Thank you.
Good morning.
Thank you for finally agreeing to talk about depleted uranium. It's a sensitive subject, I know. But not so for me; it's a matter of survival. I am here for one reason only. My pressure tactics have always been solely for the purpose of receiving care with dignity. I am sorry to say I found the report I saw bitterly disappointing, and I will tell you why.
I want to start by thanking Minister Blaney for finally agreeing to a discussion on uranium poisoning and for taking a stand. Now, we have at least one tool to work from, and that is the decision made by the current government. Unfortunately, its report does not state what uranium is, merely what it is not. Nowhere does the report address the effects on the reproductive system. And yet, that is the first system affected. Dr. Gosselin, a urology specialist, told me that my inability to have children—my sterility—was directly tied to uranium poisoning. Why does Dr. Morisset's report make absolutely no mention of that?
The report is said to be impartial. That's fine, but why did those conducting the study refuse to hear from Sister Rosalie Bertell? She is a Canadian and was the United Nation's chief medical officer during the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. I can't understand why an impartial committee would refuse to hear from such a highly qualified Canadian expert. She is an authority in the field. So forgive me for questioning the report's impartiality.
The first attachment you were provided with may help to explain why the report is incomplete. It's an article by the Canadian Press. It says that the Canadian government has a tendency to interfere in research that involves ecology, the economy and defence. And uranium fits in all three of those categories. I want to sincerely thank those Canadian scientists who think like I do and who voiced their views publicly.
Dr. Morisset's report says that uranium exposure is unlikely to cause health problems. I would point to the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, which stipulates that, if there is a doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the claimant. As for my own medical history, I have undergone four psychiatric assessments, all of which showed that I had no psychosomatic illness and that I did not suffer from a mental illness. I do have an operational stress injury, but it does not explain my sterility, my immune deficiency problems or my chronic throat ulcers. No psychosomatic illness can affect the kidneys, but uranium can.
When he appeared before you, Dr. Morisset said that the report was meant to inform veterans. That's great. Why, then, does the report not indicate what constitutes a worrisome level of exposure to uranium? To my mind, that is the first question that should be asked. In Dr. Morisset's report, which he says is meant to inform us, he indicates that the U.S. treats American soldiers with uranium poisoning at a hospital in Baltimore. Why does he not inform us of those treatment options?
I have had uranium poisoning since 1996, and I have known about it since 2000. I have spent 13 years now chasing down treatment all over the world. Whenever I see specialists, they always tell me that the science is not advanced enough in this field and that we don't know enough about the harmful effects of depleted uranium on human health. They say it's necessary to rule out all possible causes before they can attribute all the remaining effects to uranium exposure. That's how medicine works, from what the specialists have told me.
Different Canadian specialists, at Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis, as well as institutions in Ontario and Nova Scotia, have told me, on four occasions, that the only possible cause of my health problems was uranium poisoning. And yet, according to Dr. Morisset's report, that is unlikely. I sincerely hope the veterans affairs minister will read the section of the act stipulating that, in the event of doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the claimant. In my own case, reasonable doubt does exist. I can prove it, and I am going to have fun with the media in that respect, mark my words. Will the minister adhere to his own legislation or not? I look forward to meeting with him. I am extremely worried.
The Canadian Forces vehemently deny using weapons containing depleted uranium. If there's no problem with the use of depleted uranium weapons, especially if they are much less expensive than those containing tungsten, why doesn't the army use them?
While Canada says it doesn't use depleted uranium, the report addresses solely weapons. Why is there no talk of the explosive reactive armour we used in Bosnia on our Grizzli, Bison and Cougar tanks? During that mission, we needed extra armour for our tanks. The only thing protecting us, those of us who were supposed to maintain the vehicle, from porcelain plates of depleted uranium was a piece of canvas. I can tell you that when we were driving on unmarked roads, it damaged those armour plates and we had to replace them. The mere act of replacing them meant that we were breathing in radioactive dust.
Dr. Morisset asserts that some U.S. soldiers have large chunks of uranium in their bodies without any real problems. That is true. It's not the large chunks that are the problem, but the microdust. When you breathe in a cloud of radioactive dust, it enters your respiratory tract. Then those particles travel from the pulmonary alveoli to the blood and migrate to the bone marrow.
I am telling you that I have a bone marrow disease that is directly linked to uranium poisoning, according to the four groups of specialists I consulted. Dr. Morisset can say what he likes about the unlikelihood of uranium poisoning among Canadian soldiers. The documents accompanying my brief include one of the uranium contamination tests that I underwent. You'll see that it's quite the graph. I am in the red: I am 61 times more radioactive than the acceptable limit.
Dr. Morisset pointed to the fact that certain populations have fairly high radiation levels, but he made no mention of fertility problems or deformed and extremely sick newborns. There is a direct correlation with those high levels of radiation.
There is something else tremendously hurtful in the Canadian government's treatment of its veterans. Canada has previously acknowledged harm caused to radioactive veterans who served as guinea pigs in connection with the Manhattan Project at the end of the Second World War. Although it took the Canadian government 60 years, it did recognize that those past veterans had suffered uranium poisoning.
Up until 1995, the Department of Veterans Affairs had compensation charts. You can check; the information's included in the attachments I provided. Why is a distinction being made between old veterans and new veterans? Why is it acceptable to recognize the radioactivity-related problems of our veteran predecessors, but not us, young veterans? That is unfair. There are precedents. Less than two years ago, you passed legislation on case law. Can you please respect your own laws?
When you do things like that, we get the message loud and clear. And I was just a corporal in the army. How do you think that affects the confidence military personnel have in the chain of command? They are asked to demonstrate loyalty. No member of the military will ever complain because loyalty is part and parcel of their duty. But do you ever allow military personnel to question the loyalty they are shown, when they are told that old veterans were entitled to something that they aren't? We're being told that it's not the same for us, young veterans, that radioactivity affects us less. Believe me when I say those words hurt.
In his report, Dr. Morisset discusses uranium miners. I hope the labour standards in Canada's uranium mines are high enough to protect miners. Everyone knows they work in a contaminated area, a high-risk zone. But, since they have the benefit of protective equipment while working in high-risk zones, they are better off than we, the members of the military, are out in the field.
Dr. Morisset confirmed that we, members of the military, had absolutely no tools to determine whether or not we were in a uranium-contaminated zone. The only tool we had was the DT-60 you see here. It's a disc-shaped indicator that provides no reading. Only our chain of command had the ability to read the results when analyzing the device. We were ordered to wear it at all times on our ID or dog tag, so it could be read when we returned from a mission.
In 1996, when we returned from our mission, all the DT-60s were read, and then they conveniently disappeared. The person who did my DT-60 reading told me that I had the highest level of radiation of everyone. He told me to keep it because it might come in handy one day. I have it on me today. I never take it off. If you want proof of my radiation level, I have it here.
Under the Access to Information Act, I learned that the Canadian Forces had tested me for uranium. I found that, while I was in hospital in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, I had been tested for uranium exposure. Both times, the results showed that I was 61 times more radioactive than the tolerated standard. Why didn't the army tell me that I had uranium poisoning? Why did I have to go through civilian channels and fight for that information? If depleted uranium does not have adverse effects on health, why do they test us? Why are those tests hidden from members of the military?
The Canadian government does not want to acknowledge that I have uranium poisoning. When I joined the forces at 19, I was in such good shape that I was sent for biathlon training. I was actually so fit that I was considered an Olympic hopeful. In 2000, during my mission in East Timor, I lost 35 pounds of muscle mass in 9 days, and I haven't been healthy since. I went from an athletic specimen to someone who has a disability, legally speaking.
The Department of Veterans Affairs claims that I have absolutely no problems. But how do you explain the fact that my exit from the Canadian Forces was for medical reasons without the slightest diagnosis and that I still have serious health problems today, even needing a wheelchair to get around at times? How can needing a wheelchair be related to having post-traumatic stress disorder? The seventh conclusion in Dr. Morisset's report suggests that the problems may be in our heads.
PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, is a serious and important illness. I have lost comrades in arms to suicide. But PTSD does not explain everything. Keep in mind that a person is made up of body and mind. I sometimes get the feeling that PTSD is used as a diagnostic dumping ground, if you will, to explain any problems that they don't really want answers to.
The report states that it is unlikely that Canadian soldiers have been exposed to harmful levels of uranium. I joined the army as soon as I finished school. It's the only job I've ever had. While I was in the army, I was tested and the results came back positive for uranium. How do you explain that? How else could I have ended up with such a high level of radiation in my body if not by being in the army?
It is a fact that both the Valcartier and Longue-Pointe bases put out public calls for tender for the decontamination of storage areas contaminated by heavy metals, including depleted uranium. I actually obtained the information on the storage areas on the Internet, thanks to the Access to Information Act. And if I can find it, anyone can.
When I ended my hunger strike, the Minister of Veterans Affairs promised me that I would receive appropriate care for my condition. I am still waiting. What is my condition? What care can they offer me? The only thing I was offered was psychiatric treatment, but no one was ever able to tell me what the goal of the treatment plan was. After 10 months of rehabilitation without the slightest goal, I felt like I was wasting taxpayers' money, so I asked to stop the treatment. I was troubled by the fact that they were bringing someone in twice a week to go for a walk with me. The person had to travel from Montreal to Quebec City and back every time. I was so uncomfortable with the idea of taxpayers' money being spent like that, that I wanted it to stop.
I want to make something clear. All the specialists I saw regarding my uranium exposure came to the same conclusion. Uranium poisoning is a health problem we know little about today, just like AIDS in the late 1970s.
Unfortunately, there aren't any real tools that can help. According to former UN chief medical officer Rosalie Bertell, the only tangible thing that can help is drinking distilled water.
After that, the Department of Veterans Affairs acknowledged that I suffered from chronic fatigue, chronic pain and fibromyalgia. Why wasn't I treated for those symptoms? The department can deny everything, but what will it do to help us get better? There has to be the tiniest bit of accountability.
Mr. Chair, am I out of time?
