Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I was informed by Madame Corbin that I could make some introductory remarks. I will read them to keep within the time limits.
Although not part of my introductory remarks, I have four recommendations that I would like to make to your committee. These are not recommendations that we arrived at during our committee work, but are recommendations that have been arrived at on the basis of testimony that I have heard.
I also have a simple request of a more personal nature. I am prepared to introduce these elements any time during the proceedings, at your discretion.
My first comment relates to the charge, which was essentially to conduct a thorough review of the scientific literature on DU, depleted uranium, with a view to assessing the likelihood of Canadian soldiers being at risk of developing adverse health effects that could be attributed to DU. Somehow there seems to have been an expectation from certain veterans that we should have looked at their individual medical records. I may be wrong here, but that view appears to be shared by at least one member of your committee, who said, “Yet we have a report that wouldn't look at their records, that came up with a conclusion based on a paper review.”
If the intention had been to conduct a clinical review of individual cases, its mandate as well as its composition would have had to be structured very differently. Our overall objective was to produce a report that was accurate, complete, clear, and coherent. We feel that we have achieved these objectives, as do our reviewers and other scientists who have read the report.
We also wish it to be useful. After all, this is the only comprehensive scientific review on depleted uranium that addresses the Canadian military context.
Our findings are the result of our best interpretation of existing scientific data. We do not claim in any way that they are absolute. Science is constantly evolving, and new studies will no doubt shed new light on the subject.
That dissenting views exist should not come as a surprise. It is observed in scientific, legal, and yes, even political milieux. It is all the more understandable with respect to the role that radiation plays in causing cancer since these mechanisms are not fully understood at the moment, but at the end of the day, regardless of the context, the majority opinion prevails.
The testimony of some veterans indicates that we did not take into account certain important studies, including the United Nations reports on Bosnia and recent studies conducted in France. On the contrary, we did take them into account and they are in the report. However, it would seem that we did not highlight them sufficiently and, in that respect, we would like to.
It has been suggested that our committee had made up its mind from the outset and had then proceeded to cherry-pick its way through the literature in search of studies supporting our conclusions. Let me, as chairman of our committee, assure you that this is in no way the case.
It has also been suggested that the reviewing process itself was flawed on account of the reviewers not having been presented the final version of the report. On this, let me assure you that we have followed the standard approach in the reviewing process.
Finally, and I will now speak from a personal perspective, I am also a veteran, having served 33 years first as a pilot, and then as a physician. I have also been seriously injured in a military aircraft accident. Believe me that I do understand the effects of ill health and I empathize with those unwell veterans you have heard from, as well as with those who have not testified. I also understand their frustrations. Accordingly, I do not think these veterans should perceive me as their adversary in this process.
