First, I’d like to remind people that the CRTC declared in 2016 that access to broadband internet is a basic human right. On the Bruce, many areas don’t even have electricity, so telecommunications towers are the only way to access the internet. I own property on Lindsay Road 40 and get almost no connectivity at all where my road and driveway meet, let alone on my property. Is Ms Vanderaa not in favour of allowing her neighbours their basic human rights?
Next, Ms Vanderaa suggests that there is no evidence the tower will increase connectivity for anyone beyond the people living in and around Lindsay Road 40. This is patently false, because Lindsay Road 40 is part of the Bruce Trail. As such, a large number of hikers make use of the area and the road yearly. If there is no connectivity on the road, then all of these people have literally no ability to call for help should there be an emergency. If you can’t access 911 from your cell phone, then you are potentially having your basic human right of safety compromised.
So there’s a second reason this tower is necessary.
Then she suggests that our community has “alternative options for connectivity that are faster, safer, more reliable, cost effective and can fill any gap”. I’m not sure what this might be, frankly. My property doesn’t have access to hydro; the lines don’t go that far down the road. So I don’t have electricity nor do I have a telephone line. If she’s talking about Starlink (satellite internet) well… you’d need electricity for that, wouldn’t you? And satellite internet is not particularly cheap.
When I stayed at the Camp on Gillies lake, while I had wifi I purchased from the camp itself, I had no actual phone service. My family couldn’t connect with me at all, which was problematic.
If we consider all the people who stay at that camp during the season, then we can see that being out of reach by phone from their families and friends who may be having emergencies and who need to contact them could be a problem. That’s hundreds or thousands of people from everywhere all season long. Should we deny them these rights?
Ms Vanderaa also suggests this is a “community of medically vulnerable residents”, which is also puzzling. I know some of my neighbours and frankly wouldn’t classify ANY of them as medically vulnerable. And if they are, again, wouldn’t easy access to the internet and telecommunications assist help in arriving instead of stymy it? After all, the first responders will need to be able to communicate with not only each other but also those back at the hospital or fire hall. They will also need to geolocate in order to make sure they are going where they are supposed to be.
I’m not going to get into the “experts” who are cited in Ms Vanderaa’s letter. The science is actually fairly clear here and does not indicate the extreme health hazard Ms Vanderaa clearly believes this tower to be.
That’s not my point.
My point is, frankly, that the community and day users of Lindsay Road 40 are allowed to exercise their basic human rights here. Just as the government of Canada has mandated, they have the right to access the internet, in most cases via their cell phones, to communicate, to seek help, and to navigate the world. And despite Ms Vanderaa suggesting there is “strong public opposition” the reality is that the majority of letters to council support the tower. There is merely a small, loud cluster of people who are thinking only of themselves and not of the health, well-being, and human rights of others.
Tobey Schwartz
