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, June 7, 2001

• 1530

[English]

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

With us today is Susan Riordon, appearing as an individual in connection with the state of readiness of the Canadian Forces; and also Mary Ripley-Guzman, president of the board of directors of the Uranium Medical Research Centre. On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome both of you.

I must remind the committee, as I'm sure many of you are aware, that we expect to be voting later this afternoon. The bells are going to ring at approximately 5:15. However, they could ring before then, so I suggest that we try to get about five minutes of other business, maybe housekeeping items, done between 5:20 and 5:25 p.m. Then we'll adjourn the committee so that we can make it to the vote in the House of Commons at 5:30.

So we should probably be able to go until about 5:20 p.m. I expect we're going to have quite a few questions in that time. But let's get directly to your presentations, Mrs. Riordon and Ms. Ripley-Guzman.

Mrs. Riordon, you have the floor.

Ms. Susan H. Riordon (Individual Presentation): Thank you. I appeared before this committee before in 1998 as a wife. Now I appear before you as the widow of Captain J. Terry Riordon, who served this country for 23 years.

Because time is very limited, I will bring the pertinent points to you.

There was no Gulf War in Canada. Under international or domestic law, it did not exist—or so the government deems—although our honourable Prime Minister did talk about the Gulf War when he declared Veterans' Week on February 2, 1999. I can't figure that one out.

Captain Riordon graduated from Royal Roads Military College at age 33 at above-average intelligence: he had a global assessment of functioning of 98. When he left the military, his GAF was 45: impairment of communication, illogical speech, unable to work, problems with family relationships. A couple of years before Terry died on April 29, 1999, he was at a GAF of 20: some danger of hurting himself or others, suicide attempts without clear explanation of death, frequently violent, failure to maintain personal hygiene, gross impairment in communication, largely incoherent.

The man you sent to the Gulf had a GAF of 98. The man I cremated had a GAF of probably less than 20. This was the man who got a B average from Royal Roads with two kids and a wife—more power to him.

Terry was deployed to the Persian Gulf on 32 hours' notice. They called him up at 10 o'clock on Christmas morning and said, “You're off tomorrow.” So the next day he was off.

He didn't actually get there on December 26, as was stated by Colonel Ken Scott in his article “Depleted Uranium, Depleted Intelligence”. That was supported by the National Gulf War Veterans Association, and it appeared in December's issue. It's impossible to get from Halifax to the United Arab Emirates, and that's okay. Ken Scott really wasn't expected to know where Terry was.

Terry was in civilian clothes, as an acting intelligence officer—not an intelligence officer.

He did not return home until approximately February 21, 1991. He returned home ill. He went over there well to serve his country and he came home very sick. In March 1991 it was documented that he had loss of motor control, chronic fatigue, respiratory difficulties, chest pain, difficulty breathing, sleep problems, short-term memory loss, testicle pain, bone aches, pains, diarrhoea, depression. All that was in March 1991—he'd only been home a few days.

• 1535

Well, we fought with Veterans Affairs over that one. They decided they had erred, and that went through. But it didn't go through for many years. In 1991, the military said: “No, you do not go to Veterans Affairs. You're just stressed out from the war.” He had no war. So they said, “Well, he's probably got major depression, chronic obstructive lung disease, but we'll hide that obstructive lung disease.” Actually, he didn't find that out until 1998, when he was a civilian again.

He was completely and totally misdiagnosed by the former Gulf War clinic, and by Mr. Ken Scott, with left temporal lobe epilepsy. That is proven by documents you have before you. One year of being misdiagnosed caused Terry more than you'll ever know, and it also cost our family. This government, financially and emotionally, raped our entire family. And I mean that in the strictest sense of the word.

It took me until 1998 to find out that Terry had a clinical diagnosis of Gulf War syndrome, diagnosed in 1995 by Ken Scott. I was shocked and appalled that a senior military officer would be less than forthcoming, less than honest with these honourable members, to say it doesn't exist and yet he can diagnose it. That's a good one. That's up to you. I have to tell you the truth. If you don't demand it from your military officers, so be it. It's our country.

There's a whole whack of these documents on Gulf War syndrome. You might want to talk to Kenny Scott to see exactly what his CV is. That's why I went to Asaf Durakovic for help. This is his CV. Where would I weigh in Ken Scott's? I think there's quite a difference, because in the testimony I read, Ken didn't bother to table his CV. So if this is a fact-finding committee for the truth, you have the truth, and it came from a civilian and it came from a military widow.

Why is it not coming from the military officers? I would really like an answer to that. As representatives of this government, you held Terry's life in your hands. You now hold my life in your hands, and thousands of others who are ill, injured, and dying. And don't forget, I am collateral damage as much as our military members are. All wives and partners are.

Terry had a clinical diagnosis of burning semen. The Americans call it “shooting fire”. He was told by Ken Scott that he was bored with sex. I don't know about that one either, but that certainly wasn't the case. Terry fathered two children, yet shortly before he died it was found he was sterile. He was a cross-country runner, a marathon runner. A week after he returned from the Gulf, in March, he could not run a kilometre.

I read all these derogatory comments. I don't mind being a pit bull, and I don't mind reading “Depleted Uranium, Depleted Intelligence”, and fact and fiction by Colonel Ken Scott, or who's who in the Uranium Medical Project.

Captain Terry Riordon. Terry's dead. Terry died for this country over two years ago, and I'm still paying for it. The military put two penalties on his pension, so that as a widow I only get 60%.

• 1540

The last time I appeared before a standing committee, they paid $588 for 24 hours of care for Terry. I did not obtain that. I took care of Terry for nine years. Now I'm physically unable to work for more than three or four hours a day. You've taken my health in caring for my husband. I'm cheap labour, collateral damage. Being D/W 785 while I was in Europe was bad enough—of course, then I couldn't collect unemployment insurance.

The point I'm making is that you take a lot from the partners, not just the serving members. I'm 46 years old, and I will never work again. The government controls my income. I saw the Minister of National Defence—at his request—on March 2, 2000. On March 3, Terry's entire pay records went to the director of pay services for audit—just a general audit. They're still there.

So I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to read what Kenny-Boy has to say about Terry. But now I've brought you the truth. The military released Captain Riordon on a 3(a): unfit for any employment in any environment. Yet they take money from his pension that would have assisted him in his life. He did not stay his full term because he was misdiagnosed: he was ill, injured, and dying.

Now that he's dead, they're looking to take more money away. Terry's been dead over two years, but Veterans Affairs still has his file open.

The American Veterans Affairs has a pamphlet to assist Gulf War veterans and their families, who are what we call collateral damage.

Well, I am asking you now. Terry gave his life for you. I gave mine. My children have suffered enough. I am asking this board to award all back pay of Terry's two penalties on his Canadian Forces pension for my lifetime, the full amount of pension, with no restriction, and a letter of apology for keeping the file in audit for over a year. I am also officially asking Veterans Affairs to be awarded an attendance allowance, level one, as well as the Veterans Independence Program.

I was the first non-military female to go through the Veterans Affairs system. Terry never walked in that building, never went to a board review. He was not capable.

I've given my health now. I've given you my husband. I cremated him; I had him harvested for research. I have given enough. What I am asking is the minimum to maintain myself for my lifetime only. I have paid for my own cremation.

This is the man you took 23 years from. This is what he came home to: morphine, Artane, erasat, Tylenol-4, inhalers, Depends, baby food and juice, wheelchairs. He was 45 when he died at home. And the military didn't know, because he was still under the National Secrets Act.

Well, somebody had better open those national secrets, because Captain Terry Riordon tested positive for depleted uranium poisoning. Dr. Asaf Durakovic's CV supports everything they found in Terry's body. Terry can give no more to this country. He even gave in death. I can give you no more but the truth.

• 1545

I'm asking this committee formally for those two things. I'm also asking for an answer about why this happened. I am prepared to be completely and fully honest about my own medical health, and yet you let a military officer lie to you.

Terry's official cause of death was Gulf War syndrome, clinically diagnosed in 1995 by Ken Scott, the same man who says it doesn't exist. I would appreciate an answer on that. I would be happy to answer any questions you have in a more forthright manner than your own officers did.

The Chair: Mrs. Riordon, thank you very much for your presentation.

I don't know what information you have with respect to the powers of this committee, but I feel compelled to inform you that we don't have the statutory authority to grant pensions at this committee. This is a policy-making body. We are here to hear about your experiences with respect to the system in general.

Any remedial action you feel should be taken by the Government of Canada, in terms of its responsibilities to you and to your deceased husband, will have to be directed towards the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence.

Ms. Ripley-Guzman, do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this point?

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman (President of the Board of Directors, Uranium Medical Research Centre): Yes, I want to present the study that determined the depleted uranium in Terry's bones. I want to present the science around the depleted uranium so that you can understand the difference between natural uranium and depleted uranium, and how and why we did the study. I have a slide presentation too.

The Chair: Okay.

Mrs. Wayne?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Chairman, regarding what you were saying to Mrs. Riordon, I think every one of us has great concerns about Mrs. Riordon's presentation. Certainly, I wouldn't want her to feel that we're just going to listen. If we feel there's a legitimate concern there, then I think as a defence committee we have an obligation to make the minister aware of our concerns.

I think we have an obligation to do that, because I would not want Mrs. Riordon to go away thinking, well, I came, but they're not going to do anything. We can't start policy that would correct it, but we can make recommendations—I want her to know that.

The Chair: Yes. I wanted to make it clear to Mrs. Riordon about what exactly she has requested from the committee. Mrs. Riordon, maybe you could tell us again in your own words what you were hoping for from this committee. I think it was with respect to a pension—

Ms. Susan Riordon: I am asking for a policy from this committee. I have gone to Veterans Affairs; I have gone to the Minister of National Defence. Terry's file is still open at Veterans Affairs. There is still money owing two years after his death. As for going to the Minister of National Defence, I'm still awaiting an audit after over a year. I am asking this committee to institute policy.

The Chair: That is precisely what we're here for.

Ms. Susan Riordon: Yes. That is what I am asking you to do: not to blanketly award this, but to understand the needs of the collateral damage done to those left behind—the widows, the partners, the children.

I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that I am ill now from caring for Terry, and policy needs to be put in place. I may be the first one asking you for this, but I am only the first. There will be many behind me.

• 1550

I'm asking you, if nobody stood by Terry, and very few did, somebody stand for us, the widows.

The Chair: At this point I think it would be best to get on with Ms. Ripley-Guzman's presentation.

I think more than anything else we have to get the facts out on the table, in terms of the information you want to transmit, and then it will be up to the committee to pursue whatever lines of action it wishes to with respect to this and other matters.

Ms. Ripley-Guzman, you have the floor.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: I'm here for the Uranium Medical Research Centre. We're an independent group of scientists who have taken on this problem because veterans, mainly from England, asked us to do a study because they couldn't get the proper studies done from their own government and their own military.

Terry Riordon. Through Sue's incredible efforts to find everything for her husband, we slipped her husband's urine in with a bunch of British we were testing, and he came up positive. I was talking to Susan Riordon a few weeks before his death and I said, if we're going to test more Canadians, we'd need urine, and really the real evidence would be in the bones. So I said, if you can possibly broach this subject with a veteran who is dying and ask the wife if they would be willing to donate the bones, that would provide the most concrete evidence, because it's one thing to have it in your urine, and people can argue that it's going through everybody's urine; it's another thing to have it in the bone. People do not have depleted uranium in their bones.

As it turned out, Terry Riordon died about five days later and she acted very quickly and got us access to the autopsy. We got the bone and it was tested. So this is why we're doing this as an independent research project. I'll take you through the basics of the research.

We're doing a study to determine the quantities of depleted uranium in exposed veterans and civilians. We'll be looking at an outline of the history of the Uranium Medical Research Centre and why we came into being. It's not common for independent scientists to take on this kind of project. It should be done within a university setting. The government normally would support this. If it was AIDS, it would be supported by the government.

Then we'll look at the basics of uranium versus depleted uranium, because a lot of lay people get fooled because the science is rather difficult. If you could slog through the papers written by Dr. Durakovic and Dr. Dietz and spend a couple of weeks doing it, then you would not be fooled by the misconceptions that get thrown about. But because you probably don't have the time to do that, I'm going to try to give you the basics.

Then we'll look at the results of the testing that was done at Memorial University. Until this year, it was the only research institute in the world we could find that was willing to stick their neck out to do this research, and they've been amazing, those Newfies. Now there is a British mass spectrometry lab that has done some tests. They were paid for by the BBC in England, and they tested people from Kosovo, who almost all came up positive for depleted uranium.

Then we're going to look at the next steps, what we feel needs to be done, and will not get done if it's left to the resources of a small group of independent scientists. It needs a much larger and a properly financed research project.

• 1555

The scientists who have been volunteering their time for this research project are, first, Dr. Asaf Durakovic. He's an MD PhD, professor of nuclear medicine and radiology. He has 35 years of research experience in radioisotopes and clinical experience dealing with nuclear medicine. He had a post-doctorate fellowship in the British Medical Council in Oxford, England, over 30 years ago. He had a post-doctoral fellowship in the National Research Council of Canada in Ottawa in 1975, and he studied uranium and transuranic elements.

As a point of interest, when he was doing that 25 years ago and they were studying nannograms, tiny minute quantities, like the quantities that are coming out of these people, they were wearing full gear and they had their badges on before they could go into the lab to do their research on dogs. Then all of a sudden, in the year 1991, all of those precautions were thrown out in the wind because they thought the amounts of depleted uranium, which is a waste by-product of the nuclear reactors, no longer was dangerous. They could use it in the battlefield. They could use it with civilians.

I want to point out the difference between when he was doing this research in the National Research Council and the rules that then applied to dealing with small amounts of radioisotopes, as compared to when it became used by the military. The laws of science and the laws of research changed.

He has over 70 papers published on the medical effects of radiation. He assisted with the Children of Chernobyl Project in the Hadassah University in Jerusalem, and he has given over 200 international invited lectures on nuclear and radiation medicine.

This is also a problem. I've seen it because I have accompanied Dr. Durakovic to conferences in Europe, France, Belgium, and England. The people within the military who are the experts don't have that kind of expertise. They haven't done research in the labs with radioisotopes and they're not specialists in nuclear medicine. I believe Colonel Scott is a GP with some speciality in internal medicine, which does not qualify someone to make any kind of pronouncements on the effects of radioisotopes in the human body.

Pat Horan is a brave woman who has been doing this research in Memorial University. I was in Newfoundland last week where she presented the data and the methodology to over 100 of her peers, geochemists and geophysicists. No one had a problem with the data or the methodology. Everyone thought her research was impeccable. No one has questioned it, ever. The only people who question it are people in the military. She has done the mass of spectrometry analysis on our DU samples. She's tested urine and bones.

In the case of Terry Riordon, she actually tested lungs, liver, and a few other things, but we found it in the bones, which is where we expected to find it. She was nominated for the president's award for excellence in research based on her work with us.

Leonard Dietz is a physicist. He's now retired, but he has over 30 years of research and development in mass spectrometry, which is the kind of analysis that is necessary in order to get the proper information.

The studies the government in Belgium and in Canada—that DND did—don't test. They're not mass spectrometry analysis. They don't get a reading on the U235. Therefore they cannot tell us whether there is depleted uranium or not. They're only telling total uranium. You and I have total uranium, normal uranium, in our bodies; and if you're not looking for the difference between depleted uranium and natural uranium, you're not looking for anything that's useful information.

Len Dietz worked at Knoll Laboratories. It's an atomic lab at Schenectady, New York, and he was specializing in monitoring airborne radioisotopes in nuclear workers. His most important published paper, which I believe you all have, which is a bit difficult to get through but you can if you try, is on DU contamination in the gulf. He did research and computer modelling to figure out how much DU was in the air available to be breathed in by all the soldiers who were there.

Chronology. In 1998 we began the studies using the less sensitive neutron activation analysis at McMaster University. We did get DU-positive results, but the margin of error was rather high and we didn't really want to continue that way. The results were presented at the New York Academy of Medicine in New York City. The paper was called “Internal Contamination with Transuranic Elements”. It was reviewed by doctors and specialists in low level radiation.

In 1999 the same research was presented at the International Congress of Radiation Research in Dublin, Ireland. In 1999 we also began studies using the highly sensitive method of mass spectrometry at Memorial University. It was not easy to get her to agree to do this study. It took us months.

• 1600

I have not been able to get any other lab in Canada—there are about three or four—that have the equipment and have the knowledge. They don't want to touch this. It's too politically difficult. They end up having to deal with the press. They end up with the veterans accusing them that they take too long to do it. It's very difficult, and we're really lucky that we have Pat Horan.

In 2000 this study was presented in Paris at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Conference. It was peer-reviewed in order to get into that conference. Fewer than 700 of the 1,700 papers that were presented for peer review were accepted. This paper was selected to be a highlight paper by the scientists at the nuclear medicine conference. It was also presented in Manama, Bahrain, at the first Gulf War states conference on military medicine. The paper was called “Radiological Warfare Environmental Effects”.

In the year 2001, we were joined by another lab in the world—in England. It's a lab that uses similar equipment and has scientists, geophysicists, and geochemists who know how to do this in England. They were paid for by the BBC, and they tested...I think it was 33 civilians from Kosovo. Most of them came up positive. The government in England has not done any testing, but the BBC wanted to because they wanted to have something to say in the news. Our study was presented in Italy at a conference, and it was called “Depleted Uranium in the NATO veterans of Balkan Conflict”.

So that's sort of where we are now. What we are about to get is two labs in Europe that are going to replicate what is being done in Memorial University. Both of those labs—one in England, one in Spain—have the equipment, know how to do it, have done it for years on rocks, and are consulting with Pat Horan as to how to adapt the methodology to deal with the very strange urines that come in. They are full of organic materials, and these people are taking so many drugs that they're very difficult to test. And the Spanish lab is sending someone over to train here in Newfoundland in June—in the next few weeks.

What we're also doing is establishing an international headquarters in Toronto because we have requests from scientists in Italy, France, Belgium, England, and Spain to coordinate our efforts. The soldiers who are being tested from Italy will be tested in Spain so that it all goes into a central database and we can keep track of it, because none of the governments involved so far has kept track of people.

I'll give you some background information. Why are we doing this? It started out as a study in the VA hospital in Wilmington, Delaware. Patients who had been involved in cleaning the tanks in Iraq were referred to Dr. Durakovic. They got routine medical exams, radiographic studies, clinical exams, and other nuclear medicine assessments. They had serious alterations in their health involving the immune system, respiratory tract, gastrointestinal system, and severe kidney problems.

In 1992 these patients were sent to the Boston VA clinic for a whole-body counting assessment. In 1993 their urines were sent to the army radiochemical laboratory in Aberdeen, Maryland. Some patients underwent surgical procedures on kidneys and ureters. By 1994, two of the patients had died of lung cancer and a third of undisclosed causes. The other 21 patients were dispersed. The 144th Transport Company is what they were called. They were involved in cleaning up the tanks. The company was dispersed. They were sent all over the United States, and Dr. Durakovic couldn't follow them up. This is what has happened within government in the States, and it's, I think, similar in Canada.

In 1995 the Boston DU study was stopped. In 1996 the Wilmington VA veterans uranium study was stopped. In 1997 Dr. Durakovic was fired. It was called a “reduction in force”. And in 1997 I said, “But you can't just let all those people disappear and not ever follow them up just because you don't have a clinic any more.” He said, “There's nothing I can do.” And I stuck up my hand and said, “Let's find some of those people, and let's find a lab, and let's get them tested.” What I didn't know was that it was going to take me years to do that and that I was going to end up working on this project full-time. And I can't see myself getting out of it because nobody else is going to take on this job because it's a non-paying job.

• 1605

So we now have this Uranium Medical Research Centre. We have contacts with Serbian, Italian, and Spanish scientists, doctors, and a clinic in Switzerland that wants to start helping with clinical assessment. We have U.S. doctors who have worked in the nuclear establishments in Oak Ridge. We have a lot of people who want to help with this project. We have hundreds of people with their samples in the lab in Newfoundland and hundreds more waiting to be tested. That's where we are right now.

I'll give you a bit of background, because the whole issue is very confusing.

Uranium does exist in trace amounts in nature, approximately three parts per million. In urine, in the average person, it's one part per million. Ingested uranium is 98% eliminated within a few days. We're constantly taking it in, and we get it out. So it's not a problem.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. It's not interspersed, very tiny traces; it is highly concentrated. That's what they do. They bring it all in, and they concentrate it so that they can create nuclear bombs, reactors, and all that kind of stuff. So there's a difference. Instead of being one teaspoon in a big area, it's uranium all together, almost pure uranium.

As for the military use of depleted uranium, why do they use it? It's high-density, superior armour-piercing material. It burns before and upon impact. I don't know if you saw the videotape; before it even hits, there's a trail of uranium dust. When it hits, it burns, it explodes, it's pyrogenic, and all the uranium particles go floating around, and can be resuspended, because they're like talcum powder. So if someone steps in it, or someone goes into a tank afterwards, the dust comes back up and it can be breathed in. It creates aerosol-like particles that can be inhaled. It's a chemical and radiological toxin when inhaled.

DU is now present in more than 40 countries. This includes countries that are processing it, nuclear reactors, or have used it in wars in their countries.

This table shows something interesting. It shows the difference between natural and depleted uranium. You can see that there's less U235 in depleted uranium. That's because it's taken out to make enriched uranium.

The other interesting thing is that there is no U236 in natural uranium. If you look at the bottom line, you see the shrapnel; there is U236. That is a man-made uranium isotope. It doesn't exist in nature. It proves that the uranium we're seeing in these people is a byproduct of the nuclear reactor process.

That was a big issue in Europe. The Europeans were very upset to learn that it wasn't just nicely, cleanly separated-out U235 in order to make the depleted uranium, but it was actually created in the reactor. It's radioactive waste that was created in the reactor.

There is also evidence that the depleted uranium contains trace amounts of plutonium. Our lab in Newfoundland is not allowed to test for it. It's against the law. But the lab in England that we're going to start working for will be able to test for plutonium, which is present in the depleted uranium, according to the United Nations environmental program test. They went to Kosovo and took soil samples.

That's another issue. It's an important issue, but we won't get into it here.

Here's the shrapnel analysis. You can see that of U236, there's 0.0017. Then, going to the samples of some of our positive patients, they all contain U236, which is a byproduct of the nuclear enrichment reactor process. Without the U236, you can still tell whether it's depleted uranium or not, because if the ratio of U238 to U235—which is in the second-to-last column—comes up over 137, which is the ratio of U238 to U235 for natural uranium, and we give it a few percent to make sure there's no error. If someone is over 141, they have depleted uranium.

We can calculate what percentage of uranium that is coming out of these people's urine is depleted uranium and what percentage is natural uranium. We all have natural uranium. With natural uranium, we could have breathed it in or drank it yesterday, and it will come out tomorrow. But when we know it's depleted uranium, we can say with some assurance that because it's not present in nature, these people got it because they were in the Gulf War, or they may happen to live next to a DU testing site, which is not that common, but they got it through some exposure that is not natural.

• 1610

Ms. Susan Riordon: Captain Terry Riordon served you for 23 years. You won't hear a military officer say U236; you won't hear a government official go to U236. It was in my husband's body. It's part of why I'm a widow now. God love Canada.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: The U236 issue is a very hot issue in Europe. It has not quite hit Canada yet, but the scientists in Europe are very upset about it.

At the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Conference, it was a major discussion point, because it proves that the depleted uranium that is in these people's bodies is radioactive waste that has been through the nuclear reactor.

Normally this byproduct is stored in safe containers, buried in Utah, and protected for millions of years. In 1990 it was decided that it could be used in tanks and shells and blown up and turned into aerosol particles where people could breathe it in.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Have all the people who are on that list passed away?

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: No, as a matter of fact, none of them, except for Terry Riordon.

With high-level radiation, they'd all be dead. It's low level, so you breathe it in, it's in your lungs, and gradually it makes its way to your bones. The people we tested were all exposed over seven years before we tested them. The half-life of uranium in the lungs is only four years. So the uranium we're seeing here is uranium that has made its way into their bones, and tiny bits of it are being excreted back and it's coming out in their urine.

Terry is the only person whose bones we've tested, but we have another set right now from a British soldier who's in the process of being tested. But it's very difficult to get the bones, because it's very difficult to ask people who are going through that to give their husband's bones.

We have another Canadian who died two days ago, and his wife just couldn't bear the thought of giving the bones. So we have to make do with the urine. The urine is not the best way.

The other thing we've discovered—because we've tested some of these patients over a period of time, like six months later—is that one of these people who's up here was very high, and when we tested him six months later, he was quite low, which shows that, because they usually have impaired kidneys, they're not excreting on a regular basis. They could be retaining all that uranium that week or that month. So it varies. If we tested bone, we would see it every time.

It's also very difficult to test the urine because some of these people are urinating about five litres a day, so we have to take all that five litres and condense it into something the size of half of your fingernail in order to do the isotopic analysis. As you're doing all that concentrating, and through chemical process, getting rid of all the organics, it's very easy to lose the uranium and not have anything to test at the end.

So it's not just a matter of having the equipment that costs $1.5 million; you need scientists with the kind of dedication that Pat Horan has, who just doesn't stop until she gets a yes or a no, is there depleted uranium?

She needs a reading for the U235 and U236, and if she doesn't get it, she spends months. She puts it kind of in the background and asks for more urine, and she boils it all down and does the chemical process all over again. This is a labour of love. This is not some commercial lab that's getting $1,000 a pop to do this; this is a person who spends nights and weekends in her lab because she really cares about what's going on with these veterans, and she takes an interest.

• 1615

It's not just having the scientific credentials and the equipment, which is a very rare thing. How do you get a university to give up their $1.5 million equipment for the weeks it takes to go through these processes?

We're just so lucky to have Newfoundland. But now we're getting other labs. We're getting England and Spain, and they're going to charge three times as much as Newfoundland is charging. So we're going to be in a money crunch pretty soon.

We have to get to next steps. It is essential to increase the number of independent mass spectrometry research labs able to detect the low levels. We are going to have two labs working with us, one starting in June and one starting in August. We need a multinational database to keep track of all this research that's going on, and we need medical research to study the effects on the affected populations.

We're trying to get together a clinic that will do clinical assessments on the DU-positive patients, but that's very difficult. They're coming from different places all over Canada and England. You need people who are specialists in nuclear medicine and who understand radioisotopes, and there's not that many people in that category.

So that's the end. If anyone has any questions, I'd be pleased to answer them.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ripley-Guzman.

Mrs. Riordon, I wanted to clarify a statement I made earlier. Our focus here is very much on policy, and in that regard we make recommendations to the government. We are a policy-making body in the sense that we make recommendations and forward them on to the government. It's up to the government to either accept or reject those recommendations.

Ms. Ripley-Guzman, thank you for your comments and presentation.

I'm sure I have this information somewhere in front of me here, but perhaps you could provide the committee with information on your professional qualifications.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: I am not a scientist. I'm the person who stuck up my hand and said, let's get this project going. I work with Dr. Durakovic, whose CV is that thick; Len Dietz, who has 30 years' experience in this; and Pat Horan, who has all the equipment and knowledge of the geochemistry. I am the person who pulls it all together. But over the last three years that I've been working with these scientists, I have learned a lot about how to explain this to lay people. So those are my qualifications.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Goldring on our seven-minute round.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mrs. Riordon, I want to commend you for sticking to it and for your determination to persevere through these tragic circumstances. I think we all understand this isn't just a Canadian problem that has to be explored in great detail. It's a world problem. It affects a great number of people. So I want to thank you for that.

Also, Mrs. Riordon, I hope my questions won't be insensitive to your late husband's remains. I would like to ask about his body and the conditions when he died and the tests that were done. I'll have to ask which part of the skeleton had the evidence of the depleted uranium. Was it the entire skeleton, or were there particular parts that it collected in or was concentrated in?

Maybe, Ms. Ripley-Guzman, you can answer that question.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: The deposition in the bone is quite even, so we can take a bone from almost any part of the body and find a small amount of depleted uranium.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: What was taken from Terry was skull bone, three-quarters of his brain, thyroid, femur bone, lungs, liver, and kidneys.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Does it take a considerable amount to perform the tests? What type of mass do you need to perform these tests? Is it extensive? It sounds like it's fairly extensive.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: We didn't actually find it anywhere. We didn't expect to find it, because the half-life of uranium in all of the other organs is too short. He was exposed seven years before we tested him, so we only expected to find it in the bones, although we thought we might have been lucky and found a little bit in his lungs. If we had analysed the whole two lungs, we probably would have found it. But we didn't. We just took a chunk of lung.

• 1620

It's in the bone, and it's quite evenly distributed in the bone. We're not fussy about which part. We just test a piece of bone, and it's a small piece. It has to be chemically concentrated. The uranium has to be pulled out of it. We need a microgram of uranium in order to be able to do that isotopic analysis, but we don't need much bone to do that. We've had veterans offer to give us bone biopsies, which we could do. But that's rather expensive.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Obviously, this testing is dramatically different from what DND has been doing. Has this testing information been made available to DND so that they could examine it? If they have examined it, have they made any comments on this method of testing?

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: We had a comment from Ed Owgh, saying that this testing, which has been peer reviewed all over Europe, was laughable. He also harassed Memorial University in different ways.

Ms. Susan Riordon: This is methodology done by Dr. Asaf Durakovic. I personally gave it to Deputy Minister Larry Murray on April 11, 2000. Several members of Parliament, some in this room, have a copy of this as well.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Has the rejection of the testing method been more a matter that they haven't referred it to somebody who has the credentials to properly analyse its effectiveness? What is the reason, in your own mind and in plain English, that Colonel Scott would reject it? I would imagine he would be one of the ones who would be rejecting this methodology.

Ms. Susan Riordon: Why Colonel Scott does anything is beyond me, and it has been for quite some time.

I understand he also did hair testing. Even if you test pubic hair for weapons-grade depleted uranium, there is no scientific standard. So maybe that's like his clinical diagnosis of Gulf War syndrome: whatever suits him at the time. He did not use the proper labs.

Larry Murray is a very fine man, and we're lucky to have him within Veterans Affairs. I'm sure he passed this on. In fact, the former Honourable George Baker—not that he's no longer honourable, but he's no longer the Minister of Veterans Affairs—said on March 2, 2000, “If a veteran wants DU testing, they can go anywhere, to anyone in any country”. Check the scrum program on CPAC. It's on the public record.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Could you explain in some detail exactly how this depleted uranium could produce the symptoms we commonly know as the Gulf War syndrome? How does that create the wide variety of symptoms we're seeing with people whose illness is labelled as the Gulf War syndrome? Could you explain how that could be? How does it affect these things?

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: I would like to go back to the last question, because I have a really precise answer. Before DND decided to test with the two labs in Ontario, I called the labs. Then I consulted with Len Dietz, the physicist with 30 years' experience doing analyses of airborne isotopes in nuclear workers. I consulted with Pat Horan and Dr. Durakovic. We all determined that those labs were not able to detect the levels of U235 that were in the urine of these veterans.

I wrote a two-page paper in conjunction with those three scientists, and I sent it to DND through Susan Riordon. So before they started that testing, they knew they wouldn't be able to detect the levels of U235. As a matter of fact, I discussed it with the person at the lab. He said, they didn't ask us to test 235. I said, the levels of U235 are 500 times less than the levels of U238. They were told that they didn't have to test for that. So that whole thing was an exercise in futility from the start, and they knew it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: How does this material affect these health conditions? How can it cause this variety of health conditions?

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: We can't say what is the direct correlation because we've tested only a few dozen people.

What we can say is this paper from Dr. Durakovic in the Croatian Medical Journal on 150 years of research and epidemiology studies on the effects of uranium on miners and nuclear workers, on incidences of cancer surrounding nuclear plants, the kinds of symptoms, multiple somatic symptoms, immune problems, the kidney problems, the liver problems, the cancers, the leukemias—all those things are associated with uranium in the human body, internal contamination.

• 1625

So when we find levels of depleted uranium in people's urine and in their bones, there can be a correlation made, but we cannot say for sure, because we don't have the clinics to examine these people; we don't have the doctors with knowledge of internal contamination with radioisotopes or knowledge of oncology and toxicology, who should be there to examine each one of these patients who comes up positive. There's no set-up in the world today.

And it's not just for Gulf War veterans and for Kosovo veterans, it's for people who live near nuclear plants, people who live near processing, uranium mining, people like those in Port Hope, who are now coming to us. All those people don't have anywhere to go to see whether they have these levels. They go to their regular GP, and the GP says, I don't know what's wrong with you, you've got all these symptoms, and it doesn't make any pattern to me—which is what Gulf War syndrome is all about, it doesn't make a concrete pattern.

And then if you look at the people, the radiation is affecting them in different areas. If they're genetically predisposed to have heart problems, the radiation going to their heart may create a problem. If it's going to their kidneys, they may end up with kidney stones or kidney problems, which eventually the kidney repairs itself. They could have liver problems, they could have gastrointestinal problems, have problems sleeping, neurological problems. The uranium that's in their bones is going through the stem cells that are created in the bone marrow throughout the body, irradiating them, slowly but surely, and it's affecting the immune system, because the uranium is in their bones and that's where your immune system is. Wherever their immune system is weak, whatever they're subjected to, it could hit them there.

So there are multiple somatic problems; it's not one thing. And the problem is that the doctors who are examining these people don't have the expertise.

Ms. Susan Riordon: I think you've said it right there, Mary, in a very short answer for Mr. Goldring: traumatization disorder. Veterans Affairs' pet, number one pension for Persian Gulf veterans: traumatization disorder. Dr. Asaf Durakovic says radiation poisoning and heavy metal toxicity presents itself this way. That's how we pension them. That's how we join it. That's what we label them with.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: And I want to be clear, it's not just the depleted uranium; there are other factors involved. So that makes it even more complicated, because then they have to decide whether the chemicals are doing it or the depleted uranium, and they're also vaccinated. That has to all be sorted out.

The Chair: I'm going to have to cut you off here, Ms. Ripley-Guzman, because Mr. Goldring is over his time.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

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

I would like to begin by telling you that I find you to be a tenacious woman. It must not have been easy to see your husband leave healthy and return in this state. The time spent with him must have been difficult for you and for the children too. You will no longer be completely alone in this fight. Moreover, we invited the people who are here this morning, who are suffering from the same problems as your husband. I think that we—at least, I and my political party—can no longer accept being told that there is no problem. I do not believe that any longer, and I have not believed it for some time.

• 1630

I also wanted to offer you our support, since Mr. Pratt, our chairman, spoke of the committee's ability to recommend to the department that new policies be adopted. It is true that this is our role, and this is also the way the House of Commons works.

Furthermore, we are able, as individuals or as political parties, to defend causes, for example, the issue of your husband's pension, or any other similar thing. I would like to know more about this problem, so as to be able to help you. Lending a helping hand to those who need it is also one of the duties of members of the House of Commons. Our role goes beyond simply participating in committee work.

I can tell you that we will talk about this among ourselves and attempt to assist you.

However, I would ask you to react to the action plan, or to the requests that we have made to the government regarding the Gulf War and the war in the Balkans. These requests are fairly specific because we did a great deal of work with those people. I therefore propose that you join with us, because we need a lot of people to win this fight.

I myself am not a scientist, and neither are my colleagues. This often causes problems. I find I am somewhat lost when discussing uranium 234, 235, 236, with 0.76 of a thousandth. However, I can tell you that I am perceptive enough to realize that the presentation given by Colonel Scott the last time he came before us was the same, almost word for word, as the one that he gave a week earlier at a NATO meeting in Brussels. I asked him whether he was the one who had written his speech. I told myself that someone at the top, with the help of governments, was attempting to send the message that there was nothing wrong. He should perhaps have made a few changes in his speech, because it was nearly identical to the one that I had heard a week or two earlier.

So, I would like to know how you feel about the requests that we are putting to the government today. Among other things, we would like all those who took part in the Gulf War and the war in the Balkans to be examined by an independent team of civilian medical experts. It is essential that they be civilians, because we know what happens when military officials conduct such examinations. That is the first thing I wanted to say.

Secondly, we would like to see the people who are recognized as being ill by this team declared veterans so that they will be eligible under the plan and not have to pay a fortune in drug costs. They would be in a much better position if they were considered veterans.

We would also like to see a medical protocol. This concerns you more directly, Ms. Ripley-Guzman. Whenever people are sent to a theatre of operations, this medical protocol would warn them of the dangers to be expected and provide them with information on the kinds of drugs suggested. This is not the way it was done in the past. People were told to stand in line and pull down their pants, and they were given a shot in the right buttock. The next day, each person was given three pink pills and one red pill, all to be taken at certain set times. We would like to see a medical protocol and we would like to see a public inquiry, to find out what really took place.

I'd like to hear your reaction. If I have to come back on a second round for more details, I will do so. There are four parts. Answer the parts which you can answer, and if you do not have time to answer all of them, I will come back on the second round to delve into the action plan in more detail or to discuss the requests that we have made to the government.

[English]

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: I don't know if you've had the opportunity to see the tapes of Doug Rokke, a nuclear biological chemical expert who was the one who went over after the Gulf War to do the decontamination. They measured the tanks. They spent months to decontaminate the tanks, to either bury them or take them back to the States. He was commissioned by the U.S. government to make tapes after the Gulf War, so that in future wars people would know what was going on and would wear the proper equipment, not go in, stir up the dust, and breath it in. Those tapes have never been seen yet in the United States.

• 1635

Ms. Susan Riordon: That would be Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness, U.S. Army training film, production number 710493 TVT 3-92, commercial phone line within the U.S. 205-848-4489. And in that awareness tape made for the United States Army in 1995 it states that there are only two health hazards in depleted uranium, heavy metal toxicity and radiation poisoning.

There is also a containment management operations training film for weapons-grade depleted uranium, The Clean-Up, production number 701358DA, TVT 9-284. It's up to the United States to use these films, and to the best of my knowledge they have not been doing so. Canada seems to be totally and completely unaware of any such films.

Also the DOD, through Dr. Daxon, who is a colonel, as well as our Kenny-boy.... He prefers the same type of Hippocratic oath. It appears that Daxon is withholding 2,300 documents from a Senate committee not unlike yours, and, according to the National Veterans Association, it is illegal.

We need a policy and we also have to remember our collateral damage.

The Chair: I'm going to have to cut you off there, Mr. Bachand, because, unfortunately, you took a fair bit of time with respect to your question.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, could I have the chair of this committee request copies of those films from the American government? We have all the information needed to do that. I would like to see those films. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of this committee to request copies of those films, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: With respect, Mr. Benoit, let me think about your request. In the meantime, I will go to the Liberal side with Mr. Price.

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

It's nice to see you here. Unfortunately, they're not the best circumstances. I just want to say that when we last met officially, we were going through the quality of life issues with our forces, and it's interesting that you bring today the problem of collateral damage. It's something we never treated during quality of life; it's something we didn't even consider or look at. I think that's something we should take a look at, and I'm sure it's something we will add in as we review. That's one of the nice things about the quality of life report. It comes back every year, and we take a look at it and see what's been done and what needs to be done. Granted, in Halifax you did do a presentation, and there have been some major changes since.

What I'm hearing about, in fact as late as just a couple of weeks ago in Europe at NATO, with other parliamentarians from other countries, is the same situation we have. There's still a large lack of information, and there's no question there's a problem out there. Gulf War syndrome is there—at least that's what it's named right now—but the problem is still the causes. They're still saying, in many of the countries, we have people with the same general symptoms who have never been exposed to DU. So there's a question mark there.

One of the other things that hurts us is that we have the World Health Organization coming out with a report in April essentially saying that the health risk from DU is minimal. I'm sure you're aware of that report, and I'd like to know what your thoughts are on it.

• 1640

An organization like the World Health Organization does carry a lot of weight. If we look at what we're doing in relation to the public looking in at us...and they say if this organization says there's nothing wrong with it, we have to have something fairly strong backing us in order to move ahead.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: On that report, I can get you the reference. I think you have Martin Messonnier's book, The Invisible War. Do you have that?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. David Price: I've heard of it.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: He's a journalist, the producer who made the film, which I believe you have seen.

Mr. David Price: Yes.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: He looked into this whole World Health Organization to see why they would come up with that. He discovered a document going back years. It showed that the World Health Organization was not allowed to make an independent statement regarding anything to do with radiation unless they had it checked or changed by some nuclear institute, which was a very powerful nuclear pressure group in Europe, in the world. I can't remember the name of that group. I can get you the reference.

My personal opinion is I don't trust that report. Malcolm Hooper, who is a PhD in England, has been working with the Royal Society of England to try to get the proper testing. He's been working for over two years and he hasn't managed to get one person tested yet. He made a report criticizing that United Nations environmental report and the World Health Organization report. Their data was very massaged before it came out in that report, and it was played down. He points out all the flaws in it.

So I'm not qualified and I don't remember. I did read it. I thought, that makes a lot of sense.

You should read that report. I can get you a copy.

Mr. David Price: As you can well understand, for us as a committee, in order to put forward recommendations that have a chance of moving forward, that tends to be a blocking point.

Ms. Susan Riordan: Mr. Price, perhaps I can show you why some people who didn't deploy to the gulf are showing the same symptoms, because of this...that's equivalent to depleted uranium dust. That dust came back here. We brought that back to Canada, to Trenton. The guys who cleaned the plane, cleaned the tanks...they didn't give them a MOPP suit.

Terry went over and couldn't get a suit, but that's equal to what's blowing around.

Mr. David Price: That follows right through into probably the next question.

As vehicles came back with dust on them, was any of that dust ever actually tested? Who tested it and under what conditions?

Ms. Susan Riordan: Dr. Durakovic had it tested. Dr. Doug Rokke went and and cleaned them up. It took him three months to get 24 vehicles ready to come back and three years to clean them. Did we do anything? I don't think so.

I'm working with veterans who didn't deploy to the gulf but cleaned this off helicopters and they're ill and dying.

Mr. David Price: I know we have used two independent laboratories to test our soldiers, and I already know your answers on that. It was very clear that their tests may not....

What about on the dust itself? Are you aware of testing that was done here?

Ms. Susan Riordan: In Canada? No.

If we want to follow Ken Scott's party line, whatever the United States says, “Yes, sir”.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: They brought back about 12 tanks from Iraq. They are contained in a huge hangar with special air filters pulling off the dust in the United States. They will stay in that big hangar at I don't know how many millions of dollars so that that stuff doesn't get out into the environment in the United States. Soldiers who came back came back with souvenirs, with actual shrapnel. They came back with dust in their boots. Nobody was warned about how to decontaminate anything.

Mr. David Price: I guess the bottom line here is, what would your recommendations be that this committee carry forward at this point?

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: At this point, it's a little late for the soldiers from the Gulf War. You cannot start pulling this stuff out of their bones. I'm not a doctor. This is just from me talking to the specialists. I'm like you; I'm a civilian, but I've been around these people long enough.

• 1645

For the people from Kosovo, it's perhaps not too late. They should be getting tested right away. There are lung lavages. I have a list here. It says the principal aim in the therapeutic management of patients with internally deposited uranium is to prevent the absorption from the site of entry and eliminate uranium from the bloodstream or target organs. It is of utmost importance to initiate this therapy as soon after exposure.... And there are several ways you can do it. You can clean out the intestines, you can clean out the lungs—it's all there in the paper.

We also have to set up a clinic with specialists who will be looking at all these DU-positive patients to see how to deal with their symptoms, even if the stuff can't be taken out of them. They should know what to look for. They should have CAT scans to see if they're developing cancers.

They should be told that it's not just all in their head, that their body is being attacked from the inside—that's laymen's terms. Their immune system is not functioning properly so they're susceptible to all kinds of diseases. There are ways of supporting and treating the symptoms of these people, even if you can't get to the base of the problem because it's too late.

In order to do that, we need a specialized clinic with one toxicologist, one oncologist, and one nuclear medicine specialist in Canada. This is what our hope is. It is to have one in North America, which will have to be in Canada, because the U.S., I doubt, is going to do it, and one in Switzerland. We have a clinic in Switzerland that's willing, and we're going to be discussing this possibility with them this summer.

The Chair: Ms. Ripley-Guzman, I'm going to have to cut you off there because Mr. Price is over his time.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Susan, thank you on behalf of all Gulf War veterans for your courageous efforts to bring this to the attention of not just us but to the country as well. You should be complimented on that.

Ms. Susan Riordon: We owe them a lot.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have here the minutes of a meeting you had with the provincial veterans affairs committee in Nova Scotia. When you read through it, it's quite disturbing.

Now you seem a little more reserved in your approach, compared to that hearing you had with people like John Holman and Gerry Pyne and many others. Although I wasn't there, they told me it was quite a depressing thing to listen to—and you had to go through that.

Ms. Susan Riordon: They asked for the entire truth and I gave it to them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm going to ask you a personal question, and if you don't want to answer it, you don't have to.

When Mr. Scott was here I asked him a personal question of what he thought killed Terry Riordon. His answer was that, being a former patient of his, it was not appropriate for him to comment.

So I'm going to ask you. Did Mr. Scott ever tell you, either confidentially or personally, what he thought killed your husband? Did he ever offer that information to you, or did you ever ask him?

Ms. Susan Riordon: The only thing Ken Scott ever did was write that article entitled, “Depleted Uranium, Depleted Intelligence” in the National Gulf War Veterans Association magazine. It said Terry's cause of death was possible Gulf War syndrome—not possible, but flat out Gulf War syndrome.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: He didn't say that in the committee when he was here. He said it was not fair for him to comment...being a former patient.

Ms. Susan Riordon: It was fair for him to publish the article in a veterans magazine, on the Internet, wasn't it?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's why I asked you the question. If he couldn't comment among the committee of parliamentarians, as one of Terry's former doctors, did he personally tell you at any time what he thought killed your husband?

Ms. Susan Riordon: Ken Scott won't speak to me; he won't communicate with me.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, so the answer is no.

Ms. Susan Riordon: No, nothing. I wouldn't believe him anyway.

I'm sorry, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Obviously your frustration with the man is quite revealing. Have you ever thought of taking legal action against him?

Ms. Susan Riordon: I have reserved the right, but the moment I do that, I can't talk any more.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, I'm not sure your questions are in order here in terms of....

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay, I'm going to move on now, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that.

You mentioned burning semen. Ms. Guzman, perhaps it's too early of a question to ask, but in your opinion, at least in a preliminary way, can DU be transmitted sexually from one person to another?

• 1650

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: We haven't done any studies on semen. The United States government has done studies, but we haven't seen—

Ms. Susan Riordon: Dr. Rosalie Bertell has presented her theory that it is transmittable by seminal fluids. There's a 1997 study in the United States that cites that several members who served in the Gulf have these isotopes that do not incur in nature within their semen.

There is a grave danger. I may be more collateral damage than what you ever want to hear. There may be hundreds of thousands in this world.

If you stop and think, if we may get this because it's sexually transmitted, what about our organ donation? If it goes through the blood and the organs to the bone, and we've been letting people donate organs, what are we doing to them? There's a bigger question here.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: We do know it creates genetic damage; that's been proved. There has been research done on it, but that's not necessarily saying it's in the semen, but the sex cells can be affected.

That's getting very technical and very medical, and the Uranium Medical Research Project hasn't tested any semen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I want you to know that we all do care, on both sides of this table. We do care, Sue, and each and every one of us wants to get the answers too.

I noted in the documentation from the Uranium Medical Research Centre, in item 14 it says: to continue efforts to inform the press and the politicians in Europe and Canada; to continue to answer questions from scientists and individuals; and increase your network of collaboration, which now extends to England, Canada, the U.S., France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and the Middle East.

Do you have conferences with representatives from all of those countries at any one given time?

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: We can't afford to do that. We raise the money for our administration. The doctors, the physicists, and myself support the research.

Dr. Durakovic and I went to Belgium for a conference. That was paid for by the British veterans. We just went to England to establish relationships with the two labs that will now be working with us. That was paid for by the British veterans.

The Italian connection was made by the Vatican. They paid for Dr. Durakovic to go there and have that conference.

So wherever people raise the money that will pay for us go and have a conference, we do, if we feel it's going to be worthwhile. The British veterans also paid for the trip to Paris for the nuclear medicine conference. They have a charity funded by the British public.

Unfortunately, in Canada, we don't have such a thing. Sue's going to start the Terry Riordon Memorial Fund so that we can test veterans in Canada and we can carry on this work.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You talked about the doctor at Memorial University in Newfoundland and the research that's been done there and so on. I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be wise for our committee to invite that doctor and Dr. Durakovic.

Based on what we heard today from Sue and Madam Guzman, if we invited both of them to come here and make their presentations to us, then we can put the questions to those who are the experts in this field. That is what we should be doing, and I think it's very important that we do that.

Based on the information they can give us and the answers we can have, from there we could then come up with some recommendations for the Departments of Defence and Veterans Affairs.

As Madam Guzman has said, she works in that field, but she is not the scientist of the field. We know what Terry and Sue went through.

• 1655

You do have children, don't you Sue?

Ms. Susan Riordon: Yes, two children.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Two children, that's what I thought. I think we owe it to Sue, and we owe it to all these others who have become ill, to take the leadership role, and, Mr. Chair, to ask, for those two special people who are working in this field and with other countries, that we in Canada and our defence committee should take the leadership role. That's how I see it.

The Chair: Any further questions, Mrs. Wayne?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You are certainly free to bring that issue before the steering committee of this committee.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for coming today and for all the work you've done. Obviously you've had to be extremely persistent over a number of years, and it must be very difficult.

This is such a complex and complicated situation to try to figure out that it's hard to know where to start. But if you go back to where you might start, I'd go back...and I've seen a lot of information, a lot of so-called evidence on this whole situation, including from NATO. It has all said that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that depleted uranium has caused any kind of health problem. That's what Colonel Scott said when he was here at this committee.

In fact, when you look through the statistics—and I know when you're talking about your husband you're not looking at statistics, but that's the way he's looking at it. He says when you look at the statistics, the fact is that soldiers who served where depleted uranium was present had no higher incidence of health problems of any kind than either another control group in the military or the general public. That's what Colonel Scott said at this committee not too long ago. So why would anyone go beyond this and get into detail, the kind of thing you're doing, when all of this evidence has shown there's no increased incidence of health risk? I know why you would, but I want you to respond to this.

This is what Colonel Scott says, and, quite frankly, people at NATO say, and I'd like you to respond to that if you could.

Ms. Susan Riordon: Yes. Colonel Scott also told you there is no such thing as Gulf War syndrome. He wrote that. He diagnosed it in 1995. But there is a reason Terry died.

Colonel Scott says a lot. The Goss Gilroy report was supposed to be independent, in cooperation with the Department of National Defence. It was signed off by Ken Scott. He was a Lieutenant Colonel then. Let's read. It says lower ranks over-report due to lack of education, due to higher alcoholism, due to seeking attention.

If you would like to believe Colonel Scott, then all the more power to you.

It's the distribution of cancer amongst veterans of the Persian Gulf registry; they're all there. If I can get them from the Red Cross, so can Colonel Scott.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Excuse me, what are you saying it shows? I don't understand what you're saying.

Ms. Susan Riordon: It's the distribution of cancer amongst veterans of the Persian Gulf registry, 1996. If I can get that information, why can't Colonel Scott?

Mr. Leon Benoit: But he's saying that he has and he's found no increased health problems.

Ms. Susan Riordon: He also tabled no documentation and directed you towards the Internet, sir. I tabled thousands of pages of documentation, a videotape, and brought in the president of the Uranium Medical Research Project.

I have brought to you the truth. It is up to you to use it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm presenting you this information the way it's been presented to us.

Ms. Susan Riordon: Yes, I'm aware of that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You've been working at this in so much depth and with obviously so much effort over a long period of time because of your personal involvement. What I'm trying to get from you is your response to this position that's been presented to us.

Ms. Susan Riordon: You have received the party line. With the party line you are not liable for anything.

• 1700

Mr. Leon Benoit: You believe there's a cover-up then?

Ms. Susan Riordon: There's a lack of truth, and there's a complete and total cover-up, and that is it. Nobody wants to be liable within the military or civilian world. We're talking dollars and cents, and we'll play with it, and we'll sell it, but we will not pay.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: I would like to respond to the NATO thing. I was in a conference in Belgium last year that was organized around the depleted uranium issue, and they had four doctors, specialists, talking about depleted uranium. One of them had tested over 2,000 soldiers who had been in Kosovo—for depleted uranium. He went in depth, and he put up his data and everything. I am not a specialist or a physicist, I'm not any of those things, and I looked at the data and I said, where is the U235 measurement? I got up in that conference of all these specialists and was the only person who said, where is the U235 index? They hadn't tested for U235, just like the DND here didn't test. So all they were testing were levels of uranium. Levels of uranium don't tell you anything. So when they said that people here have no higher levels of uranium than the guy who didn't even go to the war, that doesn't tell you anything. What we're looking for is depleted uranium.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bachand, you have the floor.

Mr. Claude Bachand: How much time do we have for a second round?

The Chair: Five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Once again, I am not a scientist. I am simply trying to see how we can solve this problem, since some people are saying one thing and others are saying the opposite. We parliamentarians, must try to seek out the truth. I already mentioned that I did not believe Colonel Scott—that is a start—because I had heard the same speech in Brussels.

I would now like to hear your reaction. Let us be quick, because I am not sure if I will get another turn. What we are proposing is that members of the military forces who took part in the Gulf War and who served in the Balkans be granted veteran status. Do you agree with this? Yes.

Second, Ms. Riordon, you have made me aware of the issue of partners and children. You spoke of collateral damage. This would mean, if I understood well, that your health has also been affected.

We are therefore proposing that the government establish a team of multidisciplinary specialists, an independent and civilian team that would study the health status of military force members who took part in both conflicts, one that would also provide them with the appropriate care. If I am hearing you properly, we should add the words “and their families” to ensure that everyone is covered. Are you also in agreement with this? Yes.

We also want a medical protocol to be developed and used during Canadian Forces deployments or missions. This would mean that before travelling to a theatre of operations, all military members would know the dangers involved and the medical countermeasures that would be adopted to protect them if they are operating in a theatre of operations which is dangerous. Do you agree with the idea that members should know beforehand...

[English]

Ms. Susan Riordon: Wonderful.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: ...thanks to the medical protocol, what they are entitled to.

We are proposing that an independent commission of inquiry be set up to allow us to find out once and for all what happened. I expect that you also approve of this idea.

[English]

Ms. Susan Riordon: Certainly.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: Sorry, did you say we need an independent medical group?

Mr. Claude Bachand: An independent medical group,

[Translation]

but also an independent commission of inquiry which will get to the bottom of things to find out what happened.

We want the medical team to be independent, but also to be a civilian team, because people have lost confidence. They no longer believe a doctor who is a captain in the army and who tells them that there is nothing wrong. They no longer believe these people. That is why we need civilians, independent from the army. Do you share this opinion?

[English]

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: Everyone is coming to that conclusion. If you read the congressional hearings from the United States and what's happening in England with the British veterans, everyone, all the veterans in every country, are saying we do not trust our departments of defence and the veterans' administrations. We've had ten years and we haven't got the proper diagnosis. We want independent studies. So what needs to be made available is the money, and it will go on credentials and expertise and not on the fact that they belong to the military or the government, because it's not just cover-up, it's lack of expertise.

• 1705

You have to have years of radioisotope expertise, working with animals, working in the labs, working with people, working with children of Chernobyl. There are not that many people in the world who have that expertise. What we need to do is bring those people in, and—you can see this from the Gulf War experience and the Gulf War veterans in the States—the people who have that kind of expertise don't speak out, because they are involved in the nuclear industries and they lose their jobs when they do.

So you as politicians have to create a safe environment where these people are willing to speak out and are willing to work on this issue and know they're not going to lose their....

Dr. Durakovic has been attacked so much. I've watched it over the last five years. But he has a lot of guts, and he stands up and keeps on going forward. Not many people would risk their reputations. The ones who are beginning to risk their reputations are the ones who are already retiring, and they're too old to do anything.

So we need to find those people, and through the Internet we have connections with those people in many countries in the world, people who would come together, who would do this research.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Bachand?

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to thank our witnesses for coming today.

I had read in advance your written presentation, and I found it most troubling and disturbing. It spent a lot of time, I realize, on the issue of science, but clearly the issue is of human tragedy here.

The fact is, at the end of the Second World War, no country engaged in the Second World War treated their veterans better than this country, bar none. I know the many stories my father told me, and he came back with shrapnel and everything else, and he had them until the day he died. But when I read about the mental, physical, and financial toll that you and your family have taken, when we read about the CF pension penalties, the clawing back of the CPP, over $8,800, the repaying of the Maritime Life completely, all the moneys in the long-term disability, in my view, this is not what those men and women who went to the Gulf fought for. It's certainly not what my father fought for.

The first question I would have is, what is the current status of this case, of this file—I don't know what word to use, actually—at Veterans Affairs? I take it that it is still open.

Ms. Susan Riordon: Terry's file is still open, and that's the reason, two years after his death, there are moneys outstanding for grounds-keeping.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: In a nutshell, what have you been told?

Ms. Susan Riordon: I've been told Charlottetown approved it; wait.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I think the point was certainly made that it took over 40 years to really look, and define and accept the effects of mustard gas from the Great War, and obviously Agent Orange from the Vietnam conflict. I would hate to think we would be spending another 40 years debating the science when we have many people out there who are affected by this, whatever it is.

If your husband went to the Gulf in excellent condition—

Ms. Susan Riordon: Yes, he did.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: —and he came home a very different individual, while we are debating the science, I think we need to find out what happened with the fact that Mrs. Riordon went to the Minister of Defence and presented her case in March 2000, I believe.

Ms. Susan Riordon: March 2, 2000.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: What's the answer? What's the answer with the Minister of Veterans Affairs? If your case is still open, that's unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me as a member of Parliament, and I would expect that we should be able to communicate directly with both ministers on that issue.

But while this is all going on, the fact is, you are taking a toll that neither your husband, nor anyone in this room, as far as I'm concerned, would find acceptable.

Ms. Susan Riordon: That is the only time I'm very glad Terry is dead. He has no idea what has happened to his family. He was incognizant when he was alive, so he wasn't aware of the situation. We were on the verge of bankruptcy. We got raped by this government. But it's not just my family. It's hundreds of thousands of families in this country.

• 1710

I work with CPVA as a volunteer, and I just got two veterans off welfare who had been on it for 10 years. I spent an evening with a veteran who tried to commit suicide. I was with him for five hours in the hospital. Where was Veterans Affairs? A 48-hour crisis line does not work.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: What I would like to see, Mr. Chairman, is the compassion, and the compassion is that no one who puts on a uniform for this country should be subject to this type of situation, nor should his or her family.

I have to tell you that when I read it initially, I just could not believe it.

Ms. Susan Riordon: No life like it, sir.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Having put a human face on it today certainly will spur me on, and I would imagine everyone else in this room. Government can be extremely slow and it can be extremely fast. In my days in municipal politics I used to sometimes put big scissors on the table to cut through the red tape. While we need to get all the scientific evidence we can muster, that will not solve the problem of those men and women who are suffering. We asked them to go, and I think we need to fulfil that obligation.

So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that whatever we decide as a committee, we will do it quickly and effectively.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wilfert is absolutely correct. We've heard before in this committee about the difficulties DND has in recruiting young people to the military. Today when those brave men and women were with the Bloc Québécois members at a press conference, I thought, if I was 18 years old and I looked at those veterans, would I get into the military knowing that in a few short years I may be like them? I think I'd have second thoughts about that.

When you read the history and you meet the veterans, you see how proud they were to volunteer and get involved. They did it without asking any questions because they knew it was the right thing to do and a great career choice.

So we have to ask ourselves, are we going to be able to have a military of any kind in the near future if we treat our current veterans in this manner?

Mrs. Riordon, you say that Mr. Scott gives the party line. I do not believe for a second that my colleagues across the way would be part of a government, knowingly or even unknowingly, that is deliberately doing something to harm you.

Ms. Susan Riordon: I'm talking about the military party line, sir, not the government party line.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's what I wanted you to clarify.

Ms. Susan Riordon: It's called CYA within the military community.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I believe a lot of what is happening to you is based on the fact that you have some bureaucrats not communicating the message fast enough, as Mr. Wilfert says. He's absolutely correct. It's tough enough trying to get the evidence on the scientific side. You and your children should not be suffering financially in any way, shape, or form because of this. For that I'm sure—

Ms. Susan Riordon: But if they help me, then they have to help the next one. That's where we keep—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You've heard a commitment from here.

But my question is, do you honestly believe that Mr. Scott misled this committee in his presentation to us?

Ms. Susan Riordon: In my honest opinion, he lied.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

Ms. Susan Riordon: In my honest opinion, he lied to you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, I would ask that we not frame questions in that manner in terms of—

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): He can frame the question in whatever way he wants.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Why not?

Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ, sir. Mr. Scott came here in his uniform and gave what I thought was very credible evidence. I'm ignorant on the fact. I don't know what he does for a living. He's a doctor and a respected person in our military. I still hold him in that respect. But we have a woman here who completely contradicts everything he says. So my question was—

The Chair: I think it's up to us—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: —did he mislead us? I didn't say, did he lie to us? I asked if he misled this committee, and she said no, he lied to us.

• 1715

The Chair: I don't think it's up to us to reflect on—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm giving her the opportunity to state a point.

The Chair: Let's continue with the questioning. But when people are not here, especially, I think it's a basic courtesy, basic fairness, that we not assail their professional reputations.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And I'm not.

The Chair: There may be differences of opinion expressed here, but I think we really have to stay away from personal attacks. We walk a fine line that way. Members of this committee are protected, as are witnesses before this committee, but I think we still have to choose our words very judiciously when we're sitting around this table.

Ms. Mary Ripley-Guzman: I would like to answer that. I would question the independence of the Canadian military, because a lot of the documents and reports I've seen are copies of what the gentleman said he saw in Brussels. They come from the NATO countries, or from the U.S.

If the U.S. was asked to go in and clean up Iraq, it would have a tremendous liability. It costs a thousand dollars per cubic metre to clean up a DU testing site. So what would it cost to clean up Iraq? The United States has a particular interest in not having the facts about depleted uranium come out.

If Colonel Scott or whoever is taking his information holus-bolus from what's put out by the RAND Corporation and the U.S. military, then maybe he's not doing the proper research. He's not qualified to do the research anyway: he's a regular MD, not a specialist in nuclear medicine. He doesn't have any experience with radioisotopes, and he's taking his information from people who are getting it from the States. In those reports, you can see he quotes Naomi Harley, and Daxon. That's where his research is coming from.

We need to have independent Canadian research—that's what I would ask for. That's why I thought it was worth my while to come here: because you gentlemen aren't scientists and you don't know. Even if you get Dr. Durakovic to come here, he'll talk in his language and convince you he knows what he's talking about. And he does know what he's talking about, but it wouldn't be as easy for you to understand as I would make it.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, do you have any questions?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I just want to say that, as was stated by my colleague on the other side of the table, we want to do what's right. When there's an injustice, we're here to correct it. That's what we're here for, Susan and Madame Guzman. We will try to take some steps to get the information we require to try to correct the situation, dear.

Ms. Susan Riordon: Can you get the Minister of Defence to actually finish the general audit on Terry's pay account? It's been over a year.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It's been over a year?

Ms. Susan Riordon: Yes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay, we'll go after that.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, are you finished with your questions?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes. Mr. Chair. We should ask for that general audit with regard to Terry's situation, which has been going on for over a year now.

The Chair: Mr. Regan, you have the floor.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to say how pleased I am that Mrs. Riordon and Ms. Ripley-Guzman have come before us today and given their presentations.

As members of Parliament, I think we have a very grave responsibility to oversee the activities of departments of government. And as members of this committee, concerned with the Department of National Defence, we have a responsibility to ensure that not only is the department's own military personnel properly treated, but the civilian personnel as well.

Therefore, I encourage our steering committee to bring before us Dr. Durakovic, Dr. Horan, and others, who can give us clearer answers on these questions. I don't mean that your answers aren't clear, but this is a very complex subject—concerned with radioisotopes and different kinds of uranium. It's difficult to get your head around it, let alone come to very clear conclusions.

• 1720

But it seems to me that our Department of National Defence and our Department of Veterans Affairs, in dealing with our veterans, ought to be applying a presumption in their favour. To think we're taking the attitude in those departments that, well, until you prove that DU has caused it and what it is, we're not going to admit this is the case, and to hear that there have been penalties on the pension of Mr. Riordon, that is shocking, appalling, and infuriating.

Obviously I'd like to hear more about this. I'd like to get an explanation of these things, because it is absolutely infuriating. As I say, we have a grave responsibility that we have to carry out to make sure this matter is looked into thoroughly.

Now I'd better ask a couple of questions, but we don't have much time.

The bell is ringing. We have to go for a vote. Otherwise I'd ask a couple of questions.

Ms. Susan Riordon: Thank you very much.

The Chair: If you would like, Mr. Regan, I think we still have at least 10 minutes before the 15-minute bell.

Mr. Geoff Regan: It's two bells.

The Chair: All right.

In terms of the housekeeping matters that I wanted to bring before the committee, it looks like we are going to have to have a special meeting to deal with the issue of the report on plans and priorities, next Monday at 3:30 p.m., in order to have the report in by the required time under the Standing Orders. There's the issue of notice as well with respect to media being in the committee, which we will deal with at that time also.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chair, at that time, will I be able to put forward my motion with regard to bringing in the two doctors—

An hon. member: And Ken Scott.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: —and Ken Scott?

The Chair: With respect, Mrs. Wayne, I think that's best dealt with by the steering committee.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When will that take place?

The Chair: Likely in the fall.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Not until the fall.

The Chair: At this point, I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Mrs. Riordon and Ms. Ripley-Guzman, thank you for your comments.

The meeting is adjourned.