1) Sudbury Hydro is giving the same lame reasoning re. “smart water meters” as FortisBC is giving to BCUC re. gas smeters. First BC Hydro and FortisBC were allowed to put electric smeters on our homes, without our input, over our objections. Now it’s FortisBC trying to get approval to do the same thing with our gas meters. We are still presenting our many arguments against smart gas smeters to the BCUC. You can be sure water meters will be next.
The headline here is misleading. The budget is given as $17 million, not $7.4. Typo??
(click on photos to enlarge)
City of Greater Sudbury spends $7.4 million. Saves less than $650,000 a year
Smart meter program will take 11 years to break even, officials say, adding it has benefits other than financial
“Staff predicts the smart meters will save users money and create “operational efficiencies.” Additionally, the program will enhance customer service; improve meter accuracy and data completeness; strengthen the management of the distribution system; and create “societal benefits.”
The smart meters will put users in control and could have positive impacts on their utility bills…
The total budget for the program is approximately $17 million. To date, the city has spent nearly 42 per cent of this allocation, or about $7.4 million.”
2) One of our members, Lori Curran, has been working hard and for many months to get the Green Party to include a proposal regarding the need to reduce EMF in our environment and the preferred option of using fiber optic cable to and into the home instead of using wireless towers, transmitters, etc. Her proposal continues to be up for discussion and a vote on March 27. Please, if you are a Green Party member, help get this passed by participating March 25-27.
“Hi Fellow Safe Technology Supporters!
You are receiving this email, either because you were a sponsor for my policy proposal to the Green Party of Canada https://greensconnect.ca/processes/Policy2021/f/275/proposals/2301?filter%5Bcategory_id%5D%5B%5D=19&page=2 …. In case you don’t know, my proposal received 74.9 % member support on the online membership vote.
My proposal was therefore “Green-Lit” and was discussed at the VGM in November of 2021…. Regarding my proposal, during the November VGM, we unfortunately had a couple people give untrue information when they had a chance to speak against my proposal, saying that it was not backed by science! In spite of the fact that we also had good speakers in favour, enough doubt was left in the minds of some participants to result in the vote being just shy of the percentage needed to keep it in the “Green-Lit” bundle. So now both of these policies are to be discussed/workshopped at the VGM Phase 2 which will be the March 25-27 weekend.
We are trying to plan as best we can to have a few people with excellent credentials speak in support of these policies, but we could sure use your support to help vote them through! You can register to participate and vote in the March 25-27, 2022 GPC VGM Phase 2 here:
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/2021-general-meeting/register/info
Please consider continuing to support these policy proposals on the March 25-27 weekend (I believe they will likely be dealt with on Sunday, March 27th. You will need to be a current GPC member in good standing to participate. If you have any other questions, please email me back and I will try to answer them.”
3) An update: You might recall that about 2 years ago, after Phonegate and learning that many of the phones in use in Canada were found to be in violation of Safety Code 6 limits by many times, I wrote to Health Canada and ISED to find out what they were doing. After finding out they were doing nothing, in fact ISED said that they did not acknowledge SC 6 limits for cell phones; rather, they allowed more than 60 times the SC 6 limit because that is when heating starts and Health Canada only recognizes thermal effects. I was told that ISED and Health Canada test phones based on these (ICNIRP) limits.
In July 2020, I first wrote asking ISED for the test results. They refused to provide, so I submitted an FOI in about Sept. 2020. Below are the most recent emails — and as you can see, I still have not received the test results and I doubt I will. Neither has my MP been of any help. Apparently, the manufacturer has the right to ask that the material not be released. This would raise many interesting questions. As/if I get more information, I will share.
Letters:
From: Sharon Noble
To: “Maria Perocchio, ISED/ISDE” <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Cc: “randall garrison” <randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 12:19:59 PM
Subject: Re: REQUEST #8 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
Hello Maria,
Thank you so much for this explanation. It helps a lot to understand more about the process.
I appreciate your responding so often to my emails, and I will now just wait for the results knowing you are handling this so well.
Regards,
Sharon
= = =
From: “Maria Perocchio, ISED/ISDE” <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
To: Sharon Noble
Cc: “randall garrison” <randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 6:30:04 AM
Subject: RE: REQUEST #8 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
Hello Sharon,
To respond to your questions, the “packages” in question are the test results, which you will receive shortly. Each manufacturer that had one or more mobile devices tested by our department was sent a copy of those results to review prior to releasing the information to the public. This is their right and our obligation under the Act. The public has a right to request any information in the government’s possession but we must still adhere to the requirements set forth by the Access to Information Act. In this particular case, even if the information is to be released under the Act, the third party to whom the information belongs (or pertains to) has a right to know it will be released and has a right to make representations to whether it should be released or not.
I believe it was explained previously but the delays in processing this file were unavoidable. The analyst that was initially assigned this file left our department for another opportunity and due to our limited resources we were unable to assign it to another analyst. The file was assigned to me in July 2021 when I joined the ATIP Team. I have been conducting consultations since that time. Given that the majority of these manufacturers are located outside of Canada, some consultations took much longer to reach their destination and in some cases were returned to sender unopened and the consultation process had to begin anew.
We are now very close to completing our review. We have one last consultation we are expecting to complete in the next few days and will be in a position to provide a response within the next couple weeks.
Please be assured that this request has been actively worked on since it was assigned to me. With regards to your question about the testing process, I have forwarded it to the program officials to respond and will pass their response along as soon as it is provided to me.
If you have any other questions, I am happy to discuss further.
Have a great day.
Regards,
Maria Perocchio
Maria.Perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca
Tel: 343-573-2892
= = =
From: Sharon Noble
To: “Maria Perocchio, ISED/ISDE” <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Cc: “randall garrison” <randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 4:20:51 PM
Subject: Re: REQUEST #8 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
Hello, Maria,
Thank you for responding so quickly. FYI, I did not receive your March 9 email.
May I ask what “packages” are being sent to the various telecoms? If their cell phones have been tested, would they not have received the results online — or couldn’t they? Really this is the basis for my question — what are the results? I understand they have to be informed, but certainly doesn’t the Canadian public have a right to these results given these are devices being used by millions of people, many of whom are children, each day?
It appears that the timeframe allowed for responses is far shorter than 18 months. In fact if I read it correctly it appears that the telecoms would have to respond within 20 days. Can you please explain to me how things are done, why the extended period, (I realize covid slowed some things down but we all know that most work is done via computer so working at home should not have resulted in dramatic delays.)
I appreciate that you are just a conduit for information, but you are my contact person. If there is someone else who would have this information, would you please let me know.
Regards,
Sharon
= = =
From: “Maria Perocchio, ISED/ISDE” <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
To: Sharon Noble
Cc: “randall garrison” <randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 8:26:47 AM
Subject: RE: REQUEST #8 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
Hello Sharon,
I can appreciate how frustrating the delays have been for you. However, this file has been ongoing since it was assigned to me. I was required to consult with 27 mobile phone manufacturers, many which do not have their headquarters in Canada. Some of the consultations have been delayed due to COVID-19 protocols established by the courier companies, in addition to, the unpredictability of when packages are delivered to their destinations. We are mandated by the Act to consult with all third parties when we intend to release information which pertains to them. Subsection 27(3), paragraph 28(1)(b), and subsection 44(1) of the Act are very specific with the timeframes for consultations.
We are required to wait until all these timelines have passed before we can complete the processing of any file where consultations are required. As mentioned in the attached email. We are waiting on one last consultation and will ensure to advise you as soon as the consultation is concluded and your file is ready for release.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me today.
Regards,
Maria Perocchio
Maria.Perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca
Tel: 343-573-2892
= = =
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: March 14, 2022 4:37 PM
To: Perocchio, Maria (ISED/ISDE) <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Cc: randall garrison <randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca>; Joanne Davidson, IC <joanne.davidson@canada.ca>
Subject: Re: REQUEST #8 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
A correction to my subject line. As you all know, my second request was made many months ago..
Sharon
= = =
From: Sharon Noble
To: “Maria Perocchio, ISED/ISDE” <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Cc: “randall garrison” <randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca>, “Joanne Davidson, IC” <joanne.davidson@canada.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 1:27:34 PM
Subject: Re: REQUEST #2 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
Maria,
I have been very patient, having initially requested this information more than 18 months ago. If ISED is refusing to provide this information, could you please tell me ? Is this not information to which the public has a right?
Sharon
= = =
From: Sharon Noble
To: “Maria Perocchio, ISED/ISDE” <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Cc: “randall garrison” <randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca>, “Joanne Davidson, IC” <joanne.davidson@canada.ca>
Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2022 2:49:36 PM
Subject: Re: REQUEST #2 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
Hello, Maria,
Due to family health issues I have not followed up as I had hoped. Now nearly 3 months later and I am still waiting for the information I requested more than a year ago. Can you please tell me that progress has been made and that I will receive answers very soon?
Regards,
Sharon
= = =
From: Sharon Noble
To: “Maria Perocchio, ISED/ISDE” <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 3:31:03 PM
Subject: Re: REQUEST #2 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
Thank you for responding so quickly again. I appreciate your assurances and look forward to receiving this information soon.
All the very best –
Sharon
= = =
From: “Maria Perocchio, ISED/ISDE” <maria.perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca>
To:Sharon Noble
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 9:35:54 AM
Subject: RE: REQUEST #2 ISED Acknowledgement of your Access to Information request file A-2020-00915 / JD (your reference number 2020_017449 )
Hello Sharon,
I too wish you happy holiday’s. I am aware that public safety is of great importance to Canadians, as it should be.
I would, however, like to assure you that my interactions with telecom companies have been positive. The delays are not due to third party resistance to release information but rather in the process itself. Due to COVID-19 measures put in place and working remotely the delivery of some consultation packages were delayed.
To respond to your question about next steps, should you be dissatisfied with the records provided, you are entitled to file a complaint to the Office of the Information Commissioner either by mail or online by visiting their website.
I look forward to hearing from you in January and hope to have news for you.
Regards,
Maria Perocchio
Maria.Perocchio@ised-isde.gc.ca
Tel: 343-573-2892
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.” Mark Twain