ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — A Labrador town has officially ended the use of body cameras for its municipal enforcement officer, after the province's privacy commissioner said the program lacked safeguards.
The town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay signed a court consent order on Jan. 17 requiring it to stop collecting, using or disclosing personal information obtained from the cameras, Michael Harvey, Newfoundland and Labrador's information and privacy commissioner, said Monday.
"This (program) was novel and the technology is pretty privacy invasive in the sense that it collects a maximum amount of information about anyone who is seen on that camera, anyone who is around and the officers themselves," he said in an interview.
Happy Valley-Goose Bay had been using cameras for its municipal enforcement and animal control officers since July 2020, and Harvey said that to his knowledge, the town was the first public body in the province to implement a camera program.
The town's use of the body cameras gained notoriety in October 2020, when a video surfaced on social media appearing to show a municipal enforcement officer throwing an Inuk man to the ground.
Harvey announced in December of that year that his office was investigating the program. He released a report last May concluding the body cameras had the potential to capture more information than needed for the town's purposes.
His report said that Happy Valley-Goose Bay's program lacked safeguards such as secure storage, data manipulation protection and clear rules as to how many people where allowed to view the footage. He also noted that the town did not have a policy for the handling of access requests or privacy complaints related to the use of the cameras.
Harvey said the town had three body cameras: one was used by the municipal enforcement officer, another was used by the animal control officer, and the third camera was held in reserve.
One of his primary concerns was that the municipal enforcement officer has policing authority for some duties and not for others.
"This gets into the question of when do you turn it (the camera) on and off," Harvey said. "It's complicated enough for police officers … and we had some concerns that hadn't adequately been dealt with in policy."
The report noted that the town had put its body camera program on hold, but Harvey recommended it be formally suspended immediately. It said any future program would have to be compliant with the province's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Town officials responded by filing a court application questioning the authority of Harvey's recommendations.
Happy Valley-Goose Bay Mayor George Andrews said in an interview Monday that although the camera program has not been active since before the privacy commissioner's report, town council has still not rescinded its camera policy.
"If we wish to proceed, I think there needs to be a new policy put in place is what the intent of this (consent order) was," Andrews said.
He said a new council has been elected since the program was launched. Moving forward, he said, council would adhere to the privacy commissioner's recommendations if it decides to equip its officers again.
"We would put a policy in place that is legal and complies with the (provincial) act and is vetted through the commissioner's office," he said.
Harvey said the new legal agreement doesn't prevent Happy Valley-Goose Bay or any other town from mounting a body camera program in the future.
"We are not saying no body-worn cameras ever," he said. "We are saying that like every public program it needs to be compliant with the law."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 31, 2022.
— By Keith Doucette in Halifax.
The Canadian Press
