Author Topic: CVA Warning Order. Operation Basil McAllister- Fredericton, April 9, 830-1030 am  (Read 5647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mike Blais

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
CVA Warning Order. Operation Basil McAllister-Fredericton courthouse, April 9, 0630-1030 hrs.
 

The issue of Agent Orange compensation is one of the founding principles of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy and we have steadfastedly attempted to reform the profoundly inadequate parameters of the government ex gratis payment to those affected and championed compensation for all veterans who were exposed not only to Agent Orange, but a variety of toxic defoliant colours that were used at CFB Gagetown for several decades.

The McAllister case, tragically, defines the serious, oft time catastrophic generational consequences of AO exposure and we hope that Mr McAllister’s plight will motivate the public to rally behind veterans who have been exposed to this deadly toxin and have yet to receive the assistance or compensation for their pain and suffering that they deserve.

Mr McAllister has prostate cancer that has spread to his bones, type 2 diabetes… since exposure, his wife and family have been ravaged with serious health issues inclusive of seizures, strokes, major bowel issues. How many generations of Agent Orange victimized families will suffer, how many will die who have been deliberately excluded from the justice they deserve? 
 
Mr. McAllister plight exposes another grave flaw, one that highlights the difficulties many veterans have experienced in attempting to seek VAC recognition of their pain and the department consequential obligations to them and their families. Having been accorded the ex gratis payment, Mr McAllister appealed to Veterans Affairs Canada’s support FIVE times, all he wanted was to be treated fairly and be provided the same supplementary pension that many of those he served shoulder to shoulder at the time were provided.

Unlike them, however, Mr McAllister was denied.

Veterans and Canadians must ask themselves, how can they possible trust Veteran Affairs Canada’s Agent Orange system of adjudication under such circumstances? Mr McAllister has the application forms from ten successful candidates, veterans who performed the same tasks, at the same place, at the same time???? How many others been denied by this unjust system, how many were to sick, to finically impoverished after years of illness, died without a fight?

One veterans-One Standard. When of two -or a group- of Canadian soldiers, working side by side by side, shoulder to shoulder in the same toxic environment, are not treated equally as a consequences of their acknowledged exposure, is not the entire system corrupt?

I have spoken to Mr McAllister, for a man of 82 suffering from prostate and bone cancer, I admire his spirit and am committed to assisting on all levels, including pro-active veterans advocacy. Basil has accepted our offer to provide CVA support during the next and any future court appearances and Tom Beaver, CVA Team Leader- New Brunswick, has taken on the mantle of being our primary organizer. BZ, my brother in arms. Tom’s contacts will be attached to the end of the Warning Order and I would encourage supportive veterans and patriots in the Fredericton/Gagetown region interested in participating to contact him at your earliest convenience to inform him of your intentions so that we can be adequately prepared.

Current plan, subject to change as the situation evolves.

CVA Operation Basil McAllister will proceed on two, concurrent fronts and will commence with an RV/meet and greet in front of the courthouse at 0830 hrs, April 9th, 2013. The Humanitarian Ops Team – Alpha Group- will attend the court proceedings and escort Mr McAllister and his wife to and from the courthouse. This is important, there will be national press, Canadians must see that they are not alone, that this problem is not limited to an individual, but that many are affected.
 
The Vigilance Ops Team – Bravo Team- will remain outside of the courthouse and conduct a peaceful vigil designed to draw public attention to the plight of all Agent Orange victims, the multi-generational consequences on their families and the disrespectful manner in which this government has ignored their plight.

Alpha Group – The Alpha Group will provide an escort for the family, be the primary presence in the courthouse and be seated in the gallery behind Mr and Mrs McAllister. Veterans are encouraged to wear regimental/association blazers, medals and berets and at all times, demonstrate the utmost respect for the judge, the court and its officers. Due the press coverage we hope to generate on a national level, it is vital that our uniforms are as impeccable as is our deportment. Your presence will provide a powerful visual impact,

Bravo Group –The Bravo Group primary objective will to be raise public awareness of the unacceptable manner in which Mr McAllister has been treated and, equally important, the ongoing fight for justice thousands of veterans and DND employees who served in CFB Gagetown but were excluded from the highly restrictive seven day compensation period. Supporters are encouraged to make your own signs with the theme Agent Orange- JUSTICE SUPPRESSED IS JUSTICE DENIED
or AO- Justice for One, Justice for all.

Interim period. While providing humanitarian support and proactive vigil ops at the local level, it is our intent to approach this on a national basis and use this event to promote legislative reform to the government exclusionary and yes, discriminative policies on Agent orange and other Rainbow defoliants Canada’s sons and daughter were exposed to a consequence of their service. I would encourage veterans to share this warning order and future Operation Basil McAllister Situation Reports through your respective communications networks.

Our duty is clear, the time for veterans and loyal Canadians in Fredericton, Gagetown and beyond to rally to the patriot‘s call, to take a couple of hours on the morning of April 9th to stand beside and behind our brothers and sisters who have been affected by this terrible tragedy, who have yet to be acknowledged by the very government responsible for the terrible, multi-generational pain and suffering they and their families are experiencing today.

Whether you served or not, on April 9th, you can make a difference. Together, WE can make a difference and our message to the Harper Government of Canada seeking justice for all will be heard not only in Fredericton, but across the nation.   

One Veteran, One Standard.
 
 Michael L Blais CD
Founder/President, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
6618 Harper Drive, Niagara Falls, Ont, Cda.
L2E 7K6 // 905-357-3306  // Cell 905-359-9247


Mike Blais

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
I have been in touch with Basil's former CO, Tud Kaulbach, he has provided a character reference- testimony and has given us permission to use it...

I knew Basil McAllister very well; served with him in the Black watch and he was a member of 2RCR when I was Commanding Officer. An outstanding and truly dedicated soldier!

 
    Basil's case is a prime example of the shawdy   manner in which the victums of Agent Orange were treated, first by the liberal govt and more recently by the conservatives. It is one of the most series breaches of trust ever committed to Canadian Veterans. I know from where I speak since I lost the better part of a lung as a result of spending many days and weeks in the very area where spraying had occurred. Fortunately, the infected lung was removed before it turned to cancer.VAC's reason for refusal of my claim was, "I never had cancer"
 
    There were and still are many with Basil's plight. Unfortunately, too many have prematurely gone to their graves with no recognition or compensation, Let's hope this demonstration of support has some effect.- Tud[/i]

Sylvain Chartrand CD

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Presentation For National Veteran’s Ombudsman

Mr. Patrick Stogran

By: Gary Goode

Agent Orange

And

CFB Gagetown NB

March 23, 2010

Victoria BC.

Table of contents

Time-Line ------- Approved Pensions for Agent Orange Exposure at Gagetown.

Clarification on approved pensions for disabilities associated with Agent Orange exposure at CFB Gagetown NB.

My VAC disability pension application rejection.

Summary of above claims.

My Review Board Hearing.

Summary of Review Boards Hearing.

Recommended Approach to Fact-finding on the Use of Herbacides at CFB Gagetown.

Who is Cantox Environmental.

Peer Reviewers and the money they made.

Letters of support and calls for an Inquiry.

The following twelve VAC approved pension applications for disabilities associated with exposure to Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown NB were acquired by myself through the Freedom of Information.

In total from June 14th. 2004 to January 11th. 2010 the Department has received 3071 disability benefit applications relating to Agent Orange exposure.

Total Number of clients with Favourable Decisions: 59
Pensions Granted: 36
(4 clients received pensions for two separate conditions)
Awards Granted: 31
(4 clienta received awards for two separate conditions)

Note: Of the above total number of pensions and awards granted – 2 clients are in receipt of a pension and award.
Approved Applications

Date                Decision Number             Disability

June 14 - 2004 100000755010                 Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
June 28 - 2005 100000947679                 Adenocarcinoma Left Lung (Operated)
June 28 - 2005 100000947681                 Adenocarcinoma Left Lung (Operated)
Sept 23 - 2005 100000935955                 Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate
July 28 - 2006 100000971781                  Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate (Operated)
Nov 2 - 2006 100001059872                    Diabetes Mellitus Type 2
Feb 14 - 2007 100001084398                  Non – Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
May 31 - 2007 100001177077                 Peripheral Vascular Disease
                                                         Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Mar 20 - 2007 100001075203                  Chronic Lymphoytic Leukemia
June 29 - 2007 100001157628                 Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate (Operated)
May 27 - 2008 100001260361                 Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate
Aug 28 - 2008 100001242377                  Multiple Myeloma

Clarification

Brigadier-General Gordin Sellar was the first to be awarded a pension for a disability associated with exposure to Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown NB on June 14-2004 (100000755010).

The Department of Veteran Affairs ruled that Mr. Sellar’s Leukemia was pensionable under subsection 21(2) of the Pension Act, Regular Forces Service, effective 02 March 2004, under subsection 39(1) of the same act.

For the purpose of subsection (21), an injury or disease, or the aggravation of an injury or disease, shall be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
to have arisen out of or to have been directly connected with military service of the kind described in that subsection if the injury or disease or aggravation
therefore was incurred in the course of the performance by the member of any duties that exposed the member to an environmental hazard that might have
caused the disease or injury or the aggravation thereof.

Further to the Departmental Review of General Sellar’s approved pension application the Board stated that his posting sheets showed that he was stationed at CFB Gagetown as a Lieutenant Colonel, dated from April 1963 until 1966. The Department is aware that Agent Orange was used as an herbicide for defoliation on the training grounds of CFB Gagetown during the time frame that he was stationed there. It was the Boards understanding that as an Officer he would have been required to be on those training sites.

The Board also recognized that General Sellar’s claimed condition was found in a submitted letter, dated 02 March 2004, from Dr. D Lee, his hematologist for the last six years. Dr. Lee indicated that General Sellar was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in 1994. It was Dr. Lee’s medical opinion that if there was a history of exposure to Agent Orange prior to his diagnoses, then this could indeed have contributed to the development of his CLL. Dr. Lee also provided the names of published medical reports that supported an association between Agent Orange and CLL.

The department accepted Dr. Lee’s medical opinion and the results of published US medical research that establishes a causative relationship between Agent Orange and the development of CLL.

As the evidence establishes that General Sellar’s CLL may have arisen out of his Regular Forces service as a result of exposure to Agent Orange at CFB
Gagetown, the Department resolved any doubt in favor and therefore, granted disability pension entitlement under subsection 21(2) of the Pension Act.

All twelve approved pension applications for disabilities associated with exposure to Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown were approved under subsection 21(2) of the Pension Act. The benefit of a doubt was applied.

Since Aug. 28 2008 to my knowledge, there have been no more approved pensions for exposure to Agent Orange a CFB Gagetown NB. The second June 28-2005 (100000947681) decision is a favorable amended decision. A full year after General Sellar’s final favorable decision.

The Board ruled that Adenocarcinoma Left Lung (Operated) (00203) was pensionable under subsection 21(2) of the Pension Act. The Department had determined that there was an error in fact and law at the time of its decision, dated 11 April 2005. In the Boards previous decision, they were unable to rule favorably as there was insufficient evidence to establish a medical relationship.

A review of his medical records established that he served as an Infantryman (MOC 031) and Cook (MOC 651) during his Regular Forces service, dated from Dec. 1958 until Jan. 1974. In addition it was determined that he was posted to CFB Gagetown in 1966. During that time frame, the Department recognized that he may have been exposed to Agent Orange while in the performance of his military duties.

The available medical documentation on his Departmental Records indicated that he was diagnosed with Adenocarcinoma Left Lung in 2003, and he underwent a left pneumonectomy in March 2003.

According to recent medical research published by the US national Academy of Science’ Institute of Medicine (IMO), there is now limited or suggestive evidence on an association between past exposure to Agent Orange and the development of respiratory cancers. Based on these findings, and a review of all the evidence on his file, the Department concluded there is now sufficient evidence of an association between past exposure to Agent Orange and the development of his Adenocarcinoma Left Lung during his Regular Force service.

The Department amended their previous unfavorable decision under subsection 82(1) of the Pension Act. Countless other applicants, many of whom I personally know including myself have applied for disability pensions for exposure to Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown NB only to be denied, even though we submitted virtually the exact same documents that General Gordon Sellars submitted, and more.

My VAC disability pension application rejection.

I would now like to use my own VAC disability pension application as an example of a denied claim where subsection 21(2) the benefit of a doubt clause was not used. (It was abused).

Prior to my regular forces service I served with the Reserves from the 19th. Sept. 1966 to the 29th. June 1967. My Regular Forces service began at CFB
Gagetown NB on the 6th. of Sept. to 31st. Dec. 1970.

I first applied for a disability pension for exposure to Agent Orange on the 23rd. of June 2005. HO File No. 6684278 Decision No. 100001245665 Service No.
SF105884.

I filed my disability application for Stage 1 B Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the right lung (operated). Respiratory Cancer. The Boards notes It is claimed that the applicant’s Carcinoma of the right lung has developed as an association of his exposure to Agent Orange while training at Base Gagetown with 2RHC in the 60s.
Applicant’s posting sheets confirm that he was at Base Gagetown in 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970.

The Boards decision Jan. 10 2006

Dear Mr. Goode

In response to your application for disability pension for Stage 1 B Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Right lung (Operated) (00203), the Department of Veterans Affairs has ruled as follows:

Pursuant to Subsection 21(2) of the Pension Act and based on the information in your application and on file, we regret that we cannot award you a disability
pension at this time. Although current medical research supports an association between exposure to Agent Orange and lung cancer, there is no evidence to
establish that you were exposed to this substance as your posting sheets indicate that you did not serve a CFB Gagetown in the known time frames when
spraying with Agent Orange occurred.

Having said that, the Government of Canada is undertaking a major initiative to determine the facts and circumstances relating to the use of various herbicides,
including Agent Orange, at CFB Gagetown between 1952 and the present. This will include efforts to.

- identify all those individuals, both military and civilian, who may have been involved in the spraying of these agents.
- document the history of herbicide spraying at Gagetown and its environmental impact; and
- undertake a health study of the potential risks to human health that may have been associated with it.

Summary of above claims.

Further to the Departmental Review of General Sellar’s approved pension application the Board stated that his posting sheets showed that he was stationed at CFB Gagetown as a Lieutenant Colonel, dated from April 1963 until 1966. The Department is aware that Agent Orange was used as a herbicide for defoliation on the training grounds of CFB Gagetown during the time frame that he was stationed there. It was the Boards understanding that as an Officer he would have been required to be on those training sites.

As an Infantry Solder I would also have been required to be on those very same training sites. The only difference between Mr. Sellar and myself, is that I served with the 2nd. Battalion Black Watch at CFB Gagetown and Mr. Sellar served with the 1st. Both Battalions lived and trained on the exact same toxic training sites.

The Board denied my claim because they said I did not serve a CFB Gagetown in the known time frames when spraying with Agent Orange occurred. However on Oct. 31 2007 I receive a letter from VAC which states the following.

Dear Mr. Goode

We are pleased to inform you that your application for the ex gratia payment related to the testing of Unregistered US Military Herbicides at CFB Gagetown,
including Agent Orange has been approved. Veterans Affairs Canada even though in possession of my service records clearly showing I was in Gagetown and training on toxic sites during the known spraying times of Agent Orange and other highly toxic chemicals denied my claim, saying I was not there. VAC, then after reviewing my service records, approves and pays me the $20.000 ex gratia, conceding that I was indeed at Gagetown during the known spraying times and that my possible exposure to the US unregistered chemicals including Agent Orange may have caused my lung cancer.

My Review Board Hearing

My Review Board Hearing was heard in Penticton B.C. on Wednesday, 11th. June 2008. In support of my pension application I provided further supporting
documentation that was not available to me on my first 23rd. June 2005 application.

This information included;
ER-G1: Medical report dated 2 May 2008 from Dr. Bill Nelems my Thoracic Surgeon.
ER-G2: Record of service from 1967 to 1971.
ER-G3: Briefing Note to the Minister prepared on 3 June 2005.
ER-G4: Briefing on the CFB Gagetown Brush Regrowth Control Program to Members of N.B. Cabinet by Mr. R. Walter dated 24 January 1985.
ER-G5: Herbicide Use – CFB Gagetown history.
ER-G6: Standing Committee on National Defense and Veterans Affairs report dated 17 November 2005.
ER-G7: Statement form the applicant dated 11 June 2008.
ER-G8: Report Titled “ Genetic Damage in New Zealand Vietnam War Veterans.
ER-Attached- G1: Minister’s Decision dated 14 June 2004 referencing General Gordin Sellar’s approved disability pension application.
ER-Attached-G2: Entitlement Review Decision dated 2 November 2006 referencing another client.
ER-Attached-G3: Entitlement Review Decision dated 29 June 2007 referencing another client.
ER-Attached-G4: Entitlement Review Decision dated 14 February 2007 referencing another client.
ER-Attached-G5: Entitlement Review Decision dated 20 March 2007 referencing another client

I testified that during my time at Gagetown I trained as an infantry solder. If I was not on parade I was out in the training area, sometimes for weeks at a time.
Much of my time was spent crawling on my belly or digging trenches in the dirt. There was little foliage in the areas where I trained, most of it being brown
or yellow. I acknowledged that I did not see actual spraying as it occurred and that it would have been difficult to determine how soon after spraying I entered
areas that had been sprayed with defoliants. However it was evident from the state of the vegetation that defoliant had been used. I expressed my concern that
I was constantly in the dirt in which defoliants would have collected and that the toxins in the defoliants would still have been present for many years after
the spraying.

I testified that during my time in Gagetown, I would have spent time in the Clones and Murphy bivouac sites with the levels of dioxin found and still present there today being 75 and 143 time above the Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME) guide lines for human safety as reported by the Base Gagetown and Area Fact Finding Project (BGAFFP).

In an interview I conducted with Dr. Dennis Furlong the Chair of the (BGAFFP), Dr. Furlong told me that the highest level of Dioxin found on the base was 170 times above the CCME guide lines for dioxin in the soil. This level of dioxin is 27 Parts Per Trillion (ppt) higher than the 143 (ppt) times higher than the CCME guidelines for Dioxin in the soil as was later reported to the media by non other than Dennis Furlong of the BGAFFP.

The CCME allowable levels for TCDD Dioxin in water is (1 ppt) and in soil the allowable levels for TCDD Dioxin is (4 ppt). So depending on whether you believe what Dr. Furlong told the media or what he told me in front of a witness that I just happened to have with me at the time, the highest levels of dioxin still present at Gagetown are either 139 (ppt) or 166 (ppt) above the CCME guidelines. Dr. Furlong also told me there was a total of nine areas on the base that had been closed because of high levels of dioxin found in those areas. Dr. Furlong only reported to the media, that there were three areas closed. ER-G5: Herbicide Use – CFB Gagetown history, clearly showed that 75.000 liters of dioxin contaminated Agent Orange and Agent Purple were sprayed on the Gagetown training area from 1956 to 1967.

The following is from DND’s own documents acquired through the Freedom of Information.

75,000 liters of dioxin-containing herbicides (Agent Orange, Purple and Pink) were sprayed on Gagetown. There was a total of 1,225,000 liters of Tordon 101 containing hexachlorobenzene sprayed in liquid form from 1965 to 1972.(This is Agent White)

A total of 2,038,000 pounds of Tordon 10K containing hexachlorobenzene was sprayed for 11 years over a total acreage of 50,000 acres.(This is also Agent White)
In total 3,263,000 liters and pounds of Hexachlorobenzene and Dioxincontaining herbicides (Agent Orane, Agent Purple and Agent White) were sprayed on Gagetown.

Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk, a Canadian biologist with the Hatfield Consultants - a Canadian firm that monitors and mitigates environmental conditions around the
world, has consulted Merchant Law and said dioxins - the harmful byproduct of the herbicides Á can last a lifetime. ``It can remain in the soil for over 100
years, it's a very persistent dioxin,'' Dwernychuk said. ``It will break down chemically through (ultraviolet) light. However, it's very slow. If dioxins are
buried in the soil, they can remain in the soil for 100 years - no problem.’ He said soldiers' exposure may vary. ``You've got to think of the weather
conditions. If it's raining a lot, there's going to be erosion and some chemical decomposition,'' he said. ``If dioxins are in the ground, and there are a lot of
(soldiers) digging foxholes, (dioxins can enter the body) through ingestion, inhalation, and (skin)

Meg Sears Ph.D. with a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering, 1981; McGill University and a Bachelor of Applied Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Degree 1979; University of Toronto states the following in her Sworn Affidavit for the Plaintiff in the Class Action Law Suite against the Defendants, Her Majesty The Queen, Attorney General of Canada, Government of Canada, and the Minister of National Defense.
 
The years when particular pesticides were used and the total quantities applied, as provided to the Fact Finder project, are graphed for the chemicals used in greatest quantities, over multiple years, in a Figure provided at the end of Exhibit 2. Clearly 2,4-D, picloram, dicamba, 2,4,5-T and very recently glyphosate were the mainstays of the herbicide program.

Thus, regardless of exposure at particular occasions to the other chemicals listed in Exhibit 3, people in and around CFB Gagetown would have been
exposed to 2,4-D, dicamba, dichlorprop, 2,4,5-T, picloram and more recently glyphosate, as well as the components that accompany them such as contaminants, adjuvants and breakdown products. These chemicals are the main focus of this affidavit. Only dichlorprop and glyphosate were not used in Vietnam, meaning that a vast majority of the herbicide types and quantities sprayed at CFB Gagetown were also used in Vietnam. Scientific literature regarding dichlorprop and dicamba is limited compared with 2,4-D, picloram and 2,4,5-T, and some contaminants. Exposure and subsequent internal doses of the population at CFB Gagetown would have
been widespread.

I referenced “ER-G8: Report Titled “ Genetic Damage in New Zealand Vietnam War Veterans” that showed that every one of the Veterans in the study group who served in Vietnam all had Genetic damage as apposed to the New Zealand Veterans who did not serve in Vietnam. Regarding the attachments, decisions of either the Department or of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board granting entitlement as a result of exposure to Agent Orange, my Advocate acknowledge that each case turns on its own particular facts. However, he drew attention to the fact that the clients in those decisions were not directly involved in the spraying operation. Instead, they preformed tasks similar to those preformed by myself. As well, the panel was referred in particular to the opinion from Hematologist, Dr. Van DerJagt contained in ER-attach-G3 and also cited favorably in ER-G4.

With reference to a requirement upon Veterans to establish direct contact with Agent Orange, the doctor states:\

…. I would urge you to reconsider this opinion given clear evidence that once these agents are sprayed, they remain unmetabolized in the environment for
prolonged periods of time. Given that direct contact has been shown to increase the incidents of some forms of cancer. Dr.Van DerJagt, in another favorable ,oft-quoted in VRAB decision, confirmed the fact that products like Agent Orange stay in the envirionment for many years after having been sprayed and that direct contact is not necessary in order for it to be considered a cause or predisposition factor for the development of CANCERS. Decision No. Referenced (100001242377)

Dr. Van DerJagt also commented on the Feb. 14th. 2007 claim on behalf of the Applicant (Decision No. Referensed (100001084398) where he stated:
There is no doubt in my mind that the Applicant was placed at increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma because of his exposure to Agent
Orange. The association has been accepted by Veterans Affairs in the United States of America. US Veterans are not subjected to long appeals and the
uncertainty of such appeals as occurs in Canada.

There are numerous publications on the area of pesticides assessment and their link to Lymphomas and other health disorders. I suggest that you refer to one of
my most recent publications which is in the Journal Pediatrics and Child Health, Vol. 11, no. 4, April 2006. Another very strong publication which clearly
outlines as a risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, people exposed to particular types of herbicides and pesticides is in the Journal of Blood, April 2006 by Chiu
et al. This article indicates that farmers who were exposed to pesticides had a risk on average at least three times over those who were never exposed to
pesticides or fumigants. Those who were exposed to fumigants were at an overall risk of five times over those who had no exposure to fumigants.

Agent Orange chemically is related to the insecticides/herbicides and fumigants which were associated with increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and
this evidence has been repeated in a number of recent publications. I believe the evidence is clear and the time has come for Veterans Affairs to accept this
association and to compensate those who served in Gagetown during the period when spraying occurred.

Just like the two approved VAC pension applications I have sited here I was also able to provide medical documentation from my Thoracic Surgeon, Dr. Bill
Nelems, MD, FRCS(C), Med.

From Dr. Nelems

The evidence linking Agent Orange and its constituents, hexachlorobenzene and dioxin to cancer can be summarized in the abstracts that I include with this
letter. Ambrus in J Med. 2004, reports a case with exposure to Agent Orange who developed cancer. Caino in Mol Pharmacol. 2007, suggest linkage between toxic and lung epithelial cell damage, a potential precursor for malignancy. Walker in Environ Perspect. 2005, documents a significant dose response
relationship between liver, lung and mouth cancers.

Michalek in Occup Environ Med. 2008, links toxin exposure to diabetes and cancer. I am not able to comment on the nature and extent of Mr. Goode’s exposure to
Agent Orange.

Given the information available with respect to toxin and lung cancer, I would lean in favor of attributing Mr. Goode’s lung cancer, in part, to toxic exposures
such as Agent Orange, if such exposure is confirmed.

The Boards Decision

The Advocate summarized by noting that the Applicant spent two to three years in close contact with soil and vegetation in areas that had been sprayed with
herbicides and which continued to be sprayed with herbicides which would have remained present in the soil for many years thereafter. Noting that the
panel has accepted that there has been sufficient evidence in circumstances similar to the Applicants and that the opinion of the Applicant’s Thoracic
surgeon supports pension entitlement, the Advocate sought either full or partial entitlement on behalf of the Applicant.

The Panel has taken into consideration all of the evidence presented, including the testimony of the Applicant and considerable documentation recited and
described above. The Panel accepts the Applicants testimony that he preformed repeated service exercises requiring him to be in continual close
contact with dirt and foliage, likely ingesting dust over which there had been previous applications of herbicides.

The Panel has taken into consideration the Merck Manual, 18th. Edition, which refers to lung cancer. Smoking is considered the biggest risk factor in the
development of lung cancer.

The Panel considers that to determine the risk of contracting a claimed condition from service exposure, evidence must address:

1. The likely nature, intensity and duration of the exposure, including the means the toxic agents ingress into human tissue.
2. The existence of any acute affects immediately following the exposure.
3. The timing of the onset or development of the claimed condition in relation to the time of the exposure.
4. The risk of contracting a disease from other non-service causes identified in the evidence.
5. The attributable risk from the claimed service-related exposure.

The evidence presented does not address the intensity of toxins, which would have been contained in the soil subsequent to herbicide exposure. The
Applicant did not indicate any acute effects during or subsequent to his field training. The Applicant condition was diagnosed in 2005, 35 years subsequent
to service. The Applicant acknowledged a lengthy smoking history and medical evidence indicates smoking is the biggest risk factor in the development of lung
cancer. The Panel has considered the opinion of Dr. Nelems. However, the doctor gives his opinion contingent upon confirmation that the Applicant was
exposed to Agent Orange or other toxic substances. The Panel concludes that the doctor is unable to give an opinion without evidence of the likely nature,
intensity and duration of the Applicant’s exposure to Agent Orange. In consequence, the Panel does not consider the doctor’s letter a credible opinion
linking the condition to toxic exposure such as Agent Orange.

In the absence of evidence to indicate that toxic chemicals would continue to exist in the soil of sufficient intensity that they would have a harmful effect
upon a person in the Applicants circumstances, there is insufficient evidence upon which to determine the attributable risk that the service-related exposure
alleged would have had on the Applicant’s condition. The Panel acknowledges the opinion of Dr. Van DerJagt cited favorably in other decisions, However, the doctor does not speak to the Applicants individual circumstances nor does he provide information from which an attributable risk can be calculated.

In the view of the forgoing, the Panel concludes that the Applicant’s condition did not arise out of nor is it directly connected to military service and affirms
the Minister’s Decision.

Summary of Review Board’s Decision.

1. The likely nature, intensity and duration of the exposure, including the means the toxic agents ingress into human tissue.
2. The existence of any acute affects immediately following the exposure.
3. The timing of the onset or development of the claimed condition in relation to the time of the exposure.
4. The risk of contracting a disease from other non-service causes identified in the evidence.
5. The attributable risk from the claimed service-related exposure.

The first two above questions were not asked of the twelve approved pension applicants, that I have submitted here. This burden was not placed on them.
Their pensions were approved simply because their boots were on the ground at Gagetown. The benefit of a doubt was applied.

In response to the third question imposed on me by the Review Panel, in all twelve claims that I have provided here, all claimed conditions were diagnosed
many, many years after their service at Gagetown and many years after their exposure to the toxic chemical that were sprayed there.

The following is the US law governing the late onset of diseases presumed caused by exposure to the toxic chemicals sprayed in Vietnam including
LUNG CANCER

Agent Orange Brief

Prepared by the Environmental Agents Service (131)
D9 VA Central Office, Washington, DC 20420

August 2005

What did Public Law 103-446 do for Vietnam veterans with respiratory cancers?

Section 505, Public Law 103-446, the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 1994, enacted November 3, 1994, codified (established in law) presumptions of service connection for certain diseases -- including respiratory cancers (cancer specifically and only of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea) manifest to a
degree of 10 percent or more within 30 years of military service in Vietnam.

What did Public Law 107-103 do for Veterans with respiratory cancers?

Section 201, Public Law 107-103 eliminates the 30-year limitation on the period during which respiratory cancers must become manifest for services connection (and disability compensation) to be granted on a presumptive basis.

In response to the fourth question, I did not hide the fact that I once smoked. I pride myself on my honesty in all that I do. By submitting the Massey
University Study on Genetic Damage in New Zealand Vietnam War Veterans, it was my hope to clearly show that the genetic damage caused by exposure to
the Rainbow Chemicals predisposed not only myself, but many other Gagetown Veterans to cancer many years after their exposure to the Rainbow Chemicals
that were sprayed there. Just because a Gagetown Veteran and Victim smoked, it does not change the fact that they were poisoned at Gagetown. My own
doctor submitted that if I was exposed to Agent Orange (like the twelve claims that were approved before me) it may have been in part responsible for the
onset of my cancer.

In answer to the fifth question. My attributable risk from the claimed service related exposure is exactly the same as the twelve approved claims that were
heard before me. No more, on less.

The decision dated Jan. 10 2006 for my disability application stated that:

The Government of Canada is undertaking a major initiative to determine the facts and circumstances relating to the use of various herbicides, including
Agent Orange, at CFB Gagetown between 1952 and the present. This will include efforts to:

- identify all those individuals, both military and civilian, who may have been involved in the spraying of these agents.

It is very clear that by VAC making this statement to me and many other claimants, they knew as early as six months before the BGAFFP held it’s first
press release on June 1 2006 of it’s first two reports to the media what the outcome of the health risk assessment study by Cantox Environmental would
be. VAC and the Government knew they would be denying virtually every disability claim for exposure to Agent Orange that was not involved in the
handling of those toxic agents. The outcome of the BGAFFP was predetermined before Cantox even set foot on Gagetown’s toxic soil. Because of the Government’s commissioned Cantox health risk assessment study of Gagetown it is now almost impossible for anyone to receive a fair and honest hearing for their disability claims for Agent Orange exposure at Gagetown.

Because the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced compensation for those exposed from June 1st. to Sept. 30th. of 1966 and 1967, the Minister is saying
that the spraying of those exact same toxic chemicals before and after 1966 and 1967 by our own government were of no significance to the adverse health
effects as presented by the Veterans of Gagetown who were exposed prior to and after 1966 and 1967. Our government is in absolute denial of today’s
accepted science and knowledge of the affects of the Rainbow Chemicals. Our Veterans deserve much more than this.

The following is the Recommended Approach to Fact-finding on the Use of Herbacides at CFB Gagetown aquried through the Freedom of Information Advice to Minister (Handle a Secret)

Desired Results

To be successful, this undertaking should provide:

(1) A solid and credible set of facts from which policy advice can be developed by officials for the consideration of the Government of Canada regarding the question of compensation.
(2) Reassurance to alleviate the concerns of as many people as possible, based on those facts and their publication.

As you can see, the desired results of the Federal Government was not to find the true facts or the full extent and magnatude of the twenty eight year chemical
spraying program in question at Gagetown. What the Government asked and paid for, was an obscured health risk assessment study designed specifacly to minimalize their responseability and lieability for the adverse and devastating health affects of the toxic chemicals applied year after year for twenty years at CFB Gagetown.

Mr. Greg Thompson, the past Minister of Veterans Affairs, in a letter from him to me in reply to a letter of demand I presented to him at his Riding Office in St.
Stephen N.B. stated that (too much time has passed since the spraying of Agent Orange in the summer of 1966 and 1967 and with the passing of 40
years Canadians have lost the opportunity to demonstrate how they were affected).

It is very clear that if VAC applied subsection (21) (the benefit of the doubt as mandaded in the Pension Act) as they did with the twelve approved claims I
have presented here, all an Applicant would have to prove is that he served at Gagetown any time from 1956 to 1984 and that he or she was afflicted with one
or more of the recognized diseases associated with the toxic chemicals that were sprayed there.

Mr. Thompson, has also stated on a number of occasions that through the passing of time and the absense of documents?

It must be stated here, and at the risk of defying a Court Order to even speak of this, it must be made public here and now.

The Federal Government is fighting in a New Foundland Court as I write this, to keep thirty thousand boxes containing ten million pages of documents
referenceing the Gagetown Herbacide Spraying Program. Just like the Afgan Detaine issue, Parlament should and must demand these documents be made public if the full extent of the Gagetown Herbacide

Program is ever to be known.

The Victims of Gaetown deserve to know. We deserve Justice.

In closing, I would like to thank-you Mr. Stogran, for the opportunity to sit and talk with Kenneth, Kelly and myself on this very important issue. It isn’t often
that a man of your stature will take the time to be informed by a Gagetown Victim. I truly appreciate your intrest in what we have presented to you and I
can assure you that Mr. Young, Mr. Franklin and myself are here to assist you in any way that we can to move Gagetown’s Agent Orange issue forward
towards the desired outcome that will benefit all of Gagetown’s Victims.

With Sincere Gratidude

Gary Goode
Box 301
Fernie BC
V0B1M0
250-423 4245

Who is Cantox Environmental

According to Michele Brill Edwards, Cantox Environmental was everything our honorable government was looking for to provide them with the most
acceptable science that money could buy on health risk assessments.

A letter from Michele Brill Edwards

I am a physician in Ottawa, formerly a senior prescription drug regulator at Health Canada. There is a nasty history to Cantox, with details known by some of Ottawa's retired public servants. In essence, a few of Health Canada's enterprising senior scientists at the Environmental Health Directorate, retired/resigned in the late 70s and 80s and formed a series of private, for-profit companies, including Cantox, which undertook 'studies' involving 'environmental science' for industry
and government. Studies absolving various third parties [like DND] from the damage they caused by using chemical companies' products are helpful to both
these parties and to a third player, the government regulators who should have prevented the two first parties from doing their dirty deeds.

The Cantox scientists remained close to their senior regulatory colleagues still at Health Canada, including wining and dining them. I know of one instance
where a senior regulator tried to steer a half million dollar contract for prescription drug evaluations to Cantox despite clearly inadequate staff
expertise in the drugs field at Cantox.

My advice is ask for the raw data for any Cantox study and expect to find inadequate quality, if not outright fraud.

Michèle Brill-Edwards MD, FRCPC

Elizabeth May's response to Cantox Risk Assessment

26 June 2007 - 1:01pm

The so-called health risk assessment released on June 21st. is not useful as a guide to governmental responsibilities to compensate workers and by-standers.
It amounts to a predictable whitewash of a major health scandal,” said Ms. May. Ms. May has taught at Dalhousie University in the areas of health and the
environment. She has reviewed the study prepared by the consulting firm, CANTOX. “I was initially skeptical because CANTOX has a reputation of hardly ever finding unacceptable risk when conducting health risk assessments.

CANTOX found an acceptable risk in an area near the coke ovens site in Sydney that later was found to have arsenic levels high enough to be an acute
health hazard. CANTOX ruled an acceptable risk to health in expanding the St. John Irving refinery and an acceptable risk in adding caffeine to children’s soda
pop,” said Ms. May. Her concerns were reinforced in reading the report. “Far from the reassuring pronouncements of the press release, the report makes it
clear that there were far too many uncertainties about the volumes of spray used and the exposure rates to reach any firm conclusions. Nevertheless, CANTOX’s
methodology minimized risks by excluding key factors,” said Ms. May. In her review of the CANTOX Agent Orange report, Ms. May noted the following
flaws:

. Consideration of cumulative exposure and synergistic effects of many different exposures to many different substances was judged too complicated to assess and was omitted;
. CANTOX assumed a rapid rate of decomposition in the environment, essentially assuming that each year’s dose of herbicides had vanished from the
environment before the next year’s spray programme;
. CANTOX made no reference to the toxicity, fate, and persistence of the wellknown contaminants in the herbicides, particularly the hundreds of isomers of
dioxins and furans. 2, 4, 5-T was well-known to be contaminated with 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, the most toxic compound ever synthesized. It bio-accumulates, as do
other dioxins and furans. This factor was ignored;.The amount of drift from airborne application was substantially minimized;
.The potential for groundwater contamination was excluded despite the fact that herbicides, such as alachlor, have been found in groundwater and that,
once in groundwater, removed from sun and bacteriological action, tend to remain for long periods of time;
. The potential for exposure through eating local fish was excluded, even though, as noted, given dioxin and furan bioaccumulation this might have been a serious route of exposure.
. The potential for the herbicides to volatilize following application was ruled “unlikely” and not considered, even though volatilization of phenoxy herbicides
has been considered a real world factor in other studies;
. Take home exposure from clothing of workers was excluded;
.The CANTOX review minimized the known health effects of the herbicides in question. 2,4-D and 2,4,5,-T known as Agent Orange have been linked to
numerous birth defects (spina bifida and anencephaly) as well as miscarriages, cancer and chloracne. These health impacts were not included, as CANTOX’s
review of health effects for these substances stressed “increased decreased body weight gain,” “nausea, headache, muscle cramps and fever,” etc.
. The extensive medical literature from observed health problems in Vietnam veterans, civilians in Vietnam, women with high rates of miscarriages and birth
defects in the US Pacific Northwest, epidemiological work from Sweden, as well as studies from Kansas and Saskatchewan on the link between phenoxy
herbicides and soft tissue sarcomas and malignant lymphomas are not mentioned.

“When the report was released five days ago, Art Connelly of the Agent Orange Association called the report a ‘public relations ploy’” noted Ms. May. “It is
clearly that, but it is more. It is an outrage typical of the increasingly corrupted practice known as Health Risk assessment. We must move public policy away
from these bogus theoretical models of risk and back to the essential principles of public health – the prevention of harm.”

Top Executives of Cantox, their backgrounds

Employment History

1980-1982 Health and Welfare Canada, Health Protection Branch, Toxicological Evaluation Division, Tunney’s Pasture, Ottawa,
ON. Audit Toxicologist/ Biologist.
1982-1984 Health and Welfare Canada, Health Protection Branch, Toxicological Evaluation Division, Tunney’s Pasture, Ottawa, ON. Audit Toxicologist/ Biologist.
1984-1989 Dow Chemical Canada Inc., Modeland Center, Sarnia, ON. Toxicology.
1989-1991 Modeland Center, Sarnia, ON. Research Associate Toxicology.
1991-1993 CanTox Inc., Consultants in Toxicology, Health and Environmental Sciences, Mississauga, ON. Senior Toxicology.
1993-1996 CanTox Inc., Consultants in Toxicology, Health and Environmental Sciences, Calgary, AB. Principal and Vice President, Western Operations.
1993-1997 1996-1998 CanTox Inc., Consultants in Toxicology, Health and Environmental Sciences, Bridgewater, NJ. Principal and Vice President, US Operations.
1998-present Cantox Environmental Inc., Environmental Risk Managers, Calgary, AB. Principal and Vice President, Scientific Program. Earle R. Nestmann, Ph.D. President Dr. Nestmann is a recognized authority in toxicology with extensive experience in regulatory issues and risk assessment. Having joined Cantox in 1988, he also is Director of the Agri, Biotech and Consumer Products business group.

Providing senior scientific guidance to clients on an international level, he serves as the Canadian agent for regulatory purposes while also providing
litigation support and expert witness services.

Having edited several books on risk assessment and recombinant DNA methodology, Dr. Nestmann has also published more than 150 scientific papers in the fields of toxicological evaluation, risk assessment, mutagenesis, and microbial genetics.

As a member of several national and international committees and panels, he has worked with the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Toxicology
Program, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Ontario Biotechnology Advisory Board, and
numerous trade associations. He previously served as President of the Genetics Society of Canada and is currently a member of the Board of Trustees of the
American Type Culture Collection and of the Board of Directors of the York University Alumni Association.

Prior to joining Cantox, Dr. Nestmann, as a research scientist at Health Canada in the Environmental Health Directorate, was responsible for a laboratory
program in genetic toxicology, contributing to the development of regulatory policies for the use of genotoxicity data and for assessment of potential risk
from genetically engineered micro-organisms. As a Manager of Regulatory and Environmental Affairs for a major international chemical producer, he gained
experience in developing and evaluating safety programs for pesticides, food additives, pharmaceuticals, and industrial chemicals.

Dr. Nestmann received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from York University for work in microbial genetics, chemical mutagenesis, spontaneous mutation, and
anti-mutagenesis. His B.S. degree is in biology from Marietta College. He also taught courses including genetics, microbiology, and natural and environmental
sciences as an Assistant Professor at York University.

Ian C. Munro, Ph.D., F.A.T.S., FRCPath Executive Vice President and Senior Scientific Consultant

Dr. Munro is an internationally recognized authority on toxicology and has more than 35 of years experience dealing with complex regulatory issues related to product safety and risk assessment. He has in excess of 150 scientific publications in the fields of toxicology and risk assessment to his credit. Dr. Munro formerly held senior positions at Health Canada as Director of the Bureau of Chemical Safety and Director General of the Food Directorate, Health Protection Branch.

While with the Health Protection Branch, Dr. Munro was responsible for research and standard setting activities of the Branch related to microbial and
chemical hazards in food and the nutritional quality of the Canadian food supply. He contributed significantly to the development of risk assessment
procedures in the field of public health, both nationally and internationally, through membership on various committees.

A past member of the Board of Directors of the Toxicology Forum, Dr. Munro also holds memberships in the Society of Toxicology and the American College
of Toxicology. He has served on numerous national and international committees, including those of the World Health Organization, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Munro is a graduate of McGill University in biochemistry and nutrition. He
also holds a Ph.D. from Queen's University in pharmacology and toxicology. Dr. Munro is a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, London. He was
also Director of the Canadian Centre for Toxicology from 1983 to 1992 and is a professor in the Department of Nutritional Sciences Faculty of Medicine,
University of Toronto.

Cantox Environmental changes name to Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc.

Elliot Sigal

Elliot Sigal, Executive Vice President Elliot Sigal is a Senior Scientist and Executive Vice President of Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc. Mr. Sigal graduated with an Honours B.Sc. in Toxicology from the University of Toronto in 1988. He has had direct, senior level experience on contaminated sites human health risk assessments since the mid-1990s. He has overseen and contributed to hundreds of risk assessments since 1989. Mr. Sigal is a full member of the Society of Toxicology and qualifies as a QPRA under Ontario’s Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04).

Mr. Sigal has experience in all aspects of toxicology and risk assessment. Mr. Sigal has been responsible for leading risk assessment teams in determination of
potential for exposure of and risk to receptors associated with complex contaminated sites, military base closures, underground storage tanks, incinerator emissions, landfill sites and industrial processes. Mr. Sigal has been involved in the use of toxicological principles to facilitate the risk assessment process, such as the development of a health-based method for the evaluation of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and provision of a benchmark comparison of remediation alternatives, in order to determine economically feasible and scientifically sound solutions to risk management problems. Mr. Sigal has conducted interpretive reviews of toxicology and mechanistic databases for a variety of chemicals including metals (i.e., arsenic, nickel), chlorinated organics (i.e., vinyl chloride, PCBs, dioxins and furans), volatile organic compounds

(i.e., benzene, toluene), combustion gases (NOX, SOX), and PAHs (i.e., benzo[a]pyrene). Mr. Sigal has conducted peer reviews on many risk assessments in jurisdictions across Canada and the U.S., and has conducted reviews of risk assessments on behalf of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Mr. Sigal also has extensive project management experience. He is responsible for managing both small (a few thousand dollars) and large projects (over a million dollars). Many of these initiatives involved integration of multi-company teams composed of engineering services, analytical services, as well as other technical and scientific efforts. His role as a project manager has included responsibility for project budget, allocation of technical personnel, adherence to project schedule, and senior responsibility for ensuring that a quality, scientifically defensible product is received by the client.

Cantox Environmental Contracts for Health Canada
Contract Disclosure For Health Canada
Vendor Name:
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number:
4500092748
Contract Date:
2004-11-15
Description of work:
0499 Other professional services not otherwise specified
Contract Period:
2004-11-15 to 2005-03-31
Delivery Date:
-
Contract Value:
$24,850.75
Comments:
Vendor Name:
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number:
H370104924
Contract Date:
2004-12-14
Description of work:
0499 Other professional services not otherwise specified
Contract Period:
2004-12-14 to 2005-03-31
Delivery Date:
-
Contract Value:
$93,778.81
Comments:
Vendor Name:
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number:
4500095362
Contract Date:
2004-12-20
Description of work:
0491 Management consulting
Contract Period:
2004-12-20 to 2005-03-31
Delivery Date:
-
Contract Value:
$25,000.00
Comments:
Vendor Name:
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number:
4500098826
Contract Date:
2005-02-01
Description of work:
0499 Other professional services not otherwise specified
Contract Period:
2005-02-01 to 2005-03-31
Delivery Date:
-
Contract Value:
$24,556.50
Comments:
Vendor Name
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number
4500102875
Contract Date
2005-03-04
Description of work
0499 Other professional services not otherwise specified
Contract Period
2005-03-04 to 2005-09-30
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$34,948.88
Comments
Vendor Name
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number
4500114625
Contract Date
2005-08-08
Description of work
0492 Research contracts
Contract Period
2005-08-08 to 2005-10-21
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$32,014.40
Comments
Nom du Fournisseur
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
# de référence
4500126215
Date du Mandat
2006-01-03
Description
0491 Services de conseillers en gestion
Période
2006-01-10 to 2006-03-30
Date de délivrance
-
Valeur du contrat
$41,128.13
Commentaires
Vendor Name
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number
4500126317
Contract Date
2006-01-11
Description of work
6081
Contract Period
2006-01-11 to 2006-03-15
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$44,405.00
Comments
Nom du Fournisseur
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
# de référence
4500126610
Date du Mandat
2006-01-23
Description
0495 Services reliés à l'évaluation des sites potentiellement contaminés
Période
2006-01-23 to 2006-03-31
Date de délivrance
-
Valeur du contrat
$52,317.65
Commentaires
Nom du Fournisseur:
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Numéro de référence:
4500129931
Date du Mandat:
2006-02-20
description:
0431 Experts-conseils scientifiques
Date de période:
2006-02-20 to 2006-03-31
Date de délivrance:
-
Valeur du contrat:
$26,693.16
Commentaires:
Vendor Name:
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number:
4500129952
Contract Date:
2006-02-28
Description of work:
0491 Management consulting
Contract Period:
2006-02-28 to 2006-03-31
Delivery Date:
-
Contract Value:
$35,000.77
Comments:
Vendor Name
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number
4500129931
Contract Date
2006-02-20
Description of work
0431 Scientific consultants
Contract Period
2006-02-20 to 2006-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$26,693.16
Comments
Vendor Name
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number
4500129952
Contract Date
2006-02-28
Description of work
0491 Management consulting
Contract Period
2006-02-28 to 2006-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$35,000.77
Comments
Vendor Name:
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL
Reference Number:
4500150947
Contract Date:
2007-01-11
Description of work:
0491 Management consulting
Contract Period:
2007-01-11 to 2007-03-15
Delivery Date:
-
Contract Value:
$80,000.00
Comments:
Vendor Name
CANTOX ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
Reference Number
4500163650
Contract Date
2007-06-11
Description of work
0431 Scientific consultants
Contract Period
2007-06-11 to 2007-07-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$17,806.25
Comments
From Nov. 15 2004 to June 11 2007 the Canadian Government paid Cantox
Environmental, through Health Canada ($594.194.23)
Cantox Environmental under the name of Intrinsik
Contracts for Health Canada
Contract Disclosure For Health Canada
Vendor Name:
INTRINSIK ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
Reference Number:
4500164406
Contract Date:
2007-06-08
Description of work:
0431 Scientific consultants
Contract Period:
2007-06-08 to 2007-07-31
Delivery Date:
-
Contract Value:
$17,806.25
Comments:
Vendor Name
INTRINSIK ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Reference Number
4500177165
Contract Date
2008-01-21
Description of work
0491 Management consulting
Contract Period
2008-01-21 to 2008-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$15,750.00
Comments
Nom du Fournisseur
INTRINSIK ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
# de référence
4500180140
Date du Mandat
2008-02-18
Description
0491 Services de conseillers en gestion
Période
2008-02-18 to 2008-04-30
Date de délivrance
-
Valeur du contrat
$33,495.00
Commentaires
Vendor Name
INTRINSIK ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES IN
Reference Number
4500190524
Contract Date
2008-07-28
Description of work
0499 Other professional services not otherwise specified
Contract Period
2008-07-28 to 2009-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$36,996.10
Comments
Vendor Name
INTRINSIK ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES IN
Reference Number
4500198437
Contract Date
2008-12-15
Description of work
0431 Scientific consultants
Contract Period
2008-12-15 to 2009-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$22,022.44
Comments
Vendor Name
INTRINSIK ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES IN
Reference Number
4500200226
Contract Date
2009-01-05
Description of work
0431 Scientific consultants
Contract Period
2009-01-05 to 2009-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$39,889.50
Comments
Vendor Name
INTRINSIK ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES IN
Reference Number
4500200817
Contract Date
2009-01-19
Description of work
0431 Scientific consultants
Contract Period
2009-01-19 to 2009-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$24,919.13
Comments
From June 8 2007 to Jan. 19 2009 the Canadian Government through
Health Canada paid Intrinsik Environmental Inc. ($190.878.42)
The Cantox and Intrinsik total is ($785.072.65)
Peer Reviewers for the Gagetown Health Risk Assessment
And what they were paid by the Canadian Government
Judy Guernsey
Assistant Professor – Dalhousie University
Peer reviewer for the Medical Research Council of Canada, National Cancer
Institute of Canada, the Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vice Chair ot the
Canadian Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Rural Health.
Bsc. Honours Biology, Carleton University, M.Sc. Preventive Medicine and
Environmental Health University of Iowa, Ph.D. Preventive Medicine and
Environmental Health University of Iowa, Department of Community Health
and Epidemiology Dalhousie University.
Judy Guernsey and Dalhousie University Contracts for
Health Canada
Contract Disclosure For Health Canada
Vendor Name
DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
Reference Number
4500080772
Contract Date
2004-05-03
Description of work
0499 Other professional services not otherwise specified
Contract Period
2004-05-03 to 2004-06-18
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$10,299.82
Vendor Name
DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
Reference Number
4500137477
Contract Date
2006-06-01
Description of work
0446 Training consultants
Contract Period
2006-07-19 to 2006-11-10
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$20,000.00
Nom du Fournisseur:
DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
Numéro de référence:
4500147168
Date du Mandat:
2006-11-28
description:
0431 Experts-conseils scientifiques
Date de période:
2006-11-28 to 2007-06-30
Date de délivrance:
-
Valeur du contrat:
$23,362.75
Commentaires:
Nom du Fournisseur
DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
# de référence
4500147210
Date du Mandat
2006-12-01
Description
0431 Experts-conseils scientifiques
Période
2006-12-01 to 2007-03-15
Date de délivrance
-
Valeur du contrat
$24,992.50
Nom du bénéficiaire :
Dalhousie University
Endroit :
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Date :
03/27/2007
Valeur :
415,000.00 $
Type :
contribution
Objectif :
Le Programme de contribution pour la santé des femmes appuie les partenariats entre les collectivités et les universités, en vue d’élaborer et de diffuser des travaux de recherche et des renseignements en matiPre de politiques pour la santé des femmes. Le Programme est géré par le Bureau pour la santé des femmes de Santé Canada. Le Programme accorde annuellement environ 2,95 millions de dollars aux bénéficiaires admissibles. Le Programme appuie actuellement les activités suivantes : - recherches en matiPre de politiques pour la santé des femmes, par l’intermédiaire des centres d’excellence pour la santé des femmes; - diffusion de renseignements sur la santé des femmes, par l’entremise du Réseau canadien pour la santé des femmes; - groupes de travail et autres initiatives en lien avec des questions de politiques précises portant sur la santé des femmes.

Observations :
Déclaration tardive - aurait dû être publiée au 4ième trimestre 2006-2007
Vendor Name
DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
Reference Number
4500162780
Contract Date
2007-05-11
Description of work
0451 Other health services not elsewhere specified
Contract Period
2007-05-11 to 2008-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$12,976.00
Comments
Professional and Technical Health Service
Vendor Name
DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
Reference Number
4500167905
Contract Date
2007-09-17
Description of work
0451 Other health services not elsewhere specified
Contract Period
2007-09-17 to 2008-03-31
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$13,080.00
Comments
Professional and Technical Health Service
Vendor Name
DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
Reference Number
4500171909
Contract Date
2007-10-31
Description of work
0431 Scientific consultants
Contract Period
2007-10-31 to 2008-08-29
Delivery Date
-
Contract Value
$64,025.00
Nom du bénéficiaire :
DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
Endroit :
HALIFAX, NOUVELLE-ÉCOSSE, CANADA
Date :
01/04/2008
Valeur :
56,000.00 $
Type :
Contribution
Objectif :
Planification et développement des services de santé aux Premières nations, aux Inuits et aux Autochtones, Gouvernance en santé/Soutine de l`infrastructure
Observations :
Financement pluriannuel pour l`année fiscale 2008 à l`année fiscale 2010 inclusivement
Nom du bénéficiaire :
Dalhousie University
Endroit :
Halifax, Nouvelle-Écosse, Canada
Date :
02/15/2008
Valeur :
30,000.00 $
Type :
Subvention
Objectif :
L'Afrique a été durement frappée par le VIH/sida, et pourcentage élevé de la population a dû composer avec des périodes importantes d'invalidité. Le projet résultera en la création d'un programme interprofessionnel destiné aux universités africaines afin qu'elles enseignent aux étudiants des professions du domaine de la santé la réadaptation des personnes souffrant d'incapacités liées au VIH. Ce projet consistera à adapter un programme d'étude canadien au contexte du sud de l'Afrique.

Observations :
Déclaration tardive - aurait dû être publiée au 4ième trimestre 2007/2008
Recipient Name:
Dalhousie University
Location:
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Date:
03/31/2008
Value:
$847,110.00
Type:
Contribution
Purpose:
The Women's Health Contribution Program supports community-academic partnerships in the development and dissemination of policy research and information for women's health. The Program is managed by Health Canada's Women's Health Bureau. The Program contributes approximately $2.95 million annually to eligible recipients. It currently supports: - policy research for women's health through Centres of Excellence for Women's Health. - women's health information and dissemination through the Canadian Women's Health Network - working groups and other initiatives that address specific policy issues in women's health
Comments:
Material Amendment to previous award of $432,110.00
Funding;Duration
Nom du bénéficiaire :
Dalhousie University
Endroit :
Halifax, Nouvelle-Écosse, Canada
Date :
10/06/2008
Valeur :
484,907.00 $
Type :
Contribution
Objectif :
Cette proposition es

Mike Blais

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
Stand Up…Be Counted!!
                           April 4th, 2013

Basil McAllister VS. Attorney General of Canada (DVA) Federal Court Fredericton NB
 
82 year old Black Watch veteran Basil McAllister forced to challenge the Canadian government in federal court between Medical treatments.

I have little time left in this world, I was proud to serve my country, but now I must make a wrong right”

Fredericton, NB

Basil McAllister of Burton NB has been forced to challenge our government in federal court for fair and equal treatment.
Basil Joined the Canadian Forces in 1954 at depo camp Sussex NB and was transferred to CFB Gagetown
2nd Battalion Black Watch until 1970 when the 1st and 2nd Battalions were reduced to nil strength and then
combined manpower was amalgamated to form the new 2nd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment.
In 1970 Basil then joined PPCLI combat armed school and then retired in January 1975.
Basil has been diagnosed and battling with different forms of cancer along with many other illnesses due to the spraying of chemicals in the Gagetown training area during his military career. After many applications’, Appeals and reconsiderations’ NOTHING!!
 Basil has been forced to challenge his denials in federal court “even with my illnesses I will fight for my family and others I hope I can hold out” 
We are asking for you as veterans to show your support for Basil and attend this hearing to be heard on April 9th, 2013 at the Federal Court House Westmorland Place, 82 Westmorland Street, Fredericton, NB at 09:00.
We are asking for veterans, families to gather outside and inside of the court house during the hearing to support Basil please.
If you need any information please feel free to contact me (Tom Beaver) at nbveterans@gmail.com or 506-472-1844.  We will host a question and answer event following the hearing at a place we will disclose at a later date.

New Brunswick Contact      National  Contact
Mr Thomas S Beaver, CD      Mr. Michael L. Blais, CD
Canadians Veterans Advocacy New Brunswick Chapter      Canadians Veterans Advocacy
153 Bradshaw Drive      6618 Harper Drive
New Maryland, NB Canada E3C 1H      4 Niagara Falls, ON Canada  L2E 7K6

CVA_Posting

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 536
    • View Profile
    • Canadian Veterans Advocacy
Veteran takes on feds in fight for Agent Orange Compensation
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2013, 08:10:02 PM »
Veteran takes on feds in fight for Agent Orange Compensation

Check the Video: http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/veteran-takes-on-feds-in-fight-for-agent-orange-compensation-1.1230949#ixzz2Q0ww41vo

CTV Atlantic
Published Tuesday, April 9, 2013 6:53PM ADT
Last Updated Tuesday, April 9, 2013 7:10PM ADT



A New Brunswick veteran who says his life has been forever changed due to Agent Orange exposure is fighting the federal government for compensation.

For months, 82-year-old Basil McAllister has been preparing to represent himself in the case, and today he didn’t back down in a Fredericton courtroom.

“I have prostate cancer, I have bone cancer, I have skin cancer, and I’m a four-needle-a-day Type 2 Diabetic,” says the Burton, N.B. resident.
Related Stories

War vet headed to court to fight for Agent Orange compensation

Basil McAllister is representing himself as he fights the federal government for Agent Orange compensation (CTV Atlantic)

The deadly dioxin Agent Orange was sprayed at CFB Gagetown during the 1960s while McAllister worked on the base.

He claims he worked closely with 10 other people who have since received monthly payments for their own Agent Orange damages.

“For some reason, the panel members who reviewed my case five times declined to give me a pension,” he says.

Officials with the federal government say that in order to receive a pension for Agent Orange compensation, a claimant must prove there was direct exposure to the chemical.

In court today, Veterans Affairs argued that McAllister’s direct exposure evidence was insufficient and not credible, adding that decisions made about other pensions are irrelevant to his case.

Many of the veteran’s family members and friends appeared in court today to show their support, including some people who worked with McAllister at CFB Gagetown.

“Who in Veterans Affairs can prove that we weren’t sprayed on?” asks Christopher Tucker.

“If he and 10 other people or whatever are in the same region, and I don’t think the mosquitoes took the spray away,” says Harry Harkes.

McAllister’s case is also attracting attention from other complainants in the midst of their own fight for Agent Orange compensation.

“Two people can have the same illness. One gets approved, one doesn’t,” says Marie Hogan, a member of the Widows on the Warpath group. “There’s no need for that. It should be consistent across the board.”

The judge in the case has reserved her decision to be made public at a later time.

McAllister says he has made it this far, and he is prepared to wait it out.

With files from CTV Atlantic's Nick Moore