Veterans Affairs Committee on March 26th, 2013

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

I would really like to see the results. Health Canada specialists are the ones who do those checks, not doctors. The specialists interpret TD-60 readings.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

If he had his TD-60 when he was deployed and the device indicated a certain measurement, how can the person have proof that can be used later to determine exactly what happened? I wonder about that a lot. I don't want information to be lost.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

We cannot do TD-60 readings in combat zones. We do not have the equipment required to do so, whether it is on a daily or weekly basis or some other frequency. We can't take blood or do other tests, either. You understand that. It is for practical reasons.

TD-60 readings are done at certain intervals. As I said earlier, National Defence entrusts this job to Health Canada. In other words, it is not done in the field by an individual, but in Health Canada laboratories.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Dr. Morisset, and thank you, Madame Papillon.

We'll now move on to Mr. Hayes, for four minutes.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Morisset, some of the testimony we've heard appears to have inadvertently missed the distinction between the health effects of depleted uranium versus uranium. Could you take a moment to clarify the health effects associated with uranium, or differentiate those compared to depleted uranium?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

It's a bit confusing, isn't it. Even Dr. McDiarmid, who I admire enormously and is a leading world expert, sort of had slips of the tongue in that respect today. She was saying depleted uranium and uranium. You have to be very careful. I get confused.

The reason we talk so much about uranium studies when we speak of investigating depleted uranium effects is that they are similar. The effects are similar, identical from a toxicological point of view, which Dr. McDiarmid highlighted. It is that effect that concerns their group more. The radiological effect is less of a concern to them.

The studies that were made on humans with uranium date back many years and are on very large groups of uranium workers, people in the industry. This is why we talk so often about epidemiological studies with uranium, because they are the studies that are available in large numbers. Studies specifically on depleted uranium are not used extensively and have not been used for as long a period. That's why the studies are limited, but if you find the effects of uranium, you can extrapolate that to depleted uranium.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

What would those health effects be? Would they be identical for uranium exposure versus depleted uranium exposure?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Toxicologically, they would be exactly the same. Radiologically, the exposure, the degree of radiation if you wish, that comes from depleted uranium is less by a large margin, 40% less.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Last week, Dr. Lalonde said that of the 230 Canadian Forces members who have come forward for the uranium and depleted uranium testing, none tested positive for depleted uranium. I read the report at the beginning of the study. I haven't reread the report, so forgive me if I missed it, but are these results included in the study?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

The Canadian urinalysis studies?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Yes, they are. Under a broad statement, urinalysis studies that have been conducted in the U.S. large, Canada, Sweden, Britain, and France came to the same conclusion, taken collectively.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

This is my final question. Veterans have said that they're very grateful to former Minister Blackburn and current Minister Blaney for bringing this study forward because it needed to be discussed. Do you agree that this body of work was an important topic of study and that it will provide a benefit to Canadian veterans?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

That's our expectation. There had never been a study on depleted uranium. It's still a mystery. At the beginning you didn't know as a citizen what depleted uranium was, did you? A lot of veterans don't either, but they may be concerned because it's uranium. If it had another name, there wouldn't be that concern or that suspicion.

At least we examined the scientific literature right up to the end of 2012. So we updated the literature review and we applied it to the Canadian context on the side of exposure, which is very particular to Canada and not the U.S. We hope that it's useful to inform and to reassure.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Dr. Morisset.

We now move on to Mr. Lobb, please, for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again, Dr. Morisset, for coming here to the committee.

I want to ask you a very frank question, if I may. There have been certain members on this committee, and at least one veteran who has appeared before this committee who basically accused you of more or less cherry-picking the information you looked at and included in your report. I don't believe that's the case, but I would like you to tell the committee if you feel that's accurate or inaccurate.

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Well, I have one comment. I hate to use names, but Mr. Dornan was the person who used the expression “cherry-picking”. Madame Richard accused me of being part of a sordid plot to administer experimental drugs and vaccines. I don't like hearing things like this, but at the same time I can understand their frustrations, so I don't take it personally. That's just as an opening remark.

With respect to the cherry-picking.... Incidentally, Mr. Dornan, when he appeared before our committee, gave us a stack of documents and articles that he had prepared. He and his wife are very good at this. I really admire their tenacity and how they look at this. I personally looked at every single page of that stack. We did not include all of them because some of them were minor studies, minor not in the sense of mining, but they were not major studies.

The one study, and I have to comment on this one because it merits a second look. He mentioned that the milestone studies were the French studies. I remember that in his testimony. He said, “They overlooked the French studies.” He said, “This is what they showed.” I thought, “God, you know, I looked at that study, but I didn't get that conclusion.” I went back to the original article yesterday. I thought, “Darn it, I'm going to read that. What did we miss, collectively?” In fact, we had read the article. We're not wrong in any way. It appears the findings are right there in the report—on page 19 or 20; I can't remember, but they're there. The references are there, and they were in fact considered.

The one report that he said was revolutionary dealt not with depleted uranium but with reprocessed uranium. That is enriched uranium, not depleted uranium, that was being reprocessed. It has plutonium, americium, all kinds of other things, so I don't think it's very germane to the study. Plus it was a pilot study. They reported that as a pilot study, an initial pilot study, and they said that yes, they have some indication that perhaps there may be some increased cancers of a hematopoietic effect, which are multiple lymphomas. Fine. We think there may be. It is suggestive—that's their word—but we have to look at it more carefully.

The other thing I want to mention is that one of the co-authors of that study is one of our reviewers. He agreed with our conclusions, and he agreed it was complete, and so on and so forth. You're asking me to set the record straight on that. We did not cherry-pick, no.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

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

I appreciate that. I think it needed to be clarified as we near the end of this.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you.

Now on to Ms. Mathyssen, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Morisset, for coming back and providing clarification. I'm seeking clarification, too.

I have two questions. How could doctors provide a diagnosis of DU poisoning without the scientific evidence to back it up? That's number one.

Number two, there are too many unanswered questions. You made reference to your mandate. I understand your mandate did not include any clinical studies, and understandably so. Where are we, though, regarding looking at individual clinical records and conducting studies? Have there been too few?

When I look at Louise Richard, Pascal Lacoste, Steve Dornan, these are veterans who are suffering. Does there need to be more clinical work done?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

The short answer is yes, and that reaches into one of my recommendations.

Sorry, what was the first part of your question?

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

How could doctors provide a diagnosis of DU poisoning without scientific evidence?

[Dr. Pierre Morisset]

Yes, exactly. That's a darned good question.

I would have liked to be able to discuss with a physician who is purported to have made that diagnosis of depleted uranium intoxication to find out what they were basing their decision on. That's a very, very big question mark in my mind, very big.