A J S G O F A I CONSULTATION REPORT What Was Heard€¦ · one in a neighbourhood. These include a skunk-like odour (or odour maskers, like mothballs or fabric softener, to prevent

ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

GROW OP FREE ALBERTA INITIATIVE

CONSULTATION REPORT What Was Heard

August 2013

Grow Op Free Alberta Initiative Consultation Report: What Was Heard

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Consultation ........................................................................................................... 2

What Was Heard about Detection, Notification and Disclosure ........................... 4

What Was Heard about Community and Environmental Impact .......................... 7

What Was Heard about Inspection and Remediation ........................................... 9

What Was Heard about Child Protection ............................................................. 14

What Was Heard about Safety and Health Hazards ............................................ 15

What Was Heard about Utility Usage and Theft .................................................. 17

What Was Heard from the Online Survey ............................................................ 19

Next Steps ............................................................................................................ 30

Page | 1


Introduction

Alberta is experiencing an increase in the cultivation of marijuana inside residential homes. This practice poses significant and unacceptable risks to Albertans and our communities.

The physical health and safety hazards associated with marijuana grow operations (MGOs) are extensive. High humidity levels cause mould growth in walls, floors and ceilings and can weaken the structural components and surfaces of a dwelling. The presence of mould and chemical residues can lead to immediate and ongoing air quality issues in the home. Alterations to the water system can contaminate soil, groundwater and municipal water supplies. Exposed electrical wiring and alterations to the electrical system in general pose dangers to first responders and surrounding residents. In addition, MGOs bring criminals, weapons and sometimes violence into otherwise quiet neighbourhoods. Revenue from the sale of marijuana fuels other forms of organized crime across the province.

Once shut down, MGOs continue to pose challenges in the community. Abandoned MGOs decrease property values of surrounding homes. The presence of vagrants or unwanted criminal activity at these abandoned sites distresses surrounding residents, and can lead to increased calls to law enforcement and municipal bylaw enforcement. The properties are generally unsafe, particularly for children playing at or near the site. Furthermore, timely and appropriate remediation of these properties is complex.

Addressing these issues requires a consistent, coordinated approach. Launched in February 2013 by the Honourable Jonathan Denis, Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, the Grow Op Free Alberta Initiative is focused on developing comprehensive, integrated province-wide recommendations to meet the needs of stakeholders and address the many issues associated with MGOs.

From February through May 2013, Honourable Rick Fraser, Associate Minister of Regional Recovery and Reconstruction for High River led consultations across the province with police agencies, municipalities, fire officials, public health inspectors, safety codes officers, home inspectors, utility companies and associations, mortgage and real estate companies and other organizations. A panel of subject matter experts supported Associate Minister Fraser throughout the consultations. The consultations provided insight into the issues and impacts associated with MGOs. Stakeholders described how these issues are currently handled and identified gaps in responses to MGOs. Stakeholders also offered solutions for addressing remaining barriers and facilitating timely remediation of former MGOs.

The main themes of the consultation were:

1. Detection, Notification and Disclosure 2. Community and Environmental Impact 3. Inspection and Remediation

4. Child Protection 5. Safety and Health Hazards 6. Utility Usage and Theft

This is the first time broad consultation has occurred in Alberta regarding the issue of MGOs. The Government of Alberta is committed to understanding and analyzing the information gathered from stakeholders, with the goal of developing recommendations that address the complex issues associated with MGOs to ensure these properties can be safely reintegrated into the community.

This report summarizes what was heard from stakeholders during the consultations and from the public through online and mailed submissions. The comments and recommendations from the consultations will form the basis of a final report and recommendations prepared by Associate Minister Fraser for the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General and Cabinet.

Page | 2


Consultation

The Expert Panel

The seven-member Expert Panel listed below brought specific areas of expertise to assist Associate Minister Fraser throughout the consultations and provided insight and advice on the complexities of MGO issues.

Bruce Adair, Senior Codes Analyst, Alberta Municipal Affairs Bruce Adair has 37 years’ experience in the construction industry, including 21 years in building regulation in Alberta.

Wayne Brown, Lead, Coordinated Safety Response Team (CSRT) Wayne Brown developed the CSRT in 2009, which is a multi-agency team based in Calgary. Its duties include dismantling illegal grow operations, inspecting federally approved medical MGOs, investigating identified unsafe and derelict properties and managing the overall dismantling of MGOs.

Doug Everett, Manager, Environmental Public Health, Alberta Health Doug Everett has a background in public health inspection and is familiar with the Public Health Act and associated regulations.

Staff Sergeant Tom Hanson, Calgary Police Service Drug Unit Staff Sergeant Hanson has served with the Calgary Police Service for 22 years. In addition to his position as Staff Sergeant of ALERT—Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit Green Team South, he has also participated in the City of Calgary Stop Marijuana Grow Op Coalition and the CSRT.

Richard Marks, Director of FOIP, Alberta Justice and Solicitor General Richard Marks has 11 years’ experience in the access to information and privacy field. Prior to his current position, he worked with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and at Service Alberta where he was involved in the development of Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act.

Joe Marshall, Manager, System Operations Trouble Response Joe Marshall has more than 30 years’ experience in the power industry. He currently oversees a power theft team that works closely with other agencies and departments to address power theft in Calgary.

Ted Miles, Former CEO, Alberta Law Enforcement Response Teams (ALERT) Ted Miles has 32 years of policing experience in Alberta, and served as team leader of the Edmonton drug section. Miles is the CEO of ALERT, which is responsible for the development and implementation of integrated policing focused on organized and serious crime in Alberta, including the integrated policing teams tackling marijuana grow ops in Calgary and Edmonton.

Page | 3


Stakeholder and Community Consultations

Thirteen consultations with ministry stakeholders took place between March and April 2013, attended by approximately 50 participants representing a broad array of organizations, including police agencies, municipalities, fire officials, public health officers, safety codes officers, home inspectors, utility companies and associations, mortgage and real estate companies and other organizations.

In May, 11 consultations were held with front-line officials and community associations in communities throughout Alberta including: Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Edmonton, Greater Edmonton, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Calgary and Greater Calgary. Consultations were also held with two stop marijuana grow op coalitions located in Edmonton (Edmonton Stop Marijuana Grow Ops Coalition) and Calgary (Stop Grow Ops Calgary Coalition).The public was invited to review the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General website with its online interactive MGO house that provides tips on how to identify a grow op, and submit their views about MGO issues through a short online survey. The information collected during the consultation sessions was collated and organized into themes and issues. This What Was Heard document provides an overview of the six consultation themes and summarizes the key issues that emerged. The information collected from online and mailed submissions is summarized and presented in the final section of this report.

Page | 4


What Was Heard about Detection, Notification and Disclosure

Detection

MGOs are often difficult to identify, but several well-documented signs suggest the presence of one in a neighbourhood. These include a skunk-like odour (or odour maskers, like mothballs or fabric softener, to prevent the smell of growing marijuana plants), moisture damage along the walls or siding, condensation on the windows, a humming sound coming from the building and extensive security. Detection by police and other agencies relies in part on the general public being aware of the signs and alerting the authorities.

Notification

Police and municipalities have distinct roles to play in addressing MGOs and returning safe properties to the community. Communication between these two authorities is fundamental to ensuring effective and timely remediation of MGOs.

Police services are responsible for investigating suspected illegal MGOs. Their activities include: collecting evidence, filing for and executing a search warrant, seizing drugs or other evidence, laying charges, and completing a full check of the MGO to dismantle and remove trip wires, booby traps or other safety hazards.

Municipalities are responsible for the safety, security and well-being of their residents. The capacity of municipalities to address MGOs varies greatly across the province. In some municipalities, municipal safety codes officers team with Alberta Health Services’ public health inspectors in the initial inspection after a grow op is shut down by law enforcement. Their role is to document the safety code violations and health risks in the dwelling. In other municipalities, no such procedures exist. Following the home inspection, the property owner is required to fix the problems identified.

Disclosure

When a former MGO is put up for sale, real estate agents sometimes face conflicting obligations with respect to representing the interests of their client to sell the property or disclosing known defects of the property to the buyer. This creates liability and ethical risks for agents in the sale or purchase of a former MGO.

Challenge 1: Detecting MGOs

A general lack of public and stakeholder awareness regarding the signs and negative impacts of MGOs to homes and communities affects the reporting of these properties to authorities who can then shut them down. Undetected, these properties pose dangers to the community and unsuspecting homebuyers.

Ministry stakeholders told us:

Police depend on tips from the public about suspected MGOs; however, there is a general complacency regarding marijuana, a lack of public awareness regarding the signs and dangers associated with MGOs, fear of retribution from reporting a MGO and confusion regarding where to report concerns, all of which may result in under-reporting and lack of detection.

Realtors might become involved in lawsuits when they unknowingly represent a vendor with an unreported and undetected former grow operation.

Home inspectors are not specifically trained to identify damage caused by an MGO, and due to the kind of inspection they perform, they cannot find hidden damage such as mould inside walls. Their ability to report an MGO, if found, is currently limited.

Page | 5


Utility companies may be able to detect the presence of MGOs by analyzing electricity usage patterns; however, this is not standard practice and the technology needed to identify these usage patterns is not in widespread use.

General concerns about misreporting properties exist, and there are questions about the cost justification of detection technologies and their overall effectiveness given advances in plant care and lighting technology, which make it more difficult to detect MGOs by monitoring electricity usage patterns.

There are also general concerns about the perceived limitations of reporting due to privacy legislation.

As MGOs are detected and shut down in larger urban centres, there is concern that operators may relocate to rural areas or smaller towns, where resources to detect and deal with MGOs are more limited.

There was a suggestion that educating fertilizer dealerships to recognize and report suspicious buying patterns or having them document customer purchases could be of assistance to authorities.

Community stakeholders told us:

Community engagement is key. A single point of contact to report suspicious properties is needed; currently, calls come to 911, drug tip lines, MLAs, public health, Crime Stoppers and the fire department.

Many MGOs go undetected by police, and inspection and remediation in these situations is minimal.

There have been instances where community members have come forward after the MGO was shut down to say they suspected something illegal was going on for years, and this is evidence of under-reporting.

The public should be made aware of the number of MGOs that have been detected throughout the province. A registry of former MGOs should be developed.

Municipal coalitions in major urban centres concerned with the impacts of MGOs are working effectively to bring together different perspectives and expertise to develop communication and coordination between agencies. Rural areas need more resources.

There is an overall need for more resources to educate the public and stakeholders on how to identify MGOs and who to report them to. A single provincial ministry should be designated as the lead on MGOs and coordinate expertise across the province.

There was a suggestion to establish a dedicated MGO team that can be deployed where needed across the province.

Challenge 2: Consistent notification of agencies

Without a provincial communication protocol, there is no way to ensure that appropriate agencies are notified about the location of an MGO. This affects whether remediation is undertaken and places surrounding residents and unsuspecting homebuyers at risk of MGO-related health and safety hazards.


Each municipality determines its own MGO response and notification protocols regarding the detection and shut down of MGOs.

A clear communication protocol is needed to ensure timely notification of municipalities, fire, police, and health and safety agencies once an MGO is detected and shut down.

A coordinated way of reporting and tracking MGOs does not exist.

As long as you make it undesirable for them because they number one, are detected, and number two, are prosecuted, then the MGOs are going to leave the area.

—Expert Panel Member

Page | 6


A publicly available registry of former MGOs in the province is needed; however, there were concerns that if a property is registered, a long-term stigma would be attached to the property and the neighbourhood, potentially rendering the property unsellable.

An appropriate place to store MGO remediation information is needed to ensure individuals are properly informed about the status of remediation. A rating or classification system is needed to indicate that the remediation is appropriate to the degree of MGO-related damage in a dwelling. This would provide a level of confidence that the property is safe to re-inhabit.


Smaller municipalities can reach out to access the expertise and resources of larger centres.

There are many victims of MGOs. Utility companies, home owners, home inspectors, real estate agents and others with knowledge of MGOs should be required to report them, just as they are required to report the presence of asbestos, lead-based paint and aluminum wiring in older buildings.

There was a suggestion to create remediation teams to fan out across the province. Reports created by the teams could be monitored from regional centres, which would serve as the coordination hubs, operating from Grande Prairie, Fort McMurray, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Red Deer.

Some groups understand privacy law and will provide information; others do not have a process in place to clarify when it is appropriate to share information.

Challenge 3: Disclosing information

Multiple challenges around disclosure of information limit Albertans’ ability to make an informed decision when purchasing a property.


Conflicting legislation and codes of ethics for realtors regarding obligations to disclose a property’s history as an MGO affect the ability of prospective buyers to make an informed decision.

Not knowing the location of licensed MGOs poses challenges for realtors and prospective buyers.

Potential buyers should be aware of all information associated with an MGO property. A legislated registry could track all aspects and stages of remediation. The registry could also cite former MGO properties that have been demolished due to environmental issues that may linger, such as soil contamination.

Some property owners purposely conceal the history of their property as an MGO, which can lead to legal ramifications for real estate agents as they are the only party with errors and omissions insurance.

If home inspectors suspect a home has been used as an MGO, it is unclear what their obligations are regarding disclosure and notification or to whom their suspicions should be reported.


Non-disclosure about a property having been an MGO is a significant issue. Unsuspecting purchasers may have to remediate the property, spending upwards of $50,000 or more above the purchase price.

Full disclosure is everybody’s right, so that Albertans can make an informed choice about a residence they are considering buying.


Page | 7


A formalized process regarding disclosure is needed.

The majority of stakeholders agreed that the history of a property as an MGO should be common knowledge; however, there was acknowledgement that disclosure of MGO history impairs the ability to obtain insurance and financing, and there were concerns people may choose not to report if the property becomes part of a registry.

There was a suggestion that perhaps the property should lose its identification as a former MGO at some point.

Challenge 4: Effects of new Health Canada Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations

In 2014, new federal regulations concerning the licensing of marijuana for medical purposes comes into force. Residential permits that currently allow for the growing of marijuana in homes will be eliminated and a licensing scheme will be introduced for the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes. The public must have assurance that former residential MGO properties are safe to inhabit, and that commercial production facilities are safe.


Health Canada will not provide information on the locations of licensed residential medical grow ops, which results in prospective homebuyers not having all the information they need to make an informed choice.

Not knowing the location of licensed MGOs is a significant frustration. Valuable resources are diverted to investigate what may be a legal MGO.


Those with medical licenses to grow marijuana should be required to report the practices to their insurers and (if applicable) their landlords.

There is concern about the lack of information from Health Canada to the province and municipalities. Sharing information reduces the risk to our communities.

There was a suggestion to review the Health Professions Act to ensure the College of Physicians and Surgeons have appropriate oversight powers regarding the approvals for obtaining medical marijuana licenses.

What Was Heard about Community and Environmental Impact

To avoid suspicion and detection by the general public and law enforcement personnel, MGOs are most often located in large urban centres, in well-established residential neighbourhoods. Whether the grow ops are fully operational, temporarily closed until remediation has been completed due to safety and health orders, or condemned due to significant health issues or structural damage, they present ongoing community and environmental impacts to everyone living in the vicinity.

Community Impact

MGOs are often tied to criminal activity and organized crime, which can expose a community to violence, vandalism, home invasions and thefts from grow operations, known as “grow rips.” Surrounding homes may be mistakenly targeted. The community is further at risk from fire, electrocution, toxic chemicals and booby traps. The degree of damage to MGO properties is often so severe that they are uninhabitable without extensive remediation. Even with remediation, former MGOs are often uninsurable, making them difficult to mortgage or sell. Unremediated and abandoned, these properties become derelict, stigmatizing the community and decreasing the property values of surrounding homes. After an MGO has been shut down,

Page | 8


different dangers arise. For example, other criminal elements or vagrants may move into the building. Increased call volumes from concerned community members in turn increases the presence of police and bylaw officers in the neighbourhood, further damaging the character of the community.

Environmental Impact

Hazardous chemicals such as fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are used to promote crop health and growth. These are often improperly disposed of—poured down household drains, flushed into the sewage system or dumped outside. As a result, soil, rivers, streams and aquifers, and potentially the municipal water supply, are contaminated. In properties that remain unremediated, the presence of chemical residues and mould create poor air quality and other health hazards that endanger future occupants, including contractors and inspectors involved in remediation work.

Challenge 1: Understanding the hazards MGOS pose to the community

There is a general belief that MGOs are harmless. A greater understanding is needed among Albertans about the damage MGOs cause inside homes, the health and safety hazards they pose to residents and the overall danger they present to communities.


Grow operators are tampering with meters and transformers in homes and apartments in rural and urban areas alike. Dangerous bypasses increase the risk of electrical fires, as evidenced by the 2009 fire in the Citadel community in Calgary.

An education campaign is needed to inform the public about the dangers associated with MGOs and to provide instructions about how to report MGOs.

In comparison to rural areas, the issue of MGOs is better understood in larger centres, where community action groups have been providing education to community members.

In some instances, equipment seized from former MGOs indicated drug trafficking activities had been taking place, putting surrounding residents in danger of becoming victims of secondary crimes, such as home invasion for the purpose of stealing money or product from the MGO.

Abandoned properties may attract vagrants, vandals and thieves.


Complacency regarding MGOs is an issue. Stakeholders told us that MGOs cause damage to homes, jeopardize residents’ peace of mind, impact property values and result in costly enforcement and cleanup. Stakeholders agreed that when community members understand the risks and hazards associated with MGOs, they are more likely to get involved.

There was consensus that community engagement is key and that Albertans need to know how to report suspicious properties.

Community associations are good partners for law enforcement agencies.

Communication among municipalities, police and other agencies, all of whom need to work together, is key.

Houses aren’t designed for farming.

—Police Stakeholder

It’s really a community problem. When police go in front of a camera…we see an immediate increase in the number of tips we receive.

—Police Authority

Page | 9


A public awareness campaign could be conducted with the aid of community associations and other industry partners.

Unless the provincial government plays a larger role, highly effective practices in larger municipalities could force the problem into smaller municipalities.

Challenge 2: Dangers associated with soil and water contamination

Marijuana grow operators often dispose of chemicals by flushing them into the sewer system or dumping them outside, causing the soil and water supply to become contaminated. There are no province-wide standards that define a consistent method for dealing with these potential dangers.


There is no requirement to have soil, water and indoor air quality tested after a property has been remediated; therefore, any lingering toxicity created by the grow operation may continue to contaminate the community and environment.

Qualifications for both environmental consultants and contractors must be defined.


Alberta lacks a standard process for dealing with abandoned hazardous chemicals. The removal of hazardous materials is left to the property owner; however, landlords and property owners may avoid cleaning up properties and will leave these materials behind. As a result, hazardous materials can remain at abandoned properties for an extended period of time and are often stolen by former operators or others.

Protocols to test for contaminated soil or water and other environmental damages caused by MGO activities do not exist.

Environmental consulting is not a regulated profession. Rather, the field is comprised of people with a diverse array of science or construction backgrounds, including building science and architecture.

Alberta Health Services requires qualification requirements for environmental consultants, but does not keep a list of approved or pre-qualified vendors.

What Was Heard about Inspection and Remediation

Inspection and remediation processes for MGOs vary considerably throughout the province, as do the costs associated with remediation, which can differ depending on the size of the property and the extent of the damage. These costs include municipal permits, materials, labour and environmental consulting fees. Current municipal bylaws place responsibility for all associated remediation costs on the owner; however, in many instances the owner has abandoned the property, so it is unclear who is responsible for remediation. Furthermore, in smaller municipalities, where fewer MGOs may be detected, remediation resources may be limited. These differences have led to disparities in the process and standards for handling former grow op properties across the province.

Page | 10


Challenge 1: Inconsistent processes

The challenges associated with MGOs are dealt with inconsistently across Alberta. The complexity and interconnectedness of the issues require that all municipalities follow the same process.


There was unanimous agreement among stakeholders that Alberta needs a consistent provincial process for inspecting and remediating MGOs.

When an MGO is detected and reported, it may go unremediated because the property owner cannot be found, leaving the municipality or mortgage lender responsible for remediation.

Former MGO properties are often left vacant because no one wants to take on the obligations and cost that come with remediating the property.

The majority of municipalities do not have a specialized permit process in place to deal with MGOs.

There was acknowledgement that although Alberta Health Services processes for the assessment and remediation of MGOs are consistent province-wide, interaction between inspection and remediation agencies varies within the municipalities.

Safety codes are provincial in scope, but their administration may vary by municipality.

MGOs are only one category of derelict properties. Some municipalities have procedures for dealing with any type of derelict properties, but others do not.

There is confusion as to whether there is sufficient legislative authority to order former grow operations be demolished.

A professional association or group of qualified remediation experts could aid in the development of a process and standards to streamline inspection, remediation and evaluation.

There is a preference to have police services in the north and south employ the same model in responding to MGOs, ensuring the availability of resources, as well as consistent information sharing with the municipality and others.

Many stakeholders suggested that MGOs should be treated by a specialty market of companies developed to evaluate and remediate MGO properties.

The current tax recovery process is not designed to deal with former MGOs. Stakeholders suggested that a separate process from the regular tax recovery system would allow the municipality to recover remediation costs. This could apply in cases where an owner has not taken responsibility for the remediation.

Stakeholders agreed that the party conducting the remediation should have the ability to recover their costs—whether through property taxes, through a lien on the land or from a proceeds-of-crime fund.

The current lack of standards creates an unacceptable liability for insurers and mortgage lenders, which contributes to the difficulty of obtaining mortgages and insurance on remediated properties.

Although Orders issued under the Public Health Act, Municipal Government Act, and Safety Codes Act include timelines, the remediation process is generally lengthy, convoluted and prone to delays.

The Municipal Government Act allows municipalities to deal with “unsightly” and “unsafe” properties; however, the Act should more clearly define legitimate actions that municipalities may take.

Page | 11



There is a need for a consistent provincial process. Stakeholders recommended the remediation process needs to be managed end-to-end (policy, procedures, education, communication and reporting), and that a framework to manage the process and describe the workflow could be developed.

Opinions among stakeholders varied as to whether remediation would return a property to a healthy standard and whether demolishing the property was the only solution.

Stakeholders acknowledged several skill sets are required to assess and remediate former MGOs. A team of experts is one way to ensure effective remediation.

The Alberta Health Services’ process requires air quality testing after remediation is complete. However, Alberta Health Services’ guidelines are not accepted as a standard by the insurance industry or mortgage lenders. Some stakeholders stated these air quality standards are too hard to achieve, that the detailed analysis can be very expensive for the homeowner and there is a need to simplify the process.

Calgary’s remediation process may provide the basis for a workable solution.

Alberta does not have occupational health and safety standards for contractors working in mouldy environments. As a result, contractors work in these environments without protective equipment.

Safety codes standards apply to new construction and renovations or alterations; safety codes officers may not always have an opportunity to inspect MGO-related remediation.

Alberta Health Services is limited by the fact that they can only enter public places or rental properties when a complaint is received and cannot enter owner-occupied dwellings to determine if a property is fit for human habitation.

Municipalities and counties can use the Municipal Government Act to order demolition, but the conditions under which they can take action may be unclear.

Alberta Health Service executive officers’ orders usually work effectively, but if appeal bodies are involved, decisions may be made that do not support the intent of the order.

There is a need for a more robust cost-recovery mechanism (such as fines or guarantees).

If the owner does not pay the property taxes, the municipality can take ownership of the property and order the demolition of the property. If the property were remediated, all costs should be placed against the property on the tax roll. The more difficult situation is where the owner is also a victim, wants to pay the taxes and asks for assistance with the remediation.

Some stakeholders said boarding MGO properties is only a stop-gap solution; the properties still pose a fire risk, provide shelter for squatters and are targeted for break-ins by those who wish to recover grow op materials and equipment.

MGO remediation can be a lengthy process. The average time to remediate a property is one and a half to two years, if the owner is engaged. If the owner walks away, remediation is a long, drawn-out process that can take four to five years.

There was a suggestion that it may be helpful to amend the Municipal Government Act to modify the definition of unsightly property to be more clearly inclusive of former MGO properties than the current wording, which says the property is “detrimental to the surrounding area.”

There is lots of MGO work that doesn’t go through Alberta Health Services. All kinds of guys are doing remediation.

—Community Stakeholder

Page | 12


Challenge 2: Certified training and standards of remediation

A lack of consistent remediation standards and specialized training, minimum qualifications or a certification process for remediation agencies raises concerns about the quality of remediation and undermines building safety following remediation.


They had unanimous agreement about the need for standards regarding air quality testing and qualifications to guide those doing such testing. Air quality testing could be made part of the building safety codes inspection under the Safety Codes Act.

Some individuals may choose to undertake remediation themselves due to the high cost of hiring experts; as a result, the degree and level of remediation undertaken may be insufficient.

Opinions about whether a property could be fully remediated differed among stakeholders.


It would be helpful to have insurance industry participation when determining qualifications for those who can do air quality testing.

There may be a gap in the building codes regarding air quality and humidity levels. High humidity levels can cause mould growth that deteriorates air quality and rots building structures, yet these levels are not prescribed in the building codes.

Challenge 3: Accessible remediation information

The general public does not have access to information about the status of remediation of a property, including the type of inspections conducted, permits received and work completed.


It may be beneficial to implement a process where certified home inspectors are mandated to disclose information if they find evidence that a property had been an MGO.

It would be helpful to have a one-stop-shop for information about the status of remediation.


Knowledge about a property being a remediated MGO would prompt owners to contact authorities if they thought mould might be causing problems, even years after the remediation.

Challenge 4: Insufficient access to resources

Appropriate inspection and remediation resources must be available across the province to ensure MGOs are dealt with consistently regardless of location.


There is a province-wide lack of human resources (i.e., environmental public health and safety codes officers) to do the assessment and remediation.

Page | 13


Fees for safety codes officers and the availability of these officers, particularly in rural areas, may deter effective and appropriate remediation.

Finding contractors who have remediation expertise can be difficult, especially in rural municipalities.

Strong guidelines would help to ensure that air quality inspectors are well qualified regardless of location.


Resources and assistance should be provided for smaller, less experienced municipalities, and the expertise developed in larger municipalities should be shared through education and training.

Most smaller municipalities have no list of assessment or remediation experts, making it more difficult to follow the Alberta Health Services’ guidelines.

Challenge 5: Unremediated former residential medical MGOs

As the new federal laws establishing commercial grow operations come into effect and individuals are no longer permitted to grow marijuana in their homes, former residential MGOs will come on the market. This raises concerns about whether the properties will be remediated and inspected before new tenants take possession.


When the new regulations come into force and MGOs are removed from residential properties, buyers of these former properties may be unaware of the extent of remediation needed to make the homes habitable.

Officials may not know that a licensed residential grow operation is undergoing remediation.

When former licensed residential MGOs come on the market, they should be identified and inspected.


Community stakeholders also agreed that licensed MGOs need ongoing inspections. They suggested that Health Canada or some other authority should require home inspections when licensed residential MGOs transition to non-MGO status. Commercial MGOs need to be held to standards, inspected every six months and identified to neighbours.

Information about former MGO remediation status should be available through some sort of provincial registry.

Municipal stakeholders reported there is currently no way to involve police in developing review procedures for commercial MGOs.

Legal doesn’t mean safe, and there needs to be clear understanding of who is responsible for inspecting commercial grow ops, whether that will be municipal officials, Health Canada or others. If this responsibility is not specified, there were concerns that the role may default to police officers.

Outside of large municipalities that have systems in place to ensure all the inspections get done, the smaller municipalities don't have systems in place. In smaller areas there is nothing to require final inspection or sign-off on properties.

—Municipal Stakeholder

Page | 14


There is general uncertainty regarding the appropriate zoning of commercial grow ops. While they could fit into areas zoned for greenhouses and be located on the edge of a residential area, it would be more appropriate to situate them in light industrial zones. If they qualify as farm husbandry, then there may be very few applicable fire and building codes.

What Was Heard about Child Protection

Children living in or visiting a marijuana grow operation are susceptible to many safety and health hazards—physical, mental and emotional. Physical dangers include exposure to mould and toxic chemicals, possible fire and electrocution hazards as well as dangers associated with criminal activity. Children may also be victims of neglect and violence and may be exposed to drug addiction.

Cases involving children found in grow operations are complex, and a variety of legislation exists to allow authorities to intervene on behalf of children and remove them from unsafe conditions, including Alberta’s Drug Endangered Children Act and the Child Youth and Family Enhancement Act. Common concerns include whether the child has been properly fed, exposed to criminal behaviour or drug use and placed at risk from unknown individuals coming to the home.

Challenge 1: Timely response to drug-endangered children

MGOs are not always reported to police in a timely manner, which raises concerns about the health and safety of children living in MGOs. Increased reporting and resources would improve the ability of authorities to identify children who may be at risk and take action where necessary.


Lack of awareness, personal safety concerns and cost concerns may limit the reporting of grow operations, which in turn delays responding to the needs of children living in MGOs.

Staffing resources are limited, especially in rural areas.

The geographic location of social services personnel may make it difficult for them to attend to a case in a timely manner. In such situations, the child is left in the care of the police until the appropriate agency staff arrive.


The presence of children is always considered in the planning that takes place to obtain search warrants. There is always a coordinated effort with Child and Family Services except perhaps in rural areas, where staff may be scarce.

An increased amount of traffic to a legal or illegal MGO may pose dangers to children in the neighbourhood.

When safety of children is concerned, the priorities become ensuring the welfare of the children rather than emphasizing the apprehension of the MGO.

—Police Stakeholder

Page | 15


Challenge 2: Information sharing between agencies

More consistent information-sharing processes between and among law enforcement and social services units will enhance child protection services.


The approach for dealing with child welfare issues differs across the province.

Children at Risk Response Teams, which are two-person teams consisting of a police officer and a social worker, ensure a level of understanding between the two authorities. Unfortunately, these teams are not involved with all child protection issues.

Inconsistent handling of MGO-related child protection issues also stems from differing knowledge about the relevant Acts. In areas where grow operations are less common or less frequently identified, police officers may not be as familiar with their authority under the various legislation.


There is a large gap between the knowledge of the Children at Risk Response Teams, the judiciary, service providers and the general public.

The powers and authorities of the Drug Endangered Children Act are generally poorly understood, except for the fact that it recognizes that these environments are hazardous to the well-being, health and safety of a developing child.

Challenge 3: Exposure of children to commercial MGOs

Whether illegal or legal, MGOs pose the same risks. There is concern about the safety and health of children who may be exposed to commercial MGOs. Ministry stakeholders told us:

Restrictions and guidelines regarding the exposure of children to licensed grow operations should be in place; otherwise, the children may be exposed to risks.


Children and youth should be restricted from entering commercial grow operations.

What Was Heard about Safety and Health Hazards

Properties used as MGOs pose safety and health concerns. A grow op property’s inhabitants and neighbours are at risk due to excessive modifications to electrical, water, plumbing, heating, air conditioning and venting systems as well as to the overall structure of the home. Operators often core a large hole in the foundation wall to create a bypass access route; this hole exposed the foundation and basement to water damage from rain and snow. The bypasses and other modifications make the property unstable, and increase the likelihood of fire, explosion and electrocution.

Ten to 15 years down the road, if health issue arose, I would always wonder and I would be bitter that I hadn’t been informed of the extent of the health hazards and dangers they pose.


Page | 16


The safety of MGO inhabitants, both current and future, is compromised by the presence of toxic chemicals and other hazardous materials. Tampering with humidity and home temperature to increase the growth of the plants causes mould, which can cause respiratory problems.

MGOs are often associated with other criminal activity, which can put surrounding residents at risk from spillover criminal activity and violence. MGOs have booby traps to keep trespassers off the property, placing community members, police and other first responders at risk.

Challenge 1: Unclear roles and responsibilities

No clear guidelines exist to differentiate whether an aspect of remediation is health or safety-related. Clearly defined roles will prevent agencies from straying into another’s jurisdiction.


There are distinct phases of remediation, each phase requiring the expertise of and cooperation between different agencies from (1) the police and first responders identifying and entering the premises; (2) assessment of damage to the property and remediation needed; and (3) reconstruction and involvement of safety codes officers.

Many hazards are building hazards, not health hazards, leading to confusion about who should be involved.

There is a concern about agencies overstepping their mandates. The roles and responsibilities of all parties must be clearly identified.

Orders to repair or demolish buildings may be issued under three separate statutes: the Public Health Act, the Safety Codes Act and the Municipal Government Act.

A number of safety codes officers are involved in the process (electrical, gas, plumbing and building), and in rural areas communication between these individuals is a concern.

Safety codes officers receive training that is specific to the code they enforce. Therefore, a marijuana grow operation requires a separate visit from each of the safety codes disciplines to assess remediation needs and to inspect completed work.

A distinction needs to be made between the roles of safety codes officers who are employed by or under contract to municipalities, home inspectors who provide home inspections as a consumer service and Alberta Health Services inspectors who provide health inspections.

Safety during remediation is critical. Often contractors employ unskilled labour, who do not use appropriate personal protective equipment and do not follow proper waste disposal procedures.

Some MGOs present huge fire risks, particularly if operators are converting plants to oil, by using a pot on an open flame. Fire departments need to be consistently engaged in shutting down marijuana grow operations to manage fire risks and make the scene safe for other responders.


Involving safety codes officers up front in the remediation process and evaluating the health risk at the end of the process is advisable.

There is uncertainty among municipalities about whether to use the Municipal Government Act or the Safety Codes Act to enforce remediation standards.

Alberta Health Services’ guidelines require property owners to engage an environmental consultant to

We need a simplified process across the province—and to have the legislation to back us up.


Page | 17


determine remediation requirements; however, not all owners (1) step up to assume responsibility for remediating the property or (2) comply with the requirement to hire an environmental consultant.

Challenge 2: Gaps in the new Health Canada Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations

Identifying the gaps in the new federal regulations will allow the province to assess where provincial regulations would ensure a more efficient operation of the law and at the same time protect Albertans.


Licensed grow ops pose the same health and safety hazards as criminal grow operations.

There are concerns about the security of commercial MGOs.


Licensed grows may not always have “legal” processes and installations (structural, mechanical and functional).

Regular security checks and screening of personnel is needed to prevent the infiltration of organized crime.

There is confusion about whether commercial growers will provide their own security or whether law enforcement will be expected to provide protection against theft. Building security is not currently required by building codes. There are concerns that exits will be barricaded to prevent theft.

What Was Heard about Utility Usage and Theft

High voltage lights, humidifiers and industrial equipment for heating, venting and air conditioning are commonly used in MGOs to promote plant growth, resulting in high or above average electricity and water consumption. Theft of these utilities is common, and in the case of electricity theft, unaccounted-for-energy line loss is charged back to consumers.

Modifications to the water system can result in soil contamination or contamination of municipal water supplies. Structural modifications made to accommodate crop growth and increased water and electricity consumption make the building unsafe, increasing the likelihood of fire, electrocution and explosion.

Challenge 1: Detecting electricity usage patterns

Energy usage patterns associated with MGOs are identifiable. MGOs could be detected more often if utilities were monitoring patterns. Smart metering or other technology may allow for better detection; however, consideration must be given as to whether these methods are cost effective.


Utilities take their responsibility as corporate citizens seriously and adhere to regulations to report unaccounted-for-energy line loss.

Usage patterns may be indicative of an MGO, but are not conclusive.

The federal government doesn’t have the right to tell the provinces and municipalities how to license commercial marijuana for medical purposes businesses.

—Community Stakeholder


In my opinion, a journeyman who does not report and just walks away while knowing an MGO is operating is just as liable as those who are running it.

—Rural Electrification Association

Page | 18


There are no requirements for utilities to detect and report MGOs.

Some stakeholders put significant effort into detecting electricity theft. Other stakeholders cautioned against taking on more of a policing role in detecting MGOs.

A fear of retribution exists at both the corporate level and among linemen if they report an MGO, although companies try to ensure the confidentiality of their employees.

The safety of utility employees is paramount and any revised process must not endanger these employees.

Any benefits resulting from the application of better detection technology is not cost-justified.

Smart metering is expensive and the technology changes quickly. The cost of switching to smart meters would be borne by consumers. The costs of the technology would be more than the costs incurred by electricity theft.

From the utility company’s perspective, the benefit of smart metering for the purposes of detection may also depend on geographical location. Stakeholders from rural areas noted that smart metering may allow them to read meters remotely. For others, the “drive-by” method of meter reading currently employed is more cost effective than smart metering.


RCMP have no difficulties getting information on electrical usage from the utility companies, but utilities do not proactively provide RCMP with tips about suspicious electrical use patterns.

One electrical distributor reported wanting to report discovered electricity theft to law enforcement if governing legislation were different.

A distributor that invested in smart technology will be doing real time monitoring on all sites by 2015. Their legal advisors, however, have told them they cannot report individual suspicious usage to the police.

Challenge 2: Unaccounted-for-energy line loss

Consumers are charged for unaccounted-for-energy line loss, although the cost to consumers varies by location.


Although theft does occur, concern about this issue and the line loss percentages varies greatly among utility companies. For some, the cost of electricity theft is negligible in comparison with the total cost of electricity provided to consumers, while others feel their duty as good corporate citizens is to lower the amount of electricity theft as much as possible.

The primary issue associated with electricity theft is safety hazards due to dangerous bypasses and other structural modifications, which affect the safety of employees, first responders and the community as a whole.

One question to consider is whether the cost of electricity theft should be considered along with the cost of the damage to the community when determining whether a utility company intervenes to prevent line loss.

It is not our job to do investigations; it is our job to provide assistance to police when requested to do so.

—Utility Company

MGOs are big users of energy and we want to mitigate any potential loss.

—Rural Electrification Association

Page | 19



There is a need to make the public aware of how much theft-related line loss costs them.

Challenge 3: Disclosing and sharing information

Clarification about when and with whom information should be shared about MGO properties would provide assurance to those stakeholders who wish or are asked to share information with authorities.

Ministry stakeholders told us1:

Uncertainty regarding the utility companies’ ability to share information with authorities due to privacy legislation is a concern, especially in those situations where the electricity usage patterns indicate the presence of an MGO, but there is no theft.

The sensitivity regarding privacy legislation is so significant that some stakeholders seek legal advice prior to sharing information with authorities. Often legal advisors recommend against sharing information.


There are no rules or policies in place to define if information about suspected MGOs should be shared, when or with whom. Some stakeholders felt there should be a mandatory duty for utilities to report and fines for non-compliance.

Some stakeholders felt utilities have a moral and ethical responsibility to detect electricity theft related to MGOs.

What Was Heard from the Online Survey

Background

On February 22, 2013, the Honourable Jonathan Denis and Associate Minister Rick Fraser announced the Grow Op Free Alberta Initiative and launched its website at www.growop.alberta.ca.

The website provided: o an overview of the consultation process o information about safety and health issues presented by MGOs as well as the associated

criminal activity o an interactive graphic of a grow op house indicating the signs of an MGO o an online public survey providing opportunities to answer survey questions and offer

comments on the issues.

The online survey was open for the duration of the consultation period (February 22 to May 28, 2013).

789 respondents from across Alberta completed the survey.

Methodology

The purpose of the online survey was to gain an understanding of the degree of awareness that Albertans have about the risks and hazards that MGOs present in communities and to determine the effectiveness of the website’s interactive grow op house.

1 Comments concerning the detection and reporting of electricity usage appear in this report as

provided by those consulted. The applicability of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Gomboc, [2010] S.C.J. No. 55 is acknowledged.

http://www.growop.alberta.ca/

Page | 20


Respondents had the opportunity to provide as full a scope of feedback as they wished on the issues such as providing rationale for their answers and offering additional comments for each question.

Six questions were developed on the basis of a Likert scale of five options ranging from little or no—to extreme—awareness/concern/support/agreement for the various issues. This approach allowed information to be gathered about the degree to which: o viewing the online interactive house

increased respondents’ awareness of the signs of an MGO

o viewing the website increased respondents’ awareness of whom to contact if they suspect that there is an illegal grow op in their neighbourhood

o respondents felt concerned about the safety and health hazards that MGOs present in their communities

o respondents felt there should be a provincial standard established in the remediation of a grow op

o respondents felt that the province of Alberta is doing enough to reduce the risks associated with MGOs.

The survey was developed using Opinio online survey software; responses were compiled simultaneously into html, pdf, and Excel formats for analysis.

The quantitative data was processed using the SPSS 21 statistical software program, which provides analysis, hypothesis testing and predictive analytics.

The qualitative data was reviewed for consistent high level themes throughout, as well as any unique issues or insights that would assist with what was heard throughout the consultation process, which could provide support and/or further insights into the development of the final report and recommendations.

Analysis/Findings

The majority of respondents were from the Calgary/Greater Calgary area, closely followed by the Edmonton/Greater Edmonton area. This most likely supports the fact that the majority of grow operations in Alberta are located in its two largest cities.

2 This is conveyed

in the maps provided by the Alberta Green Teams—the specialized policing and law enforcement operations under the Alberta Law Enforcement Response Teams (ALERT)—who are the first line of intervention when a grow operation has been detected in a community.

3

Demographics

Only those respondents who provided the requested first three digits of their postal code were included in the analysis. As a result, the number in the table below (N) may not equal the total number of respondents in the survey.

2 See Online Survey Results, below

3 See Maps charting confirmed grow ops in Edmonton, Calgary and rural Alberta. These are

provided by ALERT and located at the Alberta Justice and Solicitor General website at http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/safe/growop/Pages/growoperations.aspx)

I have seen little to suggest that residential grow ops are a large problem, although I know they exist and are detrimental to the properties involved and neighboring properties. I have not seen evidence that the number of grow ops is sufficient to justify extreme measures to pursue them.

—Online Survey Respondent

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/safe/growop/Pages/growoperations.aspx

Page | 21


The postal code information identified the locations of respondents with the majority being from the City of Calgary and the Greater Calgary Region, followed by the City of Edmonton and the Greater Edmonton Region, as reflected in the table below.

Community Number of Responses

(N) Percentage (%)

City of Calgary 319 49.8%

City of Edmonton 123 19.2%

Other Alberta 98 15.3%

Greater Edmonton 39 6.1%

Greater Calgary 22 3.4%

Medicine Hat 10 1.6%

Red Deer 8 1.3%

Fort McMurray 8 1.3%

Lethbridge 7 1.1%

Grande Prairie 6 0.9%

Total 640 100%

Themes

Legalization of Marijuana

One of the most predominant themes that arose from the comments was the legalization of marijuana.

Legalization of marijuana falls under the Criminal Code of Canada, which is federal legislation and was outside of the scope of the consultations. Efforts were made throughout the consultation process to clearly identify the scope of the Province’s consultations for stakeholders. The focus of consultations was on the safety and health dangers associated with grow operations and the challenges these properties pose in terms of remediation, not the legality of using the drug. This was reiterated during the consultations and in communication to the public at various events, as well as in correspondence from Minister Denis and Associate Minister Fraser.

Awareness of Grow Ops The online tool was helpful and a good refresher for many respondents in terms of outlining the general signs of a grow operation; however, responses varied as to whether grow ops exhibit all the signs indicated on the online tool. For example, many respondents commented that some smaller grow ops may not exhibit the typical signs. Others suggested the signs were not inclusive enough, perhaps a reference to the fact that these operations are becoming highly sophisticated to avoid detection. Another frequent comment was that the signs commonly attributed to a grow operation may, in fact, be indicative of something else, for example, the growing of other plants or a dwelling that is in poor condition in general.

The house right next door to us and unknown to us at the time we purchased our home was an active grow op. We lived in our home for a year and a half before it was busted. All the signs were there, we just didn't know what to look for as we had never been exposed to a grow op before. Now we know.


Page | 22


Health and Safety Risks

Responses regarding the risks associated with grow operations varied. While some respondents acknowledged the health and safety risks these properties pose, others believed the risk was minimal. Possible reasons for believing properties pose a minimal risk aside, the general consensus among the respondents is that regulation of marijuana would decrease the risks posed by grow operations.

Remediation

Responses to the topic of remediation varied. Some respondents believed that properties could not be remediated and therefore should be torn down. Others said that former grow ops should be taken down to the foundation and rebuilt. The risk associated with buying remediated homes was frequently cited. Support for consistent remediation standards or a policy to deal with these properties was high among those who referenced a need for provincial standards.

Stigma of Grow Operations

The lingering stigma of grow operations—regardless of whether the property is remediated—was a common theme throughout the responses. Some respondents expressed concerns about whether remediation efforts were adequate, leaving uncertainty as to whether the home is safe. Other respondents noted that former grow operations should not be left abandoned because this reflects poorly on the community and leaves it with a bad reputation for years. Still other respondents noted that these properties must be cleaned up to protect property values and avoid further stigmatizing the community.

Not Enough Action Respondents who shared their experiences emphasized their frustration with the lack of action to address the grow ops in their community. For example, numerous respondents cited instances where neighbouring properties sat vacant, attracting unwanted vagrants or activity to their community. Another common frustration voiced by respondents concerned grow ops that resumed operation after being shut down, continuing the hazardous cycle of these properties in the community.

Provincial standards are long overdue and are sorely needed. Buyers of former grow ops would have to abide by these standards and held accountable to them. Buyers of remediated homes could be confident the property has been cleaned up adequately and would have recourse if it became sick again. This is the only way to ensure the neighbourhood does not have a lingering eye sore.


Given the blight that these homes can be on a community, it is of great importance to deal with the total rehabilitation or extraction of these tainted properties such that they can no longer reflect badly on their neighbourhood. In order to be effective, remediation standards must be codified and enforced.


How are we getting the message to those that don't have access to computers, social media, immigrants and refugees?


Page | 23


Online Survey Results

Question 1

After viewing the interactive house, are you now more aware of the signs indicating the presence of a marijuana grow operation in your community?

More than 60% of respondents indicated that after viewing the online interactive house they are now very aware (41%) or extremely aware (23%) of the signs that indicate the presence of an MGO in their community.

A large number of respondents noted they already knew how to identify a grow operation, suggesting that an “already aware” option may have been a valuable addition in the survey question.

Level of Awareness

Region (%)

Edmonton Calgary Other Alberta4

Not at all aware 8.8 7.2 9.0

Slightly aware 8.2 8.4 9.0

Moderately aware 15.6 21.3 26.2

Very aware 43.5 38.1 48.4

Extremely aware 23.8 25 7.4

Total Number of

Respondents 147 320 122

Total % 100% 100% 100%

4 For analysis of the online survey results, “Edmonton” includes the City of Edmonton and Greater

Edmonton area, “Calgary” includes City of Calgary and Greater Calgary area and “Other Alberta”

includes respondents from the rest of the province.

8% 8%

19%

41%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not at all aware Slightly aware Moderately aware Very aware Extremely aware

Page | 24


Generally speaking there was not a lot of variation between respondents from the three main regions for this question.

Question 2

Grow operations increase the likelihood of fire and electrocution, chemicals and mould, and can also expose people to increased criminal activity. How concerned are you about any or all of these dangers in your community?

The majority of respondents indicated they were concerned with the dangers associated with grow operations, with 57% indicating they were either very concerned or extremely concerned. Some respondents shared personal stories about having lived near a grow operation and being concerned about the impact of MGOs on the community as well as the associated hazards, including chemicals, risk of fire and mould. Less than 30% of respondents indicated they were not at all or only slightly concerned.

Level of Concern

Region (%)

Edmonton Calgary Other Alberta

Not at all concerned 23.0 13.6 27.6

Slightly concerned 16.8 6.8 11.2

Moderately concerned 10.6 17.4 14.2

Very concerned 18.6 26.3 26.1

Extremely concerned 31.1 36.0 20.9

Total Number of


Total % 100% 100% 100%

19%

10% 14%

25%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not at all

concerned

Slightly

concerned

Moderately

concerned

Very concerned Extremely

concerned

Page | 25


Question 3

Currently there are no complete provincial standards to guide homeowners in the cleanup of a marijuana grow operation. How strongly would you support the development of provincial standards to address this issue?

The majority of respondents (61%) strongly supported the development of provincial standards to ensure appropriate remediation of a former grow operation.

Of particular interest were the comments regarding the need to protect unsuspecting home buyers from incurring remediation costs, and the need to hold landlords and grow operators accountable for these costs.

A small percentage of respondents (12%) are strongly opposed to the issue.

Level of Opposition

Region (%)


Strongly oppose 14.9 7.6 16.7

Oppose 1.2 1.8 4.5

Neither oppose nor support 15.5 10.0 9.1

Support 24.2 10.0 22.7

Strongly support 44.1 70.6 47.0

Total Number of Respondents 161 340 132

Total % 100% 100% 100%

12%

3%

10% 15%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly oppose Oppose Neither oppose

nor support

Support Strongly support

Page | 26


Question 4

To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should be a mechanism established to monitor: a. Electricity Use to determine if a home is being used as a marijuana grow operation? b. Water Use to determine if a home is being used as a marijuana grow operation?

Opinions on whether there should be a mechanism established to monitor electricity and water use to determine if a house is being used as an MGO were quite consistent between the two categories. Approximately 60% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed there should be a mechanism put into place to monitor both water and electricity use.

Those who support monitoring electricity and water use suggest that with the proper privacy protections in place, this could be a positive initiative. Others suggest it should be the role of the power companies, not the government, to monitor such usage.

Those against the issue appear to see mechanisms to monitor electricity and water as a violation of privacy or were concerned that their own high rates of personal consumption could put them at risk of becoming suspected of operating an MGO in their home.

22%

6% 10%

21%

40%

23%

7% 11%

21%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly agree

Electricity Use Water Use

Page | 27


4a—Electricity Use

Level of Agreement

Region (%)


Strongly agree 28.6 17.2 30.1

Agree 11.2 4.5 4.5

Neither agree nor disagree 10.6 10.7 11.3

Disagree 20.5 20.8 24.1

Strongly disagree 29.2 46.9 30.1


Total % 100% 100% 100%

4b—Water Use

Level of Agreement

Region (%)



Agree 10.8 5.1 5.3


Disagree 20.3 21.2 24.1



Total % 100% 100% 100%

Page | 28


Question 5

After viewing the website, are you more aware of whom to contact if you suspect there is a marijuana grow operation in your neighbourhood?

More than 60% of respondents indicated they are very aware (35%) or extremely aware (28%) of whom to contact if they suspect there is a marijuana grow operation in their neighbourhood after viewing the website. A number of respondents indicated they already knew whom to contact.

Level of Awareness

Region (%)


Not at all aware 9.3 10.3 14.5

Slightly aware 8.6 7.7 6.0

Moderately aware 20 20.3 21.4

Very aware 30 35 35.9

Extremely aware 32.1 26.7 22.2

Total Number of


Total % 100% 100% 100%

10% 7%

20%

35%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not at all aware Slightly aware Moderately aware Very aware Extremely aware

Page | 29


Question 6

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the province of Alberta is currently doing enough to reduce the risks associated with marijuana grow operations?

The representation of responses to this question indicates that the majority of respondents, believe the Province of Alberta is not doing enough to reduce the risks associated with marijuana grow operations. More than 50% of respondents indicate they strongly disagree (27%) or disagree (25%) that the Province of Alberta is doing enough. Of respondents who definitively noted a lack of action, responses included a lack of law enforcement capacity, lax criminal punishment for grow operators and a need for stricter provincial standards.

Level of Agreement

Region (%)



Agree 23.8 25.6 27.1


Disagree 8.8 11.2 9.8


Total Number of


Total % 100% 100% 100%

27% 25%

31%

11% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly agree

Page | 30


Next Steps

This report highlights what was heard during the four-month consultation period with Albertans and industry, ministry and community stakeholders. Input, insights, suggestions and feedback from the consultations will be considered as recommendations are developed by Associate Minister Rick Fraser.

Associate Minister Fraser’s final report is expected to be submitted to Honourable Jonathan Denis, Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, in fall 2013. Cabinet will decide upon recommendations for action.

Alberta Justice and Solicitor General thanks the numerous stakeholders who participated in the consultation process in communities across the province. We appreciate your time, input and passion for protecting Albertans and ensuring our communities are safe.

For further information, contact [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

A J S G O F A I CONSULTATION REPORT What Was Heard€¦ · one in a neighbourhood. These include a skunk-like odour (or odour maskers, like mothballs or fabric softener, to prevent