In 鈥淕arbage Police, brought to you by Courtenay council,鈥� I wrote with a tone that was disrespectful to people at the City and for that, I apologize.

The concerns I raised about how the Garbage Police system could be used still stand, however, even after a lengthy council discussion on Dec. 6 and a response column by the mayor. The government鈥檚 Garbage Police system is flawed, allowing for selective enforcement and abuse, and the flaws threaten citizens, not the government.

In response to my article, staff and council defended the garbage system by saying it is not intended to be used as I was suggesting. The city and councillors said the concern of abuse against citizens is not warranted, because the intent of the plan is to educate citizens. Enforcement would come in a tiny number of cases.

This intention holds no weight in the city鈥檚 policy.

The city鈥檚 five-step gives full clearance to disregard the steps it defines as education. It reads, 鈥淎t any time, for any reason, and in their sole discretion, the Director may deviate from any of the below suggested enforcement steps, or take any other enforcement steps available under the Solid Waste Management Bylaw or at law generally where contamination is discovered in a collection cart鈥�. The city at any time for any reason can disregard intentions to educate and instead penalize citizens, such as by tickets or suspensions.

In my opinion, that鈥檚 all that matters.

If the city is free to deviate from its education plan, and is also free to punish some citizens while others, the system is ripe for favoritism and abuse. When it comes to something as invasive as garbage searches, truly there should be better protections in play for citizens. We鈥檙e talking about inspecting the contents of someone鈥檚 garbage, not selectively enforcing fence height bylaws.

I referred to the incident involving Aaron House Ministries.

I used that as an example of willingness by local leaders to use selective enforcement against citizens. To be clear, that was a council decision, not city, but it still shows cultural acceptance and willingness to use power against citizens for things as arbitrary as beliefs about gender and sexuality.

The same can happen with the power wielded by the City for waste audits, I fear.

The issue with the garbage system is that the city is casting a wide net to accomplish a narrow goal. In order to hit cleaner garbage targets, the city is creating a system that is subject to abuse, creates massive risk of unintended consequences, and demolishes privacy boundaries.

The new waste bylaw, , 2023 introduced Right of Entry onto citizens property to search garbage.

As the new bylaw reads, 鈥�52. The City, including the Contractor, have the right to enter at all reasonable times upon any Property subject to this Bylaw for the purposes of confirming an Owner or Occupier鈥檚 compliance with this Bylaw, including 鈥� d. inspecting for Contamination or to perform a Waste Audit.鈥�

As of council鈥檚 unanimous vote on Dec. 6, bylaw officers can enter private property 鈥渁t all reasonable times鈥� to search garbage carts.

I caution again about unintended consequences. This ease of access onto private property will expose citizens to 鈥渋ncidental鈥� findings, where officers enter to search garbage, but then find unrelated violations while on the property and have authority to punish for what was incidentally found.

The protection for citizens offered by the city is a policy that describes how bylaw officers would communicate (give warnings) before resorting to enforcement, however, like aspects I mentioned of the Garbage Police system, it鈥檚 not an obligation, so I believe it does not actually offer real protection for citizens.

The mayor鈥檚 response article said the City of Courtenay is following 鈥渋ndustry best practices鈥� by introducing the program: other communities have adopted similar garbage systems first. I found that gives Right of Entry to RCMP officers to enter citizens鈥� property to search garbage carts. That is not something Courtenay should follow behind. These may be best practices for governments, but not for citizens.