what we heard grow op free alberta consultations

8/13/2019 What We Heard Grow Op Free Alberta Consultations

1/32

ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

GROW OP FREE ALBERTA INITIATIVE

CONSULTATION REPORT

What Was Heard

August 2013


2/32

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


3/32

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 weakenthe 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 appropriateremediation 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 throughoutthe 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 Disclosure2. Community and Environmental Impact3. Inspection and Remediation

4. Child Protection5. Safety and Health Hazards6. 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.


4/32

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 theconstruction 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

Actand 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 ALERTCombined 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 accessto 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 Albertas 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.


5/32

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 coalitionslocated 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 Hearddocument provides an overview of the six consultation

themes and summarizes the key issues that emerged. The information collected from online andmailed submissions is summarized and presented in the final section of this report.


6/32

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 thewalls 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 Servicespublic 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 knowndefects 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 generalcomplacency 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 vendorwith an unreported and undetected former grow operation.

Home inspectors are not specifically trained to identify damage caused by an MGO, and dueto 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.


7/32

Page | 5


Utility companies may be able to detect the presence ofMGOs 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 effectivenessgiven 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 privacylegislation.

As MGOs are detected and shut down in larger urban centres, there is concern thatoperators 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 reportsuspicious 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 isneeded; 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 isminimal.

There have been instances where community members have come forward after the MGOwas 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 detectedthroughout the province. A registry of former MGOs should be developed.

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

There is an overall need for more resources to educate the public and stakeholders on howto 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 whereneeded 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 ofMGO-related health and safety hazards.


Each municipality determines its own MGO response and notification protocols regardingthe 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


8/32

Page | 6


A publicly available registry of former MGOs in the province is needed; however, there wereconcerns 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 individualsare 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 tore-inhabit.


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

There are many victims of MGOs. Utility companies, homeowners, 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 fanout 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 aprocess in place to clarify when it is appropriate to share information.

Challenge 3: Disclosing information

Multiple challenges around disclosure of information limit Albertansability to make an

informed decision when purchasing a property.


Conflicting legislation and codes of ethics for realtors regarding obligations to disclose apropertys history as an MGOaffect the ability of prospective buyers to make an informed

decision.

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

Potential buyers should be aware of all information associated with an MGO property. Alegislated 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, whichcan 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 theirobligations 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. Unsuspectingpurchasers may have to remediate the property, spending upwards of $50,000 or more

above the purchase price.

Full disclosure is everybodys right, so

that Albertans can make an informed

choice about a residence they are

considering buying.

Expert Panel Member


9/32

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 formerMGO 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 medicalgrow 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 resourcesare diverted to investigate what may be a legal MGO.


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

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

There was a suggestion to review the Health Professions Actto ensure the College ofPhysicians 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,


10/32

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 ofpoured 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 inrural 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 withMGOs 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 activitieshad 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.Community stakeholders told us:

Complacency regarding MGOs is an issue. Stakeholders told us that MGOs cause damage tohomes, 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 communityengagement 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 arent designed for farming.

Police Stakeholder

Its really a communityproblem. When

police go in front of a camerawe see an

immediate increase in the number of tips

we receive.

Police Authority


11/32

Page | 9


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

Unless the provincial government plays a larger role, highly effective practices in largermunicipalities 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 propertyhas 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.Community stakeholders told us:

Alberta lacks a standard process for dealing with abandoned hazardous chemicals. Theremoval 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 causedby MGO activities do not exist.

Environmental consulting is not a regulated profession. Rather, the field is comprised ofpeople 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.


12/32

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 consistentprovincial process for inspecting and remediating MGOs.

When an MGO is detected and reported, it may go unremediated because the propertyowner 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 theobligations and cost that come with remediating the property.

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

There was acknowledgement that although Alberta Health Services processes for theassessment 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 formergrow operations be demolished.

A professional association or group of qualified remediation experts could aid in thedevelopment 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 modelin 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 ofcompanies developed to evaluate and remediate MGO properties.

The current tax recovery process is not designed to deal with former MGOs. Stakeholderssuggested 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 torecover their costswhether 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 mortgagelenders, which contributes to the difficulty of obtaining mortgages and insurance on

remediated properties.

Although Orders issued under thePublic Health Act, Municipal Government Act,and SafetyCodes Actinclude timelines, the remediation process is generally lengthy, convoluted andprone to delays.

The Municipal Government Actallows municipalities to deal with unsightly and unsafeproperties; however, the Act should more clearly define legitimate actions that

municipalities may take.


13/32

Page | 11



There is a need for a consistent provincial process. Stakeholders recommended theremediation 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 toa 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 requiresair quality testing after remediation iscomplete. However, Alberta Health Servicesguidelines 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.

Calgarys remediation processmay 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; safetycodes officers may not always have an

opportunity to inspect MGO-related

remediation.

Alberta Health Services is limited bythe 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 Actto order demolition, butthe conditions under which they can take action may be unclear.

Alberta Health Service executive officersorders usually work effectively, but if appealbodies 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 propertiesstill 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 isone and a half to two years, if the owner is engaged. If the owner walks away, remediationis 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 Acttomodify 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 doesnt go

through Alberta Health Services. All kinds of

guys are doing remediation.

Community Stakeholder


14/32

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 testingand 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 ofhiring 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.Community stakeholders told us:

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

There may be a gap in the building codes regarding air quality and humidity levels. Highhumidity 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 mandatedto 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 ofremediation.


Knowledge about a property being a remediated MGO would prompt owners to contactauthorities 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 andsafety codes officers) to do the assessment and remediation.


15/32

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 ruralmunicipalities.

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


Resources and assistance should be providedfor smaller, less experienced municipalities,

and the expertise developed in larger

municipalities should be shared through

education and training.

Most smaller municipalities have no list ofassessment 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 residentialproperties, 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 undergoingremediation.

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


Community stakeholders also agreed that licensed MGOs need ongoing inspections. Theysuggested 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 sortof provincial registry.

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

Legal doesnt mean safe, and there needs to be clear understanding of who is responsiblefor 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


16/32

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 hazardsphysical, 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 Albertas 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 andcost 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 servicespersonnel 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 obtainsearch 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 theneighbourhood.

When safety of children is concerned,

the priorities become ensuring the

welfare of the children rather than

emphasizing the apprehension of theMGO.

Police Stakeholder


17/32

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 issuesdiffers 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 childprotection 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, thejudiciary, service providers and the general public.

The powers and authorities of the Drug Endangered ChildrenActare generally poorlyunderstood, 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.


Restrictions and guidelines regarding the exposure of children to licensed grow operationsshould 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 propertys inhabitants andneighbours 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

hadnt been informed of the extent of

the health hazards and dangers they

pose.

Expert Panel Member


18/32

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 anothers jurisdiction.


There are distinct phases of remediation, each phase requiring the expertise of andcooperation 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 whoshould be involved.

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

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

A number of safety codes officers are involved in the process (electrical, gas, plumbing andbuilding), 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, amarijuana 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 areemployed by or under contract to municipalities, home inspectors who provide home

inspections as a consumer service and Alberta Health Services inspectors who providehealth inspections.

Safety during remediation is critical. Often contractors employ unskilled labour, who do notuse 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, byusing 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 theremediation process and evaluating the health risk atthe end of the process is advisable.

There is uncertainty among municipalities aboutwhether to use the Municipal Government Actor the

Safety Codes Actto enforce remediation standards.

Alberta Health Servicesguidelines require propertyowners to engage an environmental consultant to

We need a simplified process acrossthe provinceand to have the

legislation to back us up.

Expert Panel Member


19/32

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 legalprocesses and installations (structural,

mechanical and functional).

Regular security checks and screening ofpersonnel 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 corporatecitizens 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 doesnt have

the right to tell the provinces and

municipalities how to licensecommercial 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 Electri ication Association


20/32

Page | 18


There are no requirements for utilities to detectand report MGOs.

Some stakeholders put significant effort intodetecting 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 anMGO, although companies try to ensure the confidentiality of their employees.

The safety of utility employees is paramount and any revised process must not endangerthese 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 tosmart meters would be borne by consumers. The costs of the technology would be more

than the costs incurred by electricity theft.

From the utility companys perspective, the benefit of smart metering for the purposes ofdetection 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 utilitycompanies, 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 lawenforcement if governing legislation were different.

A distributor that invested in smart technology will be doing real time monitoring on allsites by 2015. Their legal advisors, however, have told them they cannot report individual

suspicious usage to the police.

Challenge 2: Unaccounted-for-energy line lossConsumers 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 variesgreatly 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 issafety hazards due to dangerous bypasses and

other structural modifications, which affect thesafety of employees, first responders and the

community as a whole.

One question to consider is whether the cost ofelectricity 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


21/32

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 informationwith authorities.

Ministry stakeholders told us1:

Uncertainty regarding the utility companiesability to share information with authoritiesdue 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 seeklegal 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 MGOsshould 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 electricitytheft related to MGOs.

What Was Heard from the Online Survey

Background

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

The website provided:o an overview of the consultation processo 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 MGOo 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 May28, 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 awarenessthat Albertans have about the risks and hazards that MGOs present in communities and to

determine the effectiveness of the websites 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/http://www.growop.alberta.ca/


22/32

Page | 20


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

for each question.

Six questions were developed on the basisof a Likert scale of five options ranging

from little or noto extreme

awareness/concern/support/agreementfor the various issues. This approach

allowed information to be gathered about

the degree to which:

o viewing the online interactive houseincreased respondentsawareness of

the signs of an MGO

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

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

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

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

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

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

The qualitative data was reviewed for consistent high level themes throughout, as well asany 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 followedby 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.2This is conveyed

in the maps provided by the Alberta Green Teamsthe 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.

2See Online Survey Results, below

3See 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 notseen 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.aspxhttp://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/safe/growop/Pages/growoperations.aspxhttp://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/safe/growop/Pages/growoperations.aspx


23/32

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.

CommunityNumber 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 Provinces consultations for stakeholders.The focus of

consultations was on the safety and health dangers associated with grow operations and thechallenges 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.



24/32

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 propertiespose 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 remediatedwas 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 sore

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 becamesick 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?



25/32

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 122Total % 100% 100% 100%

4For analysis of the online survey results, Edmontonincludes the City of Edmonton and Greater

Edmonton area, Calgaryincludes 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


26/32

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 notat 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 20.9Total Number of

Respondents 161 339 134

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


27/32

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 homebuyers 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


28/32

Page | 26


Question 4

To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should be a mechanism established to

monitor:

a. Electricity Useto determine if a home is being used as a marijuana grow operation?b. Water Useto 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


29/32

Page | 27


4aElectricity Use

Level of Agreement

Region (%)


Strongly agree 28.6 17.2 30.1Agree 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%

4bWater Use

Level of Agreement

Region (%)


Strongly agree 29.7 17.3 30.1

Agree 10.8 5.1 5.3


Disagree 20.3 21.2 24.1



Total % 100% 100% 100%


30/32

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


31/32

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 marijuanagrow 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 (%)


Strongly agree 25.0 30.0 20.3

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


32/32


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 Frasers 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, [email protected].
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

what we heard grow op free alberta consultations

Documents