NEW LOWER MAINLAND BYLAWS WEED OUT GROW OPS

The introduction of new municipal bylaws in the Lower Mainland attempt to
alleviate residential drug activity by opening doors for police and holding
landlords accountable for what happens behind them.

Bylaw stipulations vary in different municipalities, but they generally
enable a police officer to enter a premise in search of drug activities
without a warrant.

The Surrey bylaw states, "an inspector [which includes RCMP] has the right
to enter the property of any person at reasonable times in a reasonable
manner for the purposes of inspecting the property."

Lindsay Lyster, a policy director at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association,
is concerned about the implications of these bylaws. "Some of the bylaws
will enable searches to happen at any time without any particular evidence
being put forward," said Lyster. "This will obligate both the owner and a
tenant to allow an inspector to come in at anytime. It threatens the
tenants right to privacy."

Under the new bylaws, landlords will also become accountable for any drug
activity on their premises and be charged accordingly, encouraging
landlords to be aware of tenants' activities.

"The general tenor of these bylaws is to make landlords responsible for the
cost incurred, if their tenant has engaged in any drug trade or
manufacturing," said Lyster.

The costs an owner can be liable for, varies with each bylaw. Some indicate
the owner is responsible for the cost of putting their property into a
habitual state after damages have occurred due to drug production while
others include clean up costs that might be necessary after a police
search. Although owners cannot be charged criminally, they can be fined for
certain offences, which can prove to be costly.

The Surrey bylaw stipulates, "admittance punishable on summary conviction
and [the owner] shall be liable to a fine of not less than the sum of $100,
but not exceeding the sum of $5,000." If the offence continues, each day
becomes a separate offence.

These bylaws require landlords' awareness of the activities of their
tenants. And even if the landlords are not aware, they can still be held
accountable.

Lyster attributes this to the language used in the bylaws. Surrey's bylaw
states, "no person, owner or occupant of property within the city of Surrey
shall permit or allow a property to become or remain a place for the trade,
business or manufacture of a controlled substance."

The words, "shall permit or allow," Lyster points out, can be interpreted
as there being no requirement for the owner to know about the activity in
order to be charged.

"If the owner doesn't know what is going on, depending upon the nature of
what the tenant might be doing, it might be very difficult for an owner to
know."

In respect to keeping watch over their tenants, Lyster believes these
bylaws will essentially make landlords policemen.

Bylaws in New West Minster even go as far as to hold a landlord accountable
for a tenant smoking a joint. "It's pretty extraordinary," chuckled Lyster.
"These new bylaws were seemingly specifically enacted in response to the
perceived problem with respect to marijuana grow operations, but they all
go far beyond that."

Despite the ability of swift police searches, the municipal bylaws threaten
the privacy of the tenant and offload an enormous amount of responsibility
onto the landlord.

"Nobody wins under these bylaws," said Lyster. "Neither the tenants, the
owners, nor the community benefits from it."

Smithers does not foresee an adoption of these bylaws while Prince George
bylaws under the standard of maintenance are under revision, making
landlords more accountable for their premises. Holding a landlord
responsible for grow operations, however, is not a focus of the committee,
unless the issue is proposed in a forum hosted by the Prince George bylaw
enforcement sector.