UNEDITED COPY
Thursday November 17, 2005
* * *
º (1635)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.)):
Colleagues, I'll call this meeting to order. And I'd like to, before introducing our guests, just
say to everybody that this is a follow-up, as requested by a motion put forth by the committee to follow up the meeting we
had in June with the Department of National Defence and Veteran's Affairs at that time, which we all recall. Ms. Ellis, you
were with us at that time. Certainly it's an issue that has, since then, and continues to be discussed. We have received communiqué
from various individuals, Mr. Connolly as well, thank you, another article.
So with that, I'd like to open up the meeting, special meeting for the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs, in pursuant to Standing Order 108 (2), briefing session on agent orange. And we have with us
as a start, from the Department of National Defence, Ms. Karen Ellis, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure
and Environment. And we'll follow the same procedures as normal meeting, that is no more than 10 minutes of a presentation,
Ms. Ellis, and then we'll go into questioning from the members, and the first order, I'll remind everybody again, is seven
minutes between questions and answers. This committee, I must say, has been noted to be very flexible in terms of its time
to members, but today, with your indulgence, I will try to by not as flexible, so that we give everybody the opportunity,
and I hope colleagues will respect that. You normally hear a little signal that we have here when the time is reached. So
if I'm a little bit strict today, you know the reasons why. With that, Ms. Ellis, the floor is yours.
Ms. Karen Ellis (Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment, Department of National
Defence): Thank you very much Chair.
[Français]
Merci mesdames et messieurs. Je suis très heureuse
de me retrouver devant le Comité permanent du ministère de la défense nationale et du ministère des Anciens combattants afin
de faire le point sur le travail accompli dans le cadre du Programme de pulvérisation d'herbicides à la base des Forces canadiennes,
Gagetown.
[English]
I would like to emphasize that the work we have undertaken covers not only the testing of agents
orange, purple and other herbicides that took place over four days in May 1966 and three days in June 1967. But in fact, we
have gone far beyond those test periods in our work and we are looking at researching all the herbicide use at Camp Gagetown used
for defoliation, between 1952, when the base was established, and the present day.
When I had come to the committee in June, the focus was to talk about the testing, and as I'm sure
you are all well aware, we had listened immediately to the concerns raised about overall spraying, and we have responded to
that. The primary issue is the public concern regarding human health and environmental impacts of herbicide use at CFB Gagetown
over those 53 years. And resolving this issue is a priority for the Government of Canada, and that is why we have developed
a comprehensive, credible, and responsible plan of action, and a timetable, that will determine the facts, based on strong
and objective science and credible evidence.
That being said, we have to fact time frame realities, and our fact-finding approach is going to
take at least 18 months to do properly, and we are committed to doing this work well, so that it can stand scrutiny, and so
that the policy advice we formulate from this work will be solid.
[Français]
La transparence et l'engagement des citoyens
seront essentiels. Pour bien comprendre les effets sur la santé humaine et l'environnement, il nous faudra tenir compte de
divers intervenants, des décennies de documentation historique et de divers développements.
[English]
The first step of our plan is to establish the facts surrounding the use of herbicides at CFB Gagetown,
as I said, for this 53-year period. Independent third-party experts will conduct the research for this step of the plan. At
the very same time, people who have concerns are able to contact the external fact-finding and outreach coordinator, and I'm
sure that you are aware that a new coordinator was named yesterday, Dr. Dennis Furlong, down in Gagetown.
[Français]
J'ai comparu devant ce comité le 21 juin dernier
et cette comparution a été suivie, deux jours plus tard, d'une séance publique à Gagetown. Les travaux suivants ont été entrepris
en se fondant sur les préoccupations exprimées par le public et le besoin de résoudre les questions soulevées.
[English]
I'm going to now outline the progress we have made and the action plan that we have. A government-wide
approach was developed cooperatively with all participating departments, including the central agencies. This group includes
the Department of National Defence. We are the lead department for overall coordination of the plan and for certain sections
of contracts related to the tasks. Veterans Affairs Canada, whose role is primarily assessing service-related disability claims,
and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and they work with provincial bodies responsible for workers' compensation.
And so the civilian employees work through that avenue.
We also worked with Health Canada
and the Public Health Agency. They are responsible for science and regulatory issues related to herbicides and their contaminants,
including dioxins. Environment Canada
is part of our group; it looks at the science related to environmental impact of dioxin and other contaminants. We work with
Justice Canada on legal and litigation
issues, and Library and Archives Canada, keepers of historical records and documentation.
The approach articulates details for three fact-finding tasks. The first one is the identification
of Canadian and foreign military personnel and civilian employees who may have been present during herbicide spraying at CFB
Gagetown. This task was posted competitively on Merx, the government procurement system, in October, and we anticipate contract
award in December this year, and for work to begin then.
The second fact-finding task is the review of the science and history of herbicide spraying at
CFB Gagetown, and the conduct of environmental sampling, and a search for possible barrel disposal sites. Some of this work
has already been going on in the Summer, in terms of the barrel search, and the sampling, but the full task, in terms of the
review of history of spraying, will be awarded under competitively sourced, Public Works an Government Services Canada standing
offers in December of this year and again we expect work to begin on that, in December.
The third fact-finding task is the determination of possible health effects and the conduct of
an epidemiological study to determine the incidence of illness in the Gagetown area, relative to a reference population. These
health studies will involve independent peer review before they are finalized and before they are submitted. A total of three
contracts will be awarded under this task, using variously competitively source Health Canada standing offers and Merx. We anticipate contract awards for these three
sub-tasks on health between December 2005 and January 2006.
Other activities and progress; the fact-finding and outreach coordinator position has been established
and the role and responsibilities for this person have been defined. Mr. Vaughn Blaney was appointed to the position on 16
August of this year. He resigned in October for health reasons. The new outreach coordinator, Dr. Dennis Furlong, was named
yesterday.
º (1640)
[Français]
Le coordonnateur servira de contact principal
entre les citoyens touchés et le gouvernenent.
[English]
He ensures that the concerns of people are communicated to the government and to those responsible
for completing the fact-finding tasks. He is the guardian of the fact-finding process and he will co-chair, with me, the advisory
panels that will guide those tasks.
One panel will oversee the work searching for military members and civilian employees who were
present when herbicides were sprayed at CFB Gagetown. This advisory panel, and members have not been selected yet, will have
an ethicist, an archivist or library expert, and a representative from one of the legions.
The second advisory panel will provide oversight for the work on tasks two and three, i.e., the
environmental work and the health work. This panel will have, and we will be selecting and inviting members to this panel--
the co-chair and I will do that together--a provincial representative, a dean of science from a university in New Brunswick,
a layperson from the local area, a veteran, a civilian employee representative, a representative from the aboriginal community,
and an ethicist.
As co-chair of the advisory panels, the outreach coordinator will be able to influence and inform
the work of the external contractors. Further, the coordinator will present the findings of all final reports from the fact-finding
tasks to the public, accompanied by scientific and medical experts, as appropriate. And the coordinator and the minister will
receive these reports at exactly the same time, and this is a major effort to show the transparency of the process and to
show that the coordinator will be sharing those results, and they will not come in advance to the minister of to the department.
Another action, a contractor was hired through a standing offer process to conduct soil, vegetation,
and water sampling for all areas where herbicides have been sprayed over the years at CFB Gagetown. The sampling began in
October; it was completed in early November, and the samples have been sent for laboratory testing. Results are to be expected
by late Winter or early Spring 2005. And again, those results will be made public.
Veterans approached the base commander at CFB Gagetown to indicate that they remembered burying
barrels and that they had information about where things were buried at the base. They were invited to accompany the environmental
officer on the search for those sites, those inspection areas were marked, and base files were also searched, to ascertain
where spraying had occurred over the years.
The base hired a contractor, through the standing offer process, to conduct a scientific search
of the identified areas, to see if there were any anomalies underground that could have been buried barrels. I must say that
nothing of concern was found. I'll tell you what was found. There were a few anomalies, they turned out to be items such as
shell casings, batteries, and most recently, a septic tank.
Finally, as was announced in August 2005, and which generated some interest yesterday at the press
conference announcing Dr. Furlong's role, as a parallel and longer-term initiative, National Defence will undertake a two-
to three-year due diligence project and research will be conducted to determine whether agent orange and agent purple or any
other herbicides tested in 1966-67, and I want to very explicitly say tested, because those were those batches with US military.
We have no records right now that indicate that testing happened on any other basis, but this study will enable us to validate
and confirm that, and secondly, that study will review herbicide use in general at all of the other bases in Canada. There
will likely be some variations, Gagetown is very heavily forested, a lot of training, but we're going to do that thorough
work, so that we're able to answer questions.
We expect that project to be launched and tendered some time in January or February 2006, and it
will be a public tender call, and we would likely be awarding contract for that project in March, 2006. Given the number of
files that will have to be reviewed to compile this information, the consultant will be expected to deliver the final report
within two to three years following contract award. It's important to appreciate how many years we're looking at, how many
files we need to look at, and how much research needs to be done. So in conclusion, the government has an obligation to make
responsible and informed decisions based on rigorous research and science. The facts will help us find the right solution.
º (1645)
[Français]
Nous comprenons également que l'incertitude de
cette situation préoccupe certains Canadiens. C'est pourquoi nous nous engageons à discuter avec eux directement et à les
tenir au courant des progrès réalisés de façon régulière. Merci beaucoup.
[English]
Thank you, and I would be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much Ms. Ellis.
We will then begin with Mr. O'Connor. And again I'll remind colleagues, because there are many
people on the list, that we'll just stick to our timeline today, as best we can. Mr. O'Connor.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ellis, I listened to your briefing and I don't have any problem with your effort to search for victims and to sample the
soils, and you have studies going on. I guess my basic problem is the philosophy underlying all this. Basically it's risk
management, to try and figure out, basically, the minimum payout. Now, I guess from our party's point of view, we'd want the
government to take an approach more like the Americans, and that is, if an individual, military or civilian, and we'll stay
with agent orange for the moment, was in the Gagetown area at the time that agent orange was used, and that if they have symptoms
and the symptoms are documented, the Americans have done extensive studies, if they have the symptoms, then we would presume
that they were subject to agent orange and entitled to compensation, rather than have these poor individuals go through the
courts for years and years, or go through all these long processes.
So I don' t think it's very difficult, once a person confirms that they were in Gagetown, whether
they're military or civilian, and if they were there at that time, and if they have those kind of ailments, whether the ratio
in the standard population is different from what they have, we believe that these people should be compensated. And in the
bigger picture, herbicide use throughout the military in all our bases, or nearly all our bases, again, we think the weight
of the effort should be on the individual. That is, if an individual was working at one of our bases where there was heavy
herbicide use, and if they have ailments, or they claim to have ailments related to herbicides, then they should be offered
access to laboratory tests, physical exams, etc., to confirm that they have these ailments, and then, from our point of view,
they should be eligible for compensation.
So I guess what we're saying is that instead of, and all this effort is fine and it's necessary
etc., but instead of working on risk management, I think we should be flipping the thing around, and that if a person was
put in harm's way at that time, and they have the ailments, we shouldn't be fighting them in courts or through the processes
to prevent them from compensation. So I'd just like your opinion please.
º (1650)
Ms. Karen Ellis: You've raised a question around the US system and policy, and I think you've
heard Veterans Affairs was here with me in June. They are the ones who can really speak to that policy of the US and compare
it to the one we have here. But what I would say and what I can say is some of the key level messages that I know they've
shared with us and shared publicly, is that any claimant who does have a medical condition identified by the Institute of
Medicine, which I think you're referring to in the States, who've documented this and researched this very well, you're quite
right. If they can identify a condition that has an association with agent orange, they may well qualify for a pension, and
Veterans Affairs has been awarding pensions, I mean, I have the statistics that they've done 14 out of 57 claims, which meet
those IOM criteria. So the criteria used by Veterans Affairs are the criteria from the United States to which you refer, but
the people have to show that they have direct evidence of direct exposure in the VAC process. I can't say a lot more than
that, but I know they use the criteria that you're talking about.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor: As you may or may not know, this isn't a theoretical thing for me,
I was in Gagetown at the time. In fact, I remember Colonel Sellers as the battalion commander of the Black Watch, and it seems
to me that that would be very difficult for an individual to confirm that they were in the direct spray of the agent orange,
or whatever. It would seem to me that the government should weight the evidence, basically, on the side of the individual
in this case. There can't be a large number. There cannot be a large number of people who, if we stay with agent orange, who
were in Gagetown at that time, who have ailments related to agent orange. And it can' t amount to a whole lot of money from
the federal government's point of view, and I just wonder why we're making it so difficult for individuals to get compensation.
Ms. Karen Ellis: I think the key message that I would just reinforce from what I said in
my opening statement was we have to go beyond the Agent Orange '66 and '67 and we've responded to that very strong cry that
we look at indeed all of the herbicide spray, because people have talked not just about those two years, people have shared
many stories and concerns about many years on the base and the spraying, and so we are not limiting it just to that and so
in order to be able to make some sound assessments of what kinds of situations may have arisen and what that might mean for
future policy, we do have to do the work to find out who, and what role did they play in relation to the program. There are
a whole lot of issues around where were they in relation to the spraying that took place, and we have to build the data.
This is not something that's been done in the past that we could just update. We're trying to find
out all of the original records and information and it is a lot of work.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor: We're talking about theoretically two groups of people. There's the
group of people who were there at the time of the Agent Orange use, and as I said, they may have ailments directed related
to Agent Orange, and then there are people who were there subject to other herbicides, because I remember Gagetown, I did
four tours there. Every summer the planes came over and they sprayed and they sprayed and they sprayed. As a young officer,
I was in there cutting the bush.
So I think you're dealing with two groups. I'm saying certainly the Agent Orange people should
be cut and dried. If they were there at that time, and if they have the ailments related to Agent Orange, we should actively
given them compensation. The rest of us, if we were subject to toxic chemicals, dioxin, at other bases or even at Gagetown,
and we have ailments, as I said, then we should offer the possibility to these people who claim they have ailments to have
tests to confirm medically they have them, and confirm they were on the bases at that time, and make sure there's a linkage
between them and the dioxin or the other herbicides, and then at least they would be on a list to be considered for compensation,
but I think there are two groups here.
º (1655)
Ms. Karen Ellis: There may well be, and the work that we're doing is going to give us the
building blocks to know whether other kinds of testing, such as you referred to, biological testing for people might be appropriate
at a certain time, but we don't know yet what that group would be or when that would be the appropriate time to do it.
The approach we've worked out here has been with a lot of experts, as I said, from Health and other
departments who really are doctors, people who know about this kind of issue and how you check for it and how you research
it, and what I can say is we are open, as we go through the building blocks, if a certain chunk of our work tells us that
we should do something else, that could include things like blood testing for people, we're open to that if it makes sense
at the time.
But right now we don't know when that would be needed, but we're certainly not closing the door
on the possibility of doing some of the things you say once we have enough information to know that would be a good next step.
The Chair: And I'm sure you're plugging that into Veterans Affairs as well.
Ms. Karen Ellis: Absolutely, because many of the issues raised here are very directly related
to Veterans Affairs and I have to be careful, I don't work there, so I don't want to sort of speak about their program in
detail, but I do confirm that Mr. O'Connor talks about the he's absolutely right, and I know that's the criteria that they
are using at Veterans Affairs, and have been using since 1995 on this issue.
The Chair: We will move on to Monsieur Bachand.
[Français]
M. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Merci, monsieur le président, je veux dire bonjour à
Mme Ellis. J'aimerais également lui signaler que si mon collègue et moi-même portons le ruban orange aujourd'hui, ce n'est
pas pour la Révolution démocratique en Ukraine, vous l'aurez deviné, c'est par solidarité pour les gens qui sont aux prises
avec le problème de l'agent orange.
Madame Ellis, vous vous rappellerez la dernière fois, je vous avait fait passer un mauvais quart
d'heure, parce que je vous avais accusée d'être une excellente porte-parole du ministère de la Défense nationale. Il y avait
également eu un argument avec mon collègue, le secrétaire parlementaire. Ce n'était rien comparé à ce que vous avez subi le
lendemain à Gagetown.
Beaucoup de gens considèrent que le gouvernement actuel, je n'irais pas jusqu'à dire qu'il couvre,
mais il sait qu'il est responsable et ne veut pas trop s'engager pour ne pas démontrer trop clairement sa responsabilité.
Que devons-nous faire? Un bon gouvernement fera toujours la même chose. On fait un plan de relations publiques. C'est ce que
vous venez de nous présenter en plusieurs points. Pour rassurer les gens nous leur dirons ce que nous allons faire. En attendant,
madame Ellis, je me demande si vous êtes le bon témoin. Devrions-nous poser ces questions plus particulièrement au ministère
des Anciens combattants ou peut-être à MM. Blaineley et Furlong, puisque que je crois qu'ils ont des tâches à faire.
Il y a eu 216 demandes au mois de novembre, 159 pour lesquelles il y a eu des décisions, 13 ont
été approuvées et quatre seulement pour l'usage de défoliant. Il y a un problème. Le département américain accorde la présomption
de la maladie avec le lien de causalité. Il dit que si vous avez été en contact un jour avec l'agent orange et que vous souffrez
des maladies suivantes: LLC, chloracné, diabète de type 2, la maladie d'Hodgkins, le miellon multiple, le lymphome non hodgkinien,
la neuropathie périphérique aiguë et sub-aiguë, la porphyria cutanea tarda , le cancer de la prostate, les cancers
des voies respiratoires et le sarcome des tissus mous. Si vous avez ces maladies, on vous donne une compensation. C'est tout
le contraire au Canada. On fait un programme de relations publiques pour dire aux gens qu'on a tout en main. Les principales
victimes de Gagetown qui sont ici aujourd'hui et qui sont atteintes de ces maladies, lorsqu'ils repartirons chez eux, devront
démontrer hors de tout doute qu'il y a un lien de causalité entre leur présence à Gagetown et l'agent orange.
Je ne sais pas, monsieur le président, si nous avons le bon témoin devant nous. Si nous voulons
continuer notre étude sur l'agent orange, je vais insister pour que le ministère des Anciens combattants revienne devant nous
ainsi que M. Blaineley et M. Furlong, puisqu'ils ont un rôle à jouer dans cette cause. Actuellement, je ne suis pas certain
que vous êtes capable de répondre à cette question. La question qui se pose est qu'on ne règle pas les problèmes de ces gens
avec un plan de relations publiques. C'est le ministère de la Défense nationale qui se protège avec un plan de relations publiques.
Nous devons plutôt nous concentrer sur les cas des gens qui sont victimes de ce qui s'est passé dans ces années-là. On doit
cesser de vouloir repousser l'échéance à une date ultérieure en demandant à des scientifiques de nous donner des preuves qu'il
y a un lien de causalité. Nous devons présumer que ces gens sont malades et que s'ils étaient là à ce moment et sont atteints
de ces maladies, on doit leur donner compensation. On verra pour ce qui est des preuves scientifiques plus tard.
Je ne sais pas si vous pouvez réagir à ce que je viens de vous dire ou si vous aimez mieux attendre
que le ministère des Anciens combattants et MM. Blaineley Furlong soient ici.
» (1700)
Mme Karen Ellis: Je crois qu'il s'agit d'une bonne idée d'inviter le ministère des Anciens
Combattants. Les maladies que vous avez identifiées sont réellement celles décrites par monsieur O'Connor. Le ministère des
Anciens Combattants utilise cette liste. Vous avez raison, il y a tout un processus. Les gens doivent donner leur cas spécifique,
leur histoire, etc. Ce n'est pas moi qui ai la responsabilité de valider ou d'invalider ces dossiers. Je crois qu'il s'agit
d'une bonne idée d'entretenir de bonnes relations avec les experts.
Pour nous, il s'agit beaucoup plus qu'une plainte touchant aux affaires d'intérêt public. Nous
avons fait beaucoup de travail pendant l'été, de concert avec plusieurs ministères. L'équipe est petite et nous sommes un
peu fatigués. Malgré tout, il est important de déterminer quelles sont les questions à poser. Comment peut-on identifier les
gens, les impacts de l'usage des herbicides et leurs effets sur la santé sans faire d'études? Il ne faut pas tirer de conclusions
hâtives. Nous devons avoir l'information nécessaire. Il faut faire le travail de façon rigoureuse.
M. Claude Bachand: C'est là où je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous parce que le gouvernement
américain, face à toutes les maladies que nous avons énumérées, automatiquement la donne. C'est le problème. Avec l'opération
de relations publiques, nous sommes obligés d'attendre. En attendant, les statistiques que je vous ai remises sont dramatiques.
Il y a 216 personnes qui pensent être atteintes et finalement, sur 159 décisions rendues, on en reconnaît quatre. Cela ne
fait pas une grosse moyenne au bâton. Dans la Ligue nationale de baseball, on demeure longtemps sur le banc avec une moyenne
au bâton de quatre coups sûrs sur 159 présences. C'est là où je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous. C'est 25 à zéro pour le ministère
des Anciens combattants contre les civils actuellement.
Mme Karen Ellis: Je peux mentionner quelque chose d'important. Vous avez donné des statistiques
de gens qui ont reçu des pensions. Le travail que nous ferons, je peux vous assurer que le ministère des Anciens combattants
est ouvert. Si des informations arrivent à cause de nos études, le ministère reverra les dossiers déjà faits. C'est quelque
chose, monsieur, parce que s'il y a plus d'informations différentes, ils reconsidérerons certains cas. Cela donne espoir et
si nous ne faisons pas le travail décrit, vous n'aurez pas espoir d'avoir cette chance à l'avenir.
[English]
The Chair: A very short question and a very quick response, because I know you're very long-winded.
Before we got our next question and member, I would like to read into
the record the motion, only because something came up, so we clearly understand what was requested. It was the motion put
forth by the vice-chair, Mr. Rick Casson, that read the following:
|
That the committee schedule a meeting for the week of November 14 to examine and discuss
the ongoing investigation into the use of agent orange and other defoliants on the Canadian Forces base. |
Because we're bringing in veterans affairs. I very much appreciate and respect what is happening
here. Unfortunately, the good intent, I think, that this motion was meant, maybe should have gone a step further. And this
committee, let me point out to the audience, as well, has been more than receptive to allocate time beyond the norm to address
this issue.
So for the benefit of my good friend, M. Bachand's a very experienced parliamentarian. He knows
very well the motion what will state. We're bringing in veterans affairs, rightfully so, but I can sense here that we should
focus on what the department is doing, as has been outlined—and, colleagues, this is another suggestion—and maybe
address any other issues with veterans affairs.
With that, I'll go to...monsieur Perron.
» (1705)
[Français]
M. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Ce n'est pas seulement ce que le ministère
a fait qui est important, c'est aussi ce qu'il aurait dû faire depuis 29 ans.
[English]
The Chair: I agree with you. That's why we have the department hear, to listen to our views
and recommendations, as well, no question.
Mr. Blaikie, the floor is yours, sir.
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A couple of things.
First of all, I appreciate that there's work to be done, and that point has been made, but there's
no work involved, except some mental intellectual or political work and will involved in adopting the presumptive model. That's
just something you decide to do. I think the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence should
adopt this. In fact, there's some precedent for this, not just in the United States, but in Canada.
Recently, the provincial government in Manitoba has adopted the presumptive model when it comes
to workers compensation for firefighters, because there's a whole lot of diseases that are associated with firefighting. The
firefighters in that province have fought very hard to have the provincial government adopt a presumptive model, so firefighters
haven't had to go through what people who have been exposed to agent orange are having to do, in the federal context, which
is prove, on an individual basis, all on their own, that there's some connection between the condition that they have and
a previous exposure, either to agent orange or, in the case of firefighters, to smoke and the toxic chemicals that people
are exposed to as a result of firefighting.
So we've got that sort of conceptual breakthrough in the country at the provincial level with respect
to compensation. I would hope that the federal government would look at that and take it as an example.
I wonder if perhaps you could tell us is this affecting in any way what's the current...are you
doing any research on the current contamination in Camp Gagetown as a result of previous spraying, not just in that one section
of time, but obviously other defoliants. I've been told, for instance, that at this point the National Guard in Maine, which
used to use Camp Gagetown as a training centre has declared a moratorium on coming up to Camp Gagetown until such time as
they're confident that they're not poisoning their own soldiers. So is that part of the program part of what you're doing,
is to determine what kind of contamination, residual or otherwise, exists at Camp Gagetown and what kind of exposure are people
at Camp Gagetown now being exposed to?
Ms. Karen Ellis: The sampling program that I referred to that has just been completed and
the samples that have gone to the lab are indeed exactly that. They have been taken at quite a few different spots over the
base, about 25 different spots where quite a lot of extensive sampling has been done to determine exactly what in recent years
might be residual or there right now. So as I said, those results will be available in about March, I think, of next year.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: Do we know of any restrictions, other than the self-imposed restrictions
of people who don't normally use it, whether there are any restrictions on the base at the moment as to where people should
go or not go, depending on what is known at the moment?
Ms. Karen Ellis: I really would have to ask the base commander that, but I am not aware
of any particular restrictions at this time. But I would like to take that on notice and get back to you by talking to the
commander himself.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: Now, the other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that there has been an awful lot
of talk, justified, about identifying the military personnel and civilian employees, who may have been exposed to Agent Orange
or these other defoliants. I wonder what effort is going into trying to gauge the effect on civilians in general, people who
live in the area. I've certainly had a number of people express concern to me that it's not just those who had the direct
exposure, either as civilian or military employees, but their families and/or people who lived in nearby communities.
» (1710)
Ms. Karen Ellis: We've certainly heard also many concerns from people who are not necessarily
CF members or civilian employees when we had the public meeting in Gagetown.
One of the main benefits of establishing the external coordinator and outreach office is because
that is an office where people, citizens, who would not necessarily be in our records—we have records for military and
civilian employees—will be able to go to the outreach coordinator, identify themselves as having had a concern, an issue
in the past or in their history related to herbicides at Gagetown. That's one of the main and primary valuable things about
that office and that team there. So there is a place for those people to self-identify, to talk if that's what they would
like to do, and to put other concerns on the record.
We also have the 1-800 line that we set up in June, right after the Gagetown meeting, so that people
could call and just at least find out where they might be directed to talk about their concern. You might find it interesting
to note that we've had about 560 calls on the 1-800 line since June. So that might capture some of the other people you are
talking about.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: I note you say that on one of these task forces, you have an ethicist.
Ms. Karen Ellis: We plan to have an ethicist.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: What sort of ethical questions do you think are raised here?
Ms. Karen Ellis: I think it's really to just have somebody on these panels who can ask questions
maybe if there are any things related to privacy issues might be an example. Just making sure that we have someone who has
an outside view and different training and philosophy, who can just bring their expertise to the task.
I know this was suggested to us by Health Canada folks, who have done a number of the panels and
health studies, and have said they found the participation of an ethicist to be very helpful in these. So we thought it was
a good idea and we thought it would be good to include somebody.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: I'm not against the idea, Mr. Chairman. I'm just curious as to what the
role of the ethicist would be seen to be, because it seems to me there are some questions with respect to privacy. But just
on that it seems to me we're somewhat left in the dark as a committee, because you say so many people have applied and only
so many have--
Ms. Karen Ellis: That's veterans.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: Yes, I agree. But at some point, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we need
to know what kind of conditions people reported and were found to have, and yet were turned down. That's the kind of information
that we're going to need.
We don't have to have names, all we need is some statistics as to how many people had this particular
kind of condition, which may be recognized in the United States, presumptively, and which Canada isn't, so we can compare
how many people are being sort of left out as a result of not adopting the presumptive model. The ultimate ethical question
here is not a question of privacy, or some of the things that the ethicist might concern himself or herself about, but it's
really about how in the end we're going to relate to people who have had this kind of exposure. I suppose that will be up
to the ethics of the government, and not the ethics of the ethicist.
Ms. Karen Ellis:
I think the range of types of people we want to have on those panels I think will be good and we'll
be looking for people who'll bring a lot of integrity and expertise to that process.
The Chair: We've had a buzzer and you've gone beyond the seven as I've allowed everybody,
if it's okay with you, only because I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Blaikie, and I know you are most respectful of the rules,
being our senior here, and I know everybody wants to get in their time.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: And I know you are, too, Mr. Chairman--
The Chair: Thank you kindly.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: --as is the government when it suits them.
The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, the floor is yours as long as you can respond to the rest of the
colleagues.
I'll go to Mr. Rota.
Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Ellis, I'm just reading through some of the notes you've provided and listening to your discourse
and you're on a fact-finding process. You're trying to find out what's happened and what went where.
The experience I've had with the military--pretty well any military around the world--is they keep
very fine records. Is this not something that is evident, that it would be there on record somewhere where you could just
go, get it, look through it, find out exactly what you need, what got sprayed where, who was exposed to it as far as the military
goes, and by knowing where it was sprayed, finding out what area was exactly exposed to it. I'm just curious to find out why
the records... Or do you have the records?
Ms. Karen Ellis: Well, we have some records. Since we've been working through the summer,
for example, there are some good records from the property and environmental side at Gagetown that have quite a good list
of different things that have been sprayed over the years that will be reviewed and studied in fact-finding task two.
As I mentioned earlier, we want to do a longer-term study for the other bases across Canada. And
what we're finding--because we've already had requests for parliamentary papers and access to information requests for that
type of information anyway--so we're having to really look right now for what we already have.
And we will be getting some material but a lot of folks are calling from the base and saying that
they need to know where to look or who to ask and in some cases we have great corporate knowledge at Gagetown because the
property officer there happened to be very, very dedicated to the records-keeping.
We will find out, as we go through time, how we will get hold of the other records for other bases
but it's not kind of an instant thing that everybody can just put their hands on but now that we've said that this is a commitment
and we've got to do it, we're going to put the time and effort into finding them.
The point you raised about trying to identify people, we think that probably in the range of 200,000
military members have trained at Gagetown over the 50 years. That's a lot of files to research, a lot of names to find. And
through your initial search you'll get basic information--who the person was, maybe what unit, and when they were there, and
sometimes repeat times of going there--but it does take quite a bit of work to find out where were they in relation to the
spray program and where were the herbicides sprayed. You've got to do each piece and then make the connections between the
three tasks in order to put the story together and that's what we're committed to.
So we do have some records. We're digging them up constantly because we have lots of requests to
do so but do I think we're going to find a lot more over time? Yes, I do, and it's going to take some real time and effort
and we're going to do that.
» (1715)
Mr. Anthony Rota: You talk about two levels. You talk about Agent Orange and other herbicides.
Ms. Karen Ellis: Right.
Mr. Anthony Rota: Is there any priority put on Agent Orange or Agent Purple, which I understand
is even worse than Agent Orange? Is there a priority on those because that seems to be the pressing one right here. The other
ones are just as important but there seems to be an urgency to the Agent Orange. Is that something that we're pushing forward
or is it just kind of sweeping everything and hoping for the best and hoping that the Agent Orange will rise to the top?
Ms. Karen Ellis: Well we are looking at everything, as I said--all herbicides over 50-plus
years--but we are most definitely trying to find records of people who would have been associated with those two test sprays
in 1966 and 1967 and--
Mr. Anthony Rota: Now that's a very small period.
Ms. Karen Ellis: Yes, it is.
Mr. Anthony Rota: What would prevent us from saying, “Boom, there it is”. These
two short periods. It's not a lot of records. It should be fairly evident to find out who was there, when, and who would be
associated with it.
Ms. Karen Ellis: I think some work has been done on that. I can't tell you right now exactly
how many names we have but I know people have been actively looking for those groupings so I could get back. I could check
with the people in our HR military personnel side and see what the progress has been but that was the focus initially that
we were looking for so effort has gone into that.
And of course there are a number of people who have gone to veterans affairs through their process
with their records or have looked through their own records through Library and Archives Canada. And I would mention as well
the Library and Archives Canada have received a lot of requests to look for people's personal military records.
So there are a number of avenues that we can look at and are looking at to find out those names.
And again, I don't want to go into too much depth on the veterans affairs side because I'm not from there but people who do
have the information about where they were, when they were there, what their linkage might have been with the spraying program
and feel they have one of those IOM diseases or sicknesses, can take that to the veterans affairs process, and civilians could
do the same through the human resources development department.
Mr. Anthony Rota: But it sounds fairly straightforward. Somebody comes up, says, “I
was there.” We check their records, they were there. They have these symptoms.
Ms. Karen Ellis: Well if those things all match, then their claim should do well at Veterans
Affairs.
Mr. Anthony Rota: The other question I.... If I can ask my friend across the table to wait
his turn, the question I--
The Chair: Be respectful, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Greg Thompson: I am, I'm encouraging the member.
The Chair: We're just delaying time, sir, and I'm trying to manage it well. So if you'll
permit me.
Mr. Anthony Rota: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We normally have a very cordial arrangement here.
But anyway, we'll invite our new friends here anyway.
I'll get on with a question about the work that you're doing out in the field. You're actually
going out, and you're looking for incidents of agent orange or any other herbicides. Now anything I've read on this, it really
doesn't have a 20-year lifespan. Some of it just basically lands, it hits the leaves, and as it evaporates through the sunlight,
it disappears. What do we expect to find on the ground where it was sprayed? And how do we apply that to where we are now,
or to helping out veterans? I'm just wondering what is the usefulness of going out with a shovel and looking in the ground.
» (1720)
Ms. Karen Ellis: Just to link back, the question that you've just ended on connects back
to what a couple of the other members had raised, which is what testing are we doing now. And, the sampling we've done for
water, soil, and vegetation in the last couple of months doesn't tell you necessarily what happened 40 years ago or 30 years
ago, but it will certainly tell you what's happened in recent years and if there's a cumulative effect from the recent spraying
program.
And, so that work is being done and those results will be shared, and if there's any need to make
any changes in the practices of the program, those will be done, if anything is shown out of those tests that requires a change.
Mr. Anthony Rota: How recent is recent?
Ms. Karen Ellis: I really don't want to try and speak as a scientist about that. But my
understanding is about three or four years back. Testing now will probably tell you something about the last three or four
years. And I can certainly confirm that, the testing we've just done.
Mr. Anthony Rota: I'm just thinking that our records would be fairly clear for the last
three or four years, and is it actually serving anything to go out and do those tests?
Ms. Karen Ellis: Well it is because the records tell you what was sprayed, but the actual
testing and sampling tells you whether or not there's any kind of dioxin residue or other kind of contaminant residue. And
that's important to know, so that you can find out what impact did it have on the environment.
The Chair: Because we started late, I'm going to be extended beyond 5:30. I know we started
late and we have four more people on the list and I intend to cover each and every person, Ms. Ellis, so I'll ask for your
patience.
With that, we'll go to Mr. MacKenzie, sir.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Ms. Ellis. I'm more concerned about the people than the current state of what's
in the ground. And I understand the concern about what's in the ground. But we're looking at needles in a haystack there.
I guess from the beginning of this whole thing, what's concerned me has been sort of the veil of
secrecy and the difficulty for the people to access. You mentioned about the 1-800 number, and I wondered where anyone would
find that. Yesterday, if you checked on the DND website for defoliant spraying at CFB Gagetown, you got a document that said
Canada and Peacekeeping. I understand today it's been corrected. But that's the kind of thing I think that our people have
been suffering through, is trying to get the information that seems to be hidden.
And I have a document. We've been busy on the access to information files and we'll do more if
that would spur broadening the investigation. A number of them have been, with relative to other bases in Canada. And, we've
certainly been waiting to hear from them.
But, one of the documents that we did obtain was prepared by someone
in your group, a Ginger Stone. I believe it's dated June 3 of this year. It indicates that the institute of medicine is considered
leading expert in this regard.
|
Contrary to general public and media perception, however, the ION
has not found that exposure to Agent Orange is the cause of any illnesses. |
And it goes on a little bit more and talks about industrial and agriculture and Viet Nam veterans,
and how minimal the spraying was with respect to Canadians.
If we start off with that premise, does it not make it very hard and very difficult to accept some
of the things that our Canadian people are telling us about their injuries? If we have the premise that it doesn't cause the
illnesses, and that it was minimal?
Ms. Karen Ellis: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on that because there's--and again,
it sounds so detailed--but the direct versus association, Veterans Affairs uses the association of illnesses, so that the
illness is mentioned by two of the other members from the institute of medicine. What Veterans Affairs does is it looks for
associations. So there are certain diseases that are on that list that are associated with exposure to Agent Orange. So it
sounds just like semantics, but direct cause versus association is actually different from a medical perspective.
But what I wanted you to know is that the association is respected by Veterans Affairs for those
diseases. And the government has recognized that because they've given pensions in some cases.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Presumptive on the illnesses?
Ms. Karen Ellis: I can't comment on the presumptive policy. I don't want to make a mistake,
it's not my area of expertise, I'm sorry.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: My other comment would be with respect to what we see—at least
those of us who have been trying to help some of these people—on the secrecy things and the timing of other things.
It's interesting that yesterday's announcement with respect to broadening the whole thing, and we understand that Mr. Furlong's
appointment was a result of something that was unanticipated, but it's ironic that yesterday, the day before this committee
is going to be looking at Agent Orange, we have the expansion of the program and the announcement of Mr. Furlong.
» (1725)
Ms. Karen Ellis: I'd like to correct the record. We talked about the two to three year longer-term
project in our announcement on August 16. It's in the press materials.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Looking at other bases?
Ms. Karen Ellis: Yes, that's exactly what seemed to cause so much interest yesterday and
it was in our package on August 16.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: My apologies, we were of the opinion that it only got announced yesterday.
Ms. Karen Ellis: I appreciate your asking because this morning when I saw so much of that
in the press I thought, I guess nobody read that in our package in August.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: It happens to us all the time.
Ms. Karen Ellis: I'm sure it does, but I think it's important and I thank you for that.
That's a very important point that came up even in Gagetown and I think when I was here in June: it was what about elsewhere?
We've had other inquiries come in from other members of Parliament about their own area. We were trying to respond and we
did respond earlier in the summer. We did have it in the material, it was there, and just yesterday we were asked that question.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Fair enough and I apologize.
Ms. Karen Ellis: No problem, I'm glad to have the chance to say it was in our thinking all
along.
The Chair: We'll have to move on. I want to extend everybody the courtesy, David.
With that we'll go to Mr. Martin.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Ellis, thank you for being here today.
I want to get back to why the herbicides were used in the first place. Can you comment on why they
actually used the herbicides on Gagetown?
Ms. Karen Ellis: What I will do is take the comments made by military colleagues who work
with that when we came here in June to this committee. Basically they're used to clear brush for training purposes, safety
reasons, and fire prevention. The heavy brush areas where there's going to be firing of ammunition are obviously going to
be susceptible to fires and so clearing away as much foliage as possible is an important safety measure. The defoliation,
especially on a base where a tremendous amount of training takes place, is an essential operational practice. That's how it's
been explained to me and it makes a lot of sense.
Hon. Keith Martin: The absence of doing that would actually cause a problem and put our
Canadian forces at risk.
Ms. Karen Ellis: It would.
If you were going to send them in to train somewhere it's a risk management kind of thing and it's
important to plan ahead where you're going to be doing the training. It is a precaution that's taken.
Hon. Keith Martin: Were there any other options to defoliate the area that you're aware
of?
Ms. Karen Ellis: There are other ways to defoliate that have been used. Mechanical and hand
clearing would be one option. I know that over the years the base looked at the places where you would need to do any kind
of herbicide spraying and where it would make sense to use other kinds of approaches.
Hon. Keith Martin: I want to get it clear in my own mind the dates and times when Agent
Orange was used. Was it only used for the seven days you mentioned back in the 1960s?
Ms. Karen Ellis: I think this is another good opportunity to clarify something very important.
The test batches we talked about when I was here in June for the seven days over those two years was an unregistered product
that was tested with the U.S. military. That makes it different from all the other products we used that were registered products
and used in Canada by all kinds of people and organizations.
The bottom line is that we've heard from people who've gotten information out from Access to Information
that some of the component ingredients of Agent Orange appeared in other herbicides. That leads me again to say it wasn't
those sort of test batches, but there's validity in saying those chemicals were also in other herbicides. Hence, we said okay,
let's look at the entire 50 years because people have concerns about anything of that nature that was in product.
It's the testing part I'd like to distinguish because testing with not knowing necessarily the
make-up of those is a separate type of thing versus the overall program and we know people had concerns about both aspects.
Hon. Keith Martin:
At the end of the day, of course, we all want to make sure that our veterans, if there's any correlation
at all in terms of their exposure to Agent Orange or another herbicide that caused an ailment that they have, that they receive
compensation that they ought to get. The challenge, of course, that you're dealing with is trying to parse out that population
of people who are a lot older, that population of people who have diseases, and what population of those are getting a disease
as a result of an exposure to an herbicide and which of those individuals are getting those diseases because as we get older
we get more of those diseases. That's a really difficult challenge that you're struggling with.
I was looking at some evidence in the United States and they did show an increase in diabetes.
It didn't show an increase in any of the cancers. And I know this is not your area of expertise, but are you familiar with
any other studies that have been done that show any direct correlation between exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides
and the collection diseases that I think Monsieur Bachand mentioned?
» (1730)
Ms. Karen Ellis: Am I aware of any studies? I know that there was a famous study that was
done on something called Operation Ranch Hand. I think these were people in the U.S. military who had been in Vietnam and
directly dealing with the spraying in Vietnam. I know there was a study on them. I read something about that this summer,
but I think one of the findings was that there was maybe something slightly elevated related to prostate cancer, but I don't
have a lot more detail.
Hon. Keith Martin: I saw that study. There were people who were exposed to Agent Orange
for nine years in Vietnam. I think about 2,000 people have been looked at over 20 years. And it showed a 166% increase in
diabetes, but it didn't show an increase in any of the cancers that Monsieur Bachand mentioned. But the question is for the
people who were out there, who have diseases, and they're worried and they're concerned. I haven't seen any other studies
that I'm aware of and I'm trying to look for them. Have you seen any?
Ms. Karen Ellis: I think we're breaking some new ground on this one in Canada and maybe
even more broadly and that's why we need to do this work. I know what you're sort of getting at, which is if there was something
already.
The health study we're going to do on Task III will include a literature review of anything and
everything that is relevant to this. So I want to assure people that anything, other studies that have been done—and
I know earlier when I came, I think it was Mr. Thompson had something that he had seen as a study from B.C., so I'm sure that—all
of those types of things that are relevant to this topic will be looked at in the literature review.
And I guess the other point to make is Gagetown was not Vietnam.
[Français]
M. Gilles-A. Perron: Madame, bonjour.
Je crois que vous êtes un « joueur de football » très courageux, pour vous présenter
seule. J'admire votre courage. Cependant, si nous avions été au Parc Lansdowne avec les Renegades, je crois que vous vous
seriez fait lancer des tomates. J'ose croire que vous n'auriez pas été la seule.
Au quatrième paragraphe, vous êtes d'une arrogance incroyable. Vous dites : « La transparence
et l'engagement des citoyens seront essentiels. » Vous auriez pu ajouter : « La transparence et l'engagement des
citoyens, des Forces canadiennes et des anciens combattants seront essentiels. » Avoir été un des spectateurs, je vous
aurais inondée de tomates, madame. En effet, il faut exiger la transparence des Forces canadiennes et des anciens combattants.
La charge n'est pas seulement d'un côté.
Deuxièmement, il y a des gens qui se battent depuis 1976. Pourquoi a-t-on attendu au 21 juin 2005,
lors de votre comparution, pour commencer à se préoccuper des gaz orange et purple et de l'agent orange? Pourquoi tout
ce temps?
Mme Karen Ellis: Monsieur, en ce qui a trait au premier commentaire, vraiment les membres
des Forces canadiennes et les anciens combattants sont les premiers envers qui nous nous engageons. Ils sont déjà inclus,
de manière implicite. Nous discutons régulièrement de ces questions avec eux.
M. Gilles-A. Perron: Ce n'est pas ce que vous avez dit, madame. Vous avez dit: « La
transparence et l'engagement des citoyens ».
Mme Karen Ellis: Dans ce cas, monsieur, j'ajouterai les mots que vous avez mentionnés dans
la prochaine version. Vous avez raison, il faut nommer les autres groupes. Je suis d'accord et je regrette si j'ai insulté
quelqu'un.
M. Gilles-A. Perron: Vous m'avez insulté à propos de ces gens.
Mme Karen Ellis: Le deuxième point que vous avez soulevé est la question de la durée. Pourquoi
si longtemps? Toutes ces inquiétudes concernant l'agent orange ont été soulevées, à ma connaissance, au mois de mai. Au moment
où cela a été soulevé comme étant une question importante pour les membres des Forces canadiennes et pour les anciens combattants,
nous avons pris plusieurs mesures, monsieur. Nous n'avons pas cessé de travailler depuis ce moment.
» (1735)
M. Gilles-A. Perron: Je ne mets pas en doute votre travail, madame. Je me demande seulement
pourquoi cela a pris tant de temps. Vous avez dit, vers la fin de votre exposé, que vous pensiez avoir cela en mars 2006.
Attendez-vous que ces gens meurent?
Mme Karen Ellis: Monsieur, je ne peux répondre à un tel commentaire.
M. Gilles-A. Perron: Combien de gens sont décédés entre 1976 et le 21 juin 2005? Combien
y en a-t-il? Il faudrait le savoir. Nous devons être humains. Nous devons penser avec notre tête et avec notre coeur. Je ne
vous en veux pas personnellement. Vous êtes un bon joueur et je vous admire de venir vous battre seule contre tous ces gens.
Vous avez du courage et de la volonté. Chapeau! Par contre, je n'aime ni les anciens combattants ni l'armée qui sont derrière
vous et qui vous aident dans ce dossier. J'ai terminé.
[English]
The Chair: Any quick response, Ms. Ellis?
Ms. Karen Ellis: No.
The Chair: It was just a comment.
Merci beaucoup, monsieur Perron, only because you're saving us some time. It'll permit us to go
to Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank members of the committee for allowing me to join you tonight.
Ms. Ellis, going back to your testimony that you presented here, on June 21, in my opinion you
were either poorly prepared or in the complete state of denial on this issue of agent orange, dioxins, and all the other defoliants
that have sprayed on Base Gagetown.
Now, in that testimony that day, you said the vast majority of agent
orange would have been absorbed in the forest canopy—one of the members has talked about that this evening, and I was
actually encouraging him to continue in that light—and you say here, and I'm quoting your directly:
|
In the absence of deliberate... |
—and you use the word “deliberate”—
|
...ingestion of large amounts of contaminated material, there is virtually no risk of significant
exposure related to the spraying among Canadian Forces. |
Do you still stand by that statement?
Ms. Karen Ellis: Mr. Thompson, on June 21, I gave the best information I had at that time.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Do you stand by it, yes or no? Yes or no. Simple answer.
Ms. Karen Ellis: Could you read it again, please?
Mr. Greg Thompson: You know what you said. Just don't play that game with me. We're in limited
time.
Do you stand by the fact that in the order of deliberate ingestion—
Hon. Keith Martin: A point of order, a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, through you, I warn Mr. Thompson not to berate the witness. Ms. Ellis is here as
an assistant deputy minister and is an honourable public servant. She's doing her best to provide the information that she
has at her fingertips and what she has had, and I would just ask Mr. Thompson to be respectful of Ms. Ellis.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Ms. Ellis is a very skilled communicator
and I will put the questions to her that I deem appropriate.
—Ms. Ellis, this is you speaking on that date—
|
In the absence of deliberate... |
—you use the word “deliberate”—
|
...ingestion of large amounts of contaminated material, there's virtually no risk of significant
exposure related to the spraying among Canadian Forces members. |
Do you stand by that statement, yes or no?
The Chair: Were those from the blues of that meeting, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Greg Thompson: No, this is her direct statement that she presented to the committee
on that day, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Karen Ellis: Well, Mr. Thompson, I was using information provided to me by the CF Surgeon
General, medical experts. I am not a doctor. I researched my remarks to find out the best information I could that day.
Any kind of exposure issues or association with disease is something that medical experts have
to talk about. I did what I could, having several days to prepare, never having dealt with the issue before, and I got the
best information I could from the experts.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay, Ms. Ellis. So I guess I understand where you're coming from on
that one. You came poorly prepared, would be my opinion.
The Chair: (Inaudible) wants to respond, sir.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect, you also
go back to the Institute of Medicine, and I questioned you quite heavily that day, if you will, and I was very forceful. I'm
quoting you again. It says:
|
It maintains a list of illnesses for which there is sufficient or limited evidence of an
association with the exposure of agent orange. It has not found that agent orange exposure is the cause of any illnesses and
associations... |
—that's the key word that you mentioned tonight—
|
...they found were largely based on studies of industrial and agricultural workers with far
greater exposure to dioxin-containing chemicals than experience by Vietnam veterans. |
It appears as if the department has changed their position on that, as well, that they're recognizing
now that connection, if you will, that association. Is that correct?
» (1740)
Ms. Karen Ellis:
The connection was recognized even before I appeared on June 21. Mr. Sellar received a pension.
That is a direct association and result of respecting that association.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, I disagree, Ms. Ellis, but I think I have the privilege of doing
that without too much disagreement among the members.
You went further on that day, you said, “There is little chance that civilians living outside
the base were exposed to the chemicals used in this testing”. Do you still believe that, as a fact?
Ms. Karen Ellis: There is little chance until we do the research program that I've laid
out that will tell us whether or not there should be any concerns for those people. That's why we're doing the work, program
we're doing.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Who is setting the terms of reference for the research being done? Are
they being done by experts, are they being done by a committee of cabinet? Who's setting the terms of reference?
Ms. Karen Ellis: The terms of reference for the different fact-finding tasks are being developed
with all of the other departments I mentioned at the beginning of my statement this evening, and with the fact-finding and
outreach coordinator.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay. So basically you're telling me, that's code language for: it's
coming through the political masters. Is that correct?
Ms. Karen Ellis: We have been entrusted to work with doctors, scientific and other experts,
and government departments to develop terms of reference.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Ms. Ellis, that's fine with me, that answer. I don't believe that it's
correct, but.... Why don't you test for dioxin levels in those soldiers and those civilians who feel they were exposed? Why
not test for dioxin levels as they do in the United States of America?
Ms. Karen Ellis: Mr. Thompson, Veterans Affairs would be able to answer that question since
they do the assessments of soldiers who say that they have any concerns related to this.
The Chair: With that, I'm going to have to end it, sorry, because I was respectful to extend
the vice-chair, and I have discussed this. I do wish to give our last member an opportunity for a quick comment, and it's
Ms. Gallant.
I'm sorry, Mr. Thompson, but we discussed this earlier.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Just further to Mr. Rota's
question on the purpose behind doing the soil sample testing, really, what is the purpose? Are we going to, at the end of
the day, try to tie whatever remains might be left in the soil and try to prove cause-effect relationships between the diseases?
Isn't it really more of a red herring to spend time doing that, or maybe an orange herring, when it would be much more efficient,
waste far less time, just to go ahead and compensate these people who've been exposed based on their proximity to the affected
area and/or medical testing?
Ms. Karen Ellis: As I said, and I really have to reinforce a couple of other points, if
people have evidence that their exposure and associated illnesses which are recognized by Veterans Affairs, they can today
and have been able to, for any period of time, go to Veterans Affairs and make that case and apply for a pension.
The soil sampling and water sampling was something people called for at the public meeting in Gagetown.
They were concerned about what's there now. We responded by saying we will look at it. We wanted to say to people, “We're
listening to you. We know that you have concerns, and we're going to test it”. Anything that we test for now, the value
in doing that is to say any residue or anything of concern over the last three years or fours years--and again, I'll confirm
that exact timeframe--may indicate to us that maybe we should change something we're doing. Then we could take an appropriate
action, but we won't know until we get the results.
So it's not without value. It was also done to respond to concerns raised by people in the community
and on the base.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: They won't be just looking for remnants of agent orange, it would be
decomposed--
Ms. Karen Ellis: They'll be looking for any...well, it's the herbicides over the last few
years that have been sprayed. They'd be looking for any residue of contaminants there.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: What they would combine to form with the other organic solids, like
Trihalomethanes and then the diseases related to that as well.
Ms. Karen Ellis: You sound far more expert than I could hope to be. Sorry, I can't comment
on chemical compounds.
The Chair: Thank you, Cheryl.
As we close, Ms. Ellis, thank you for staying a little bit later.
I don't know if colleagues are aware, but a lot of questions were related in terms of process,
Veterans Affairs and what have you. I have some in my office--I don't know if you members have--but it seems to me that there
are considerable telephone numbers outlining qualifying for disability pension, IOM, etc., etc. So there's a lot of good information
here in both our official languages. It seems to me to be two separate areas: your responsibilities with Mr. Furlong and what
Veterans Affairs is doing.
As I said earlier, maybe at a later time we can agree to possibly have Veterans Affairs in here
again just to give us an idea of what's happening. I do want to put on the record that there is access in terms of Veterans
Affairs and the allowance.
With that, I'm not going to go into any questions. I thank you, Ms. Ellis, for being here, and
certainly I anticipate or maybe sometime down the road we'll be calling you again.
We'll suspend for a little while, colleagues. Thank you.
»
¼
¼ (1810)
The Chair: With that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. We have with us, colleagues,
this evening from Agent Orange Association of Canada, Mr. Kenneth Dobbie, President. We also have with us as individuals,
Jody Carr, John Chisolm, Wayne H. Cardinal, Gloria Sellar, and Arthur Connolly.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I don't know if everybody's going to speak, so if you can just give
me a line of who we will be speaking so we can manage our time well. Will everybody be speaking?
Mr. Chisolm, Mr. Dobbie, and Mr. Carr will be speaking. Mr. Cardinal will you be speaking, sir?
Everybody has a presentation. I have the guests here, I just didn't know if every individual was going to speak. Certainly,
we're trying to management our time, as you can appreciate. If we go 10 minutes each, we have an hour right there and then
we want to give ample time to the members of the committee to ask questions and receive answers. So in your presentations
I'll try to manage the time as best as I can.
First on my list is Mr. Kenneth Dobbie. Would you open up, sir.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie (President, Agent Orange Association of Canada):
Yes, I will. Good evening Mr. Chairman and committee members. I want to thank the committee for
inviting me to testify on behalf of the Agent Orange Association of Canada. And now with the committee's permission, I will
now read my prepared statement, and then answer any questions. In May of this year I obtained document A2004-00207 from the
freedom of information officer at the Department of National Defence in Ottawa. For brevity, I will refer to document A2004-00207
as document 207. Document 207 originally contained 167 pages, but only 82 were actually released. The other pages were withheld.
Our government has publicly admitted that from 14 June to 16 June, 1966 and from 21 June to 24 June, 1967, the American military,
in cooperation with DND, sprayed 24D and 245T on the training area of CFB Gagetown, for a combined total of seven days, covering
less than 400 acres.
The chemicals 24D and 245T were given the names agent orange and agent purple by the Americans
in 1962, when they began their use of these chemicals in Vietnam. If you will now refer to the pages provided, you will note
that pages 83 and 84 of document 207 are entitled overview of herbicide spray program, 1956-1984. These two summary pages
show that DND sprayed 24D plus 245T on almost 49,000 acres in the CFB Gagetown training area from 1956 to 1964. These are
the same chemicals the Americans call agent orange and agent purple. In 1964, there was a spraying accident, which caused
a dioxin spray to drift across the St. John river to farms from Burton to Jemseg, primarily in the Sheffield to Majorville
area, a distance of 29 kilometres. The crops in all these farms were totally destroyed and the Crown compensated farmers for
the loss of their crops by paying them a total of $250,000, in 1964.
This is not the first time this had happened. According to the 8 August
1964 edition of the Fredericton Daily Gleaner, and I quote,
|
Meanwhile Camp Gagetown officials are not too concerned about the
situation. One officer said complains of crop damage were received every year. Mr. Baker, project engineer and local head
of Defence Construction Ltd., a division of DND, said that “compensation for fair and reasonable crop damage after due
investigation has been paid in the past and will be paid in the future“ Mr. Baker said. |
This admission shows that there were similar spraying accidents before 1864, thus hundreds, possibly
thousands of civilians were exposed and poisoned. In 1965, for a number of factors, one being the spray accident, DND switched
to spraying Tordon 101 for the next 20 years, until 1984. Tordon 101 is what the Americans called agent white. Tordon 101
is a trademarked name of Dow Chemical. It contained a combination of Picloram and 24D, in a 4:1 ratio. The Picloram contained
an inert agent called hexachlorobenzene . It has been identified by both the US Agency for Toxic Substances and also the World
Health Organization, as being a persistent bioaccumulative toxin that causes cancer.
The EPA has established that hexachlorobenzene harms the liver, kidneys, blood, lungs, and the
nervous, immune, and gastrointestinal systems, yet DND sprayed just over 1.1 million litres of this deadly poison on the training
area, for 20 years, where human contact was inevitable.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency website, and I
quote
|
because hexachlorobenzene is persistent and bioaccumulative, it stays in our environment
for a long time, and contaminates our food chain. Hexachlorobenzene can cause severe health problems for humans. It damages
bones, kidneys, and blood cells, it can harm the immune system, it lowers the survival rates of young children, it can cause
abnormal fetal development, it harms the liver, endocrine, and nervous systems, and it may cause cancer |
according to the EPA. They're a little soft on that.
¼ (1815)
Document 207 shows that in 1964 DND invited the Americans to test their chemicals on CFB Gagetown.
But because of budget cutbacks, the tests were not carried out until 1966 and 1967.
DND had a spray program in effect for 10 years before the Americans came to spray their two and
a half barrels, and then DND sprayed for a further 20 years, after the Americans had packed their bags and gone home.
So when our government says that the spraying of Agent Orange and Agent Purple only occurred in
1966 and 1967, they are deliberately misleading the public. They are not telling the truth, and their denials are proven untrue
by their own documentation.
For 28 years, from 1956 to 1984, DND sprayed more than 1.3 million litres of persistent bioaccumulative
toxins, dioxin and hexachlorobenzene, over an area of 181,000 acres of the CFB Gagetown training area.
During the mid- to late-sixties, the Liberal government started summer jobs across Canada called
the Young Canada Works program. Through this program there were hundreds of teenagers employed by the Department of National
Defence at CFB Gagetown in the years 1966 to 1969. I was one of them.
One of the main projects in the summer of 1966 was to clear defoliated brush and burn it. In fact,
the spraying was ongoing while we were working in the training area. The dead foliage and brush were covered in the deadly
dioxin. We worked at this for six weeks. We cut it and we burned it.
We did not have any safety equipment. We were not issued gloves or masks, or any protective clothing.
Because of the heat in July and August, while working we usually stripped to the waist. Using our bare hands with machetes
and axes, we cleared the dead, poisoned brush. We inhaled the vapours and smoke of the poison when we burned the brush. We
absorbed it through our skin. And when it came time to eat, we sat down where we worked and ate our lunches with our bare
hands, thus ingesting the dioxin.
I was poisoned, and now many years later my health is very seriously compromised. As a result of
my poisoning, I have diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, liver disease, and brain atrophy among other diseases. In late 1966,
just four months after I was poisoned, I was diagnosed with peptic ulcers and have had stomach disorders since then. In 1977
I became very ill and was hospitalized. I was diagnosed with toxic hepatitis after three liver biopsies.
Two liver specialists told me a toxic chemical had poisoned my liver. And I have been ill with
liver dysfunction since that time. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s I was ill with various ailments. My health continued to
deteriorate, and in 1998 I had my first attack of pancreatitis. I have been hospitalized 17 times in the past seven years,
twice this year already as recently as November 4. I am tested for cancer every three months. My doctors have told me it's
not a question of if I develop cancer, it's a question of when. I was in the hospital six times last year and, as I already
have alluded to, twice this year already.
Knowing that I had worked with the defoliated brush in 1966, I persisted with my efforts to bring
to the government's attention that there were hundreds of other teens who I had worked with. I contacted DND in Ottawa, but
DND denied categorically that any civilians had ever been exposed.
As a result I became angry, and I decided to make it public that civilians were exposed and poisoned
on a massive scale. I contacted the CBC with my story of civilian teenagers being poisoned by Agent Orange. As a result, I
have been interviewed many times by the news networks and the newspapers across Canada.
People are reporting stories of cancer and debilitating illnesses to the Agent Orange Association
of Canada.
Because my story and email address were published on Jody Carr's website, I have received emails
from people all across Canada with horror stories of their families dying of various cancers, organ dysfunctions, neurological
disorders, and having miscarriages, birth defects and so on. The common thread among all these emails is that they were all
families based at CFB Gagetown during the sixties, seventies, and early eighties.
The training area was not only used for military exercises, as DND would have us believe. It was
in fact a recreation area for all the families of military personnel for decades.
¼ (1820)
Families went on picnics, they swam in the lakes, they ate the blueberries, drank the spring water
at the Shirley road. The Camp Gagetown Fish and Game Club had many thousands of members over the years. People hunted the
game and ate it. Families ate the trout. Families used to go to the training area and pick bushels of apples at the expropriated
farms. Everyone did, because it was an accepted and practised way of life for military families at Base Gagetown.
Thousands of children and wives were exposed and poisoned by dioxin and hexachlorobenzene over
a period of almost four decades. Think about that for a moment. There were Boy Scout camps in the training area in the summertime.
I know, because I took part in two of them, one in 1960 and then again in 1961, and the army even issued us with bell tents
for our use when we were at the Boy Scout camps in the training area.
For our government to say that civilians were not exposed to the defoliation chemicals in any way
is not only a callous dismissal of fact, it is a heinous lie, and it infuriates and frustrates the people who were there and
who are sick.
In conclusion, our government should mirror the American actions and adopt a presumptive clause,
including both military and civilian personnel, awarding compensation to those identified as being at CFB Gagetown during
the years of spraying. In addition, our government should establish testing programs and medical care expenses not covered
by medicare for the sick and dying, and finally, there should be a public inquiry into the poisoning of generations of military
and civilian personnel.
I welcome any questions.
¼ (1825)
The Chair: Thank you.
We're going to go to the rest of the witnesses, and then we'll go into questions and answers.
Mr. Carr.
Mr. Jody Carr (As an Individual): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs for showing great interest in this issue. It's an
issue, of course, of great importance, and we thank you for giving us this time.
My name is Jody Carr, and I'm the member of the legislative assembly for the riding of Oromocto-Gagetown
in New Brunswick. I thank you for the invitation to be here today.
Base Gagetown first opened its gates in 1952. The federal government expropriated 20 communities
in central-southern New Brunswick that created the largest military training base in the Commonwealth. The military is very
significant to the local and provincial economy by pouring in over $500 million per year. We are grateful to have this economic
engine. We are proud of our military and the partnership formed over 50 years.
We can no longer, however, stick our heads in the sand and hope the issue of herbicide contamination
goes away. The door was opened on the entire spray issue once again at Base Gagetown when it became known in May 2005 that
one veteran received approval for compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs due to exposure to Agent Orange at
Base Gagetown. Brigadier-General Sellars, and Mrs. Gloria Sellars, deserve a great deal of praise for putting up with a long-fought
battle of well over a decade before finally getting a disability pension.
When this information broke, I immediately called for compensation to be extended to civilian workers
on Base Gagetown, and publicly asked for further studies to be done regarding the entire chemical spray program that started
in the early 1950s. I have literally heard from hundreds of people in my constituency of Oromocto-Gagetown, and from across
Canada, affected by dioxin-contaminated herbicides used at Base Gagetown. I have learned as well a great deal about the issue
of Agent Orange, dioxins, 2,4-D, and 245T--sometimes more than I care to.
This is underlying the issue when you see the images on television, but people mistrust government--here's
a revelation--and are very skeptical of government, especially regarding this issue which has been around for over 50 years.
The issue first came to light, though, in 1981, when two New Democratic members of Parliament obtained a copy of a U.S. Army
report regarding testing of Agent Orange at Base Gagetown in 1966 and 1967. The federal government said then, and said again
this year, 25 years later, that Agent Orange was tested on two small test sites, secluded and isolated, with very few people
being exposed. I believe the government when they say that.
The problem has become not just the two years of testing in 1966 and 1967, but the years well before
and well after, when people were exposed to dioxin-contaminated herbicides under the Base Gagetown herbicide spray program.
People felt the issue was put on the back burner 25 years ago, and they are not prepared to let it slip away this time.
“Agent Orange” was the label name given by the Americans in the 1960s of the defoliant
containing 2,4-D, and 245T. The manufacturing of this product resulted in high quantities of dioxin, among other contaminants.
Exposure to mixtures of 2,4-D and 245T, and dioxin, results in detrimental illness. Mixtures of 2,4-D and 245T under other
brand names were used prior to the testing of Agent Orange at Base Gagetown. Agent Orange was simply a brand name and a label
name.
There is information available that will confirm the manufacturing of these chemicals--245T in
particular, especially in the 1950s and early 1960s--resulted in higher concentrations of dioxin. There is also information
available regarding the label and brand names of the chemicals used at Base Gagetown, registered and approved by the federal
government prior to 1966 from the Department of National Defence.
I have attached copies of the documentation from DND, and I'll provide it to the clerk, provided
under Access to Information, showing these dioxin-laced chemicals were indeed used at Base Gagetown prior to 1966. The evidence
is there, clearly, from DND's own records.
I must also mention these same chemicals and brand names were used by New Brunswick Power Corporation
in the 1950s, and caused detrimental illness to their employees. Statistical studies were done that showed this group of employees
did indeed have a higher level of illness that is related to dioxin exposure than the rest of the population. NB Power and
the government of New Brunswick later agreed to a compensation settlement for this exposure.
¼ (1830)
NB Power and the government of New Brunswick later agreed to a compensation settlement for this
exposure. These chemicals used for defoliation on New Brunswick powerlines did not have the label name, “Agent Orange”.
Other label names such as “Brushkill”, registered again through the federal government. However, all of these
chemical mixtures had high concentrations of dioxin and 245T.
I must compliment and commend base Gagetown commander Colonel Ryan Jestin for his work on this
file. At the public meeting held June 23 at the base theatre Colonel Jestin showed great leadership by making the commitment
to study the environmental status of the entire training grounds, not just the two test plots affected in 1966 and 1967, but
the entire training grounds. He was the only one on stage that day willing to acknowledge the real issue of the concerns of
veterans and civilians surrounding the entire herbicide spray program. The problem was much more than in1966 and 1967 and
much more than “Agent Orange”. He also recognizes that environment testing will help alleviate concerns amongst
current troops. If the environment test shows higher than normal elevations of dioxin then government will know where and
how to remediate the grounds. On the other hand, if there is no sign of higher than normal elevations of dioxin current troops
can have full confidence that they are not being exposed on these training grounds. Colonel Jestin and others have worked
extremely hard on the issue of herbicide contamination within the federal government. I believe he truly wants to get to the
bottom of this whole issue once and for all, and get it settled. He deserves our full support.
I want to thank the Minister of Defence, as well, for moving on the issue. He went back to 1952
to review the entire spray program, not just “Agent Orange”, and it includes veterans and civilians which is very
important. The current process under the former fact-finder was a good start. However, the fact-finder was really only the
chair of public meetings. He had no real powers to make recommendations and the work regarding environmental and health studies
were designed by internal committees and officials within government.
I am pleased with the appointment of Dr. Denis Furlong as lead coordinator. He has credibility,
is fair, and is reasonable. Although a former minister of the Conservative government in New Brunswick, he is not partisan.
He's a family doctor and knows about confidentiality. However, he must be given the tools to do the job. He must have the
powers to make recommendations back to government and say it like it is, good or bad. Greg Thompson, southwest New Brunswick
M.P., and I, put forward nine specific recommendations a month ago that we feel would enhance the current process and provide
greater transparency, accountability, and independence, which will lead to fair, fast-track compensation for all victims,
both veterans and civilians, exposed to all herbicides including dioxin-contaminated “Agent Orange” at base Gagetown.
The biggest improvement, or most important recommendation, member of Parliament Thompson and I
put forward that must be implemented is having a technical review committee made up of outside experts chaired by the independent
lead investigator. Ms. Ellis said today that DND was in charge of the overall coordination of the plan. That is a problem.
She also said the work has been done by experts, for example, in house. That is a problem. She says there's a large team focusing
on this and that the terms of reference are being done internally by government officials. That is a problem. An independent
technical review committee model, as opposed to a judicial inquiry, would be, on the one hand, retroactive in studying the
issue of herbicide use at base Gagetown from 1952 by investigating the facts, and doing the research. At the same time it
would be proactive as well. It would be made up of third party arm's length technical experts outside of government who would
support the lead investigator and his work. At the same time, this team would work with government officials in each of the
departments. I can refer you to the organizational chart that is provided in your packages that shows the difference between
the existing review process and one that Karen Thompson proposed for improvement. It would have the power to make recommendations
to government as the work proceeds on how to respond to the findings and all recommendations would not have to wait until
the final report like a judicial inquiry. This will allow for faster and timely action.
The current role of the fact-finder was not seen as a true investigator overseeing all studies
and work. He was in charge of public meetings and hearing the public's concerns, but did not seem to have direct oversight
into the planning and design of environment and health studies.
¼ (1835)
There must be more transparency at the beginning stages of the entire work involved, right from
the planning of studies, designing of terms of references to executing them. There needs to be input from outside government
third party independent experts that will serve as advisors to the lead investigator, while at the same time working with
government officials in each department. For example, the environmental studies that were referred to earlier, the sampling
and the analysis will be finished without third party review.
The panel that will be named will not have the powers to review those studies, and this is what
we're asking for. This will ensure the highest level of confidence by the Canadian public, but at the same time will see results,
progress and action.
Why not have a full-fledged judicial inquiry? I've included a table that lists, from our point
of view—that of myself and Mr. Thompson—the difference between a public inquiry and an independent review, as
outlined in our recommendations.
Because we've had too many in Ottawa in recent years is one answer, and because it is reactive
in nature. Victims would have to wait a couple of years before a final report, before action, if any, is taken. The model
Greg Thompson and I are promoting is reactive but also proactive and can fast-track results.
The following are the recommendations Greg Thompson and I put forward on October 13, 2005:
That the federal government recognize the need for early and equitable compensation for all parties
where medical entitlements and compensation for exposure to herbicides are the same for all affected by the base’s herbicide
spray program. Currently affected parties must apply to one of three different compensation programs: if you're a veteran,
if you're a civilian federal employee, or if you're a civilian employee working for a private contractor. They have different
eligibility requirements and entitlements, depending on their employer at the time of the incident.
Number 3, to speed up the compensation process, that the federal government accept the 37 health
disorders recognized by the U.S. veterans affairs office related to herbicide exposure. It was stated earlier that veterans
affairs has recognized the U.S. veterans criteria for compensation—at least the list of illnesses, but further, that
the federal government make it known to affected parties what health maladies related to Agent Orange herbicide exposure the
Canadian government recognizes for compensation purposes. Currently, this is not known to the public.
To speed up the process the government must release to the public the commercial label name, the
manufacturer, the batch number of all 24D and 245T herbicide spray products purchased and used on the base, plus the contractors
who were engaged to spray the products, and thereafter seek from the manufacturer the extent of dioxin contamination. This
information will quickly lead to extending compensation eligibility prior to 1966 and after 1967.
This information is available now. The federal government approves and registers each of these
products, and the Department of National Defence, base commander Colonel Jestin, said at the public meeting that the Canadian
military keeps excellent records. I therefore suggest that this information is available. The commercial label name and the
manufacturer, and the batch numbers that have been approved by the department in the federal government. It was agriculture,
I believe.
Then I mentioned the environmental investigative priority on more testing for dioxins. Currently
there are only 17 of 76 dioxins that are being tested. If there were third party at the input, at the beginning of the design
and the planning of these studies, there would be more confidence by the Canadian public.
I will also have tabled with you the list of the remaining recommendations that were made earlier,
a month ago.
In summary, perhaps harmful things were done in the past. We cannot change that, but we can help
those whose health has been negatively impacted because of those actions of days gone by when health and contamination were
not as much a priority as they are today. People are hurting, and people are dying. Let's do it right, but let's do it fast
enough so people can get results and see action and get the help and support they so badly need.
Some have suggested I've championed the issue, but I don't agree. The champions are the people
who have suffered and who have been hurt by these chemicals and the ones who are still alive who keep fighting. The champions
are people like Mrs. Sellars, Ken Dobbie, John Chisholm and Wayne Cardinal and Art Connelly and so many others who are not
here today.
¼ (1840)
A fellow I met with this summer after the public meeting was quite sick and told me his illness
was related to the exposure of herbicides. Unfortunately, he died three weeks later. I attended his funeral and at the cemetery
after the burial his wife told me to keep her husband's name alive in the Agent Orange issue.
Because of champions like Murray McGee, we will not let this issue die. I feel we must all work
very hard in helping to rectify 50 years of mistrust and inaction. By working together, we will get to the bottom of this
and get on with helping all those who need the government's help.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Carr.
We'll go to Mr. Chisolm.
Mr. John Chisolm (As an Individual): I'll make mine quite brief, because I think most of
everything here has been covered.
The Chair: What we're trying to do, Mr. Chisolm, in all our witnesses, is to try to give
as much time to the members, so I'll leave that to your discretion, sir.
Mr. John Chisolm: As early as 1956, the Department of National Defence sprayed the herbicides
all across the Gagetown training area. The combination of chemicals 24D and 245T, that's what Agent Orange really is. It's
nothing more, nothing less. Agent Orange was the name that was brought up and invented by the Americans, and it was formerly
called “the rainbow chemical”. That's what it was formerly called. The only thing is, the agents 24D and 245T,
in the early fifties and sixties, was a lot more potent than what it was from 1967 on back until the time they quit using
it.
My concern, on behalf of the Agent Orange Association, is for Colonel Sellers, a brigadier general
who has passed away, and his wife, for the work that they have done to bring this out into the open. What I would like to
know is, they paid him—God bless his heart, it was good for him to get it—what about the people who were with
him? He was not the only one who was on that test strip. There was a whole company of people with him. Where did they all
go?
Now, his driver who was with him everywhere he went, is dying of cancer. He made application to
the veterans affairs, and they turned him down flat. What's wrong with him?
Mr. Rick Casson: What was his name, sir?
Mr. John Chisolm: Jack Raymond. He was turned down flat. They threw it out. They said, “There's
nothing wrong with you”, but he was with Colonel Sellers.
The other thing is, what do we do about all the other people who were out there? This has been
going on, and on, and on.
We were in that training area every summer from the time the snow went off the ground until it
froze in the winter, and then we were back out again in the middle of the winter. All the time they sprayed that training
area, we were in it, from 1956 right through until 1970, until I left there. Today, they don't spend near as much time in
the training area as what we did back then. When we went there, we stayed out for the whole summer long. Rain, shine, spray,
whatever came, we got it, because back then, you were out there and you were doing as you were told to do, and don't ask any
questions.
Now this Agent Orange in these two particular areas that everybody is to tight on, they turn around
in those two areas there...we surveyed those areas out. We out there as flagmen for four days in two different years, and
that stuff rained down on us just the same as the worst thunderstorm you've ever seen in your life. When we came home from
there every night, you could take your clothes and stand them in the corner.
My first wife died the most horrifying death of cancer you could ever imagine. She washed my clothes
every night. What about all the other wives of all the other soldiers who were in that training area? How many of them are
sick the same way? How many of them have cast effects onto their kids, and their children's children coming up behind them?
Now this Agent Purple, one of the most horrifying chemicals there is known to mankind. It was worse
than the mustard gas was during the Second World War. They wouldn't use it in Vietnam, they quit, but yet the Canadian government
would allow them to take that and spray it on Camp Gagetown and the people who were in it. Where's the justification? Then
they said, “Well, you had better prove that you were there”.
There is just no rhyme nor reason to it. Where does one get off? You wonder why people get upset.
It's absolutely horrifying when you stop to think about it, when you see the people who we see, who we know, and you see the
conditions that their bodies are in today, after being in that training area. It's absolutely horrifying to stop and think
about it.
I have a friend who is sitting out there on Vancouver Island with half his guts sitting in a bag
on the side of his hip. He was with me. He may be alive today, he may be dead tonight. I don't know.
¼ (1845)
I'll pass my time. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chisolm.
We will go, then, to Mr. Cardinal.
Mr. Wayne H. Cardinal (As an Individual): Thank you very much. I am Wayne Cardinal. I have
40 years of service, counting my regular force and reserves, so I've seen a few changes in the military. I am also one of
those old veterans like John there who assisted the base commander of CFB Gagetown in locating sites.
Since 1956, the Department of National Defence and the Government of Canada lied to the soldiers
of the First and Second Battalions and the Black Watch Regiment. During these years, the Artillery Regiment and other units
trained at CFB Gagetown. We, the few survivors of this dying regiment, are suffering from numerous illnesses related to exposure
to dioxins. During the 1980s, former soldiers tried to expose the use of dioxins at Base Gagetown to the media. High ranking
military officials at the Base hushed these statements by saying the soldiers were crazy for suggesting they were in poor
health because of dioxin exposure.
Claims of dioxin related illnesses were awarded only once, as already stated, to a high ranking
Black Watch officer who became very ill, Mrs. Sellar's husband whom I served under at one time and a fine officer he was.
Our commanding officers ordered us to train in CFB Gagetown training area during the commencement
of the spray programs. We had no choice. We were training to fight the Cold War. We did not know at the time we were being
poisoned by the deadly form of dioxins purchased by our own government. We did not know this until we and a few fellow soldiers
became ill with dioxin exposure related illnesses. We were not told about the dangers of dioxin after the federal government
paid settlements to the farmers on the Sheffield, New Brunswick side of the river for damage to crops.
At the time, our medical records were kept poorly. Signs of dioxin related illnesses were often
not recorded. The Department of National Defence admittance to spraying of Agent Orange on the test strip in 1966 and 1967
is not good enough. It's not.
We, the surviving Black Watch soldiers and other units, want to be compensated for the times we
were exposed to dioxins used until present as part of the yearly spray programs. This compensation, in the form of pension,
must also be extended to the widows or dependents if widows of formerly deceased Black Watch and other unit soldiers that
have died of dioxin related illnesses.
As soldiers, we trained on the ground. Part of our training was digging trenches, latrines, and
sprayed areas. At the time the Base was sprayed, we would patrol throughout it on foot, throughout the training area. During
these training exercises at CFB Gagetown, we cooked our food, we ate our meals, we filled our canteens from the springs, slept
in improvised shelters throughout the areas that were sprayed by herbicides. There was absolutely no coordination at any time
between the spray program and us on the ground. None. If you got caught when they were spraying, so sad, too bad.
While training at CFB Gagetown, we were not issued protective clothing during the spray program
because we were told herbicides used were not harmful to humans. At times, we trained in the area for many months of the year.
The survivors believed that the environment had not absorbed the defoliant entered into the spray program areas. The herbicides
often dripped off the trees onto our clothes. We breathed the air while spraying occurred in other sections of the training
area, and we were sprayed while training. The federal government has admitted to the drifting of spray that occurred. As a
result soldiers might have breathed in dioxin sprayed miles away, without knowing we were in danger.
Most veterans that I have spoken to--and I have spoken to a lot of veterans in the last year--totally
lost faith and trust in the government on this issue. It's been covered up; it's been lied about; there is more money being
wasted of the taxpayers' dollar trying to prove us wrong.
These men and women of the Cold War years served your faithful, with great discipline, honesty,
and great pride. An outstanding generation of soldiers. I'm a retired sargeant-major, you can take my word on that.
The DVA has made it next to impossible for any claim, narrowing it down to those two little test
strips of 1966 and 1967, and their statement saying “prove it.”
¼ (1850)
You may ask me questions later and I'll tell you how hard it is for us to prove it when they can't
even search the archives and find their own information correctly.
I have a very quick and true story about a very good friend of mine. I will not repeat his serial
number or file number for security reasons; however he's given me permission to use his name. This is just one of very many,
ladies and gentlemen.
Ernest Evans is a wartime Korean vet. He joined the Black Watch between the age of 19 and 20 years
of age. He served in your husband's battalion, ma'am, by the way.
In 1965 Ernie re-mustered to the third service battalion as a truck driver. He picked up and delivered
full barrels of herbicide from the Blissville airport, the legendary Agent Orange airport, and the Enniskillen airport, and
delivered them to sites as was the manner in other locations where the spraying and the planes and choppers were taking off
to do their work. And then he took the empty drums to the dump site or to whatever site they told him to drop them off.
He has been fighting this claim for 29 years--29 years. His lungs are burned. His specialist agrees
his lungs were burned by chemical exposure to Agent Orange. The first time the DVA reviewed his case, they agreed with him.
It got as far as PEI and they just simply told him there was not enough proof that Agent Orange could have done that to him.
The only reason his file is back on the records now is because of this lady and it's been sitting
there for the last four months and still nothing has been said to Ernest. This man is very, very sick, and is another one
of the veterans assisting us, by the way, on the location of barrels. He is one of many who are very sick.
Former soldiers believe it would be in the best interests of both parties that the federal government
follows the U.S. government's decision to accept a presumptive policy on dioxin exposure. Former soldiers would have to prove
they served in areas at the time of the spraying of dioxin in CFB Gagetown that may have resulted in exposures. The burden
of proof would be limited to the circumstances surrounding the exposure sites. As a result, the expense of lengthy pension
hearings, appeals and all the other stuff going on could and would be eliminated.
Just for note, the regiment that I started out in, in the regular force, the Black Watch Regiment,
the figures I gave you on this sheet are incorrect. I will give you the correction verbally. In the last two years, we have
lost over 200 veterans, most of them relating to cancer, diabetes, and heart problems.
The DVA seems to be looking at a much different health-related list--which I also gave you--than
I am in relationship to documents. This list is approved by the IOM which seems to be the gospel for the present government.
It seems to me, and I was never a politician because soldiers were not allowed that privilege--I
am allowed the privilege to vote--there is a lot of money being spent by our current government in power on a lot of issues,
right or wrong. That's not for me to decide. There are a lot of issues where people are simply sick, not dying.
This chemical has killed thousands of people and we were never told about it and the veterans are
really upset and ugly over this. That, you can take my word on.
Thank you very much for hearing my presentation.
¼ (1855)
The Chair: Before we go to Ms. Sellar, I've been advised that she has some documents with
respect to her late husband's case that she would like to distribute, colleagues, to the committee members, with your permission,
of course.
And if I understand correctly, Ms. Sellar, they're only in one of our official languages--English?
Mrs. Gloria Sellar (As an Individual): I do apologize that they're only in English. I did
not receive my invitation to attend this meeting until last night and my printer and I worked most of the night doing what
we have and neither he nor I could translate them properly so I just brought them along hopefully and I would very much like
the members to see them.
Included in this are some protected, private papers from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It
includes his submission to them and doctors' letters. And in his submission I also included a five-page letter, handwritten.
This is very important because the block that veterans affairs allow you is not big enough for a soldier to write down all
the things that he can do.
I actually spoke... I was invited by the regiment to speak at the Black Watch reunion in Aldershot,
Nova Scotia. There were 900 people attending. They had it in a drill hall because there were so many and I went over all of
this procedure with them and explained things that they had to do to sort of push this thing along.
Some of them are incapable of filling these out properly and I know there is a school teacher in
Oromocto and several other people who have volunteered their services to help in the writing of these summaries. It's pretty
touching business.
The Chair: Permit me then to put the question to the committee members. As you can appreciate,
we have rules and regulations that I, as the Chair, have to abide by and with the unanimous consent of the committee, I would
kindly request that they accept the presentation as is, although we always request that everything be presented in both our
official languages. That not being the case, we will be prepared to take the document and have it translated and make sure
that the members get a copy.
So, colleagues, I put the question to you. With your consent, will you permit Mrs. Sellar to pass
around the document that she now has with her. We understand the circumstances of why it is not translated into our second
official language. I am at your pleasure.
Is there unanimous...
Monsieur Bachand.
[Français]
M. Claude Bachand: Monsieur le président, en ce moment je dois faire un rappel à l'ordre.
La situation est tellement touchante qu'il m'est impossible de refuser la demande de madame. Nous passerons le document.
Toutefois j'excuse madame, puisqu'elle ne fait pas partie d'un organisme gouvernemental ni d'un
ministère. C'est sûr que si elle accuse un certain retard ou si elle ne savait pas qu'elle devait le faire dans les deux langues
officielles, je lui dirai simplement qu'il aurait été très apprécié que cela ait été fait. Cependant, vu la situation, je
n'ai pas l'intention de me mettre à dos des gens que l'on veut défendre. J'accepterais finalement que le document soit passé.
Le président: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Bachand.
[English]
I assume we have unanimous consent colleagues to have the document circulated. Then we'll ask the
clerk to pass the document around.
As that is being passed around, the floor is yours Mrs. Sellar, to present the committee your testimony.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar:
All right, thank you.
I researched this for 15 years. I went to Veterans Affairs in the United States, the veterans of
the Vietnam War, and also the National Academy of Science, who I believe informs the American nation on the welfare and health
of their people.
Four months after my husband died I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Knowing I might not survive
the surgery and that all of my research would go into the shredder, I decided to publish. It was one of my husband's dying
wishes that the men under him should receive a pensionable benefit as he had.
Greg Weston, a family friend, is Sun Media's National Political Columnist. He came to Kingston,
gave me a day of his time, and the groundbreaking result appeared mid-May 2004 in 148 newspapers across Canada. We would have
had more coverage, but Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and she rather took away all the press people and brought them here
to Ottawa.
Forty years after the American military was allowed to test-bomb a New Brunswick army base with
deadly Agent Orange herbicide, the Canadian government finally admitted that veterans are dying as a result of being poisoned.
The Department of National Defence has confirmed that U.S. forces doused forested areas of the Gagetown base with the infamous
chemical defoliant, testing it for clearing jungle during the Vietnam War.
It goes on about Agent Orange being linked to a horrifying array of cancers, blindness among U.S.
veterans, veterans of children who are born with hopeless deformities. But for decades the Canadian military has refused to
acknowledge the Gagetown horror ever happened, much less any connection between Agent Orange and sick veterans.
|
Sun Media has now learned that 10 months ago, for the first time in four decades, the government
quietly accepted a medical compensation claim from a retired Canadian brigadier-general stricken with leukemia. |
Gordon Sellar, a decorated officer of foreign wars with the Calgary Highlanders, rose to the top
of the Canadian military. But during this storied career, he also commanded the Black Watch at Camp Gagetown at the time the
U.S. was poisoning the place with Agent Orange. In a landmark decision, the Department of Veterans Affairs has ruled that
Sellar's cancer was caused by his exposure to Agent Orange.
|
The department is aware the Agent Orange was used as a herbicide for defoliation on the training
grounds of CFB Gagetown, |
the confidential memorandum states.
I have copies of these private and personal papers that you may read later.
|
The department accepts the medical opinion of Sellar's doctors and the results of published
U.S. medical research that establishes a causative relationship between Agent Orange exposure and the development of his chronic
lymphocytic leukemia. |
The decision was so strong and unequivocal that it provided the maximum possible pension compensation.
More significantly—and this is important and this is why I did this—it should open
the door to similar claims from potentially thousands of other sick and dying Canadian veterans exposed to Agent Orange at
Gagetown. An official at Veterans Affairs admits that the department has done nothing to publicize the Sellar decision nor
otherwise reach out to help victims of Agent Orange. And that's why I did. If so, the Sellar decision will stand as a fitting
final salute to a revered general who cared so deeply about the men in his command, a soldier who would have done anything
to spare others the medical misery wrought upon their ranks.
A decorated war hero who survived the bloody battlefields of Europe and Korea, it is surely beyond
cruel that he should be felled on a chemical killing field at his own base. On October 4, 2004, two weeks after the first
compensation appeared in his pension cheque, this general lost his final battle, a 15 year fight with cancer that he had inherited
from Agent Orange.
½ (1900)
It goes on to say that I was with him through all of this, which I was. We had been married 16
years and were terribly in love with each other.
This is a quote:
|
If Agent Orange belongs to anyone in this country, it is to this elegant of steely tenacity.
|
|
The first time I saw the chemical drums with their orange stripes was in U.S. Army trucks
parked at the Oromocto Hotel next to the Gagetown base. It was also close to the village and beside the married quarters.
We were between houses, moving from one to another, so we had one night in the hotel. The American soldiers were staying there,
too, and would come in in the evening filthy dirty. It was no secret what they were doing, but, of course, no one realized
the potential of what was happening. |
|
My son asked, “Why are you killing all the trees”, and the reply was, “This
is one of the most heavily forested areas in North America and also it will make it easier if we kill the trees for the tanks
to get through. That was the answer he got. |
|
Gordon Sellar began his fighting career overseas in World War II with the Calgary Highlanders.
By the time he reached Gagetown in 1963 he was a colonel and commanding officer of the 1st Battalion of the Black Watch, with
more than 1,000 men under him. They were up to strength. |
|
There was also a complete brigade there. |
There would be at least 5,000 in a brigade?
½ (1905)
Mr. Wayne H. Cardinal: Or more, Ma'am.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Yes, more than that.
Mr. Wayne H. Cardinal: Twelve to 14 in most of the major exercises.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Yes, and people constantly coming and going for periods of time.
Like all infantry in training they probably spent more time on their
bellies than on their feet and little did they know that they were crawling through an invisible swamp of deadly poison. I
quote:
|
We exercised for lengthy concentrated periods in the contaminated areas-- |
--he would write later in an official memo.
|
We lived on the ground in camp and trained both day and night. Our food was prepared there
in areas that had been defoliated. We did not know it was Agent Orange. |
As always, Gordon kept in top physical shape until one day early in the 1990s he began to have
dizzy spells. A simple blood test revealed the horrible truth. He had a form of cancer that would go right through his body
and it was definitely a death sentence. By then, the effects of the odious Vietnam herbicide were being loudly debated in
the U.S. , with hundreds of thousands of vets on a special government health watch.
Before long I put it all together with the barrels, the soldiers and the Armocto Hotel. We were
shattered by this. I said to our family doctor, my husband has been exposed to Agent Orange. He said “oh”. He
knew nothing about it.
There's a huge dining table, it's covered with stacks of books, research papers and correspondence,
all of this is my ammunition and my arsenal, a 15-year campaign to bring sense to the unthinkable, my husband's slow decline
into a medical hell not of his own making. It goes on to describe the pneumonia and the tumours. They started on the exposed
parts of his body which I think is perhaps reasonably common. He was having blood transfusions and the cancer was so serious
that, really, our trips to the cancer centre were almost daily.
When I spoke to these soldiers in Aldershot, they told me the most horrible stories. Some of them
were in tears. One, and I had to tell him I had a breast off before he could really open up and talk to me, his penis is covered
with terrible sores that are untreatable and incurable, as is his bottom. Now when a soldier is on exercise and goes out into
the area and has to empty himself, of course, he goes into the bush or back into the trees to try to give himself a little
privacy and his pants come down. Now, he's being exposed. There are all sorts of other diseases that we know about, but this
is a very common thing and the cause of many masculine disorders that have occurred because of this.
Every time I went to Veterans Affairs I would always ask them about Agent Orange and they all said
that nothing was being done about it at that time. I couldn't understand why it was not being recognized by the Canadian government,
the same government that let the Americans spray it all over Gagetown, and what about all the thousands of other men exposed.
I started burying Veterans Affairs in letters and thick files of information. They were actually very good with me. They seemed
quite surprised by some of the information I was giving them, but everything moves very slowly, everything except my husband's
cancer.
By 2000 he was in a wheelchair and we had to sell our house and everything and move into the city
so that he could be within two blocks of a hospital. 2003 he entered a chronic care hospital to recover from an emergency
hernia operation and he would never go home. Despite virtually moving into the hospital with him, I sort of quietly kept up
this little crusade. All I wanted was the simple recognition that Agent Orange was killing my husband and many others like
him.
I tracked down members of the Black Watch who had served under him. Many were sick, many more had
died. All were afraid to talk about the dirty secret of Gagetown. The Canadian defence department was not helping. As late
as February, 2004 the Canadian military posted a stunning health bulletin on its government website. By then, more than 10,000
American veterans of the Vietnam war were in active treatment for cancers and other diseases related to Agent Orange. Another
312,000 were under medical surveillance. Yet the Canadian bulletin stated that extensive research had concluded that Agent
Orange was unlikely to be the cause of the Vietnam veterans symptoms or illnesses.
½ (1910)
Only months after the bulletin was issued, I did win my case with Veterans Affairs for my husband,
the government finally acknowledged that Agent Orange had indeed given my husband terminal cancer. He died a few weeks later.
Gordon Sellar's funeral attracted some of Canada's finest soldiers. One of them had been a young
lieutenant in the Black Watch at Gagetown during the Agent Orange tests.
“How are you doing?"“ someone asked. It was my daughter. He said not too well. He said
I have throat cancer and we don't know why I have it because I never smoked. This man also served as an infantry officer in
Vietnam so he would be in the field. Five months ago he submitted his application to Veterans Affairs. It came back yesterday
declined in spite of having a doctor's letter to saying that this was a causal factor.
Gordon Sellar lost his youth fighting in battles across France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. A
hero for the Battle of Walcheren he has the Dutch medal. Three days after the war ended in Germany he was on a truck bound
for the French coast and passage to Canada en route to the U.S. and the war in the Pacific that was still raging.
He served in Korea as well and has the Korean medal. He had a brilliant military career always
giving 100% of himself. He retired as an admired and highly respected General who has given his all to the service of his
country and the men under him little knowing that Agent Orange an unseen enemy would take his senior years in the worse battle
of his life.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sellar.
We'll go to Mr. Connolly
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: I hope there will be lots of questions.
Mr. Arthur Connolly (As an Individual): Mr. Chair and members of the committee there has
been significant media coverage regarding the spraying of defoliants at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick.
I welcome this opportunity as the web master for wwwagentorangealert.com. First I will explain
how I became involved with the story. Second I will explain what people affected have experienced and their perceptions of
the effort being made by the departments of national defence and veterans affairs. Third I will make recommendations that
may assist in help coming to a resolution of this issue.
In May of this year the Canadian media report that agent orange was sprayed at Canadian Force Base
Gagetown during 1966 and 1967. In 1966 I was a 12 year old boy living at CFB Gagetown. I lived with my parents and four siblings.
The timing of this story being released was ironic in that it appeared one week before my father's
death. My dad, Master Warrant Officer Owen Connolly proudly served 26 years in the military.
It had been reported that the herbicide combination of 2-4-D and 2-4-5-T commonly known as agent
orange was sprayed for a total of seven days during 1966 and 1967 at CFB Gagetown. My beautiful baby brother was born August
17, 1966, two months after the spraying in 1966. On September 18, 1973 my brother died at seven years of age of Reye's syndrome.
There was at least one theory that there was a connection between agent orange and Reye's syndrome. My brother's death was
the pivotal point in my family's existence. My family would never be the same. I watched my parents bury their child. No parent
should ever have to outlive a child. It is not natural. It is cruel.
In March 1983 my 27 year old pregnant sister died. We lost the baby as well. Defoliant chemicals
have been associated with circulatory diseases. Another sister suffers from endometriosis, had a miscarriage, again both associated
with defoliant chemicals.
In 1990 my mother was diagnosed with stomach cancer. Her stomach was removed by a gastroectomy.
Defoliant chemicals have been associated with stomach cancer.
My father died May 24 of this year. In my father's later years his health problems included congestive
heart failure, emphadema and gout. He bone marrow could not producer enough red blood cells which caused a low hemoglobin
count. He suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He was restricted to using oxygen and a prescribed litany of
medications. All of these symptoms are associated with defoliant chemicals.
After my father's death I obtained a DND document that Mr. Dobbie had obtained as well through
access to information. This document proves that over 1.3 million litres of deadly dioctin and hectachlorabendine a laced
defoliant were sprayed at Gagetown between the years of 1956 and 1984.
On June 9, 2005, I created a published the website, wwwagentorangealert.com with the intention
of sharing my knowledge and hoping that others would do the same. The response was overwhelming. There had been over 750,000
hits at this website since June. The CBC radio and numerous radio call-in shows have interviewed me as well as the CBC National
news. There have been numerous newspaper interviews including one interview in Vietnam featuring my story as well as the website.
This story has an international interest. This is not local to New Brunswick. The world is watching
what we as a nation will do. The powerful thing about this website is the hundreds of e-mails I receive with stories of hurt,
of anger, of pain and the feeling of betrayal.
One woman wrote to tell me of how her family farm was expropriated for the base. She remembers
the soldiers training in her pastures. She remembers walking down the road by the Blissville airport with other children picking
the blueberries. She remembers a plane going overhead spraying. But she remembers mostly the day her little sister came into
the house crying because all the birds lay in their yard dead.
½ (1915)
One man wrote of how his younger brother contracted a spinal cancer. His doctors were baffled.
They couldn't figure it out. He was a young man. Seven years later he died because he had to have emergency surgery. This
man's 15-year-old teenage sister had a massive benign brain tumour. She had to have brain surgery. He said to me, “Art,
I can't figure this out”. He said, “I have 20 aunts and uncles. All of them are healthy. All of their children
are healthy. The only ones that are sick are us here in Gagetown”. It just doesn't make sense.
A common trait is what I call the ripple effect. This is the turmoil of trying to understand why
things are happening to your family. What did we do wrong? Why is this happening to us? The stories of heartache and despair,
along with the stories of drug and alcohol addiction, are heart-wrenching. After nearly 50 years, victims now know that the
rumours that were whispered true: agent orange, purple and white, were sprayed.
This information was not provided freely by DND. If not for the Access to Information Act, it is
almost certain that it would still remain pretty quiet and secret. People are feeling anger, disgust, disillusionment and
betrayal by the Department of National Defence and government.
When the information became public, DND and the government appeared to go into denial mode. They
would only speak of 1966 to 1967. DND created the base fact-finding mission. People feel that it's merely a public relations
exercise. The original coordinator of the project resigned. I was going to say, and as of yet that has not been replaced,
but timing is everything. That was yesterday. They were replaced. The fact that the fact-finding project is run by the Department
of National Defence and not a third party makes us suspect.
Mr. MacKenzie, a former police officer, how many accused were in the investigation? None, I'm sure.
DND is testing soil and water at CFB Gagetown. Before testing is completed, they proudly announced
that they were going to build a $17.2-million single barracks. For the love of God, would you not find out if it's toxic before
you start sending more young people there? I makes it appear that they already know what the results of that thing is going
to be. You don't build buildings if you're not sure. It would be like you coming to my house and say, “Art, you have
mould all over your house”, and I say, “Great, while you're testing I'm going to put an addition on it”.
It just doesn't make sense.
DND, veterans affairs, along with the federal government, is saying that veterans can apply for
disability pensions, civilian employees can apply for workers compensation. There's no mention of the wives, the children
and the non-employee civilian neighbours. Until recently, veterans affairs were asking those veterans who called for a disability
pension application, “Would be all right if we had someone from the Department of National Defence call you?”.
This was perceived by many as a scare tactic. They sent out 920 applications and got 90 back. What's wrong with that picture?
That's a very low return.
The perception is that the Department of National Defence and the Government of Canada are not
being truthful and forthright about this tragedy. As we all know, perception is reality. It has been proven that DND has sprayed
deadly dioxins and fluorobenzene-laced defoliant from 1956 to 1984 at Gagetown. DND did not volunteer this information. DND
did not take the opportunity to devolve information about the other defoliants, when first questioned about agent orange.
It is the opinion of many that DND was not transparent in any sense of the word.
DND is now asking the world to believe it is being upfront. DND's previous actions have spoken
much louder than present-day words. Those who are sick, those who have lost loved ones, will not believe based on those past
actions. The public will never believe the effort being put forth to resolve the situation as long as DND is leading that
effort. The effort must be carried out by a third party. DND has lost its credibility in the eyes of the sick, the survivors,
and the general public.
I would like to recommend to this committee that a public inquiry is in order, that consideration
should be given to adopting the American-style presumptive clause for pension determination.
½ (1920)
We do not need to reinvent the wheel. There are veterans and people who are very sick. Please don't
make them wait. Dioxin testing should be made available for those requesting it.
One compensation plan should be in effect for all. Grief and psychological counselling should be
made available. Medical assistance should also be available for those requesting it.
One more thing, an apology would go a long way.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I thank you for listening. I pray that you help us do
the right thing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Thank you, all. This is a very unusual committee meeting.
It's normally not typical that we have six presenters all at once, but it's also a very unusual issue, an important issue
that we're dealing with it.
So with the patience of all the members, we're going to go into questions. We'll start with Mr.
MacKenzie. It is our first round, Mr. MacKenzie, and as you know very well, we have seven minutes between questions and answers,
but we're going to exercise as much flexibility as we can.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Certainly, thank you, to each and every one of you, for being here. I know this committee would
offer that apology to you and extend that to the people who were there, but I don't think that's enough. I don't think that's
exactly what you're talking about.
I guess what we have that sense of in hearing from you people and what we've heard from other constituents
across the country who have talked with us, is that there's this total culture of secrecy that exists within DND with respect
to these types of things. I might say, Mr. Chair, last week at home when I heard people who came back from the Second World
War who suffered from a variety of things, they ran through the same issues of trying to get through that maze of secrecy,
their records were not available to them from people who served time and ended up in prisoner of war camps or were subject
to chemical things of a different nature. This culture of secrecy certainly seems to have continued.
Mr. Connolly, I'd like to ask you first, because you have indicated that you host the website,
have you heard from anyone who's had a good experience in dealing with DND and being able to access the information freely?
½ (1925)
Mr. Arthur Connolly: No, plain and simple. No. I've received hundreds of e-mails. All of
them have been stories of grief, of sadness. I have had no one say, “I've had a great experience with DVA or DND”.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: I take it that you're also savvy on computers. If you weren't, you wouldn't
have.... Have you been able to access the information yourself, of Canadian information, posted by the Government of Canada
or any of its agencies?
Mr. Arthur Connolly: I have gone to some of the sites. I've gone to the Ministry of Health
and I've gone to the Department of National Defence. I've also gone to the base fact-finding one. I find the base fact-finding
project one to be very amateurish. I believe it's probably put together by a high school kid. It's outdated, and that's the
worst thing about any website. For the most part, the government websites don't really give a lot of information. It's more
propaganda, I guess would be the word.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Mrs. Sellar, I just very quickly looked at your material. I haven't
had a chance to read it all. It's interesting that most of the information you have attached here comes from American sources.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Well, that's where a lot of it came from, but I have a box full of other
papers that are coming to you. Some of it has come from the CBC. The Americans, of course, are streaks ahead of us in this,
but they're also dealing with the same subject.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: That's I guess what my question is, not so much what the press might
have out there, but when you started to research for your husband, you had to go to American sources.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Yes, I did.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Have you been able to find any of that same information posted on Canadian
websites, government websites?
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: No, not on government websites at all. The Department of Veterans Affairs,
to the average soldier, is inaccessible. If you try to phone them, you get Kirkland Lake. You cannot phone your local department
of Veterans Affairs. Kirkland Lake will then phone your department and a person there will call you back, maybe today, maybe
tomorrow, whatever. If you're a soldier living in some outport in Newfoundland or Cape Breton, your nearest Veterans Affairs
office may be 100 miles or 200 miles away.
If they could just be reached on the telephone directly, it would save a great deal of agony. Most
people just give up. They say, “I can't do this, I can't get anyone”. These people don't own computers.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: No. I think that's fair. The other issue, and I think Mr. Connolly brought
it up, is about the concern and fear in some people's minds, legitimately or otherwise, about DND people being involved when
a claim is made.
Mr. Dobbie, I think you have an interesting comment with respect to your telephone after having
a conversation with someone.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: Yes, I met Mrs. Sellar by accident in Kingston. We had been really trying
to get in touch with each other over a period of weeks and we had a very lengthy discussion on our first meeting. It was very
productive. We shared a lot of stories and the very following day my telephone system in my house went down completely. I
have five phones. None of the jacks were working and I ascertained that they weren't working. I called Bell Canada for a repair
crew. They appeared the next morning. They went through the house and said that there was nothing wrong internally, that it
was an external problem. They went outside the house, checked the lines and there was nothing wrong there.
They said then that they had to go to a junction box which was located approximately two kilometres
from my home and there are thousands of telephone lines in it. They called me back about half an hour later and they told
me that my telephone line had been disconnected from my jack and put into another one and that particular jack had no number,
was not supposed to be live but was live. I can only make the conclusion that someone tampered with my phone line and I can't
say who that was but I found it very suspicious. I asked Bell Canada management to put a trace on my line. They said they
would do it over a period of three months, three random tests so that if anybody was recording any conversations that I was
having on behalf of Agent Orange Association of Canada, or with other people like Mrs. Sellars and Art and so on, that they
would be caught but I have not heard anything back.
½ (1930)
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Chisolm, you indicated a couple of people that you're aware of who
served with you and Mrs. Sellar's husband who have applied for pensions. Have you any knowledge of people who are in the same
boat who have received a pension as a result of it.
Mr. John Chisolm: No. Nobody. Col. Sellars is the only one. Everybody else is top secret
and from all the applications that have been sent in, there's only been four that have been approved for agent orange. Nobody
knows who they are except for the one.
I have prostate cancer. I was operated on 10 years ago and it was taken out. This year I went back
in and they had to do the same thing all over. I got cancer back. I have lung and heart problems and now, from what I understand,
I have something else wrong because I have dizzy spells and I pass out on the floor. I have a pacemaker in me that's been
there since 1977. It's been changed three times. I'm on a breathing machine when I'm home to keep me going. That's what I
live with every day.
My application is gone. Nobody knows where it's at.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Have you not been able to find out where it's at?
The Chair: When was your application submitted, Mr. Chisolm?
Mr. Chisolm: Last June.
The Chair: Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Claude Bachand: You'll need your translation device if you don't speak French, or understand
French.
[Français]
Tout d'abord, je vous félicite pour votre présentation.
Le président a mentionné avec raison qu'il est rare de voir de telles présentations. Nous avons
pris le temps de vous écouter puisque, du moins à mon avis, il s'agit d'un drame national. Vos présentations touchantes démontraient
clairement le déroulement de la vie de tous les jours chez vous.
Nous ne pouvons pas tous vous interroger. Vous savez que le premier tour dure sept minutes, incluant
les questions et les réponses. Nous ne pouvons pas parler très longtemps. Je veux seulement faire quelques réflexions. Ensuite,
je vous poserai une question sur un plan d'action à dégager.
Vous n'êtes pas les seuls à lutter contre la grosse machine de la Défense nationale et des Anciens
combattants. Je parlerai au nom du Bloc québécois: l'ensemble des députés du Bloc québécois croient à votre histoire et veulent
vous aider.
J'ai regardé les principaux documents et un de ceux-ci m'a particulièrement frappé. Plus tôt, je
l'ai fait confirmer par M. Connolly. Il s'agit d'un document qu'il nous a envoyé et qui fait part d'un répertoire de la Défense
nationale. Je l'ai bien aimé parce qu'il commence par une citation de Jean Rostand, un grand philosophe français. Vous commencez
en disant: « The obligation to endure gives us the right to know. » Jean Rostand a aussi dit: « Liberté
de l'esprit, respect de l'Homme, amour du Vrai. » Beaucoup de gens, tout comme nous, cherchent la vérité.
Ce qui m'a vraiment frappé, c'est la différence entre la version de la Défense nationale et le
document des pages 83 et 84. À titre d'information, monsieur le président, nous avons ici les différentes années, de 1956
à 1984. Nous avons le nombre d'acres par année dans lesquels l'épandage a eu lieu, ainsi que le nombre de barils. À la fin,
madame Ellis disait que cela n'a eu lieu qu'en 1966 et 1967, que seulement 2,5 barils ont été étendus et qu'il ne s'agissait
que de quelques acres à l'intérieur du périmètre de Goose Bay.Quand on finit de calculer de 1956 à 1984 — et c'est un
document de la Défense nationale — on arrive à 181 000 acres où il y a eu de l'épandage, 1,3 million de litres, 6 500
barils. Les 2,5 barils étaient des barils d'un million de litres ou de 100 000 litres. Il y a vraiment une grosse différence.
Je regarde comment on peut vous aider. Certaines choses sont très importantes. Il me semble qu'on
devrait insister sur la présomption d'exposition, non seulement pour les vétérans, les anciens combattants et les soldats,
mais je m'inquiète également du sort des civils. Un soldat peut au moins appeler au ministère des Anciens combattants et dire
qu'il était là en telle année et qu'il croit avoir été victime. Le pauvre civil, lui, qui va-t-il appeler ? Le ministères
des Anciens combattants? Non. Ce sera pllus difficile pour lui de se retrouver là-dedans. J'ai quelque chose pour vous, monsieur
Carr. La présomption d'exposition devrait s'appliquer à tout le monde, militaires et civils, et il devrait y avoir une compensation.
Concernant les civils, monsieur Carr, vous pourriez vous inspirer de ce que M. Doby a fait avec
sa firme d'avocats, Merchant Law Group. Vous poursuivez en recours collectif. Vous êtes un député provincial. Qui paie actuellement
pour les soins de santé des civils qui sont mal pris si ce n'est pas le gouverment de chez vous? Vous devriez parler à votre
gouvernement provincial de poursuivre le gouvernement fédéral pour tous les coûts que votre gouvernement devra débourser pour
venir en aide aux civils. Où se retrouvent ceux-ci? Ils se retrouvent dans vos hôpitaux, sans aucune compensation.
Finalement, monsieur Connely, il y a autre chose. Il est trop tard pour le plan Carr-Thompson.
Le gouvernement ne changera pas son plan. Cependant, vous faites mention dans votre document que beaucoup de gens hésitent
à s'avancer à des pensions et d'autres choses. Ils ont peur de les perdre.
½ (1935)
Si vous êtes d'accord, j'insisterais auprès du gouvernement pour qu'il modifie son plan d'action
et qu'il prévoie une disposition afin que tous ceux qui émettent leurs opinions ne subissent pas de mesures négatives.
Je suggère un plan en trois points. Premièrement, la présomption d'exposition pour tous. Ensuite,
en ce qui concerne les civils, je suggère une négociation entre le provincial et le fédéral au sujet de leur compensation.
Enfin, je suggère qu'on modifie le plan d'action afin de s'assurer que tous ceux qui exprimeront leurs opinions ne soient
pas victimes de contre-attaques ou de coups bas qui les puniraient.
J'aimerais que quelqu'un réagisse à mon plan d'action en trois points, afin qu'on voie de quoi
il en retourne.
[English]
The Chair: He's only left you about two minutes.
Mr. Claude Bachand: It's yes or no.
It's yes for everybody?
Okay.
So my time is done, sir.
The Chair: There is a time for a response.
Mr. Arthur Connolly: one way you could do that is to have the public inquiry. That may eliminate
the fear of some of the veterans coming forward, because apparently there are people, we have heard through the Agent Orange
Association of Canada, that there are a lot of veterans out there with information, but they will not come forward unless
they are protected. There are also Government of Canada employees who will not come forward because they are not protected
under a public inquiry.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: The government put out a paper to people who were gassed in Suffield,
in Ottawa, and places like that. My husband was actually part of the biological and chemical testing in Camp Borden which
is highly classified. However, they did send me all the information. I didn't write back or take part in it because on the
back page it said, and I should have brought it, and I have it, that if you did accept the $22,000 from the government that
you would not at any time ever attempt to get anything from them again. Well, for a veteran who's going to need a wheelchair,
who may have to be in a chronic care hospital, he may have to have a raised toilet seat or a walker, who knows, all these
things, that would automatically exclude him from those things, do you not think.
The Chair: It was a lump sum payment, Ma'am, that you were referring to?
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Sorry.
½ (1940)
The Chair: It was a one lump sum payment offer of $22,000?
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Yes. They were all given a lump sum of $22,000 or $24,000--$24,000.
And once they signed for it, then they had lost all of their ability to ever ask the government for any assistance again.
I thought it was a cheap shot.
The Chair: Any other comments? A quick comment in response to Mr. Bachand's question?
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: I can tell you that as a civilian there was a process put into place
by DND of civilians claiming compensation, and one of them was to apply to New Brunswick Workers' Compensation Board, and
the other was of course through the federal employees compensation.
I've looked at both as a civilian, and I've downloaded the forms, and it's impossible to fill them
out, because the Workers' Compensation Board of New Brunswick, for instance, has a section 4 which has to be signed by your
former supervisor. Forty years ago who was that? And forty years ago, are they still in the military? Because it has to be
signed by a DND officer in order for you to put in your claim. And are they even still living, and if they are still living,
they're certainly not a member of DND anymore. Therefore, they can't sign it. So it's a total sham.
The same applies to the federal compensation plan for federal employees. I was a federal employee.
I worked for CFB Gagetown's Department of National Defence clearing the brush and burning it. Yet, I can't fill out the form
because there's no one to sign it. Who is going to sign it forty years later?
So that process that they have put in place for civilians is a total dead end. It's a sham. It's
a disgrace. That's what it is.
The Chair: We will go to our next questioner, and that is Mr. Blaikie.
Mr. Blaikie, sir.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think this is certainly some of the most compelling testimony that I've ever heard in my twenty-six
and a half years as a member of Parliament and it makes me wish very, very strongly that as...I remember when my two New Democratic
colleagues raised this in 1981, I was here then, and I wish that we had been able to be more successful at the time in getting
the kind of attention paid to the issue.
I know you get that story on the national news and then a couple of days later the political agenda
moves on to something else and sometimes you never really get the kind of focus that I hope we are now getting on this issue,
because I think this committee meeting, Mr. Chairman, if my guess is right, will prove to be a watershed in the treatment
of this issue.
I thank the witnesses and I think a lot of people in months and years to come will thank you for
what you did here tonight because I think this will, I hope will be the beginning of a concerted effort on the part of everyone
who is here to really push the government to do the right thing, to have an inquiry so that people can come forward and feel
that they're doing so in a protected environment. And also I hope that it will do the right thing by adopting a presumptive
model dealing with the claims that people are making and adopting a process whereby it's easier for people to claim.
This notion of, and this is typical of so many things these day, well, we've got a website, or
call and then you've got to spell somebody's name and press one, and press two, and press four, or whatever. This is just,
if you're trying to be user-friendly, or in this case veteran-friendly, you need a human being on the other end of the line
who isn't in Kirkland Lake, with all due respect to the people in Kirkland Lake of course. But this is also so typical. You
phone Air Canada baggage and you get somebody in India. So I just hope that the department would see the merit of dealing
with this in a much more serious and profound way than it has.
It's so typical that we have to depend on American information. In Canada we like to feel self-righteous
about ourselves in relation to the Americans and I do it myself, but I can tell you when it comes to information, I don't
know how many times in my parliamentary life, the only reason we have any information at all is because we have gotten it
south of the border, and because we do have a culture of secrecy here in Canada, that it's just so embarrassing.
I'm not here to grill you. I think you came here and given us the kind of information that we need
to take this forward either in this Parliament or the next because, of course, it may well be that this Parliament's life
is quite short.
Finally, I might say as someone who's tangentially familiar with The Black Watch, The Black Watch
is known never to have retreated in any circumstance, Mr. Chairman. And I think the government had better watch out because
you gather The Black Watch together whether they be alumni, or veterans, or current members, and if they decide that the Canadian
government is going to finally behave properly on this, some day the Canadian government will behave properly on this, whether
it likes it or not, and I hope that it will do that with the help of all of us here.
½ (1945)
The Chair: Mrs. Sellar.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Could I just add one thing? It seems that all the processes that were
offered earlier are so lengthy. They're talking about 2006 and that sort of thing and searching for remnants of toxins in
barrels and things. These soldiers are the remnants. They truly are. They're desperately ill. They're dying. If we go too
slowly on this, it really isn't going to matter and they're awfully bitter and unhappy. They feel betrayed.
The Chair: Mr. Cardinal.
Mr. Wayne H. Cardinal: They talk about testing, and blood tests and that, but blood tests
do not always show dioxin levels because after so many years they dissipate from your system and may not show at all. There
is an outstanding list of ailments that are related to dioxin poisoning. These tests cost about $1,000 a piece to conduct
and that, again, would be a tremendous cost to the taxpayer. I think a more general approach as to the ailments a person has
in relation to that would be much more sufficient to determine if it is related to any dioxin poisons, especially where he
has served and been exposed in the training area to these. If it looks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it's probably a
duck. If you were there, you've been contaminated. It's just that simple.
The Chair: Any other comments before Mr. Blaikie's presentation?
Okay, we will then go to Mr. Martin.
Hon. Keith Martin: Thank you all very much for being here today. I think, as always said
around this table, your poignant testimony certainly affects us deeply.
We're determined--as you've probably heard, and that's why you're here and why we're here--to try
to get to the bottom of this very quickly so that you can receive what is required based on the illnesses that have been suffered.
We all know that people live, they get sick, they die, and I'm sorry for the tragedies that have befallen your families and
loved ones.
We have to, though, of course, establish connections between illness and the effect of being exposed.
We have evidence, and to the best of our knowledge, that Agent Orange was used for seven days in the areas that were mentioned
before. Some of you have mentioned otherwise, and I'd like to ask some particular questions on that because it's important
to try to make that connection, which is what we're all trying to do.
Mr. Connolly, you mentioned the tragedy that had befallen your family. Sir, do you have evidence
that your family was actually exposed to Agent Orange?
Mr. Arthur Connolly: My father was in the training area, as Mr. Chisholm said, during that
time. They would be out in the training area for the whole summer.
Hon. Keith Martin: During the seven days that the spraying went on very far away from areas
of habitation?
Mr. Arthur Connolly: That's correct, and every one in awhile they'd be able to get lucky,
sneak home. I can remember running and hugging my dad, like every kid did, and he'd be coming home wearing those clothes that
he'd been wearing out in the brush.
Hon. Keith Martin: You mentioned other family members who got sick or passed away. Were
they exposed to Agent Orange?
Mr. Arthur Connolly: They were in Gagetown.
Hon. Keith Martin: But Gagetown itself, where people were living, to my knowledge and you
can correct me, there was no spraying of Agent Orange--
Mr. Arthur Connolly: (Inaud) 1964, they paid (inaud) $250,000. To me, that's an admission
of liability, and an admission of guilt that they sprayed it. They knew they sprayed it, and that was not on any training
area.
½ (1950)
Hon. Keith Martin: I'm trying to determine, sir, the best of our knowledge is that Agent
Orange was sprayed for four days in 1966, and three days in 1967. We're trying to determine if more was sprayed. We'd certainly
like to know.
The last point I want to make, if I may, sir--
Mr. Wayne H. Cardinal: On 147 square miles, sir, they've been sprayed since 1956.
Hon. Keith Martin: Do you have any documentation on that?
Mr. Wayne H. Cardinal: Sir, the early report ... 40 years. I'll show you every inch of the
training area sprayed. Sorry for interrupting.
Hon. Keith Martin: Where Agent Orange was sprayed ... the reason why--
A Voice: Herbicides, sir, herbicides.
Hon. Keith Martin: Oh, but there are many different types of herbicides.
A Voice: That goes without saying.
Hon. Keith Martin: Yes, there are many different types of herbicides, and we have to determine
within that complex array of herbicides--I mean, we're talking about Agent Orange and whether that had any effect--whether
any of the other herbicides had any affect on your health, which is what we're trying to do.
You brought up much of the information that was done by the United States, and you're quite right,
they have done a lot of research on that for a long time because their exposure is much, much greater than ours. So I went
back and looked at some of the research data, and this came from the U.S. Department of Defence. For 20 years they looked
at 2,000 veterans who were exposed for nine years intimately with Agent Orange, because they were the ones who sprayed, they
were the ones who were actually on the ground. So for nine years these 2,000 people had significant, constant exposure to
Agent Orange, and I, quite frankly, thought that we would find something. What they found was that there was an increased
risk of insulin-dependent diabetes in these people. They also found that there was no increase in cancer among those people
at all. I'm just stating the facts because we may want to--
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: If I may say something here, if that's the fact, then why is the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs paying hundreds of thousands of veterans compensation for exposure to Agent Orange for cancers?
Hon. Keith Martin: I'm going by the data that they have here, sir.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: I'd like to know what you're talking about because we've been sitting
here telling you that we were exposed from '56 to '84. There's the document right here.
Hon. Keith Martin: Mr. Dobbie, if I could--
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: This is a DND document--
Hon. Keith Martin: You were exposed...
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: --and you're still talking about '66 and '67. You can't get past that.
Hon. Keith Martin: Let's talk about...
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: Nobody seems to be able to get past that on your side of the government.
Hon. Keith Martin: Sir, I'm trying to find out--the question that I asked, it's important
for us to know because if you have evidence that agent orange was used outside of that, we'd like to know. If you're talking
about...
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: Mr. Chair, if I may just read something here.
The Chair: If we can get the dialogue back and forth...
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: If I may just read something here, we all agreed that 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T
is agent orange and agent purple. In 1956, 3,687 acres of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T were sprayed on CFB Gagetown. In 1957, 3,879 acres
sprayed with 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. And it goes on.
Why can't you get that?
Hon. Keith Martin: Sir...
Mr. Jody Carr: If can try this point, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Panel and members, we'd like to keep a civil exchange where there's a question...
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: I'm sorry, I apologize for my outburst--
The Chair: No, not at all, but in order for the rest of the...
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: --I just get very frustrated with this whole '66-'67 mess.
The Chair: I can appreciate that, but in order for us to be able to stay tuned, all of us
together, we want to hear the question and the response so we can make some sense out of it.
I'll just go to the point of order, if you will, Mr. Carr.
Mr. Jody Carr: Actually it's not a point of order.
The Chair: You want to respond? By all means.
Mr. Jody Carr: Mr. Chair, the fact is, agent orange didn't become a name until the 1960s,
early sixties--
½ (1955)
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: 1962.
Mr. Jody Carr: --in 1962 is when the label name agent orange was created, when the Americans
used this product in Vietnam, because of the orange stripe around the barrel. Prior to that it had to be called something
else besides agent orange.
Too many people have come forward from across this country that have illnesses and that are hurting,
and you've heard the stories here today. Too many people have come forward to make this just a coincidence, and it's this
type of denial that the federal government continues to put forward in terms of minimizing the issue and limiting it to '66
and '67, getting defensive, asking the victims for evidence, when people in our own government have the information.
It's incumbent upon the federal government to take responsibility. We heard it, please, just say
“I'm sorry” for starters, and help the people that have been hurt, because there have been too many. It's that
confrontation and that denial that frustrates and upsets the victims. If we could be open to hearing and looking at their
own information that they have, and moving forward quickly, it would be much better.
The Chair: Mr. Carr, I don't believe this was a confrontation here. It was a matter of exchange
of information that Party A has and Party B has, and part of this type of setting that the committee suggested, to invite
you here, is so that we can hear information and exchange information, so I don't believe that it's a confrontation, but with
that, Mr. Martin, you've lost some time, sir, and I will extend it for you.
Hon. Keith Martin: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.
Mr. Dobbie. This is the information that we want to receive. We have some. You're here because
we want to listen to you. We want to get the information so we can make the decisions in a quick and rapid response, to be
able to be fair and equitable to our veterans who have served so honourably for our country.
Sir, this information that you received, I just wanted to go through it, because I'm going through
your document, and you referred to the access to information that you have here, and it relates again to that '66 and '67
spraying. You also have, later on, quoting here about 1965, about spraying that occurred. Is that from the same access to
information?
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: Yes.
Hon. Keith Martin: Because what we'll do is go back and take a look at that, and we will
dig up that information.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: The spraying went on from 1956 to 1984. Now, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T was sprayed
from '56 to '64, with the exception of two years. I believe those years were '59 and '62.
Mr. Jody Carr: Yes.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: Six years out of eight, 2,4,-D and 2,4,5-T was sprayed. There was a
spray application accident because of a temperature inversion and the spray drifted across the river and destroyed all the
crops.
These are photocopies of the Fredericton Gleaner, August 8, 1964, which shows what I quoted
in my presentation, that these spray accidents happened frequently, all the time, in previous years. Therefore, what happens
and we know that dioxin has a half life of greater than 10 years in the soil, so I'm wondering what happened to all those
market gardens because those were huge farms. One farmer lost 25,000 tomato plants in one summer. They were huge farms that
provided produce for Ormoncto, Fredericton, the rest of New Brunswick and some of it was exported out of the province.
The dioxin in the soil would have been taken up by all the root vegetables that were grown, the
tomatoes, the carrots. It's all mentioned in this document. I have not provided this to the committee, but I will make sure
that the Clerk receives copies, so that you can all study it and read it.
It was given to me at the CFB Gagetown Theatre meeting on June 24 when I spoke there. It was given
to me by one of the survivors, a lady. I won't mention her name, but she gave it to me because she said I would do something
with it and I have. I will give the committee these papers.
Hon. Keith Martin: So certainly what was used, if I may finish off, the very good question
we ask is why in the United States they are actually paying, giving a compensation, a pension, to those members who have contracted
cancer and had exposure to agent orange, when their own data shows that there is no increase in cancer incidents?
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: Only in one little tiny study. You have to remember that the--
The Chair: Mr. Dobbie, kindly, sir, as the gentleman is trying to finish his comments, I
will press the same issue with you when you're responding.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: I apologize.
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Hon. Keith Martin: Just to say, Mr. Dobbie, that in the 2,000 people they looked at over
20 years who had the heaviest exposure of agent orange and the heaviest exposure to dioxin, they didn't show that increase.
But we will find out. Maybe there are reasons why. Maybe there are other implicating factors. We
will look into the reasons why in the U.S. that they are paying money to people who contracted cancer down there who were
members of the U.S. armed forces. We'll look into seeing what that's all about and hopefully it can be applied to what's being
said here.
¾ (2000)
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: I would have to say that that is a very small study. The Department
of Veterans Affairs fought the Vietnam veterans for over 20 years in their compensation efforts. That is a study that has
come up time and time again.
While it may be valid for those 2,000 people, it may also not be. When was the study done? Why
are the people dying now?
Hon. Keith Martin: So, from 2005 to July '98, the U.S. Department of Defence, over a 20
year period of time.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: What we have observed, or what I've observed, from all the thousands
of emails that I've read from across the country, is that not everybody gets cancer from exposure to dioxin. Let me put it
another way. Different people have different immune systems. For instance, I don't have cancer yet, but I've been told I'm
going to get it. But I've been sick for 39 years with a litany of diseases and disorders and dysfunctions. Because I had multiple
exposures. I wasn't only cutting and burning the defoliant brush in 1966. I was also a Boy Scout in 1960 and 1961 out in the
Camp Gagetown training area, located just at Dunn's Corner , just about eight miles in back of Camp Petersville Hill , which
is one of the most heavily defoliated areas in the Base.
In 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, I was a member of the Camp Gagetown fish and game club, and went
out into the training area frequently, dozens, hundreds of times, to fish, to hunt. We went out motorcycling, trail riding.
We went out camping three nights or four nights in a row. The thing that haunts me the most about all my times out there,
was you never heard birds. You never saw them. They just weren't there. They were all dead. And I travelled through the defoliated
areas. I've seen them with my own eyes. I worked with the stuff. I cut it, I burned it. It was a coppery brown and it smelled
like metal. And we were poisoned by it, hundreds of us.
Right now I have uncovered two other people who worked with me on that project. One died nine years
ago of prostate cancer, one of the cancers that is attributed to Agent Orange exposure. He suffered for 15 years before that.
His wife approached me at the CFB Gagetown meeting and gave me all the information. And I still contact her. Another person
has come forward, and that person is very sick. They have cancer. I don't. So it's not a cancer of everybody gets it. It's
a question of how your immune system reacts to it.
Now, having said all that, from 1965 on, DND sprayed almost 1.2 million litres of hexachlorabenzene
which I've given evidence here, causes a host of other diseases aside from cancer. And we haven't even begun to scratch the
surface of what kind of diseases are going to come out of this because the test group, the people who were exposed and poisoned,
we're all dying. And once we're dead, there's no more people to study.
The Chair: We must move on, Mr. Dobbie. I know you'll have opportunity again to continue
on.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: I'm sorry to be so long.
The Chair: No, not at all. It's just that other members are waiting, and I know Mr. Carr
wants to intervene, and you'll do so within Mr. Thompson's time.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.
It was really compelling, very moving and we really appreciate you coming.
I will probably not be as optimistic as Bill Blaikie, but I'm not convinced that this is actually
going to move the government in any way toward fairness or compensation. I just feel that based on--
Hon. Bill Blaikie: I spoke before I listened to Mr. Martin.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, there you go. I think you're right, Mr. Blaikie, that it's a mindset.
They simply can't accept the fact that--
The Chair: You get back on the list, though, Mr. Blaikie.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: No, you don't want that.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chair, I said from the outset, and I still believe it, that it is
nothing more than an elaborate public relations exercise by the government to keep a lid on this agent orange issue, this
herbicide spray issue, to be more exact, over the course of 50 years or so.
As evidence of that in terms of public relations, Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that the
government spent more time identifying a chairperson or an outreach coordinator than they did in terms of what this coordinator
would do. The first person chose could not have been a better person in terms of public relations, Mr. Vaughan Blaney, well
respected in New Brunswick.
Mr. Blaney, as you well know, Mr. Chair, resigned that position because of ill health. Actually,
I would suggest that probably some of that ill health was brought on by the extreme pressure that the poor man was put under.
He went out to hear the same type of testimony we've heard here this evening in some of the villages with no tools to work
with. He was given absolutely no reporting authority in terms of recommendations to the government.
The new outreach coordinator, a gentleman by the name of Dr. Dennis Furlong, who has again an impeccable
record in the province of New Brunswick, probably the best choice they could make after the resignation of Mr. Vaughan Blaney,
but again this gentleman has been given no tools to work with. In fact, Mr. Furlong is quoted in today's Telegraph-Journal:
|
Dr. Furlong says his job isn't to judge whether compensation is warranted but to give the
federal government the information it needs to make that decision. |
I think what we've heard here tonight from not only our witnesses but from members and some of
them former military at this table, the government has those records. The government has those records now and could actually
release those in an afternoon. In one afternoon--tomorrow afternoon, let's put it that way, we could have that information.
If the government does one thing well--the military, it's keeping track of its members. That's
exactly what the military is all about. It's very important in the military that they know how many members they have, who
they are and where they are. That information is available today.
Why we get emotional on this, Mr. Chair, is when we have intelligent people like Karen Ellis appearing
before us, a spokesman for the government, and in that stated denial, which she obviously had when she first appeared here
on June 21--remember she is just a spokesman for the government, but I don't think they have moved off of that.
Mr. Carr outlined some recommendations that we came up with after having spent some money on some
good research and doing some of that research over the summer, a plan which we think will work. But the truth is, Mr. Chair,
that this whole plan is being exercised and being decided by a group of politicians in Ottawa, namely, the cabinet of the
Government of Canada is masterminding the plan. There are no experts that are actually laying out a plan that might get to
the truth. The truth will never be known if the present plan is followed to the letter by the Government of Canada. We'll
never get to it.
When we look at a publication called Salute!--this is a veterans affairs publication that
goes out to its members. You have a copy, Mr. Chair. I would point you to the November flyer, if you will, November 2005.
That's today, isn't it?
¾ (2005)
They go on to talk about Agent Orange, forgetting about all those years where herbicide sprays
were used, dioxin laced if you will, and suggesting in this that if you have a claim on Agent Orange only, make your claim.
The Chair: They also say if you have one of the medical conditions outlined by the IOM,
at the bottom left. In all fairness we should read the document as it is stated.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I think you're interpreting it quite generously.
The Chair: I don't know, I'm just reading off the pamphlets. I'm not here to get into debate
with you because it's your time.
¾ (2010)
Mr. Greg Thompson: You're violating your own rules, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: You're enticing me.
Mr. Greg Thompson: You're being very generous just the same despite the fact.
The point that I'm making here, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, is they're basically
inviting veterans to apply based on those two years only. They do recognize the U.S. Institute of Medicine and some of the
maladies associated with exposure if you will, but if you look at it they've cleverly limited it to two years only. We do
know that the spray program took place on the base from 1956 to 1984. That's the point that I'm making, Mr. Chairman.
They're still in a mode of either cover-up or complete denial. None
of the dots connect. When you're looking at the plan they laid out on August 16, this is the headline of the press release
they sent out, Mr. Chairman, on August 16, 2005. The headline reads:
|
Government announced approach regarding use of herbicides at CFB
Gagetown. |
You can go through this document, Mr. Chairman, it's at least 12 or 15 pages in length, and there's
no place in that document where the word “compensation” is used. They don't even suggest that if evidence leads
us to compensation or if linkages are proven, etc., compensation will be considered. I mean they don't use it. In fact when
the former chairman or coordinator, Mr. Blainey, held his meetings in the village of Upper Gagetown and the village of Gagetown
the word “compensation” never crossed his lips because he was told never to use the word “compensation”.
Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely convinced it's nothing more than a public relations exercise for the
Government of Canada and there will never be compensation delivered to these veterans between now and whenever. It's simply
an exercise to get this government through to the next election without offering these people compensation. In fact, Mr. Chairman,
if you look again at what they were stating yesterday, the final report on this exercise called: The Approach Regarding
The Use of Herbicides at CFB Gagetown, that final report is expected to be in the year 2007 without any recommendations
for compensation.
Mr. Chairman, I think I've convinced my colleague, Bill Blaikie, that he might have spoken too
prematurely on that issue of compensation.
The Chair: Can you share the information on that date again of when they will report. I
missed it.
Mr. Greg Thompson: They quote Ms. Karen Ellis in this article in the Telegraph Journal.
They step through task 1, task 2, task 3, and it states that the final report is expected to be in to the government in the
summer of 2007. In other words, we're looking down the road quite a ways before the final report is in and then obviously
the government at that point would have to consider whether or not compensation is warranted at that point.
Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it at that. Maybe with some of the witnesses, I'd hate to take up their
time, but I'm attempting to lay it out for our perspective in that we don't believe a word the government is saying on this
file in terms of getting to the real truth and getting to the issue of compensation. We just don't believe them.
The Chair: You've exhausted more than the five minutes but it's a very special meeting as
I said earlier. There's been statements made and question put to you, panel. We'll open it up to you and if you can keep it
as tight as possible we'd appreciate it.
We'll start with Mr.Chisolm.
Mr. John Chisolm:
Thank you, sir.
This is for Mr. Martin over here on my left. This here is a document, “Base Gagetown Summary
of Chemical Spray Program, DND documents, Rights to Information”. 1956: 3,687 acres, 24 ounces of 24D, and 24 ounces
of 245T mixed per acre, 24 barrels. 1957: 3,149 acres, 24 ounces of 24D, 24 ounces of 245T mixed per barrel, 25 barrels. 1958:
4,469 acres, plus 2,639 acres, plus 500 acres, 32 ounces of 245T mixed per acre for 35 barrels. 1959: nil. 1960: 9,000 acres,
32 ounces of 245T mixed. This is all agent orange. This is all agent orange.
Up until 1963, and then they turned around, they mixed the same thing, only they added fuel oil
with it. Then in 1964, they sprayed 10,000 acres with 40 ounces of 24D, 40 ounces of 245T plus one gallon of oil and five
gallons per hundred acres. In 1964, they quit spraying it.
In 1964 the spray incidents, this is when the accident happened, when they oversprayed , because
at that particular time they were using fixed-wing aircraft for spraying. After 1964, they quit using fixed-wing aircraft
because they couldn't control the spray. They had no idea where it was going with the fixed-wing aircraft because they were
up too high, and it was just sprayed and wherever it went, so be it. Who cares? There are only a bunch of soldiers under there,
anyway. They don't care. Use them for guinea pigs.
Then in 1964, they stopped using it altogether because there were no funds. 1965, that's when they
turned around, they brought in that Trident 101, and they sprayed 4,708 acres. 1966: the test. Merciful man, what is it with
this air test? It was only two strips of ground.
They burnt half of The Black Watch underneath it. We wrote their survey. We put them under the
canopy. The idea of it was to see how fast they could find them. As fast as that stuff hit the leaves, it would drop off.
There they are. No problem finding them now. They're all the white-out, they must be in the Sahara Desert because everything's
dead.
I rest my case.
¾ (2015)
The Chair: Others that wanted a comment from Monsieur
Mr. Carr. Can we just work over this way, Mr. Carr?
Mr. Jody Carr: Yes, very quickly.
From a previous point as well, scientific evidence and research in relation to the U.S. that was
mentioned earlier, this is kind of part of the frustration as well that people get, because they keep talking about scientific
research and evidence and we have to keep looking at the scientific research and evidence. Well, we would suggest that the
scientific evidence and research has been done.
A great precedence that has been set by our own Canadian government is the fact that Brigadier
General Sellar was awarded compensation because of exposure to Agent Orange. We don't have to look to the Americans any further
with that decision. Our own Canadian government under Veterans Affairs agreed with the scientific evidence and research that
had taken place. So we have to go no further on that debate.
Now we're up to four, so we're getting there, but we have a long way to go. As well as this denial
and foot dragging, I guess, that gets people frustrated, fingers were pointed after Mr. Thompson asked questions in Parliament
earlier this year. Fingers were pointed back in response to his questions to New Brunswick, saying these chemicals were used
everywhere else in this province as well, and fingers were pointed back. But the New Brunswick provincial government set a
precedent and recognized that these chemicals, even though they weren't Agent Orange, because the name was only put forward
in '62, '63, they were by other brand names called Brush Kill and others, the provincial government provided compensation
to NB Power employees because the NB, Power employees had come forward.
They made a case to the government. Statistical studies were done, a mortality study, that showed
this group of employees who were directly exposed to these chemicals of 24-D and 245-T, not called Agent Orange, but called
other brand names made by the same chemical companies, that the illnesses of cancer and other illnesses related and associated
to dioxin exposure, this group had a higher level of incidents and therefore they were provided compensation as of late...the
last one 2001. So we don't have to look very much farther away.
If you're asking for proof from the victims, they can provide you the information they have. Perhaps
one kind suggestion might be that a committee such as this may ask for all of the information the Department of National Defence
has regarding this issue and you can get more of the evidence and the proof that you're looking for from your own government
that has these records. DND does keep good records Mr. Thompson mentioned. They know the brand names. They know the chemicals
and the herbicides that were used and it should not take six months to provide a list.
¾ (2020)
Mr. Arthur Connolly: I would like to make a couple of comments in regard to Mr. Thompson's
comments about possibly us not being paid or the veterans being paid. That's fine, if there's an election, we'll still be
here. We're organizing, we're lobbying, we're the Agent Orange Association of Canada. That's a name not to be forgotten. With
that website we have one page that's called “Good MP, Bad MP”. I think you can understand where I'm going with
that.
Those who are with us, good MP and a nice little story; bad MP and another little story. I hope
to see all of you on the “Good MP”. It's very frustrating for us to try to deal with members of Parliament when
they will not return e-mails, they will not return phone calls.
The Chair: Who's your member of Parliament?
Mr. Arthur Connolly: It's Pat O'Brien. I haven't heard from him and I understand he used
to be a chair of this committee. That's very interesting.
The Chair: That's quite true, sir. I've known Mr. O'Brien to be a very meticulous, caring
member of Parliament.
Mr. Arthur Connolly: He's under “bad MP”.
The Chair: I don't think so.
Mr. Arthur Connolly: I sent a letter to an MP basically discussing our plight. I received
the response from his office, “Thank you for sharing your views on same sex marriage”. Close. Another bad MP.
So I just want all politicians to realize that we're not going away. They may wait for the veterans
to die, but it's not just the veterans, it's the families, it the children. It's the people who want to do the right thing.
Thank you.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: I just wanted to ask how many people know that this stuff was made in
Elmira, Ontario?
Interesting isn't it. It was on CBC quite some time ago and Mary Lou Finlay was doing the exposé
and she closes by saying “Imagine if American protesters knew then where one of the most deadliest of weapons used during
the war actually came from”.
Imagine if Canadians knew.
The Chair:
Was the Elmira facility servicing the American needs as well, ma'am, or was it just for the Canadian
usage.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Well, according to this article it was being used for Vietnam as well
as in Canada.
The Chair: I was just curious if the Elmira facility was servicing the needs of the United
States and Canada as well.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: I'm not privy to that but according to this article, which was very
carefully researched, it was used in the United States. The Americans sprayed themselves. They sprayed their own camps in
the United States. Terrible.
The Chair: Do you want to get on the speaker's list?
Hon. Bill Blaikie: I just thought of one point.
The Chair: By all means.
Hon. Bill Blaikie: I was somewhat concerned at Mr. Thompson's suggestion that somehow I
had some confidence in the government in this respect. He should know better. I thought we were on the same side on this.
I expressed confidence in the witnesses and in the power of their testimony to move people's minds
on this and to create the kind of motivation in most of us in the room that some day would help to bring a satisfactory resolution
to this. That's what I was doing. He might have thought he was being funny but I didn't really appreciate it.
The Chair: I'm glad you had that opportunity to clarify that, Mr. Blaikie.
We will go to Ms. Gallant.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you, to the witnesses.
I cannot recall a time when I have felt so ashamed as a Canadian for what this country has done
to you and the people for whom you speak.
Ms. Sellars, as a high-ranking officer, your husband would have been receiving a full retirement
pension, back benefits. I'm interested in knowing how he was compensated for his exposure to Agent Orange. Were his medical
bills, his medicine covered? How did they arrive at a calculation?
One person here mentioned that they had not undergone testing because it was $1,000. I'm interested
in knowing from the panel if anyone else has undergone testing to prove whether or not they've had exposure to these rainbow
herbicides and if not, why not.
And to the best of your knowledge, are the soldiers and the families of the Black Watch and any
other regiments who were exposed to these rainbow herbicides mostly situated in Gagetown or would they really be spread across
the country?
¾ (2025)
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Oh, yes, all over.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: I have a great interest in knowing this, having a major military base
and want to know whether or not my constituents have been exposed to this and just don't realize what's caused it.
And Jody, in your opinion, I'd like to know whether or not this inquiry that's being set up is
really going to be able to accomplish anything or if, in addition to just a straight out compensation package with the presumptive
clause that Mr. Blaikie mentioned in tandem, whether a judicial inquiry where you can actually subpoena witnesses, subpoena
documents might be more useful so that down the road we can obtain compensation for families who don't have the benefit of
being able to go to bat.
That's basically what I'd like to know.
And I'd like to suggest, too, Mr. Chairman, based on what I've heard tonight and given our time
restraints, whether or not we could bring in some of these VAC officers who have adjudicated and refused these applications
so that we would have an understanding of whether or not they're under some constraints, that they're being directed to do
so, or if there is some shortfall on the part of the applicants in submitting whatever it is the adjudicators need in order
to give a positive claim.
The Chair: I won't respond to that at this stage but certainly there have been questions
put by Ms. Gallant and to Mr. Carr and others. If you would, we've got about two-and-a-half minutes to respond.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: My husband was not tested for dioxin. His testimony was sufficient.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: And how was he compensated?
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Sorry?
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: How was he compensated? Did he receive extra money, were some of his
medical bills covered, because he already had a full pension?
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: He already had a full pension, but if you understand a full pension,
that when the husband dies, you get it for one month, and then it is reduced by half. Those were the rules, although it costs
as much for one person to live as two, the mortgage, the rent, the food bill, the car, the whole thing, telephone. And with
the benefit pension they are awarded a sum and I believe you get it for a year and then it is reduced by half. And I am about
to be reduced by half. It's not a lot of money.
The Chair: Mr. Carr, I think you were asked a question as well
Mr. Jody Carr: Okay, first I was going to say thank you for your comments about your reflection
on the travesty. We don't feel good, as well as people who live in the communities surrounding base Gagetown, to hear this
constantly, and on the national news. It does make us feel bad, because we're very proud of our community, we're very proud
of our military history, we have good people, we have good communities. Like other communities around New Brunswick and throughout
Canada, and good, caring, giving people, and a lot of people have sacrificed a lot over the years, even though, at the same
time we are very grateful to have the military, over those 50 years, of course, like other relationships, there's a give and
take, and especially when the federal government first moved in and expropriated 20 communities, there's still even, sometimes,
some sediment of bitterness there, but they did the loyal thing to their country and gave up their lands and not a whole lot
was said. I don't know if we could go into an area of Canada now and expropriate 20 communities and be able to get away with
it.
But at the same time, that relationship has evolved, and it's a good relationship, and one that
we're very proud of. The dioxin testing, people have contacted me, including doctors, family doctors, that the dioxin testing
is not easily available, not readily available, and when someone could get it done, you mentioned $1000, it's cost-prohibitive
as well. On the 23 June public meeting in Ormucto at base Gagetown, the doctor, from DND, I believe, had said that blood testing
was one way to show your dioxin level, and if it's over and above the normal level, because we all have a certain level of
dioxin in our system. If it's over and above that, you can trace back half-life, trace back to a time where you can prove
exposure. But the cost is one problem, and the other problem is the number of lab aren't available, there's only a handful.
However, in our discussions, in our research, Mr. Thompson, myself, Health Canada, their own labs could do this testing, and
if the government wanted, they could offer these dioxin tests for people, for veterans, and for potential victims.
The other thing that I've learned is that dioxin tests done individually is one thing, you could
show your own individual level, depending on the exposure, it might help. But also how dioxin blood testing could help is
if you took all of your potentially exposed victims, veterans, or civilians, and you tested their blood and by using the statistics
that would come back, it would show whether there is a higher level of dioxin within this group and that's also where blood
testing dioxin is beneficial.
¾ (2030)
The Chair: It's important beyond the--
Mr. Jody Carr:
On this final point about whether or not this process that the government is undertaking now will
be successful, I guess it's anybody's guess. I think there's lots of room for improvement and that's why Mr. Thompson and
myself did a series of research and recommendations. And I've gotten quite a lot of flack myself, personally, from some people
who want a judicial inquiry and they've stated their points very clearly.
I've held out because first and foremost it is up to the federal government. If everyone agrees
that there should be a judicial inquiry, it's still up to the federal government to launch one. So honestly, I was thinking
to myself in our discussions, would the federal government launch one? And rather than try to pound our fists and try to convince
them, we figured they probably wouldn't do it. So, as a compromise position, we thought we'd put some recommendations forward
that would improve the current process.
In the organizational chart I'll show you, and it had been mentioned in my comments earlier, about
the departmental involvement of the experts designing and planning the terms of reference. As honourable as those people are,
it doesn't give confidence to Canadians and that's really what this is about after we've heard about all the mistrust.
So if it could be moved outside of government with a lead investigator, a technical review committee
made up of experts, that at the same time worked with government or the government officials, the internal government officials,
they could investigate and do the research that is needed to get the information from the government departments. But at the
same time, they could make recommendations back, and hopefully would have the powers to make recommendations back to government
at the same time. A judicial inquiry would take the amount of time it would take, which could be a lengthy time, and it's
reactive; it does get the research and the investigative part, but then there's still no action until the report is finished
and then the government responds. And that's even if they want to respond. They are not forced to.
The Chair: Please summarize for us. We're going beyond the time.
Mr. Jody Carr: So those are the points why I recommend that there has been progress made,
there can be more, and those recommendations would help.
The Chair: I'll go to Ms. Sellar, Mr. Carr.
I've got Ms. Sellar and I've got Mr. Connolly.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: We're losing the whole point of this meeting. We're here to talk about
a corporal who gets a retirement pension of $2,000 a month. When he dies it is reduced to $1,000 a month. His wife has got
four children, a dog, and an old car, and all she can do is go back and live with her family. These are the people we're dealing
with. We're not dealing with tests and governments and commissions and things. We're really dealing with these very sick soldiers
who gave themselves to their country. Many of them have been in wars and they're just being totally overlooked.
Please, let's forget about all of this and just do something for each of them on an individual
basis.
¾ (2035)
The Chair: Very good. I'll respond to that after.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: And could we have some people who had military service who adjudicate.
I rather fear that the people in Charlottetown who make these decisions probably don't have very much knowledge about what
soldiers do.
The Chair: Thank you for that comment.
In closing, I'd like to respond to that answer.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Thank you.
Mr. Arthur Connolly: I would like to point out to Ms. Gallant that yes, the people who were
in Gagetown are not there any longer. According to Ms. Ellis, earlier, that number is 200,000. Those people don't live in
Oromocto and few of the population is nowhere near that. What has happened is these people are now across Canada, across the
world.
When the base project first went into effect I called Andy Scott's office. I spoke with Andrew
Holland. I said “What is the base project doing to alert the people across Canada?” And he said “Well, I
spoke with Bon Blainey and Bon said he was going to go the convenience store and put up some flyers on the bulletin board.”
And I thought I could see it now. I lost my puppy and do you have Agent Orange...? He's dying, you know. It ridiculous.
The federal government can easily find out where these people are. Send them a letter. It will
cost you a buck each.
The Chair: I have Mr. Bagnell and Mr. Martin. I think you were going to share you time,
if I may.
Mr. Bagnell, we'll start with you, sir.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I don't have a lot of questions because like the others,
you're testimony is so compelling and so thorough. It was said it's a great kickoff to the work that needs to be done and
of course, that's why I'm so supportive of, as you just said, finding the people, finding the exposure, finding the effects,
finding the links.
I think it's really important, I think something you've emphasized, no one's explicitly said it,
but for the people who presently are elderly or very sick, something has to be done very soon. Maybe a special category of
people. And so I think on behalf of the people that you've come to represent as well, because I'm sure they're appreciative
of the ones that aren't here, but that will benefit from this information.
I did have two small questions. You've provided so much information and I don't have to ask that
much, but I just wanted to get follow-up on a bit that you've asked. One was on the hexachlorabenzene. I thought that was
very interesting and it sounded like there was so much of that over so many years that it actually might be more of a problem
than Agent Orange. Is that from your...or more of a volume wise?
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: I personally believe that the hexachlorabenzene is a far more greater
toxic chemical because of the volume that was sprayed over 20 years. We're talking almost 1.2 million litres of it. It's interesting
to note that in 1985, Dow Chemical lost its registration for picloram which contained the hexachlorabenzene because the EPA
had discovered that because of a lot of people who were using picloram across the, or Tordon 101 across the United States
were reporting illnesses, crop damages, well beyond what it should have been.
And the EPA at that time, the U.S. chemical companies had lobbied Congress so that they wouldn't
have to identify what the inert agents in their pesticides and herbicides were. That changed in 1985 and the EPA forced Congress
to pass a law that stated that the chemical companies had to disclose what was in the inert agents in their pesticides and
herbicides. And it was found in picloram that it contained hexachlorabenzene which is a deadly, persistent, bio-accumulative
pollutant. It's classified as a persistent organic pollutant by the World Health Organization. It's listed as a cancer causing
agent. It also damages the liver, the endocrine system, bones, the blood, your circulatory system, your gastrointestinal tract
and so on, and so on.
These are issues that have not even been addressed. We are all talking about Agent Orange and as
much as I agree with the Agent Orange aspect of it, I have to say that Agent White, which is what Tordon was, that's what
the Americans called it, it has an identical chemical signature and it was used on Base Gagetown from 1965 to 1984 and almost
1.2 million litres of it were sprayed over approximately 132,000 acres. And yet, we're to believe that people weren't poisoned
by that?
The other thing about hexachlorabenzene and I must add I've done a lot of research on it, hexachlorabenzene
has two chemical properties in how it relates to the environment. One is that if it goes into a water supply it does not change
its chemical structure, that it becomes a particulate and goes down into the sediment and then down into the ground water
and contaminates the whole environment. The other aspect of it is that when it comes in contact with soil, it changes its
chemical structure immediately to what is called pentachlorophenol, commonly called penta, which is also very toxic to human
beings if they disturb the soil, or if they're crawling through it, it's absorbed through the skin just like dioxin is and
it, as the World Health Organization says, ultimately causes cancer.
So we're looking at massive poisoning of a very small area.
¾ (2040)
The Chair: You can't even split your time, but we'll give Mr. Martin the opportunity. Mr.
Bagnell, I'm sorry, we're trying to manage.
Mr. Martin.
Hon. Keith Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, your testimony is poignant and heart-felt, to say the least.
I want to just emphasize something that perhaps is not evident, but you know this. The herbicides
were used to save the lives of the Canadian Forces members, as you know, who were out there. Without being able to remove
that vegetation, you know accidents occur and people get killed. So that had to happen. That vegetation had to be removed
in some way.
Now, our goal, and what we're doing right now, as I said before, is to identify the veterans as
quickly as possible, to identify exposure, and to identify illnesses, and then we will deal with it accordingly. But I just
want to emphasize to all of you that we're trying to work as quickly as possible for our veterans because we care deeply about
what happens to them and about their health care.
I wanted to say to you, Mrs. Sellar, the individual you mentioned, the lady you mentioned, who
had lost her spouse, has four children, I think you mentioned, and her pension's been cut, if you could give me her details,
I will look into it.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Oh, there are dozens of them. I can give you the name of—
Hon. Keith Martin: I just want to finish, if I may.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Okay, sorry.
Hon. Keith Martin: That's okay. That person, if you can give me that person's case, I'd
be happy to deal with the minister on this.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: It's just everyone.
Hon. Keith Martin: Well, we passed a new Veterans Charter and got the input from veterans
across the country, in particular in my area, in Victoria, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, to get the input from our veterans
to build a very solid Veterans Charter. That's the biggest change in 40 years for our veterans. We want to make sure that
our veterans have access to those kind of changes that we've made. That's why we've put those changes in there: to help them
and give them the care that they require. There's no other reason for doing that.
The Chair: Mr. Dobbie.
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: Can I add something? You keep talking about veterans. Did I not make
myself clear about the thousands of people, who are civilians, who were out in the training area on a regular basis and were
exposed to this stuff? I obviously haven't made my point with you—
Hon. Keith Martin: No, no—
Mr. Kenneth Dobbie: —either that or you weren't listening.
¾ (2045)
Hon. Keith Martin: I was just dealing with the veterans, but not to the exclusion of you.
The Chair: I believe he was addressing the veterans' side, being cognizant of the civil
side, as well.
You time's up, Mr. Martin.
I'm just going to give the floor to Mr. Khan, who has been very, very patient.
Sir.
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and all the
witnesses here.
I kept quiet because there's not a whole lot I could say for the presentation you've made.
My family has served in the military, in the Commonwealth militaries, all over the world, I served
in the military, as well, but also the civilians that worked with them, everybody who is affected by it, I think my suggestion,
and I've only been elected recently, I've not become a politician yet, perhaps, I think what it needs to do...and I also want
to thank Mr. Carr for being here and Mr. O'Connor. There's no bad MPs here, I can assure you that.
I think we, as a committee, whatever time we have now or after, I think we should take up this
cause as urgently as we can and do something about it. We've listened to them. They've got evidence over here.
I'm not that thrilled about the Americans either. One-third of the homeless in America are U.S.
veterans. I know how they've treated the agent-orange-affected veterans, from $101 a month to $2,000 a month, so I'm not that
thrilled with them either.
I think we need to address this issue. I think we need to address it as quickly as possible to
the best of our ability. I, for one, will definitely do whatever I can, with my colleagues, to move the issue forward.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for the comment, Mr. Khan.
Mr. Carr, I think you wanted to add something, sir.
Mr. Jody Carr: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, your time is very, very valuable. It hasn't gone unnoticed. We thank you very much for what
you've give us, this opportunity, and also extended your time to have us speak. There has been progress.
Actually, first I wanted to mention I thought Mr. Martin was going to try to get back onto the
good list, but I guess he missed his opportunity!
Mr. Chairman, there has been progress, credit where credit is due, but it's moving slowly. It can
be done faster. Listen to all the recommendations, and, please, act on them.
The Chair: Thank you for that closing statement, which throws the ball in my court. And,
one of the disadvantages a chair has is that he has to obviously try to control the meetings, and is always so tempted to,
on odd occasions, to intervene. But I do have the privilege in closing the meeting adding some of my comments.
As we've extended the time, and I thank the committee, first of all, for their flexibility. And
as I thank, I just want to take this opportunity to say a big thanks to the TV crew back there, which are members of the House
of Commons who have gone beyond their normal hours. We can't see them here, but I know they can hear us now and see us. Many
thanks for helping us out. We appreciate that very much. And the translators, indeed, who are behind the black window there,
thank you. They're waving, they've been a tremendous help. Our clerk here as well, the staff here that have been so kind.
Everybody here in the room who has been so generous with their time, on this most important issue.
I see people here in the audience still sitting by. But I'm going to take this opportunity just
to comment on a few things. I know my good friend Mr. Thompson talked about timeline. Unfortunately, and this is not political,
it is out of our hands whether this government continues. If they choose to come and collaborate, maybe we can continue.
But the first question I have, Mrs. Sellar, is to you, ma'am. I was reading your data here in terms
of the application for your late husband, Mr. Sellar. When did he apply? Because I'm reading the letter from Dr. Lee , and
that is dated March 2, 2004. I'm also reading the response back from Veterans Affairs Canada, June 14, 2004 in terms of approval.
I'm also noticing the initial letter acknowledging the application, May 17, 2004. I'm just curious, if you can please quickly
respond, when was the application put in requesting the benefit? And how long did it take for it to be approved?
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: It took quite some time for it to be approved. It moved very slowly.
But it was approved. But the payments did not start for sometime. They did make it retroactive, I believe, for a month or
two.
The Chair: It was only a month? I'm surprised because--
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: No, more than that. It would be longer than that. They did make it retroactive
to back to when it was approved.
¾ (2050)
The Chair: Because to my understanding, I worked on Veterans Affairs files in the past for
our veterans here, and our Allied veterans abroad, and it's my understanding that when the application is put in, it's effective
the day it's put in, and the moment it's approved it's retroactive at least minimum to a year.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Oh no, this was not that way. This was approved, and then it was backed
up until the time it was approved. This was a first-time thing, you see.
The Chair: Yes, a very special issue.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: And I hope it's not going to be the last time.
The Chair: Yes. On the pension issue, let me just make a quick comment if may. My mother
is also the widow of a veteran, and I do understand what you're saying and you're absolutely correct. When we say to our department,
once the veteran passes away, the grass does not growing, the snow does not stop coming down, the payments as you've outlined....
And I know that there was legislation passed a year or so ago in terms of grandfathering these benefits to the VIP program,
etc. But we have to go beyond that, and I do agree with you on that.
Mrs. Gloria Sellar: Thank you.
The Chair: With respect to the final report, I have to go back to this, if I may, because
Veterans Affairs has tied in considerably in this exchange, colleagues, and you know that very well. And, I've just pinpointed
something else because my colleague Mr. Thompson enticed me again.
It states here, what we are doing, under number two: “We will work with these veterans and
other applicants...” referring to Mr. Dobbie, “...to determine if they were in fact exposed. We want to be sure
we have all the available evidence.”
That leads me to my question with respect to NBPower. When did that request commence, Mr. Carr,
in terms of compensation for the employees?
Mr. Jody Carr: Yes, I can't say for sure the dates. But I believe it was somewhere in the
early 1990s.
The Chair: So it took approximately 10 years for compensation to be awarded.
Mr. Jody Carr: It was 1995, or sorry, 1995 was when it was first initiated, and then--
The Chair: In 2001-2002, it was--
Mr. Jody Carr: No, that was when it was finalized. But there were some first payments that
were put in before 1998. So between 1995 and 1998, the first payments were given. And then the final payments were in 2001.
I know the point that you're making. But my point that I'm making is why reinvent the wheel. There are precedents out there.
The Chair: I wasn't trying to suggest you reinvent the wheel. I'm simply saying they compensate,
because I see where Mr. Dobbie's coming from and I fully respect it, and I see there's merit in that. I'm just simply trying
to broaden the thought here in that they compensated their employees. Am I correct? Is that what you said?
Mr. Jody Carr: Yes, they were employees who worked directly with the chemicals and applied
the chemicals to the power lines. They were not applying the chemicals to other employees or...
The Chair: Through the application of the lines, would you not then--a possibility--suggest
that other members living in and around the community were affected, such as Mr. Dobbie and other families? So do we absolve
them of their responsibilities by saying we compensated? I'm only just trying to think outside the box here.
Mr. Jody Carr: No, and it's been suggested by the Minister of Defence and others in the
government. It's very, very difficult, even around Base Gagetown, to link exposure of the communities surrounding the base
with civilians that have not worked on base or went and ate berries and ate deer. So it'd be very, very difficult to prove
a link.
So when I ask for a health study, it's more or less about looking forward. It's not about necessarily
providing compensation to every community and providing a cheque. If a health study was done, it would talk about the history
of the health and perhaps the future moving forward. If there is indeed a high incidence of cancer--which for years there
are just so many people that we always figured there was a high incidence--if there is, then maybe we could put pre-screening
and preventative going forward.
The Chair: You're talking about the health study and this is what everybody's trying to
undertake at this stage, and I know in saying that that there's also...
Mr. Jody Carr: Yes, and I'm very pleased by that, when I mentioned there's been progress,
but my big concern with the recommendations, or why we put forward recommendations to improve that, is that we want the design
of those studies, including the environmental studies, to be designed by third party experts. I think there was a commitment
by Miss Ellis earlier that there would be more third party experts involved.
The Chair: It's my understanding--I have my notes here from Miss Ellis' testimony--that
every time they contract it out, they're contracting out to an independent third party. I was very pleased to hear that, and
what I'm also pleased about from Veterans Affairs, and I'm not here vouching for Veterans Affairs, but they're stating very
clearly that if new information is found, all applications for disability pensions related to agent orange will automatically
be reviewed, so they have made a quantum leap forward, I believe, in trying to address it. I close by saying that as you notice
around the table, Mr. Thompson...
¾ (2055)
Mr. Greg Thompson: You're editorializing, Mr. Chairman, you're stepping way out beyond your
bounds--
The Chair: I'm only picking up, sir--you triggered me on this--
Mr. Greg Thompson: --and I don't think you should end on that note--
The Chair: And I didn't give you the floor. If you had asked for the floor, I'd be more
than happy to give it to you.
Mr. Greg Thompson: --because I think we have a point that we would like to make.
The Chair: I did not interfere in your presentation. If you wish to have the floor, I'd
be more than happy to give it to you.
Mr. Greg Thompson: I've never been to a committee meeting where the chairman is allowed
to editorialize and put his last word on the record because I believe Mr. Carr has a point to make in regards to the terms
of reference.
The Chair: He does, and I've given him all the opportunities. I think if I've not been fair
chairing the committee this evening, by all means call your complaint, sir. I think I am entitled to because I care for this
issue. I care to the point of giving everybody the flexibility. I think the witnesses and the audience that is watching can
judge accordingly, but if you, sir, can use this, I believe I have that privilege as well, and I think we gave you the privilege
of being in this committee and expressing yourself openly, without any restrictions.
Mr. Wajid Khan: Hit the hammer.
The Chair: No, Mr. Carr had something to say and I don't want to take that privilege away.
Mr. Carr.
Mr. Jody Carr: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chair, and I do appreciate your efforts in
giving us the time, of course, and the leeway.
In my comments as well, in my opening comments, I did mention the areas that the government has
moved on. I think I actually thanked the Minister of Defence. It doesn't happen very often with politicians of opposite stripes
or colour, but I did give credit where credit was due.
I am pleased that there are independent--let me be very clear on this point. When Miss Ellis mentions
that there will be independent third party contractors undertaking the work, they only go by what is designed in the terms
of reference. The contractor puts in a bid based on the terms of reference. I'm only suggesting, along with Mr. Thompson,
that at the very beginning, when the terms of reference are set, it should be done by more than just the internal government
officials. That design is very fundamental. Ask the experts here, they'll tell you that.
I can't remember the other points that you made, but...
The Chair: Well we've agreed, I think, on 99.9% in the carrying of this committee, and this
is not politics, I'll say to my good friend, Greg Thompson, this is not a partisan issue. This is not political stripes. This
is a matter, as Miss Ellis said, of doing the right thing, and several of you people have, but in order to be able to move
forward, we needed to hear from people like you. We need to hear from the experts. We need to do the right kind of work. I
simply outline certain initiatives that have been undertaken. Are they enough? No, it's never enough. We can do more, and
that's what we're hoping to do with this committee.
Mr. Jody Carr: Thank you.
The Chair: I do want to thank you for your presentations. Miss Ellis, thank you very much
for your input, your kind presentation. Certainly a lot that you have said, I believe, will go a long way.
With that, I'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much.
