Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Bill
Motion in Amendment Negatived
June 22, 2022
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill S-5, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended,
(a) in clause 7, on page 4, by adding the following after line 33:
“(3.2) The Ministers shall conduct research or studies relating to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, methods related to its detection, methods to determine its actual or likely short-term or long-term effects on the environment and human health, and preventive, control and abatement measures to deal with it — as well as alternatives to its use — to protect the environment and human health.”;
(b) in subclause 9(3) (as amended by decision of the Senate on June 21, 2022), on page 5, by adding the following and repositioning and renumbering accordingly if required:
“(k.4) radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation;”.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Senator Patterson. This is indeed a really important issue; there’s no question about that. However, to say that the committee studied this when we had one witness who presented some evidence, but had no chance to study the topic at all, is not a reasonable way to bring in an amendment to a bill. It was not studied.
Also, the World Health Organization is currently doing many studies on the health impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. There may be effects, but we really need to look at this carefully and not hear from just one witness in the committee.
Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is not a substance. We heard this very clearly from officials.
This bill deals with substances. It is not a substance. Wishing to make it so doesn’t make it so. It is energy. It is not even an ion, sir. It is energy — energy that actually is non-ionizing. Another form of non-ionizing energy is visual light. That is also non-ionizing energy. That means it is energy that doesn’t have the ability to change the electrical charge on an ion or a molecule. We’re all made up of ions and molecules. Some of us have more energy than others. That’s not the point.
There are acts which deal with this, and if we do the studies in the acts, we should do the studies in the acts where these things actually deal with this, and we should hear witnesses that deal with these issues carefully. The Radiocommunication Act is such an act; the Health Canada Radiation Emitting Devices Act is such an act. Those are the appropriate places to have discussions on this topic. Thank you. I would vote against the amendment.
Senator Kutcher, will you accept a question?
Certainly.
Senator Kutcher, I have to say I’m very low on energy now myself, but I found that response incredibly helpful. We all know that we can make amendments at third reading, but it’s difficult to know what the background is in terms of what the committee heard or saw. To have someone from the committee stand up and speak, and if there are alternative opinions from the committee, they should stand up and speak as well. It is an important part of the debate. I think, respectfully, people moving amendments should also, if they would, refer to how the committee responded, dealt with it or the reasons why. For example, I asked Senator Batters yesterday why there was opposition to your amendment. I understand as talk has gone on that the previous amendment that was defeated belongs to the scope of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act and not this act because it is a natural occurrence —
Sorry, Senator Lankin, it sounds as though you’ve entered debate. Are you asking a question?
I thought that’s what I wanted to do, and I think you thought that’s what I should be doing. Thank you.
Would you speak to whether this was ever discussed or ruled out of the scope of the bill? I’m talking about Senator Patterson’s amendment. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for that question. We had a long discussion about radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Very clearly, this is not a substance. I would ask Senator Massicotte if he remembers better whether it was ruled out of scope specifically or not.
It’s not really appropriate.
Oh, I can’t ask the question.
Are senators ready for the question?
If you are opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”
All those present in the chamber who are in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
All those present in the chamber who are opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “nays” have it.
