2023-04-07 Videos of Phonegate presentations

1) I’ve shared lots of information about Phonegate — the cellphone scandal in France. I also kept you informed about my efforts to get information from Health Canada and ISED about them. Dr. Marc Arazi of Phonegate and I gave presentations about what is happening with regard to cellphones. Below are videos of our presentations for those of you who did not attend the C4ST Zoom meeting on March 28.

(click on photos to enlarge)


Dr. Marc Arazi speaks about the Phonegate scandal in France, and the ramifications in France, the EU, as well as other countries.

These 2 links have been corrected:

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AIOj4h0oho4ZTFE&id=2FF4624BC7546634%2152292&cid=2FF4624BC7546634&parId=root&parQt=sharedby&o=OneUp   (~45 min.)

Mine (Sharon Noble) I speak about the scandal here in Canada — how Health Canada and ISED don’t want us to know how negligent they are with regard to wireless devices.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AFK02jLai%5Fkj6CA&id=2FF4624BC7546634%2152694&cid=2FF4624BC7546634&parId=root&parQt=sharedby&o=OneUp   (~28 min.)

2) Below is a letter regarding the cell tower Rogers wants to put on Salt Spring Island



From: Oona McOuat (name given with permission)
To: Directorssi <directorssi@crd.bc.ca>; Laura Patrick <lpatrick@islandstrust.bc.ca>; Timothy Peterson <tpeterson@islandstrust.bc.ca>; Islands Trust <ssiinfo@islandstrust.bc.ca>; Jamie Harris <jharris@islandstrust.bc.ca>
Cc: dmarlor@islandstrust.bc.ca <dmarlor@islandstrust.bc.ca>; elizabeth.may.c1@parl.gc.ca <elizabeth.may.c1@parl.gc.ca>; scermak@islandstrust.bc.ca <scermak@islandstrust.bc.ca>; ic.stsdgso-dgogssst.ic@ised-isde.gc.ca <ic.stsdgso-dgogssst.ic@ised-isde.gc.ca>; Ken.Pungente@ised-isde.gc.ca <ken.pungente@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:04:35 p.m. PDT
Subject: Why was Our 2001 Protocol Ignored in the Salt Spring Rogers Siting Application?

Dear Laura, Jamie, Tim & Gary,

I just read the 90+ pages of Rogers tower-related correspondence in the SSLTC April 13th Agenda Package.

Of special note is Ken Pungente’s letter of April 5th, on Page 118, in which he states:

“I would like to draw your attention to the publicly available “Staff Report” that was submitted to the SSLTC by Kristine Mayes, Planner 1, Salt Spring Island Team on July 27, 2021 prior to the granting of concurrence by the SSLTC. Within this report it stated the ISED default process is to be followed as the Model Public Consultation Protocol had not yet been adopted.”

Pungente goes on to say that the SSLTC and Trust staff said we did not have an antenna siting policy in place at the time of the Rogers application.

I am sorry to have to say this – the Trust and ISED have screwed up. We had an antenna siting policy in place at the time of the application – the Cellular Antenna Procedural Guideline – which had been passed by resolution by the SSLTC in 2001. It, and not ISED’s default procedure, should have been used for this siting.

I communicated this information to the SSLTC in person at a SSLTC meeting in 2021, and again in the attached letter of July 21, 2021 (link below) (sent as an email message pre-concurrence) – which refers to Planner Kristine Mayes July 2021 “Staff Report”.

This information was reiterated in the attached letter of June 4, 2022 (link below), which was sent as an email to the SSLTC as well as to Ken Pugente. (This correspondence was not even deemed worthy of being included in the June 14th SSLTC Agenda Package, although a letter sent from Rogers to the SSLTC after mine was included in an Addendum.)

I then wrote Ken Pungente directly in August of 2022 (also attached) (link below) cc’ing the SSLTC, and shared this important information with him.

I received a response to this letter on August 30th, 2022, from Susan Hart of ISED in Ottawa that stated that:

” ISED also confirmed with the Salt Spring Island Land Trust Committee (SSLTC), as the land-use authority, that they deemed their 2001 Cellular Antennae Proposal Form and Procedural Guideline to be obsolete at the time. As such, the SSLTC instructed Rogers to proceed with the ISED default consultation process, as per CPC-2-0-03, but with some additional elements to meet SSLTC’s new requirements. “

However, a land use authority can not throw out or ignore or alter or deem irrelevant a protocol passed by resolution – it must be amended, replaced or revoked by resolution, which was not the case.

After receiving Hart’s letter, I wrote Trust staff David Marlor, Stefan Cermak, along with Laura Patrick and MP Elizabeth May about this issue on September 5, 2022. (Also attached.)

I am frankly incensed that the clear evidence I provided that showed we had an antenna siting policy in place at the time of application — which was not followed – has been ignored, and that the lack of a protocol is now being used by ISED as the reason for going through with this inappropriately placed tower!!

Antenna siting is complex. As a communications analyst, I have spent years studying the regulations and issues stemming from it. I hope in the future the SSLTC respects the knowledge of its constituents, and the input provided out of caring for this community we all share.

That said – I recognize that Timothy and Jamie were not our elected representatives at the time of concurrence granted, and that Laura voted against it,

Wishing you a restful Easter,

Oona McOuat
Oona McOuat.com






Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters/Citizens for Safer Tech

Wishing everyone a Happy Easter.

Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. Practice Safe Tech.



Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation