RCMP HOPES FOR VIGILANCE AS BYLAW BYPRODUCT

Municipal councillors passed the first three readings of a bylaw that
requires property owners to pay for costs associated with dismantling
illegal drug operations and bringing a house back to a safe condition.

Councillors voted on the Controlled Substance Bylaw at the October 26
municipal council meeting.

The bylaw was proposed by the Powell River RCMP. Sergeant Andy Brinton
said there are major safety concerns with marijuana grow operations,
including the condition of a house after a grow op has been
dismantled. As well as the structural stability of a house, there are
concerns with how the electrical and water systems may have been changed.

Dismantling marijuana grow ops can be costly, even though RCMP members
are trained to do the work themselves, said Brinton. "There's almost
always an overtime factor," he said. "In the case of clandestine labs,
you have to have people trained to do that and there is a cost
associated with that."

The RCMP hope the bylaw will make landlords more vigilant about what
happens in their houses. "If you take away the opportunity, hopefully
there will be one less grow in town," he said.

On average, the police dismantle one or two grow ops a month. "But I'm
convinced that's only the tip of the iceberg," said Brinton.

The operations can also have an impact on the municipality's systems,
because sometimes fertilizers and chemicals associated with the
production of drugs such as crystal meth are simply flushed down the
drain.

If the bylaw is adopted the owner could be required to pay for extra
policing costs and for any inspections and any work required to comply
with normal permitting for safe occupancy. If any of the sections in
the bylaw are breached, the owner could be liable for a fine of up to
$5,000.

By adopting the bylaw, Brinton said the municipality would be seen as
taking an anti-drug stance. A number of municipalities in the Lower
Mainland and on Vancouver Island have adopted similar bylaws.

The first three readings were passed unanimously, although initially
councillors Sandi Tremblay and Brenda DeGraag expressed some
reservations.

Tremblay was concerned about the definition of "inspector," as it
included the municipal engineer and building inspector. She said she
didn't feel it was appropriate for municipal employees to have the
authority to determine whether or not a property was being used for
the manufacture of a controlled substance. "I feel that whole
authority should rest and be the role and responsibility . . . [of]
the RCMP and should not be delegated or transferred to any member of
our municipal staff," she said. "We've been assured by the CAO [chief
administrative officer] that that is not the intention."

DeGraag was concerned that innocent owners who had been victimized by
having a grow op in their homes would be penalized by having to pay
the extra costs. "I've been assured that is not their intent," she
said. "They are looking at people who rent their premises and know
this is happening. I've been assured that discretion will be used in
these kinds of cases."