NEW HYDRO LAW ON GROW OPS DEBATED

A newly proposed law aimed at locating marijuana grow operations
could be a valuable weapon in the battle to drive them from the North
Shore, say authorities, but the proposed rule change is also raising
hackles among privacy advocates.

If passed Bill 25, The Safety Standards Amendment Act, introduced in
the provincial legislature Thursday, will grant municipalities the
right to access electricity records of BC Hydro customers without
going through the judicial system. Under the proposed law, local
governments could then pass on any of that information to their
police force for further investigation.

The law is meant to make it easier for police to spot grow ops,
which typically devour power at a high rate, but the move has civil
liberties advocates fuming.

"Anything I do in my home is my business. It's nobody else's unless
the state has a compelling interest and justification for accessing
my information," said Murray Mollard, executive director of the B.C.
Civil Liberties Union.

At the moment, police must demonstrate reasonable grounds for
suspicion and then obtain a search warrant to access the personal
records of a hydro customer.

"This provision actually provides a back door for undermining that,"
said Mollard.

The proposed law is part of a larger pattern of legal erosion of
privacy in Canada, he added. "We see a push by government generally
to collect more and more information about its citizens," said
Mollard, pointing to efforts at the federal level to make it easier
to access phone records.

But police officials aren't buying that argument. For them, the new
rules would do far more to protect residents than to harm them.

"The safety of the community outweighs any concerns that individuals
might express about hydro consumption being disclosed to the police
or fire agencies," said Sgt. Paul Skelton, spokesman for the West
Vancouver Police Department.

The hazards of illegal cultivation are well known, he said, as
illustrated by the explosion at a British Properties grow operation
earlier this week.

That sentiment was echoed by firefighters.

"From a fire department standpoint our number 1 priority is life
safety," said Victor Penman, assistant fire chief for the District of
North Vancouver Fire Rescue Services. Penman was careful to note that
he had not yet looked closely at the proposed legislation, but he
agreed with the plan in principle.

Grow ops are a major concern not only for residents, but for
emergency personnel as well, said Penman. The illegal operations can
contain any number of hazards from illegal wiring and propane hookups
to booby traps and even armed occupants.

"As the number of these operations increases in the community, the
likelihood grows that first responders and the general public will
unknowingly walk into a life-threatening situation."

Knowing that a given residence has suspiciously high power
consumption would give responders a heads up, and reduce the chances
of injury, he said.

Mollard, however, rejects the argument for safety, saying that grow
operators will adapt in a way that might actually increase danger.

"It's going to encourage whoever's doing this to bypass the
electrical system ... or to look at alternative power sources," he
said, suggesting some might turn to propane instead - something that
utility bills would not reveal. "That's a very dangerous source of
energy and you're going to see more of that."

That claim does not convince Skelton, however.

"Every time laws come into place criminals always alter their means
to circumvent laws and get around them," he said. "If we sit back
idly and don't do anything, it's going to be business as usual for
them."

No one is claiming it will be the ultimate solution, added Skelton.

"It's just another tool," he said. "I don't think by any stretch of
the imagination it's going to be the last piece of legislation we're
going to see . . . to deal with this growing epidemic," he said.

Either way, the bill is not yet law, and will likely be the subject
of further debate before it is passed.

"From our point of view, the legislation is somewhat constitutionally
suspect from the get go," said Mollard. "I can imagine this
legislation being challenged at some point in court."