Health Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Pieterson.

Ms. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Just as a quick comment, I don't know what detrimental is: do we wait until they fall down?

I want to go back because Safety Code 6 is--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Hughes, can I interrupt you for just a minute?

I'm sorry, Dr. Blank. What happens is that I have to keep time here by the clock, and there will be a time.... I'll ask all committee members. If you want to direct a question to anybody on the video conference, they're right in front of you.

I'll begin your time again, Ms. Hughes. Thank you.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you.

I just want to go back, because Safety Code 6 basically says that the code “cannot cover all possible situations” and that blind adherence to rules cannot substitute for the exercise of sound judgment.

So when we're looking at this, I think it's extremely important to realize there are effects happening. We are seeing children being affected. We are seeing people being affected; if I remember correctly, my colleague sitting beside me is sensitive to microwave radiation. So we're hearing about this, and I think it's very troublesome to say, well, we don't think it's detrimental, and we're willing to take the risk. Are we really willing to take the risk?

Before I continue my comments here and maybe ask some questions, I do want to give Dr. Blank a chance to respond to what he's heard so far today and maybe finish some of the points he wanted to make at the beginning, because I think it's very important to hear those comments before we continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Blank, go ahead, please.

[Dr. Martin Blank]

I wanted to make a comment. Several people have mentioned the fact that results have to be reproducible and be peer-reviewed. I would like to point out the BioInitiative Report, which has been referred to several times. I was one of the people who contributed to it. The BioInitiative Report was written by working scientists, people who've actually been involved in the activities they wrote about, unlike some of the committees that are making the judgments. You have people who are basically experts writing about this and active scientists who are writing about this.

The other thing about the BioInitiative Report is that while it wasn't peer-reviewed in the classic way, it was peer-reviewed among the people who contributed. There was reading of it among those who contributed to it, but the same people who contributed to the BioInitiative Report updated their report and submitted it to a journal called Pathophysiology, and thus a peer-reviewed BioInitiative Report came out in August of 2009. So in effect, the BioInitiative Report has been peer-reviewed and it passes with scientific credentials as well—that is, official scientific credentials.

As a coda to this, I'd like to point out that the Parliament of the European Union actually voted--I think in September 2009--to review their own standards based on the BioInitiative Report. So if you get the occasional report going around from a few committees of mainly politician-scientists, as opposed to active scientists.... The European Union, in its collective wisdom, decided there was enough evidence in there...and by the way, the BioInitiative Report had over 2,000 references in it, so you can't say that it was just a cursory review. It was a very thorough review, and it's open to discussion.

The point is that it was put out so that people could see it and in general the public did see it. The reviews have been that people are now much more aware of the issues than they had been previously.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you.

I do want to ask a question of Mrs. Pieterson. Have you ever received letters from the Toronto Board of Health asking for stricter regulations with regard to Safety Code 6?

[Beth Pieterson]

Not that I'm aware of.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Do you know if the government has ever received letters?

[Beth Pieterson]

Not that I'm aware of.

I do know that the Toronto school board is in discussions with Industry Canada and other government departments about providing them some measurement of Wi-Fi in schools.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Have you ever received letters from anybody else asking that Safety Code 6 be reviewed with respect to this very subject?

[Beth Pieterson]

We have received letters. The minister has received letters and the department has received letters from individuals.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

So based on that, would it not make sense that if long-term studies are recommended with regard to children...? Why isn't the precautionary principle being used to offer protection for children and to stop people pointing to the code as a means of deferring the concerns of people like Mr. Palmer here today, and Monsieur Therrien, whom we heard from in April?

I just want to throw that in here, because we know there are pesticides out there that Health Canada still recommends as safe to use, yet we have provinces and communities that won't allow them. We have to look at the mercury poisoning and the level that Canada safety says it is, and yet we are still seeing low levels of mercury affecting and actually poisoning people, so why wouldn't we use the precautionary principle on this?

[Beth Pieterson]

Health Canada does use the precautionary principle, as do other regulatory agencies worldwide. It's used to manage risk when there are possible but unproven adverse health effects.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Just on that note, though, in a school, if someone is allergic to nuts, the precautionary principle is to not allow the nuts in the school. So why would we allow Wi-Fi in the school if children are affected by the technology?

[Beth Pieterson]

Health Canada's position is that there's sufficient evidence to show that if you adhere to Safety Code 6 there's not....and we have to go back to that cause and effect. I'm very sympathetic to the children and the parents in the situation there, but from the science we know--and Health Canada has to base our—

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

But whose science? We're hearing science right here. I believe that maybe I should give an opportunity, based on what was just heard—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I think Dr. Muc wants to make a comment.

Is that okay, Ms. Hughes?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Well, I'd like to hear from Mr. Bennett on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay.

Mr. Bennett, would you like to comment?

[Curtis Bennett]

With all due respect to Ms. Pieterson and doing those things.... Again, I really want to tell the committee this. Consulting at the level that I do, and consulting for industry and insurers at the same time, there's not a school board that wants to accept responsibility for this. Health Canada does not want to accept responsibility for this.

Because of the oversight in missing the frequency-to-frequency conflict in here, Safety Code 6 actually validates why Wi-Fi should not be in schools: it's causing the unintentional stimulation of tissue and the heat effect, which they call nerve and muscle depolarization—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

[Curtis Bennett]

How many of you want your kids in that environment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

We'll now go on to Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today and contributing to this very important study.

After hearing from Mr. Palmer about the situation in Simcoe County, I actually have a concern about my riding in which a cellphone tower has been put up very close to a day care centre. We have received a number of concerns from parents in that area.

The fact is that I'm concerned as a member of Parliament but also as the parent of a small child. Parents are not scientists, and we get a lot of different information, whether it's from the Internet or different scientists like the ones we have heard from today. There's conflicting information.

I would like to ask Health Canada, as the highest authority here in Canada, how parents can be reassured about sending their children to those schools and to day care. How can they have confidence in Health Canada? What do you say to parents in this situation?