BYLAW OUGHT TO GO UP IN SMOKE

We feel Surrey's frustration with trying to keep a lid on the ever creeping
marijuana grow-ops, but the city's latest move to dock hapless landlords
won't cut it.

Taxpayers required to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to police
and fire crews to uproot home-grown gardens are justifiably upset. But
finding fault with the unwitting owner whose building was used for such
nefarious purposes is tantamount to fining the department of highways for
every drunk driver caught using its asphalt.

Or levying a firefighting fine on the resident whose house goes up in smoke.

Is it fair to assume that the anti-marijuana bylaw passed by Surrey council
emerged as a result of bullet-proof evidence that many of those landlords
knew -- or ought to have known -- what was going on?

Because to argue that someone be penalized for another's misdeeds of which
they had no knowledge -- nor could they have had any knowledge -- is folly;
not a court in Canada would ding a property owner for inadvertently
providing shelter to a pot plantation, Hell's Angel, mafia, whatever.

If that doesn't convince Surrey to scrap the penalty, there's law flaw #2;
it's unfair, if not unconstitutional, to collect costs from landleasors but
not landowners. Add to that the fact Criminal Code offences, including
drug-related crimes, are Ottawa's jurisdiction, not a
municipality's. Furthermore, it doesn't add up; because whatever Surrey
officials collect in fines under the bylaw, they'll end up handing over to
lawyers to defend their right to continue doing it.