Ottawa is considering speeding up its approval process for new cell towers, while reducing community input about where those towers are built.
Canadians for Safe Technology, an advocacy group, is calling for the proposed changes to be paused, citing public health and community concerns.
“The primary reason [the public would oppose cell towers] is health,” said Margaret Friesen, a volunteer leader and scientific adviser for the group.
Under current rules, land use authorities have 120 days to complete consultations on new tower proposals, while the public must be given at least 30 days to submit comments. In May, the federal government proposed shortening the consultation period to 45 days.
The proposed rules would also allow certain towers under 15 metres to bypass both land use authority and public consultation altogether.
The proposed rules would require project proponents to respond to concerns raised during the consultation process, but only if ISED deems them “reasonable and relevant.”
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) says concerns could meet this threshold if, for example, a project proponent failed to meet safety requirements or follow the consultation process.
But it explicitly says concerns about the validity of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 would not qualify as “reasonable and relevant”. That code sets limits on human exposure to radiofrequency energy from wireless and other radio-communication equipment.
For Canadians for Safe Technology, this is a major concern. Health concerns are the primary reason residents oppose cell towers.
“[ISED] doesn’t want people to talk about health, but that’s the primary driver here,” said Friesen, a biologist by training who worked for the federal government for more than 30 years.
Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology and a former president of Microsoft Canada, says such a rule undermines the point of consultation.
“If you’re going to open it to public consultation, you should open it to public consultation,” he said.
Radiofrequency exposure
The science around cell towers’ health impacts is complicated.
The research does not establish that cell towers cause disease or illness. But scientists have also not established that towers are harmless.
In 2011, the World Health Organisation’s cancer research agency classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based primarily on evidence concerning wireless phone use.
The broader research literature includes hundreds of studies on radiofrequency exposure from mobile phones, Wi-Fi and other sources. Some have reported biological effects including cellular and DNA damage, reproductive effects, changes in gene expression and tumour development in animals.
A much smaller body of research has specifically examined people living near cell towers. Those studies have shown possible associations with headaches, sleep problems, DNA damage and links with cancer. None establish that exposure from cell towers actually causes illness.
A Health Canada spokesperson told Canadian Affairs the exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6 “remain protective of human health from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields … including exposure from cell towers and newer wireless technologies such as 5G.”
However, some studies have reported biological or adverse health effects from exposures below the Safety Code 6 limits. In a 2015 review, Health Canada said such studies did not reflect the prevailing scientific view.
Clegg, formerly of Microsoft, says advances in wireless technology make it important for further review of the health impacts.
“With 20 years of advancement in cell tower technology, we need more diligence and input now,” he said.
Community consultation
A spokesperson for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada says its proposed changes are intended to expand wireless coverage and close connectivity gaps.
The ISED has given interested parties until Oct. 6 to comment on its proposed new rules.
ISED did not directly answer questions about whether its proposed 45-day review period would affect local consultation.
Canadians for Safe Technology says local consultation can produce practical alternatives to proposed tower sites.
“It isn’t until the public learns about a cell tower that they go, ‘Okay, we know people want better coverage. Where else can we put it?’” said Friesen.
In some cases, she says, municipalities have stopped towers from being built. But more often, residents suggest alternative locations, such as placing a tower at the back of a large rural property rather than near homes.
The group is urging Industry Minister Mélanie Joly to pause the proposed changes and commission a new national review, similar to the Townsend review conducted in 2003 and 2004.
“[In the Townsend review] they interviewed stakeholders across the country — residents, companies, academics … It was a really thorough look at the current situation and what people’s concerns were,” said Friesen.
“And of course, they didn’t have the science showing adverse health effects at the time.”
The government’s proposed changes are part of the federal government’s broader effort to reduce regulatory burden and speed up the deployment of wireless infrastructure.
In a response to request for comments, the telecom Rogers directed Canadian Affairs to its submission to ISED’s consultation on the proposed changes. The company supports ISED’s streamlined process, saying it would reduce regulatory burden and speed deployment.
In its submission, Rogers described health and radiofrequency concerns raised during consultations as “NIMBY anxiety.”
“During the consultation phase NIMBY [Not-In-My-Backyard] anxiety presents itself as concerns related to radio frequency exposure and health, the validity of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 and impact on property values,” Rogers wrote.
“Under ISED’s [proposed] process none of these are bona fide reasons to refuse tower site approval.”
Telecoms Bell and TELUS did not respond to requests for comment.
