, from those who actually conducted this study, and from those who reviewed the study. And we're very appreciative to have you here today, someone who's external to this entire process, to provide your views.

Some of the veterans testified before us that when they came upon shelled sites, they inhaled the air in that area and that perhaps that might have exposed them to depleted uranium. Another witness testified that she wasn't certain who had brought into the compound where the soldiers were living a tank that had been shelled, and perhaps that had exposed her to depleted uranium. In your expert opinion, would this cause health effects?

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

From what you're describing, these kinds of potential exposures would probably be more in line with a level three exposure, which we've heard about from Dr. Daxon, from the capstone study that was carried out. Potential exposure to uranium was categorized in levels of exposure, level one being the most exposed and level three being the least exposed. Just being in the same environment as a depleted uranium shell would either be a level three or even lower than a level three. This level was shown not to cause adverse health effects from this kind of remote exposure.

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

Thank you.

With respect to monitoring for depleted uranium and health concerns in Canadian Forces members, Dr. Pierre Morisset said, and I quote directly here, “The Canadian Forces have a good system, better, I have to say, than the civilian system in terms of monitoring. It is much better documented.”

Do you agree with that statement?

[Dr. Janick Lalonde]

Although I'm not a physician myself, I would assume so.