Health Committee on April 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

We have a few more minutes.

Dr. Havas, would you like to make comment?

[Dr. Magda Havas]

Yes, I would.

The question was about high-voltage transmission lines. For that, we're not interested in power density. We're not talking about microwave energy; we're talking about extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields. Canada's guideline on that is about 833 milligauss—that's the strength of the magnetic field. Studies are showing that there's an increased risk of childhood leukemia between two and four milligauss; an increase in breast cancer up to 12 milligauss; and an increase in miscarriages at 16 milligauss. All of these values are well below the 833 milligauss that Health Canada uses for magnetic fields.

So there is a concern about people who live near them. The childhood leukemia has been recognized internationally. Low-frequency magnetic fields have been classified as a class 2B carcinogen, meaning a possible carcinogen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to the committee.

You would not think it, but I am very sensitive. It does not show, but I am, both emotionally and physically. I really believe that microwaves can affect people. I especially do not want a confrontation between the industry and health advocates, either today or in the future. I would prefer that both sides work together to find solutions.

A number of years ago, I used to wear my cell phone on my belt, back when they used to have small antennas sticking out from them. Then, one day, I developed a rash in the exact spot where I wore my cell phone, and it worried me. I got the feeling that it was caused by the phone, so I started carrying my cell phone in a different place, and the problem went away. I wanted to know whether the problem was in fact caused by the cell phone, so I put it back on my belt, and the problem came back. That was enough to convince me.

Today, as much as possible, I wear earphones when talking on my cell phone in the car. I do not carry the device that can capture the waves directly on my person. When I have to hold the phone directly to my ear, it feels totally different. By the way, when I used to wear my old cell phone on my belt, I knew it was going to ring even before it made a sound. I am convinced there is something to that and that we need to work on determining the levels. Some people are probably more sensitive to it than others. It is certainly not the majority of people, or else the source of the problem would have been found by now.

I think this is an excellent opportunity for the CWTA to determine the scope of the problem. As far as facilities go, I think we need to do more than just applying the precautionary principle. Ideally, even if there are more people who are not sensitive to the phenomenon than who are, the law of the majority should not rule. This is a case where we need to intervene for everyone's sake. And we need to work together in order to succeed.

The story I just recounted is a bit of anecdotal evidence. I am convinced there is something to it. The question is how do we come up with a solution. The industry is here to stay, and it will. People, however, are not like industries. They do not live forever. It is my hope, though, that they live long and well.

I want to know what the representatives on both sides recommend.

[François Therrien]

I want to thank Mr. Cardin for his comment.

We mentioned Web sites that provide information on the health effects. The official Web sites of Industry Canada, the GSMA and the CWTA provide a lot of information. But all of them deny the existence of the electrosensitivity problem on their Web sites. None of the sites acknowledge the illness, which is related to microwave exposure.

You asked whether we could work together to find a solution. It will be necessary to establish a basis for understanding at some point. First and foremost, what has to happen is that the industry must recognize the existence of electrosensitivity problems. That is what we need to do now. Not only do they not recognize that electrosensitivity exists, but all of them also refer, on their Web sites—which concerned parents such as Mr. Carrie check—to the World Health Organization's study in which the subjects had a predisposition to electrosensitivity as a result of psychiatric problems. Anyone looking for information on these official Web sites will see that.

There are people who are exposed to microwaves through relay antennas, as Magda Havas mentioned in her presentation and according to emails sent to you by a number of Canadians. One could think that the public no longer has faith in the safety standards. So there is a societal problem. What happens when the public no longer believes what the authorities tell them about safety? That is the question that needs to be asked.

It is time to stop denying this reality and to recognize it. Then we need to realize that the microwave issue should no longer be viewed from a scientific standpoint. We cannot think that tomorrow two researchers will discover that microwaves are harmful. The proof is that the more studies there are to show the harmful effects, the more studies there will be to show the opposite.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

We'll now go to Mrs. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks very much to our presenters this morning.

We're certainly hearing some differing opinions as far as what's dangerous and what isn't, I believe, and what's accepted as scientific information and what isn't. I'm just a little bit confused about where we go from here.

Ms. Pieterson, you've said that certainly Health Canada would welcome more studies. I think that's the way it should be. I think we always need to be willing to update, and you have indicated that is the role at Health Canada, to make those changes as new scientific evidence becomes available.

We've heard quite a bit about the study that's being done, the one that Health Canada does not feel has scientific background to it. So the evidence that is presented there is not taken into account, I guess, by Health Canada.

If we agree that we need to have more studies, and Health Canada doesn't do these studies in particular--they're done by individuals and by independent people--who's going to do them, and how are we going to determine that they are of scientific value?

[Bernard Lord]

I'd be happy to comment on that, not just as president of the CWTA but as someone who spent a bit of little time on public policy.

I think in the end we have to have institutions such as Health Canada that set the norm. We need to have institutions that will weigh the evidence and examine all of the evidence itself. It's not because a scientist somewhere comes up with one study that says one thing or another, that this should be enough to completely change everything that we have. I think it's important to have institutions and groups that will weigh scientific evidence that is peer-reviewed to examine what the risks are and what standards need to be set. Once those standards are set, then you have to expect industry—that I now represent—to follow the standards that are set.

The fact that there is a willingness to have ongoing studies is only normal because human knowledge never ceases and we have to have an evergreening process of understanding. What we see with the peer-reviewed international studies is that there's no reason to conclude that there are risks. But we know there are significant benefits and that must be taken into account as well.

We see this often in public life. We always want to find the balance. We always want to find the middle ground. What's the middle ground? Sometimes you may have people who believe that the earth is round and some who believe it's flat. The answer is not in the middle. You can't just say, “It's probably like an orange sliced in half: most of it is round, but some of it is flat.” That's not the case.

That's why it's important to look at the body of evidence, and the body of evidence is that this is safe. We must continue to examine it to see if there are other things that can be done to make sure that we protect public safety, absolutely. I think, in the end, institutions like Health Canada have that responsibility. We have to make sure that they have the resources to make that assessment, and then Industry Canada must make sure that industry complies with the regulations. Luckily for us in Canada, that's what we have now.

[Dr. Magda Havas]

May I comment as well?

I think if we're going to try to resolve this issue, it's absolutely essential that we have funding for independent research that's done in North America. Considering our exposure to this microwave radiation from wireless technology inside our homes and from wireless technology outside our homes, it's amazing that we don't have funding for independent research. That's really the first step. We have to better understand what the mechanisms are and what the exposure limits are. We have some amazing scientists who simply are unable to get resources to apply their science to this problem. I think when it comes to committees looking at this, that's a second step. The first step is really to get independent research funded in Canada and in the United States.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead, Dr. Rowley.

[Dr. Jack Rowley]

I just wanted to reflect the international situation in terms of research funding.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than $200 million U.S. has been spent globally on research related to electromagnetic fields over the last 10 to 15 years. What we have seen is that some countries dedicate significant resources to specific programs related to wireless communications and health, and that other countries have felt that for resource reasons it's necessary for those study proposals to be balanced against other public health issues that governments need to fund. So it's something that has taken different approaches in different countries.

I have been following this issue now for more than 15 years. What I've seen is that the number of research uncertainties has reduced over that time; the scale of the research progress has been reduced over that time, because many of the questions that were there when I started in this area have been answered and have been resolved. We're getting to a situation where there are a few outstanding questions from the scientific community that still need to be addressed. The separate issue from a health policy point of view is whether the current standards protect public health. There is that international consensus that the present standards as reflected in Safety Code 6 do protect public health.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, the bells are ringing now, so I have to dismiss the committee to go for votes.

I want to thank the witnesses very much for being here today--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

There is a motion, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay.

Before we go, can we quickly get this motion out?

Oh, wait a minute. I need unanimous consent to continue in order to hear the motion.

Do I have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion reads as follows:

That since the regulation of radiation emitting devices related to radio and telecommunications, such as wireless phones and their phone base stations is the responsibility of Industry Canada, and since members of this Committee requested that an Industry Canada representative appear in relation to the Committee's study of the potential health effects of electromagnetic radiation emitting devices, therefore this Committee requires the presence of Industry Canada at the next meeting concerning this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

If there is debate, now is the time to do it--very quickly.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Chair, I'll make my remarks about that.

From my perspective and that of my colleagues, it is simply not acceptable that we make a request for a related government official to come to our study and have it denied. We don't know who made that decision or where it was made. We consider that not to be acceptable. We've heard testimony that Industry Canada is involved in decisions about the safety of people around cellphone towers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'd like to make a friendly amendment to what my colleague said, to change “require” to “request”. As we all know, sometimes there is difficulty scheduling things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Do we all agree that the amendment be included to change “require” to “request?”

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Well, Madam Chair, if we're debating an amendment, we didn't ask the minister, we asked Industry Canada. The idea that nobody is available is completely implausible.

We have already requested Industry Canada to come, and they denied that request, which is why we need stronger language from this committee.

I believe all committee members see us as having an important role. If officials in Industry Canada can overrule our request, we need a stronger statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Then I would like to modify my friendly amendment to say “strongly request”.