NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 22, 2001

• 1531

[English]

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Today we have before us two witnesses. I suppose I would refer to them as expert witnesses on the issue of depleted uranium. We have Colonel Ken Scott, who is the Director of Medical Policy for the Department of National Defence, and we also have Dr. Edward Ough, who is Research Associate, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, from the Royal Military College of Canada.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for accepting our invitation to be here today, and we look forward to getting the benefit of your comments on this subject of depleted uranium.

Colonel Scott, you have the floor.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): I just wanted to advise the committee on an unrelated matter. On Tuesday I'll be presenting a 48-hour motion regarding comments made in the paper today about the future of the Shearwater air base. I thought I'd just give the committee a heads-up on that.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you Mr. Stoffer.

Colonel Scott, you have the floor.

Colonel Ken Scott (Director, Medical Policy, Department of National Defence): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to brief you on depleted uranium. I have been asked to give a short summary describing myself, as an introduction, and then I will pass the floor over to my colleague, Dr. Ed Ough, so he can let you know his background as well.

I served as a general duty medical officer in the Canadian Forces for six years, rose to the rank of major, and then underwent specialty training in internal medicine and infectious diseases at the University of Calgary. I was then posted to Ottawa, where I set up a clinic prior to the Gulf War—a chronic fatigue clinic—where the patients I most commonly saw were ones complaining of fatigue, memory problems, sleep disturbances, joint pain, shortness of breath, and rashes.

I deployed to the Gulf War myself as an augmentee to 1 Canadian Field Hospital. On returning from the gulf I returned to the National Defence Medical Centre.

In 1993 I participated with the World Health Organization in the French Congo in a study of African sleeping sickness. I deployed to Kigali Rwanda, in July 1994 for a six-month tour as the medical contingent commander for the Canadian UNAMIR mission. I arrived there when General Dallaire was still there and I left in January 1995.

I established Canada's Gulf War clinic in 1995 and closed it in 1997. In 1998 multiple clinics were opened across the country, staffed by internal medicine specialists and open to members currently serving and to Veterans Affairs clients.

• 1535

We established an MOU with VAC to care for members of any Canadian peacekeeping mission. In fact, we've even seen two Korean War veterans at this point. We've closed our Gulf War clinic and opened these multiple other clinics to any Canadian peacekeeper, because we felt the problems we are seeing in our Gulf War group are similar to what we were seeing in any Canadian mission.

I am currently the director of medical policy for the Canadian Forces. I also sit on the DND-VAC steering committee. I also sit on the Canadian Forces Advisory Council. I've recently been asked to participate in the integration of research activities between Veterans Affairs Canada and DND by our CF clientele and former members.

Dr. Ough.

Dr. Edward A. Ough (Research Associate, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Royal Military College of Canada): I'll keep mine a little more brief than that.

I'm a chemist by training. I received my BSc from the University of Western Ontario in 1986, and I received my PhD from the same university in 1993. My area at Western was that of inorganic and analytical chemistry. A lot of the research equipment I used at Western was of the analytical type.

Upon graduating from the University of Western Ontario in 1993, I took a research associate's position at the Royal Military College of Canada. For the first six years, I was involved with the synthesis and characterization of infrared dyes for search and rescue purposes. I worked under Dr. Catherine Creber at the Royal Military College.

For the past two years, I've worked with the nuclear group at the college, with Dr. Brent Lewis, Dr. Bill Andrews, and Dr. Les Bennett. The main focus of that work has been the uranium issue. I've been involved in the preparation of a report for DGNS on uranium hazards.

I have been acting as a consultant to Colonel Scott in the active testing of CF personnel, both active and retired. Right now, I'm also involved with an inter-laboratory comparison that's just being initiated to look at different analytical techniques for the testing of biological materials.

In a nutshell, that's about it.

The Chair: Colonel Scott.

Col Ken Scott: Depleted uranium has recently created significant anxiety in the Canadian Forces community and amongst the Canadian public at large. I hope to be able to provide you with the factual information you will need to put this subject into the proper perspective.

Uranium is one of the earth's primordial substances. As such, it is found throughout nature. It is in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. All humans have uranium in their bodies. It is present in all our tissues, including kidneys, lungs, bones, and lymph glands. It is also found in all bodily fluids, including urine, blood, sweat, and tears.

Uranium is a heavy metal, like lead and mercury. The concentrations found in nature vary by geographical area. On average, however, there are four tonnes of natural uranium in one square mile of soil one foot deep. A typical eight-cubic-yard dump truck load of soil will have half a teaspoon full. In phosphate-rich areas of the world, such as Florida, there are approximately 140 tonnes of natural uranium per square mile. During the Persian Gulf War, coalition countries expended 320 tonnes of depleted uranium munitions. This would therefore be equal to the natural uranium found in 2.3 square miles of Florida. There is as much uranium in the average backyard in Canada as would be found in a projectile used in the military.

• 1540

Natural uranium is a radioactive element, which means it gives off radiation as it decays. Natural uranium consists of three principal isotopes, U-234, U-235, and U-238, which differ in the degree to which they are radioactive. In its natural state, uranium is very weakly radioactive, as can be seen from the examples I mentioned previously. However, uranium can be enriched to produce a more radioactive substance through a complicated process that increases the proportion of the more radioactive isotopes. It is this enriched form of uranium that is used in things like nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. The by-product of this enrichment process is called depleted uranium, or DU, because it is about 40% less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium retains the chemical properties of natural uranium. It is very heavy and dense, while having less of the radiation-producing properties.

There is a wide body of literature dealing with the health effects of natural and enriched uranium. There is less literature directly addressing the health effects of depleted uranium. However, given the fact that depleted uranium is virtually identical to natural uranium, the research findings on uranium can be applied to DU. The health effects of uranium can be divided into chemical effects and radiation effects. Since uranium and DU are virtually identical chemicals, the toxicological or chemical effects of natural uranium are identical to those of DU. The radiation effects of DU are always less than those of natural uranium, because DU is less radioactive than natural uranium. In general, the heavy metal toxicity of uranium is regarded as posing a more serious health risk than is radiation. As mentioned previously, uranium is considered a low-level radioactive element.

I will first discuss the radiation effects of uranium. Uranium gives off alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, which can be dangerous in sufficient quantities. Large amounts of this radiation can cause cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and birth defects, as was seen in atomic bomb survivors. There is, however, a delay in the development of leukemia and lymphoma following exposure, and high doses are required to produce these effects. In general, at least three to five years must pass between exposure to the radiation and the appearance of any cancers.

• 1545

With respect to chemical toxicity, heavy metals like uranium can be toxic to certain organs, especially the kidneys. However, once again, large doses of uranium are required to produce these effects.

Uranium has been mined, processed, enriched, and used in various products for decades, and its health effects have been extensively studied. In spite of this, no cases of cancer or other health effects in humans have been associated with these industrial exposures. Exposure levels for industrial workers have been far higher than in the military and have gone on for many years. The important point is that industrial exposure to uranium has not been noted to be harmful to workers.

Depleted uranium is very hard and very dense. It is these properties that make it useful in industry. DU has been used for X-ray shields in hospitals, as counterweights in aircraft, and in keels for yachts. The military has used DU to make weapons to penetrate armour. It has also been used in armoured vehicles to make their shells harder.

I will now discuss the potential for DU to cause harm, based on what is known about its level of radioactivity. A worker completely surrounded with DU, eight hours a day, for a year, would not receive a dose of radiation that exceeded the maximum annual occupational limit.

DU is three million times less radioactive than the radium 226 still found in many old luminous clocks and watches. It is 10 million times less radioactive than the americium 241 found in domestic smoke detectors. Uptakes of more than five grams of uranium into the blood are needed to give a radiation dose equivalent to that received over a period of 50 years from natural background radiation.

Average people have multiple sources of radiation within their bodies. These include 90 micrograms of uranium, producing 1.1 becquerels of radiation per day; 30 micrograms of thorium, producing 0.111 becquerels of radiation per day; 17 micrograms of potassium, producing 4,400 becquerels of radiation per day; 95 micrograms of carbon 14, producing 15,000 becquerels of radiation per day; 0.6 picograms of tritium, producing 23 becquerels of radiation per day; and 0.2 picograms of polonium, producing 37 becquerels of radiation per day.

• 1550

It is worth noting the relatively small contribution of uranium—only 1.1 becquerels out of over 19,000 becquerels , which is the total exposure humans receive from internal sources of radiation every day.

Like any other substance, DU could be dangerous if taken in high enough quantities over a long period of time. However, exposure levels for military personnel are nowhere near the levels of industrial workers to natural uranium. As mentioned previously, these workers have been extensively studied and have not developed any medical problems due to their radiation exposure.

Over the past few years, there have been multiple reviews around the world on uranium and military exposure to depleted uranium. These reviews have included: the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses, 1997; the RAND report on depleted uranium, 1999; the Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry report on uranium, 1999; the General Accounting Office report, 2000; the Institute of Medicine report, 2000; the White House report, December 2000; the Presidential Special Oversight Board final report, December 2000; and the European Commission report on depleted uranium, March 2001.

All these reviews have concluded that DU is not likely to be responsible for illnesses in Gulf War veterans. The European Commission report of this month came to the same conclusion for Balkan veterans.

Depleted uranium munitions were used in the Gulf War of 1991, in the Bosnian conflict of 1994 and 1995, and in Kosovo in 1999. The closest Canadian unit to the fighting during the Gulf War was 1 Canadian Field Hospital, 80 kilometres from the battlefields. The illness rate for all Canadian units that served in the Gulf War is identical—including the illness rate in a unit that had rotated home and watched the air and ground war on CNN.

Uranium has a dose and duration relationship to toxicity. If uranium was responsible for illnesses in Canadian Gulf War veterans, then the illness rate should be higher the closer a unit was to the front. This was not seen.

More importantly, if DU was responsible for illnesses in Canadians who served in Persian Gulf countries for only a few weeks, then the health of civilians living in these countries for the past ten years should also be affected. Again, this is not the case.

No study, including our own Canadian studies, has ever shown an increased cancer or leukemia rate in Gulf War veterans. No NATO country has seen an increased incidence of leukemia or cancer in Balkan peacekeepers. The malignancy rate is what you would expect to find in a population of similar size, age, and sex distribution.

Canada began offering testing for depleted uranium to Gulf War and Balkan veterans one year ago. We used two independent civilian labs in Ontario—we chose to use two labs so that one could operate as a quality control measure for the other. To date, samples from 136 individuals have given total uranium levels in their urine. This represents 272 consecutive normal results. In addition, isotope ratios in hair samples from 34 individuals and a bone sample from a 35th have all come back compatible with natural uranium. Isotope ratios are used to distinguish natural from depleted uranium.

• 1555

In January of this year, several NATO countries initiated uranium screening for Balkan veterans. Belgium had previously analysed uranium levels in 2,600 of its Balkan peacekeepers. Thousands of veterans have now been tested, including some who were tested while they were still in the Balkans. Not a single elevated result has been found. This is in agreement with our own Canadian testing results.

Finally, the Americans have been following a number of Gulf War veterans who were involved in friendly fire incidents—they were on or near armoured vehicles that were blown up. These Americans had the most intense exposure to depleted uranium of any Gulf War veterans. In some cases, these Americans have DU shrapnel embedded in their bodies and have uranium levels in their urine of up to 1,000 times those found in the normal civilian population.

Importantly, these veterans have not developed medical problems related to depleted uranium. They have not developed any cancers or leukemia, and between them they have fathered 38 healthy children. If our veterans were going to develop problems because of exposure to depleted uranium, you would expect this group, above all others, to have developed them.

In summary, the issue of whether uranium and depleted uranium are harmful to human health has been studied extensively, both in the past and more recently. There is a large amount of very high-quality data to indicate that depleted uranium, in the doses to which military personnel are exposed on modern battlefields, is not a health risk.

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to bring this information to your attention. I look forward to answering any questions you may have concerning this very important and interesting subject.

The Chair: Colonel Scott, thank you very much for that thorough explanation of the issue.

We have a number of questioners, and we'll start the seven-minute round with Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre—East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Dr. Scott, for your explanation of depleted uranium.

There seem to be various elements here, and your explanation has described one but not the others. First and foremost, I understand that depleted uranium coming from nuclear power sites is declared hazardous material and has special HAZMAT protocols for handling it. Is this true?

Col Ken Scott: My colleague Ed Ough can probably answer that better. When you take material out of the reactor, there are many hazardous compounds in it besides depleted uranium. They can be removed.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Perhaps you can explain what compounds. Plutonium, for example?

Col Ken Scott: Dr. Ough is the expert on this area. He can identify some of the compounds that make nuclear reactor waste more dangerous than the depleted uranium used in the military, as well as in the civilian world.

Dr. Edward Ough: First off, there are actually two forms. Depleted uranium is clean—that's when we take uranium from a mine, ship it to the United States, and they use the uranium in two streams. One is enriched; the other is depleted. That uranium has never seen a nuclear reactor, never gone anywhere near one.

• 1600

What you're talking about with this part is the fact that the United States, in certain years, took spent fuel—I believe it came out of their weapons-grade reactors—and sent it back through the enrichment cascade.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But is this material coming to the machinists who make this into bullets, weapons? Is it not a hazardous waste material at that point?

Dr. Edward Ough: It's going to be considered a nuclear material.

You're getting beyond my area here.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This is what I want the questioning to evolve into, because this is one of the great concerns.

Whereas, Colonel, you had said that the material is safe, it's safe to use, it's of no harm to anybody, both Italy and Germany have called for a moratorium on its use. So obviously there are different opinions.

My concern is that it may very well come out as an inert, safe, harmless lump of coal or lead, or whatever the material is, being formed, and it may be safe. We do know the alpha particle is very low-penetrating; it won't penetrate skin. That is why it is considered a very safe material. Then we have this lump of lead, if you like, that when it hits, explodes into sparks and flames, explodes into a cloud of material.

I'd like to know what containment testing has been done from a basic nuclear biological analysis at the level of the explosion, not at the level of the raw material that we can argue whether it's safe, a hazardous material or not, but when it reaches this state here.

Colonel, you explained that people, only in the immediate area, didn't have effects. In this state, 20% of it is aerosols and could carry for hundreds of miles in the wind.

We know the problems in the Gulf War with oil fires and catastrophic wind conditions. What I would like to know is, have there been safe, conclusive, containment testings of this box when that material hits? And then, what is the residue?

There's a chemical compound in this remanufactured material. What chemicals are added to make this burst of fire and things? In other words, what are we looking at here? You're saying it's depleted uranium, but what is it really? What other chemicals have been added to this?

Col Ken Scott: You're asking many questions. Let me try to remember all of them. Being older, my mind is not as sharp as it used to be.

First of all, today the Italian expert scientific panel on depleted uranium released its final report. They concluded, like the European Commission of March 6, that there are no illnesses in their Italian veterans related to depleted uranium exposure. There is not a higher incidence of cancer or leukemia in any of the Italians. You raised that question.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Why are they calling for a moratorium on it?

Col Ken Scott: That's a political question, not a medical one.

The second point is, as Dr. Ough has already told you, regarding the projectiles and the vehicles that are made with depleted uranium, that is a by-product of the enrichment process. That material has never been through a nuclear reactor. It has never seen a nuclear reactor. It doesn't have all those other compounds in it that you were talking about.

It is true that material that has come through a nuclear reactor could have the things like plutonium in it removed to convert it, like the original uranium, back into a very safe state. The Americans have said they have not used recycled uranium in their—

Mr. Peter Goldring: But have these containment tests been done?

Col Ken Scott: I'm still trying to finish the answer to that first question.

So the Americans have said that they have not used recycled uranium. Other people have said they have, so there is a controversy about whether they have or not. But the point is, when the uranium is recycled, they take out all those other transuranics that are produced when it is spent or used in a nuclear reactor.

So yes, tanks and various vehicles that are hit have actually been studied extensively. There are still some gaps in the knowledge.

• 1605

We know, for example, that the dispersion rate of uranium when a projectile hits these vehicles is within a few metres of these vehicles. They have not been able to measure uranium beyond a few metres of these vehicles.

In the United States, there is an ongoing study, called the Capstone project, where they're trying to identify further all the various compounds that are produced when the projectile hits an armoured vehicle, such as uranium dioxide and uranium trioxide.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So they haven't done a full, complete discovery on that as yet.

Col Ken Scott: The other issue is the blowing in the wind. The Americans have done extensive soil sample analysis throughout Kuwait, throughout Saudi Arabia, and in positions, for example, where Canadians were deployed. The soil sample analyses in all those areas have shown uranium levels that are the same as found anywhere else, and the isotope ratios of the soil samples are natural uranium, not depleted.

Dr. Edward Ough: If I can say one thing here, the other thing to note is the fact that depleted uranium, or uranium metal, is pyrophoric. When it hits the target, it's the one causing that flame. That's one of the reasons they use it. It gets into a tank, it will fracture, and you'll have these spontaneous fires happening within the tank. There are no other chemicals added to that depleted uranium other than that there will be a metal coating to prevent oxidation of the uranium.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So it's the depleted uranium—

The Chair: Mr. Goldring, we allowed the explanation.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This is in response to my—

The Chair: I realize that. We allowed the extra explanation. Now we have to get on to Mr. Bachand. You're well over your time here.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask Colonel Scott if he wrote himself the presentation he made earlier in the afternoon.

[English]

Col Ken Scott: Yes, I did.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I went to Brussels two weeks ago and I heard the same things, almost word for word, as what you said in the first part of your brief, from the people who organized our visit and who briefed us for a full day on depleted uranium.

The impression I am being left with is that throughout NATO the same rhetoric is being used, of the type "do not panic, there is no risk, we did all the required tests and no one will get sick". This is the impression I got and this is why I have great difficulty believing what you are telling us.

It could be that the facts you are reporting are indeed true. To carry out those tests, you pull out a plant, take a handful of dirt or a cup of water and based on that you state that those tests show that there is absolutely nothing in all the rest.

But that is not really the issue, in my view. You are probably a munitions expert as well as a medical expert. According to what I read, you can carry around a shell containing depleted uranium without any risk. It would be like wearing an X-ray shielding coat, as you mentioned earlier. The same goes for any other industrial application.

However, according to some studies, once you are on a battlefield, when a shell hits, some 35% or even up to 70% of the uranium is vaporized. People have started calling this uranium aerosols. And these can be carried by wind. If Canadian or United Nations personnel are within a radius of 100 kilometres of these uranium aerosols carried by the wind and if it is inhaled by people, I believe this could cause a major problem.

Obviously, if you take today a sample of soil or vegetable, you will not see it. However, those people who were around at the time of the attacks... and there have been many attacks. I do not know if you have seen the NATO map which shows something like 500 hits in 500 specific areas. At some point, people will put two and two together and conclude that this is the reason why some people are getting sick. This is why I have a hard time believing what you say. Too many people are sick and more and more dispute what you are saying.

What caused my incredulity was the first part of your statement and not the second, because there you deal specifically with Canada, which is fine. But the first part where you talk about the uranium in the soil, the uranium we drink and eat every day, that is the typical NATO speech, a true copy of that discourse. So, in my view, there is a problem.

• 1610

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Colonel Scott.

Col Ken Scott: The first part of my speech was extracted from various publications, which are not NATO publications. For example, when I spoke about the amount of uranium that's present in a square mile of dirt, that comes from the September 1999 report of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. What you will see when you go to various presentations is that all the experts have read the RAND report. All the experts have read the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry report. All the experts have read the Institute of Medicine report. So they take these statements, which are meaningful to the public in trying to put this into some perspective, and they all use those same statements.

The statement I used about there being as much uranium, for example, in the average backyard as you would find in a depleted uranium projectile was taken from the group that did the European Commission report. They gave a press conference in which they used that particular statement. My guess would be that you will probably see other people using that same statement as well.

I didn't tell you, for example, that there are 12.5 nanograms of uranium in a package of cigarettes. I could. That's in the World Health Organization report. That just came out this month as well. I will incorporate that into my subsequent talks. All right?

So you are quite correct, we all read the same literature and we do lift those statements, because, in my opinion, they are meaningful and put this whole issue into some context.

The Chair: Thank you, Colonel Scott.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colonel Scott, I was quite interested to hear you. You did a lot of work before. Maybe we should go back a little bit here first.

We seem to be looking at uranium or DU, but since you're saying that doesn't seem to be the cause, you obviously have to be looking for other causes. You said you had a clinic set up for chronic fatigue syndrome—I'll ask you several questions, and I'll let you come back on all of them after. What other diseases would you be looking at, and what have you been examining over that period of time since the Gulf War and since the opening of the other clinics?

You mention several studies, but on DU and, let's say, the compounds around, as mentioned by Mr. Ough, the possible mixtures of chemicals that could be coming in contact with the DU and maybe creating some problems, there are no long-term studies out there now. They all seem to be rather short-term. Are there any long-term, ongoing studies? You did mention one—are there any others by other countries? I don't think we have any ongoing in Canada, but other countries may. And when are they supposed to be completed?

Another question is, what is the percentage of people in the forces compared to people out of the forces with similar afflictions and symptoms to those we have showing up and creating the problem.

Col Ken Scott: In the post-deployment clinics we operate right now, where we see people from all conflicts, there are various attributions that have been looked at by various medical and scientific organizations. The Gulf War people, for example, have now looked at 33 environmental exposures in that conflict, because these were the exposures of concern to our veteran population. I ran that Gulf War clinic for a number of years and continue to see patients in post-deployment clinics.

• 1615

Despite that fact, percentage-wise, the Canadian deployment for which I have seen more people than any other, including the Gulf War, was Somalia. That's skewed because I happen to run regular clinics in Petawawa where our airborne unit is deployed from. I was in Petawawa running a clinic on Tuesday of this week. So the fact that I go there and they were all there skews those results.

Our Somalia veterans were concerned about mefloquine as a cause for those similar sorts of complaints.

The RCMP requested I see some of their constables returning from Haiti with fatigue, memory problems, and sleep disturbances, which they were calling post-Haiti syndrome. The Haiti veterans were concerned about post-dengue fever problems, and they were also concerned about the fact that they took the drug chloroquine, which is an anti-malarial drug.

I have seen Rwandan veterans whose concerns were about the dead bodies they had seen and the fact that they also took mefloquine.

We've recently seen people returning from East Timor. My colleague who runs the clinic in Valcartier has seen a number of East Timor veterans who are worried that their complaints are related to asbestos, malaria, and dengue fever.

Each deployment we have gone on has resulted in people returning with concerns about the environment, and I think that is a reflection of Canadian society in general. Our Croatian veterans were concerned about bauxite and PCBs. I've seen a number of our Kosovo veterans who were concerned about the smoke from a coal-fired hydroelectric plant. The ones we sent to Turkey to look after the earthquake refugees have been concerned about the mosquito spraying, this fogging that went on around them. So every deployment has had individuals who have been concerned about an environmental exposure, and I think that's a reflection of Canadian society.

What are the problems we see in our post-deployment clinics? These data are from the Gulf War clinic. The first type of medical complaint we see involves problems individuals would have developed anyway. The fact that you go off on a deployment does not guarantee that at some point in the future you are not going to get high blood pressure or develop migraines. We have a large number of people who have concerns that these new complaints might be related to their deployment. By being able to look at the prevalence in the society at large, we can tell that they're at the same prevalence.

Mr. David Price: Are you saying they're at the same prevalence?

Col Ken Scott: Yes.

The second group we see involves musculoskeletal complaints. On our deployments we play with some very big things, and we do some very risky things. People get hurt. So the most common medical complaint by far—in fact, this has been observed by all of our coalition countries—for which people apply for disability pensions is musculoskeletal.

The third type of complaint involves mental health issues. I don't think it would be a surprise that when you put individuals in harm's way, some people are going to come back affected by that. The most common psychiatric disorder we see in our post-deployment people is major depressive disorder. The second most common psychiatric disorder is anxiety. The third is PTSD. PTSD is not the most common disorder we see, even though it is the one that is popular in the media. In our Gulf War clinic we diagnosed 10% of the personnel we saw with PTSD. In Veterans Affairs Canada, 3% of their disability pensions are for PTSD. So again, it's not the most common. That's the third major grouping.

The fourth major group involves those types of complaints I was seeing before I went to the gulf. The term I now like to use for them is multiple, idiopathic, physical symptoms—fatigue, memory problems, joint pains, sleep disturbances, shortness of breath, rashes, concentration difficulties, and memory problems; those sorts of complaints.

They have been well described going back as far as the American Civil War. During the American Civil War many of the veterans who returned from that conflict were evaluated by the then American Surgeon General. His name was Da Costa. Afterwards, the syndrome he described ended up bearing his name. It was called Da Costa syndrome.

• 1620

The Chair: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut you off there because Mr. Price has gone over his time. Perhaps he will want to ask further questions on that subject.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you for your presentation.

Are any of the tests you mentioned being done by non-NATO countries?

Col Ken Scott: Do you mean the lab testing?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Any testing at all on DU.

Col Ken Scott: Sweden does testing. I don't know if Sweden is a NATO member.

A voice: No, they're not.

Dr. Edward Ough: The International Red Cross did some testing on their workers.

Col Ken Scott: Sweden does some of our analyses, and they're not a NATO country.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You're probably aware of Uranium City in northern Saskatchewan where a lot of Métis and first nations people developed all forms of cancer and birth defects.

Col Ken Scott: They certainly did.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: They all came from one area.

In your presentation—and I'll give you a chance to correct me if I'm wrong—were you stating that people who work with uranium are not more exposed than, say, the general public? Or are they?

Col Ken Scott: People who work with uranium are more exposed. Canada is one of the world's leading uranium producers. The American southwest is also a big area of uranium production, and a large number of Navahos are involved with the uranium mines. There is definitely an increased incidence of lung cancer in the Navahos and Canadian miners, but it's not due to uranium. It's due to the decay product of uranium, the radon gases. When you allow for the radon—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I don't need the full explanation. I only get a couple of minutes here.

Col Ken Scott: Sorry.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

In the briefing notes we received from the parliamentary library, it states that concerns were raised in 2001 in an Ottawa Citizen report that Canadian personnel were exposed to radiation at Camp Doha in Kuwait. You were quoted as saying that “The investigation of the incident conducted by the United States on Canadian military personnel....” Why would the United States do an investigation on an incident that involved Canadian personnel?

Col Ken Scott: They did not.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But it says right here “conducted by the United States”.

Col Ken Scott: Right.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is this document I have wrong?

Col Ken Scott: Right.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. That's fine. I guess the researchers will want to know that.

Mr. Terry Riordon from Nova Scotia has passed on, and his wife, as you know, is really fighting this issue. To be a captain in the Canadian military you must be a person of strong will and you must be a person who is not one to fly off the handle in the normal sense. You have to be very disciplined. I'm sure you must have studied his case or at least read reports about it. In your interpretation, if DU didn't kill him or didn't have an effect in his death, what in your professional opinion caused the death of Terry Riordon?

Col Ken Scott: I will never discuss a patient. I was involved with Captain Riordon's care for several years. I believe that would be inappropriate, and my professional college would take great exception to my discussing this case.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's fine.

Col Ken Scott: I can say that Captain Terry Riordon deployed to the Persian Gulf on December 26, 1990. He spent one week in Manama, Bahrain. He spent seven weeks as the security officer in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He deployed back from the Persian Gulf on February 19, 1991. Manama is 400 kilometres from the battlefields. Dubai is 800 kilometres.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, sir. The last thing you mentioned was about asbestos in East Timor. As we all know, if you're exposed to asbestos, say in the Wellington Building here, you're not going to feel the effects until twenty, thirty years from now. Is there a possibility at all that people who have been exposed to DU—because we don't have any long-term studies—in unusual circumstances like a combat zone, may develop serious effects from DU twenty or thirty years from now? We don't have those studies.

Col Ken Scott: We have the studies that are available on natural uranium and enriched uranium, studies that span over thirty years. The chemical toxicity for those compounds is identical. The radiological hazard for those compounds is greater. So these have been studied for thirty years and at this point in time have not produced any health consequences after thirty years.

• 1625

The group that has the friendly fire incidents that are being followed in the United States constitute a positive exposure group because they were on or near vehicles that have been blown up. It is the recommendation of all of those scientific studies I mentioned that this group should be followed for a long time. They've been studied in 1994, 1997, and 1999. The results of their last study were presented in January 2001. They in fact will be studied over a long period of time.

I agree with you 100% that members who serve in the Canadian Forces, or CF personnel, to serve our country have concerns about their deployment and whether we as a country are following them adequately. When we finished our original study of Gulf War veterans in 1998, we made arrangements with Statistics Canada to continue following them on a regular basis for years or decades. We can do that. We can follow them every five years and look at their cancer rates, look at their leukemia rates, and look at their death rates.

I am telling you that our Gulf War veteran group is identical to any of our other groups. I don't believe we should not be following our Somalia veterans, our East Timor veterans, and our Haiti veterans. I had a two-hour meeting yesterday with Statistics Canada. You saw this thing that was on the front pages of the paper. We have not formalized an arrangement. I believe we need to establish data linkages with all of our deployment personnel so we can study them on a regular basis, every five years, and address those concerns.

I also believe—something none of you have heard of but that the Americans are also initiating—there are concerns from all of our veterans about things like congenital anomalies. It is possible to set up something like a birth registry. There is no evidence in our Gulf War veterans' group, or any of our deployment groups, of increased incidents of congenital anomalies. Do we, or can we, or should we, also follow on a regular basis our birth registry for our people? There is no evidence they are causing any problems, but I think it would be reassuring to our CF personnel. I would be fully supportive of that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll make this short, Mr. Chair.

We've had a situation come up. Mrs. Paula Richmond is here. It was her son who drove his vehicle through the wall of a building at the Edmonton base last week.

I know this wasn't planned for the committee. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of the committee to give her five or ten minutes now or at the end of the scheduled time, if Colonel Scott would agree, so she can state her son's situation and her firm belief that he didn't get the care he really needed from the military.

All she wants is five or ten minutes to state the case directly to Colonel Scott. She'd be quite willing to answer any questions from any of you if you'd like to ask a question. I'm at the mercy of the committee here. I ask for unanimous consent to do that.

The Chair: Okay. I'll put that to the committee. It's an unusual procedure. We obviously do have witnesses here for a particular meeting, but if it's the committee's desire to change the agenda, as chair I'm prepared to do so.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Some of us have to leave, as you know, to catch a plane. We would like to ask our questions. We don't have a problem with the lady being heard after we get this opportunity to put our questions to you.

The Chair: I'll put the question to the members of the committee. Is there unanimous consent to change the agenda for today?

Some hon. members: Yes.

An hon. member: No.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, we can do that.

The Chair: No, there's not unanimous consent.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, I say this to Dr. Ough as well as to Colonel Scott: things must not only be right, they must appear to be right. I think our biggest concern here is that we do have people who are coming back and were in the Persian Gulf. I know you don't want to deal with Terry Riordon, but the man died and they found depleted uranium in his bones.

• 1630

Now we find out that Italy expressed concerns about the growing number of cases of leukemia among its peacekeepers who served in the post-conflict operation in Kosovo. There were some claims that the leukemia was linked to contact by the peacekeepers with vehicles and the soil that was hit by DU munitions.

Now we know that the United Nations Environment Programme concluded its study of depleted uranium in Kosovo by releasing its report at the end of March. They said that no widespread ground contamination was found in the investigated areas. Further to that, Dr. Ough, now in light of the controversy in Europe the World Health Organization is starting this month a study of Iraqi claims of a link between spent DU shells used in the Persian Gulf conflict and the cancer and birth defect rates in the southern part of Iraq.

I think the biggest concern we have here is that we do have people who are coming back as peacekeepers. They are having problems. They're having health problems, and we have to deal with those health problems. We certainly do. There are people in this room right here now who have been there and have health problems. So what do we do to correct this situation? What do we do?

Col Ken Scott: You ask many questions. You might have been out of the room when I brought to the attention of this group that the Italian expert panel on depleted uranium just released its report today. As in every other NATO country, the incidence of leukemia or cancer in the Italian peacekeepers is no greater than in the civilian population at large. The incidence of cancer and leukemia is identical. They were not able to associate depleted uranium with adverse health outcomes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Well, I would think it would be pretty hard, Mr. Chairman, to take and assess the population of Canada versus the small number of peacekeepers that we have, which is getting less every year, and the number of people who come back with leukemia or other health problems because we sent them over there. I think you've got to balance that a little bit.

I really feel very strongly, having met with some of these people who have come back and are suffering. All they're asking for is justice from us. Most of us around this table—and I would say all of us around this table—want to see justice done for them.

Col Ken Scott: And so do I. That's why I sit on all these committees. We want to be able to reassure our veteran population, or to identify if there is ever an increased incidence of cancer or leukemia. We know that back in 1997 our incidence in Canada of cancer and leukemia amongst our Gulf War veteran group was identical to the civilian population at large in the Ontario health survey of 1990.

We also know that when we did that study we had an internal control group as well, which was military personnel on other deployments. So we know that in 1997 our Balkan group had the identical rate of cancer and leukemia as their external control group, the Ontario health survey of 1990.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: May I ask one other question? British soldiers—

The Chair: First of all, Colonel Scott, were you finished making your point?

Col Ken Scott: No. I wanted to say, as I was answering this gentleman's question, that nonetheless we believe—I personally believe—that for all our deployments, including East Timor, we need to be able to answer these sorts of questions about cancer and leukemia and congenital anomalies by setting up these data linkages and birth registries. We're all in favour of it; we're working very hard to do that. That would be able to offer them the reassurance they need or identify problems should they develop.

The other issue is that we were the first country that participated in the Gulf War that established post-deployment clinics open to peacekeepers of any mission. I agree with you 100%. I saw Balkan veterans. The most common veteran I see right now is Kosovo and Bosnia. I haven't seen a new Gulf War veteran in three years.

• 1635

I believe the veterans we're sending off on all of these missions are coming back unwell. That is why we have these clinics.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

Col Ken Scott: That is why we've opened up and established a memorandum of understanding with Veterans Affairs Canada. That brought us more work. If we think and we've identified that there is a problem out there, we want to help these people.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: May I ask the other question?

The Chair: You've got another minute and a half.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay. Some British soldiers recently complained that, prior to operations in Kosovo, they had been given little information on how to deal with areas contaminated by spent DU shells. Now how much information was provided to our Canadian personnel before they arrived in Kosovo?

Col Ken Scott: I wouldn't be able to answer that question because I am not involved with operations.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: So you don't know whether our people are advised or not.

Col Ken Scott: It's not within my area of expertise or responsibility.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's more a point of clarification. I had asked the gentleman earlier about an incident in Camp Doha that was investigated by the—

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, I don't think that's a point of order. I think that's another question. We'll get back to your question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, it is a point of order because he said the United States did not do the investigation, yet a letter he wrote to the Ottawa Citizen says very clearly that the investigation was investigated by the U.S. authorities.

The Chair: That may be a point of debate, but it's not a point of order.

Now I'd like to continue with our questioning here. We've got Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: A point of order first.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to request, if you could, that you table the copies of the report—the study that has just been released by Italy on the safety of the depleted uranium.

Col Ken Scott: A study of whom?

Mr. Peter Goldring: You said that Italy has just released a report.

Col Ken Scott: All I have is the Associated Press article from this morning about the press conference the chairman of the expert panel from Italy gave. I don't have the report.

What I did give to the members of this committee, however, is the March 6, 2001, report of the European Commission expert panel committee, where they talked about the German testing and the French testing.

The Chair: We just got a copy of that report—

Col Ken Scott: I did give you that.

The Chair: —from Colonel Scott, and we're in the process of having it translated.

Col Ken Scott: I also gave you a copy of an editorial that appeared in Lancet in January 2001 from which the previous speaker said I seemed to be speaking. I used some quotes from that Lancet article. It's common knowledge.

I also gave you a copy of the British Medical Journal editorial from January 2001, and I've also given you a copy of—

The Chair: It's all here. We have to get it translated first, okay.

Col Ken Scott: These are medical journals, and when I was asked to come here a few days ago.... I cannot translate them, but I gave you a copy of the March 2001 issue from Clinical Medicine by Dr. Simon Wessely, which discusses ten years after the Gulf War and puts this whole thing—

Mr. Peter Goldring: When did you submit all of these articles?

Col Ken Scott: When did I submit them?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

Col Ken Scott: I gave them in yesterday.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I would ask a question of the chair. If we knew these articles were forthcoming, and this is information pertinent to this meeting, was there some reason or explanation for why this information wouldn't have been distributed?

The Chair: I think I've said it twice, but I'll say it three times, Mr. Goldring. We have to get the material translated. It's a rule of this committee that the material—

Mr. Leon Benoit: We haven't been able to do it.

The Chair: —that the material be translated. Members have been provided material on the issue. You have your own research sources as well. We are going to make this available to you just as soon as it's translated.

Some of this material, by the way, is also available through public sources. I imagine the European Commission study would have been available on their website.

Col Ken Scott: BMJ is on a website as well. They're all free.

The Chair: Yes. So as an aid to the committee we're going to try to get this to you just as quickly as possible, and I've already undertaken to do that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just a point of order. Why, in situations like this in the future, can't you as chair of the committee just notify us as to where on the Internet we can find this material ahead of time so we have it ahead of time? That would be much appreciated.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Benoit, I'm not in a position to provide you with research information in terms of every subject that is coming before the committee. We do have research staff. If you want, you can ask the research staff for material, and I'm sure they will be more than pleased to provide you with whatever material is available.

There are volumes and volumes of material—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But this is information that was already given to the committee, Mr. Chair, by the witnesses appearing today.

The Chair: And I explained why it's not available.

• 1640

Mr. Leon Benoit: But you got it yesterday. Could you not have just told us the Internet sites so we could—

The Chair: This may have been sent yesterday; it was only received by the committee today.

Mr. Peter Goldring: On the same point of order, given that the material is here now and is being translated, could we reserve judgment on whether to call Colonel Scott back in for further questions about this new information?

The Chair: Mr. Goldring, you're a member of the steering committee. It's fully within your right as a member of the steering committee to ask for Colonel Scott to return again.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Some of us, as I stated, have to leave to go catch a plane. But I've talked with my colleague on the government side about hearing the lady's presentation. She has just flown in, apparently, from Medicine Hat.

We don't usually do this—as I said to her, we don't do this. This is not the procedure that should be used, and our colleagues all know this. But she is here, and the doctor and Colonel Scott are here, and I've talked to my colleague and he's willing to give in—not give in, but....

If we give the lady five or seven minutes.... We can't all go asking questions because some of us do have to leave, but we'd like to hear it too. I know you'd let that happen after, but we'd like to hear it. Is that all right with our colleagues? Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Well, I'm in the hands of the committee in terms of dealing with this. I'm prepared to ask the committee if they want to reopen the issue.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): A point of order. Mr. Chair, I don't want to be the bad guy here. I'd like to hear the testimony too, but the fact of the matter is that we don't have all the evidence in front of us for the presentation that's being made. I'd like to have that in my hands. I don't feel I can ask questions of the doctor without knowing what his presentation contains.

So I think we should look at scheduling again and to ask anyone who wants to appear before the committee to contact the clerk, and we can certainly accommodate them. I don't see any problem with that.

An hon. member: We don't have to worry about it now.

Mr. Leon Benoit: On the point of order, it seems a little bit unfair when the argument from the chair was that he got this information yesterday and wouldn't give it to us, and repeated this morning—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, the first time I saw this information was approximately an hour ago—a little over an hour ago.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On the point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We have rules for this committee that we've used for years relating to material that has come forward from witnesses with respect to translation. In fairness to the rules of this committee and to our francophone colleagues, I'm suggesting to you that this is no longer an issue. As far as this material is concerned, we want to get on with the witnesses we have before us.

So my reading of Mr. O'Reilly's statement was that, in future, witnesses who want to appear before the committee should go through the normal channels in terms of contacting the chair and going through the steering committee. Is that...?

Mr. John O'Reilly: We have always used the.... This is Mr. Benoit's way of grandstanding; that's fine. But the fact of the matter is that there is a procedure to follow. If a witness asks to appear before the committee, their fee is paid to come here. They appear before the committee and make a presentation, and they supply their material in both official languages so the committee is fully informed.

I feel our hands are tied now because we don't have the material in front of us that we should have in order to examine the witness we have now. Then to throw somebody else on us, unscheduled, I think is unfair to the clerk, and it's unfair to the committee. I'd love to hear them. I have Gulf War veterans in my riding who would probably love to appear here too.

The Chair: I don't think there's any point, quite frankly, in pursuing this any further. There clearly is not unanimous consent. It's been asked twice; it's been refused twice. So we are going to proceed with the meeting.

Mr. Goldring, you have the floor.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We're into the five-minute round.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

• 1645

Colonel Scott, we all want to help in this situation, but one of the problems and difficulties we're having in trying to make headway and gain an understanding of the situation.... We have discussed the information there that I think would have been helpful to us. But there have been other roadblocks along the way in trying to determine what the problem is and trying to investigate it on our own.

I refer to an incident that occurred some three months ago when I began looking at the depleted uranium issue. It occurred when I visited RMC in Kingston. I was very well aware that they had a nuclear reactor there, and the scientists, so that's where I turned for some help and assistance to try to understand.

I was having a fairly informative conversation with one of the members there who was explaining to me about the radioactive components of it and the hazards of it, and he started talking about how the alpha products, or particles, won't penetrate the skin. They're very safe. But he said, “However, if they're ingested...”, and he started going through the explanations on that. That sounded very serious and very ominous. In other words, this was the smoking gun part of the equation.

I also see here a report from RMC in which it's stated that unlike lead and nickel, uranium has the potential to be both a radiological and a chemical carcinogen. We've done testing, and we've had a discussion on Riordan, and only one test has been done on a bone component.

Pardon me for my confusion and for my concern on this issue, but hasn't it been partially inflicted by the very people who could have helped us, who cut off my telephone conversation so that I couldn't investigate the matter? A member of Parliament being cut off in mid telephone call and referred to a media outlet, for heaven's sakes...it is not cooperating in trying to gain understanding and a solution to the problem.

Why is this? Why has the material been so difficult to locate, so difficult to access, and officials so difficult to talk to, so that we all could gain a good common understanding?

Col Ken Scott: You're asking Dr. Ough, I assume?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I could ask you, Colonel, and maybe Dr. Ough would like to make a comment.

Col Ken Scott: I don't know anything about the RMC incident you are describing. As I said in my opening remarks, uranium is a low-level radiological agent. It emits alpha, beta, and gamma. It is primarily an alpha emitter; that's two protons and two neutrons. In air, alpha emissions would travel four centimetres. They will not travel more than 25 to 80 microns in tissues. They will not penetrate the dead skin. So you are quite correct, sir. Uranium and depleted uranium do not constitute an external hazard. You can lie on a pallet of uranium ammunition, for example. It would not constitute a hazard, for example, to be walking through the countryside in Kosovo.

You are quite correct; for the alpha emissions to cause any problems they have to be ingested. It's not just the GI tract—and fortunately you excrete anything you take in through the GI tract. The ingestion that is of concern or significance is inhalation.

That is why we look back on our experience in the literature of individuals who are occupationally exposed.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But if this was known, why would your testing not focus on where that ingestion would go to, the bloodstream, the bones and bone marrow? Why would you not focus on that type of testing?

Col Ken Scott: First of all, we have a vast amount of experience with inhalational exposure to uranium, which has the identical chemical toxicities and is more radiological—that is, more radioactive—and that experience spans over five decades, including workers who have been followed for periods exceeding thirty years without an increased incidence of cancer or leukemia.

Once uranium is incorporated into the body, no matter how you do it, whether you inject it into the blood—and there have been studies where people have been injected intravenously—whether you swallow it and you absorb a minute amount, whether you inhale it, whether you have shrapnel, it establishes an equilibrium throughout your body. So any body tissue should be able to give you an isotope ratio that is compatible with the total body stores.

• 1650

The gold standard used throughout the world to look at occupationally exposed individuals is a 24-hour urine collection. I think at this point in time, with all the available evidence that we have about uranium, to start doing bone marrow biopsies on people, a very invasive procedure, would have to have a significant amount of medical and scientific evidence to back it up.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, if I may, I have to leave, and I didn't want to leave and be rude and not say goodbye. I want to thank the honourable members from the military for their presentations.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm going to take the rest of Mr. Goldring's time. He has offered me the rest of his time.

The Chair: There is no more time, Mr. Benoit. It's over the time.

We now have Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Iles, BQ): I have a very short question. What is the name of the two laboratories that did the tests you mentioned in your presentation?

[English]

Col Ken Scott: Their names are the Activation Laboratories—

Mr. Gilles Perron: What's the name?

Col Ken Scott: The Activation and Becquerel laboratories in the province of Ontario.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman, let us say that, in order not to offend anyone, that I believe Colonel Scott when he says that uranium is not harmful. However, I am 60 years old and have been working for a year and a half on the files of young people, male and female, who are 31 years old—my son is 32—who have been very sick, losing their hair, having libido problems—libido has to do with sexual relations, Mr. Scott—having bone problems, getting cancer, all sorts of things about which nothing is done. We do nothing for these young people.

Let us be honest. O.K., maybe uranium is not the cause of their poor health. But these young people fell ill after they came back from the Balkans. As Canadian citizens, they have a right to be looked after. We have a duty to look after them. We have a duty to free their minds, to give these young people who are 31 years old...

Colonel, I can tell you that you have...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Perron, I would ask you to direct your comments through the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we have in the Army in Quebec, in the 22nd Regiment in Valcartier, soldiers who remained in the service, who are given special boots because they are no longer able to walk, before they have no strength left in their muscles. They are back from the Balkans. These people are not getting support. They are being neglected.

I even spoke to veterans who told me that these are new cases, that they are not used to work with young veterans who are 31 or 32 years old and who come back sick. They are used to deal with people my age who have hair like those of my friend Ivan Grose and mine, people my age, not youngsters.

I do not have any political capital to make by taking up this cause, but we have a right to know why these young people are sick. Is it due to a combination of drugs? We know that they were given vaccines that caused lumps on their backsides.

These people who are talking to me do not know each other. It is a random sample. These are people who have never seen each other, men and women, but mainly men. They all have the same symptoms: stress, anxiety, muscle problems, bone problems, loss of hair, tremors, lack of strength. They are no longer able to play hockey, they are finished. They are sitting on the railway tracks, at the station, waiting to die. What are we doing for them, as politicians?

Mr. Chairman, if you do not believe me, O.K. fine, I am a liar, but I will bring them here to parade them before your eyes. I hope the steering committee will have enough sense to say yes, let us meet with these people.

• 1655

Some of them are just about at the end of their rope. In Sherbrooke, Mr. Price, one 31 year old, Luc, hanged himself six weeks ago. He hanged himself.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Perron, I feel compelled to—

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: I have finished. Thank you. This is the message I wanted to pass along.

[English]

The Chair: —tell you that if you were looking for a response to your—

Mr. Gilles Perron: I don't want any response, my friend.

The Chair: You still have 28 seconds then, if you want to continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: Thank you for listening to me, my friends. I hope something will be done.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: There's no question that there's a lot of truth in what Mr. Perron is saying. We really aren't doing enough.

I'll go in another direction right now. Actually, there's something that's been bothering me for a while. It doesn't concern us directly, but it concerns us as good world citizens keeping an interest in what's been going on with DU.

During the Kosovo war we heard a lot about planes coming back from Kosovo and having to dump the munitions. A lot of that happened in the lakes in Kosovo, it happened in the ocean before they got to Italy, and it happened in some of the lakes in Italy.

I'm wondering if in the long term any testing has been done, or is any testing going to be done, about these masses of shells together, with let's say different materials that are there? What kind of reaction has there been in salt water and in fresh water? What's the bottom line here? What's going to happen with that?

Granted, none of these shells are ours. These are not Canadian. We'll make that very clear, because we didn't have any; they were American, basically. But as I say, as good corporate citizens of the world, I think it's something we should be talking about. Has anything been looked at in that field?

Col Ken Scott: I don't know anything about the dumping of shells, but Dr. Ough has some experience and knowledge about uranium in water that he may be able to help you with.

Mr. David Price: Particularly combined with whatever chemicals are in those shells and the munitions to make them go off and so on.

Dr. Edward Ough: First, to my understanding, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the Warthog, held the only depleted uranium used in Kosovo—

Mr. David Price: That's right.

Dr. Edward Ough: —so it would have to be A-10—

Mr. David Price: But they were in masses, so when they dropped those—

Dr. Edward Ough: No, they were only using 30-millimetre shells for depleted uranium; they were the Gatling gun equivalent to bullets. I haven't heard of dumping of depleted uranium into lakes.

The GAU-8 shells had a coating on them, so it's going to be a slow process of getting to the uranium. But what's going to happen is it will slowly oxidize and will become part of the water system.

If you do the math, it's probably a very minuscule amount compared to the natural levels in that water supply, especially if you get into the ocean. The ocean, if my recollection is correct, is about ten times higher in natural uranium compared to freshwater supplies, so really it's a very small amount in a very large amount.

Mr. David Price: Having you here I had to ask that question, because it's been bothering me—

Dr. Edward Ough: You have to understand too that within Canada the World Health Organization puts the level of uranium in drinking water at two micrograms per litre as their upper level. Health Canada did a study a few years back. We have private wells in Canada that range upwards to almost 800 micrograms per litre. We have people who are on drinking water that's 400 times higher than the World Health Organization limits on uranium in drinking water.

Mr. David Price: Dr. Scott, to continue on with what you might call the other conditions, what I'd call symptoms, similar to fibro and polymyalgia that a lot of people end up with, they're mostly stress related. If we compare the people with those types of conditions on a per capita basis to our regular citizens, what shows up there?

Col Ken Scott: Those multiple idiopathic physical symptoms do end up falling out into diagnoses. They include chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, and soft tissue pain syndrome. As to whether they are found more often in the military population than in the civilian population at large, in the literature chronic fatigue syndrome was originally described in 1750, when it was called febricula. Virtually all the literature on chronic fatigue syndrome until the mid-1940s is in the military medical literature. It is describing people who have returned from conflicts. At a presentation I was in two months ago there was a beautiful description of veterans returning from the Boer War and the Crimean War with these identical types of symptoms.

• 1700

So it's certainly been well described over a long period of time. As to whether anybody knows what the underlying cause is of fibromyalgia or myofascial pain syndrome, I would say there is a very poor understanding of those conditions. From our Goss Gilroy study we know there's a higher prevalence in our Gulf War veterans of things like fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome than in the population used in the Ontario health survey of 1990. But those were not common diagnoses.

The Chair: Colonel, I am going to have to cut you off here, because we've got other questioners.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, Colonel Scott, Dr. Ough.

You said you believe these soldiers who think they are suffering as a result of depleted uranium are suffering from something else, some type of post-traumatic stress disorder. By the way, soldiers prefer to call it combat stress disorder. Do you believe that Canadian soldiers suffering from these conditions are being treated properly right now?

Col Ken Scott: I in fact said the PTSD was one of our more uncommon types of diagnoses. What are we doing for our CF population? We're still the first group to establish clinics to see veterans of any deployment. No other country has done that at this point in time. So we have clinics where VAC clients, people who've left the military, can come back. Because you are quite correct, in the civilian world, when you tell an individual you're a veteran of Rwanda or the Gulf, there's a lack of understanding. So we have the understanding and expertise that exists through these post-deployment clinics.

Also, through the efforts of General Dallaire, there have been established multiple clinics across this country called operational trauma and stress support centres, OTSSCs. These currently are only available to serving members. The OTSSCs are a multi-disciplinary clinic with psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, padres, and those sorts of things.

Mr. Leon Benoit: For active duty soldiers?

Col Ken Scott: Yes. Now the average OTSSC—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Why does it seem so difficult for these soldiers to get any service from these centres? The complaint is so common. It's not isolated. You can't possibly claim that it's isolated. Soldiers are just going over the edge because they're not getting treatment for these things,

Col Ken Scott: The average time in the six OTSSCs it takes to be seen by a specialist at that facility is four months. In many of the cities where these centres operate the average time to gain access to mental health workers is 12 to 18 months.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're satisfied with the way soldiers like Corporal McEachern are being treated by the military.

Col Ken Scott: No. I'm telling you that the average time is four months. I think it would be nice if it were shorter. In comparison to the civilian world, it's better. Can we do better? Absolutely. Is it fair that Veterans Affairs Canada clients cannot gain access to these centres? They can with our post-deployment clinics, but not with these OTSSCs. We have not opened this up. We are in the discussion phase of this, because we think it would be a good idea to do that sort of thing, to have the VAC clients come and use these clinics as well. But we have to make sure that we put in place the personnel resources, the psychiatrists and psychologists, for example, to see these people first—

Mr. Leon Benoit: On that—

The Chair: Have you finished your answer, Colonel Scott?

Mr. Leon Benoit: On that, Colonel Scott, do you believe the civilian psychologists—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I'm asking Colonel Scott. He hasn't been able—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate—

The Chair: You've asked him three questions, and he hasn't been able to answer each one fully.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chairman, if I'm satisfied with the answer, what is wrong with my pursuing the line of questioning?

The Chair: I'm not saying anything is wrong with it—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I was satisfied that he'd answered.

The Chair: I'm just trying to give the witness an opportunity to provide information.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But I think it would be more productive if you wouldn't interfere with my line of questioning, Mr. Chairman. We're getting nowhere with this.

The Chair: Please direct your questions through the chair as well.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, well, thank you.

• 1705

Colonel, do you feel that civilian psychologists are able to provide appropriate care in cases like Corporal McEachern's, where the problem is a result of combat conditions or combat-like conditions? You see horrific things, like a woman being raped in this case, with the orders to do nothing, or a soldier or a policeman beaten to death, with the ability to do nothing.

In cases like this, do you feel that civilian psychologists can really provide proper care? I know the soldiers don't. They want to see somebody helping them who at least understands a little bit about what kinds of things they've actually faced.

Col Ken Scott: I understand that. It is a feeling that I often share myself. I have no evidence to support that, and I think my civilian psychiatry and psychology colleagues would take exception to me stating that we would do a better job. I have absolutely zero evidence of that.

I would agree with you that many people who wear uniforms, who have been in uniform, would prefer to go to the OTSSC, staffed through the military by people who see military types of things all the time.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So what are you doing to allow that to happen for more people who have experienced this type of thing, more psychologists to be available to soldiers who need them?

Col Ken Scott: As I've just told you, right now we're at a four-month waiting list. In the civilian world, it is twelve—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're implying that everything is just fine, that these soldiers are getting at least the care they should expect, because it's better than the care that civilians are getting.

Col Ken Scott: You never let me finish. I also say—

The Chair: Colonel, could you please finish?

Mr. Benoit, I hate to use this term, but I think you're bordering on badgering Colonel Scott on this.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm just trying to get some answers, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Colonel Scott, go ahead, please.

Col Ken Scott: I believe, and I've just told you, that the service we offer right now is better than in the civilian world. I also stated earlier that I believe we can do better.

I also believe—it's a personal opinion of mine—that Veterans Affairs' clients not currently eligible for these centres should also be allowed to come into them.

First of all, the waiting times would be shorter, and as you've mentioned, they would be seen by people who have expertise in this area, who know the military. We are trying, and we are in negotiations with Veterans Affairs Canada to see if we can staff these clinics with the resources that are necessary to provide the service that these people deserve. We need to get the psychiatrists and the psychologists in there. We are competing in this country for health resources, personnel resources, that are in very short supply. There aren't a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists out there. We have to compete to try to bring these people in.

But I agree with you, I would like to bring more people in. I would like to bring down the waiting times—and health care delivery is not my responsibility.

The Chair: Colonel, I'm going to have to cut you off there because we have other questioners who wish to ask questions.

Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Colonel Scott, for appearing.

Concerning my first question, I have people in my riding who were involved in the Gulf War and went over as what I thought were perfectly healthy people and came back as sick people, both mentally and physically.

I know the syndrome is an unrelated body of evidence, and that is why it's called a syndrome; a disease is a body of evidence that can be treated. A lot of people have used both of those words today in the context of maybe associating this with a disease when it's actually a syndrome. So I assume you have an inconclusive body of evidence.

Is there any type of investigation going on that would link depleted uranium and the Gulf War syndrome? Is that an avenue that has been looked at exclusively, or one that has not been explored in its full context?

My second question would be about the reliability of the testing. Were civilian laboratories used, or were they strictly military laboratories? I wouldn't call into question anyone's integrity on it, but I always think if you're providing a sample to a person who is looking for a specific item, or not looking for it, the tests might be different if it were a different laboratory. I wonder if you could comment on that.

• 1710

Col Ken Scott: People return from conflicts, from the Crimean to the Boer wars, with illnesses. I didn't go through that, but in each of those conflicts, doctors have described a syndrome. You can put blank war syndrome for each and every single one of those conflicts.

Multiple expert medical and scientific panels have reviewed the evidence of illnesses in Gulf War veterans, for example, and have concluded that there was no illness unique to the Gulf War. The types of diagnoses we see are the types you can find in the population in general.

That is not to say that people are not unwell or that those diagnoses are not related to those deployments. We have a rich literature that suggests that people who go off on deployments come back with fatigue, memory problems, sleep disturbances, shortness of breath—those sorts of complaints. So there is a significant amount of information available that people return with those sorts of problems.

On the depleted uranium, the group that all the expert panels have suggested needs to be studied most closely is individuals who have those friendly fire incidents. They're the ones who are being followed over time.

In terms of illnesses in our Canadian veterans group, the illness rate in all Canadian veterans groups is identical. If depleted uranium was a factor in illnesses, it has to obey the laws of physics, which is dose and duration. If uranium was the factor, it could not be that the illness rate in 1 Canadian Field Hospital is identical to the illness rate in headquarters in Bahrain, the illness rate at Canada Dry One and Two in Qatar, the illness rate in individuals who served in the naval blockade in Sector Charlie, and the illness rate in Canadian units that rotated home before the war. That could not happen.

On your question in terms of the laboratories, the laboratories we use are both civilian laboratories, Activation and Becquerel; they are not government-type laboratories. Perhaps Dr. Ough might want to add something.

Dr. Edward Ough: Yes, they are both civilian.

For a large number of samples, the samples were sent directly from the veterans to the laboratory, so DND had no hands-on at all with them. All the labs knew was that they were receiving, in the initial instance, urine samples to do total and isotopic uranium assays. They didn't know what to look for in their samples. Subsequently, one lab was given hair samples on which to do an isotopic assay because of low total uranium concentrations.

You should note that both of these labs are commercial labs that do work with the nuclear industry, so they are well versed in the analysis of urine samples.

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly, your time has expired.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

Dr. Scott, it has been suggested that part of the difficulty and problem of having medical concerns could be made a lot easier through the facility of being recognized as full war veterans—in other words, for the people back from the Gulf War to have official recognition status as a war veteran—for accessing long-term care centres and other medical interventions. Could you comment on that?

Col Ken Scott: I think you're dealing with two separate issues. I will tell you what my own personal feelings are.

I believe anybody who has served this country on any deployment, including within this country, for the ice storms, the Manitoba floods, or the Saguenay floods, is a veteran. I believe we should all be veterans. I think it's a disservice to the members in uniform that we are not called veterans. That's a personal opinion of mine.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would it make any difference?

Col Ken Scott: I think the other issue is benefits. I believe if individuals are injured in the service of this country, whether it's in Saguenay in the floods or in the ice storm, or in Rwanda or East Timor, their benefits should be the same. But that is my opinion.

• 1715

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'll go back to my original concern.

Quite frankly, I can't see how we can compare the exposure of people working in uranium mines—more or less normal situations like that, where there's higher concentration of uranium levels—with a catastrophic explosion, pieces of material being propelled at thousands of feet a second, and trying to compare the two as being....

In short, I feel that because of the packaging, and how we manufacture that material, and because of the burning, pyrophoric characteristic of uranium, the state of the material itself could be immeasurably altered too. My very, very big concern is that we have done no studies on the effects of containment on this material.

Have you been part of, or do you have information or documentation on, the types of studies that have been done on the actual explosion of this material itself with the containment testing?

Col Ken Scott: Yes, there are studies on that. There are ongoing studies, as I answered what I thought was your question earlier. The Capstone project is filling in some gaps.

I also mentioned to you that there are humans being studied who were involved in those very incidents of which you speak. There are now 63 individuals being followed at the Baltimore veterans affairs centre, including 15 with embedded shrapnel.

The most recent report on those individuals was on January 26, 2001, in Alexandria, Virginia. There has been a zero effect from exposure to depleted uranium on the health of those individuals being followed through the Baltimore VA centre. They have fathered 38 healthy children.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Chairman, could we have those reports tabled, so we can all be informed of the results?

The Chair: Okay.

Dr. Ough had some additional information he wanted to provide on that.

Dr. Edward Ough: First off, this is a health risk assessment, from the U.S., of hard impacts. This is, pretty well to date, the information the United States has. They recognize they have gaps in their information and they're working to fill those gaps.

If you want this, I can give you an e-mail or a website address where it can be picked up. It's voluminous at best. This is the first one. There are two more binders of appendices.

Mr. Peter Goldring: My file is growing, but I do like to have all the information I possibly can.

Dr. Edward Ough: The second thing is—

The Chair: Perhaps the clerk could speak to you later, Dr. Ough, about getting that information.

Dr. Edward Ough: The second thing is, to a certain extent, you can look at the nuclear industry and relate back.

Uranium is present in the air. We all breathe it in, and there are studies showing two organs in the body where uranium will increase over time as you age—in the bones and in the lungs, the pulmonary lymph nodes. We do know that uranium in the air will accumulate. People in the nuclear industry are going to be exposed to uranium of a respirable size, a size that will be inhaled.

Yes, you can use that information. In your case, you're talking about people who, if they are going to get an exposure, it's going to be a big, one-time exposure. The people in the nuclear industry are going to get consistent, low-dose exposure, but they will have....

I haven't seen anything on it, because to be quite honest, you're not going to be pulling out biopsy samples of somebody's pulmonary lymph node easily. But I would expect if you take a look at uranium mine and mill workers, they're going to show an increase in the lungs.

The Chair: Actually, your time has expired. Mr. O'Reilly has a question, but I'm sure we'll be able to get back to you.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I have a short question to follow up what I asked previously.

The one thing I've noticed, and I wonder if there's any evidence of it, is that the people suffering what we would consider Gulf War syndrome appear to have more problems than.... There's a loss of hair, there's a loss of memory, there's a loss of physical ability to function, there's a loss of muscle coordination—there are a number of things I don't think are associated with job-related stress.

• 1720

I'll give you an example. I was an ambulance operator for a short time, until I had to pick up five or six bodies and parts on the road. I suffered from that. It affected me mentally for a long time—flashbacks, and you wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, you relive it—but I didn't lose my hair, I didn't lose physical functions. I gradually worked my way out of that and those types of incidences.

I'm having problems dealing with the Gulf War syndrome. I'm trying to find out what causes that difference that wasn't there. You can look at the examples within the military, that of General Dallaire, who has what we've all recognized as stress syndrome. He's physically in exceedingly good health. So there is something more to this than what we have here. I don't know whether there's a denial on the part of the military, or there's a denial on the part of medical experts, or what it is, but there's more to it than that.

Is that what we're all trying to get to? We have this thing in our mind that there's more to it than that. When we look to you for expert advice, I don't want to hear about some study done in Italy, I want to find out what more we can do to get to the bottom of it.

Col Ken Scott: I think you would enjoy the one article that I've given you by Dr. Wessely, from March of this year, where he tries to look at factors in the illnesses of our veteran population, no matter what their deployment. I would reiterate that there are no illnesses unique to the Gulf War.

In my chronic fatigue practice, many of the patients I see are far more disabled than patients I follow with, say, HIV. Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, myofascial pain syndrome, and fibromyalgia have incredibly poor quality of life.

The interesting and fascinating thing is that these war illnesses and syndromes that go back 150 years tend to persist, and people continue to have problems for periods that last 30 years. Interestingly enough, we had suspicions in the past that people tend to get better with time. There have now been two studies in the United States and one in the United Kingdom using an instrument called the SF-36, which measures psychological and physical well-being. They've gone back and looked at veterans they had earlier examined, and in all three of those studies, Gulf War veterans improved; their psychological and physical well-being improved.

We, as a western-based society, separate the mind and the body, the psyche and the soma. It is very much a modern western phenomenon. It is not something you find in the past, and it is not something you find in non-western societies. It dates to the time of Descartes and the Enlightenment. I think it's very unfortunate, because I believe very firmly that the mind has an incredible influence on the body, and vice versa. There's a very wise internist who practises in Chicago, by the name of William Kissick, who has published a book you might want to read called Medicine's Dilemmas. He has said in that book “You can be ill without being diseased, and diseased without being ill.”

I agree that we need to find out more about these illnesses in our veteran population. We are looking at trying to do a longitudinal study beginning at the recruit level, doing very detailed questionnaires and examinations, and then being able to follow these people through their careers, including when they deploy. Can we identify factors that are going to make them return from any deployment? I will bet you any deployment we go on, we are going to see these things, including Ethiopia right now.

The Chair: Colonel Scott, I have to cut you off there.

Mr. Goldring, last round, five minutes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the other concerns I had from your explanations was that there seemed to be a considerable attempt to make radioactive materials sound very safe, to say that it's everywhere, regardless of concentration levels. Coming from a background of private business where I have been around a limited amount of it, with a few hundred thousand smoke detectors, where they do use americium and other forms of radioactive material.... We had smoke detectors in the early 1950s and 1960s that had a higher level of radioactive material in them, such that if you wanted three on this ceiling you had to have certificates from Atomic Energy Canada. Your building had to be certified for this smoke detector. That was very common. Saying it's very common, it's harmless, and it's innocent, I think puts too much stress on that.

• 1725

I do agree with my colleague, though, that our main purpose is trying to determine cause and effect. Even though I am obviously working hard on trying to find if this is the smoking gun or not, if I can be rationally and reasonably satisfied that it's not, then obviously we'll put our attentions on another direction.

I don't find your explanations solid enough to date. Maybe there's other information we could have that will help clarify it. I'm not prepared to accept that we do not have something here to investigate very seriously. I still think, in my mind because I haven't been convinced otherwise, there is some type of diabolical material here. Whether it's in the aerosol or whether it's in the uranium and the material itself, I feel there is something here that is causing it.

It's as my colleague said. Stress, losing hair, losing other things, and having illnesses seem to be more symptomatic of radioactive poisoning from my limited understanding.

I hope you can appreciate my questioning. I wish you could convince me today that I could close this file, but you haven't convinced me. I hope some day you will be able to.

Col Ken Scott: I always respect your right to have your own opinion. Surely this is what democracy is all about.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This isn't just my own opinion. There is opinion from around the world, from Italy, from Germany, and from other countries. There's controversy all around. This isn't just my own opinion. I'm looking for you. I'm looking for RMC Kingston. I'm looking for help. I'm looking for you to convince me I'm wrong.

Col Ken Scott: You're not getting the medical opinion. All of those countries you just mentioned, including Italy, are unanimous.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Is this medical or is this nucleonics? What level of understanding do we have to have to be able to resolve this?

Col Ken Scott: It's medical. It's people who have expertise in this subject. The medical opinion is unanimous. That is why the other speaker, and again I don't remember who asked the question, was asking about the statements people get. There is a huge amount of information. This is an exposure for which we have....

Mr. Peter Goldring: I hope in the days and months to follow that you—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Goldring. This is not a conversation. I'd ask you to direct your comments through the chair, and I would like to have Colonel Scott finish his responses. I don't feel he's being given the opportunity to complete his answer.

Colonel Scott.

Col Ken Scott: This is unique because this is an exposure for which, unlike many things that we deal with in the Canadian Forces, there is a huge amount of information. I think that is why you are able to see an organization such as the European Commission, the expert panel that was convened in January, render its opinion by March 6. This isn't something for which we don't know a lot about; this is something for which we have a huge amount of information.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I hope we'll find it in the information to come. I do hope that.

The Chair: Dr. Ough.

Dr. Edward Ough: The one problem I have is there is a lot of testing going on. We have a lot of groups put their data on the table. All those tests come back and they don't show positive tests for depleted uranium.

As a scientist, I'm open to discussion on anything. The problem I have is the one dissenting voice who keeps saying there are positive cases has yet to present material in peer-reviewed journals so everyone else can have a look at it. That's the one thing. There has to be a certain amount of skepticism until they put it on the table, all of it on the table, so everyone can have a look at it.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, in DND anything that has been done with the DND testing is available to everyone. It's the same thing in the U.S. The Germans have released their study. You have the Belgians' testing. The International Red Cross has tested. All of this is available to us. The uranium medical projects data is not available.

• 1730

The Chair: With that, I'd like to adjourn the committee.

Before I do, I'd like to thank both of our witnesses, Colonel Scott and Dr. Ough, for your testimony. Obviously there was some fairly aggressive questioning. I hope that didn't throw you off your game. I thought you did quite well. Again, thank you for being here today.

Col Ken Scott: Thank you for inviting us.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.