Skip to main content

It’s fair to say that as far as body-worn cameras go, Happy Valley-Goose Bay’s experiment has been a bust. One year ago, the municipality of 8,000 people in Labrador started outfitting its officers with the devices, joining dozens of Canadian jurisdictions in acquiring an increasingly affordable technology in the name of accountability.

But the town – which used the devices for only four months before suspending the program – didn’t buy its body-worn cameras (BWCs) for police. Rather, it got one for its animal control officer and another for the officer who enforces bylaws and other matters.

So when the provincial privacy commissioner looked into the matter, he was perplexed. Why would these municipal officers need body-worn cameras, anyway?

“It’s hard to believe that of all the places in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Town of Happy Valley Goose Bay is the one place where BWCs are justified,” Michael Harvey wrote in his May 4 report.

Observers say the issue could have implications across Canada. It’s a cautionary tale about technology, one that will force government officials to sharpen their thinking about which levels of law enforcement should wear the devices – and which should not – before anyone’s image is captured on camera.

Happy Valley-Goose Bay’s town council approved bodycams last summer in a five-page policy document. The mayor and town councillors were authorized to view footage.

Municipal enforcement officers are not police, but they can at times exercise powers of arrest. This has raised concerns in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, a regional hub that is grappling with a growing homeless population, and which, like many communities, contracts policing services from the federally run Mounties.

“We’re grossly understaffed by RCMP members here,” Bert Pomeroy, Happy Valley-Goose Bay’s deputy mayor, said in an interview. He added that this and the homelessness crisis is spawning nuisance complaints from the public that expose municipal staff to allegations of wrongdoing as they struggle to fill gaps in law enforcement. “If we had three or four officers going in at one time, maybe we wouldn’t need our cameras,” he said, “but the situation is we have one municipal enforcement officer and one animal control officer.”

Last October, the municipal enforcement officer was at the centre of a controversy arising from his arrest of an Indigenous man – an event captured on a bystander’s cellphone and posted to Facebook. The NunatuKavut Community Council denounced it as “brute and unnecessary force”, and demanded an “in-depth review of footage from the officer’s body camera.”

That same month, the town suspended its program. Weeks later, Mr. Harvey launched a formal investigation into bodycams. The report he released this month says municipal law-enforcement officials do not have the same legal latitude to wear surveillance gear that police officers do. “The town has not demonstrated that it has the authority to collect personal information using BWCs to the extent intended by the town.”

Calling the practice akin to unlawful surveillance, the commissioner added that “the town’s BWC program has been done precisely backward.” He ordered a permanent stop to the program “until such time that it can demonstrate full compliance” with privacy laws.

Last week, the town took Mr. Harvey to court. It is asking a judge to quash the order on the grounds that it was “made in excess of the [privacy commissioner’s] jurisdiction and powers.”

The legal bid also argues that Mr. Harvey’s criticisms were “moot” because the municipality has announced no plans to revive the bodycam program. Meantime, town clerk Nadine MacAulay, wrote an open May 18 letter telling Mr. Harvey his office “has no authority to blankly demand the town demonstrate anything about its program.” Her letter accuses the privacy commissioner of disdain, unprofessionalism and “unnecessarily adversarial hyperbole.”

Mr. Pomeroy said, “I think our goal is to put public safety and the safety of our town employees first.”

He argued that the technology can clear civic officials of wrongful allegations. “If you receive a complaint in a small town of ‘Your animal enforcement officer was down here and he was he was doing this, and he was doing that, and he was saying this and he was saying that, he was threatening me, and blah, blah, blah’ – well, then, the camera doesn’t lie, does it?”

U.S. police forces started outfitting officers with such cameras years ago. The technology, which is always getting cheaper, has become so common in the United States it is now moving onto the uniforms of security guards and landscapers.

The past year’s use-of-force controversies – especially the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis – propelled police forces in Canada to negotiate contracts for body-worn cameras. But the forces often consult the officials who enforce Canada’s relatively robust privacy laws before they roll out the gear.

This week, Canada’s second-largest police force announced it would conduct a localized test of bodycams. The Ontario Provincial Police “has been in consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to address the privacy issue,” spokesman Derek Rogers said. He added that the OPP’s policies would follow the principles the Toronto Police Service laid out in a 14-page policy document it posted after launching its program last year.

Several privacy commissioners agreed with Mr. Harvey’s findings. “Our office supports the decision,” said Vito Pilieci, a spokesman for the federal privacy commissioner. He said his office has been discussing the legalities of body-worn cameras with the RCMP for eight years. The Mounties plan to roll out a bodycam program this year for half of its nearly 20,000 officers across Canada.

The federal privacy commissioner’s office was unaware of body-worn cameras being used outside of policing, Mr. Pilieci said. B.C. Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy also said he has never encountered the issue. In an interview, he argued that any organization thinking of acquiring such devices needs to study up on the law first.

“Just because you can,” he said, “doesn’t mean you should.”

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Follow related authors and topics

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Interact with The Globe