for full version go to

Highlights From HESA Hearings Day 1

[Click Below Statements for Supporting Quotes]

Health Canada admits studies show harm at levels below Safety Code 6

Health Canada ignores the scientific research; its review is subject to bias and incorrect conclusions

Health Canada and Industry Canada ignore recommendations from the 2010 Health Committee “offer to provide information, including awareness sessions on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.”

In its “fact sheet”, comparing Canada vs. other countries, Health Canada omits countries representing 1.2 billion people with safety levels below Safety Code 6

Health Canada’s statements to the committee conflict with statements made under oath in Quebec Superior Court on Feb 13th, 2013

Health Canada admits there are no studies regarding the cumulative effects of several devices from wireless radiation

Health Canada ignores the 2010 Health Committee recommendation to “ensure that it has a process in place to receive and respond to reports of adverse reactions to electromagnetic radiation emitting devices.”

Health Canada resists the request to have a database that physicians may be asked to look at any kind of possible cause and effect on new cancers among people?

Scientific expert calls for a special category for pregnant women

Health Canada Advises That 36 of the 140 Studies Submitted by C4ST WERE Included in the 2015 Safety Code 6 – BUT WHERE?

Further Conflicting or Confusing Statements From
Health Canada From Day 1 HESA Hearings

 (Question) HESA: [page 16, time:1.03:23] “Please tell me in plain language; can you assure me that it’s safe to put my cellular phone to my head for an hour a day? And I want to know how many hours it’s safe to do that for. Can you tell me it’s safe to have a baby monitor a few feet away from my two-year-old granddaughter’s head for eight hours a night? Can you tell me it’s safe for my daughter to carry, in her bra, year after year? Will it harm her? Can you tell me is it safe for kindergarten children to have powerful Wi-Fi antenna five feet over their heads for eight hours a day? Or should we simply put jacks into schools and take Wi-Fi out of schools as other countries have done, as France has done? I’d like to know if anybody who has spoken thus far in support of Safety Code 6, as it exists, wants to put their reputation on the line and tell me that all those uses are safe and those people will never come to harm from cell phone radiation or EMR?”

(Answer) Health Canada:“I think what I’m confident saying is that if people use devices according to the manufacturers’ instructions, and there are instructions about keeping, like cellphones, a certain distance from the body and things like that. I’m confident that they do not represent a risk to Canadians.”

Support Bill C-648 – An Act Respecting the Prevention of Potential Health Risks From Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation

(Question) HESA: “So despite everything… the study done in Sweden that showed a four-­‐times increase in the chances of getting brain cancer on the side of a head you use your cellphone for a long-­‐term continuous use, despite that you still think… do you think that would be safe? Or do you think they’re all wrong—that their studies are useless and not worth paying attention to?”

(Answer) Health Canada:“Yes. So, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2010 and 2011 did a study on this. I was actually a member of that panel. We looked at all of the data. There were epidemiologists, there were medical doctors, and there were people who specialized in animal studies, in vitro studies, looking at all the various lines of evidence to determine what is the scientific basis for a potential cancer risk with RF fields.”

C4ST: note that the reference is to the 2010 and 2011 timeframe. The recent studies from Sweden and France were peer-reviewed studies published in 2013 and 2014.

(Question) HESA: “Did the panel do an extensive review of the scientific evidence”

(Answer) Health Canada: [page 12, time:51:11] “…so that was indeed what we did”

C4ST: [page 24, Section 3.3 of the Royal Society Report] “The Panel’s mandate was to examine Health Canada’s proposed changes in light of recent expert reviews regarding the adverse health effects of exposure to RF energy. It was not expected to do a comprehensive analysis of the literature.”

MP Cathy McLeod: [page 10, time:43:49] “I would like to actually ask that we ensure that the review of Safety Code 6 done by the Royal Society be tabled as part of our study, because I think it was a really critical piece of what we asked out of the last Committee.”

C4ST: We support the recommendation for an independent review. Unfortunately, Health Canada did not obtain an independent review.

In a March 21, 2012 memo from Health Canada’s ADM, discovered through an Access to Information request. Health Canada: Stated “The research provided does not require extensive information gathering and review; Health Canada has prepared an accompanying rationale document…”

Health Canada also suggested who the “independent” panel members should be, as well as stating “public meetings or input would not likely provide any additional value.” Click here for details.

On May 23, 2013, the lack of independence of the Royal Society panel was highlighted to RSC chair Dr. Grise. Click here for details.

After the resignation of the panel chair Dr. Krewski due to an undisclosed conflict, another letter was sent to the new panel chair, Dr. Demers. Click here for details.


Hearings Day 1 – March 24th, 2015 – Full Recap

Official Minutes

Listen to Full Audio Recording

Read Official Transcript

Witnesses Appearing Before Committee

Health Canada

  • Andrew Adams, Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
  • James McNamee, Chief, Health Effects and Assessments Division, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch

Industry Canada

  • Peter Hill, Director General, Spectrum Management Operations Branch
  • Dan Duguay, Director General, Engineering, Planning and Standards Branch

Royal Society of Canada Panel Members

  • Paul Demers, Director, Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Care Ontario – Chair RSC Panel
  • Frank Prato, Imaging Program Leader, Lawson Health Research Institute

Canadian Experts

  • Meg Sears, Adjunct Investigator, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute
  • Martin Blank, Special Lecturer, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University

Speakers Handouts To The HESA Committee

Health Canada


Hearings Day 2 – Scheduled For April 23rd, 2015


Feb 24th, 2015 Motion brought forward to HESA committee by Liberal Health Critic Dr Hedy Fry amended and carried.

March 13th, 2015 Health Canada releases severely flawed 2015 version of Safety Code 6 despite HESA investigations about to commence.

March 24th, 2015 Day 1 of HESA hearings investigating Safety Code 6 took place (see below for details)

March 26th, 2015 “It was agreed, — That, notwithstanding the motions adopted Tuesday, February 24, 2015, the Committee hear witnesses concerning Safety Code 6 on Tuesday, April 21, and consider a draft report of its study of scopes of practice on Thursday, April 23, 2015.”


Current 2015 HESA Committee Membership





Related Documents

“Here they go again with a fibre glass head filled with jelly to represent a human brain.
Jelly doesn’t get a headache.
If they were to get their information from EHS people they would know the safe levels