New Paragraph

And the show must go on!
September 25, 2025

Government is determined to buy back guns from licensed owners

Sadly, this ridiculous Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program continues.


The goal is to take previously "legal" guns out of the hands of lawful owners – who are not the problem when it comes to gun violence. It will do nothing to help police and border security agents take illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals who really are a threat to public safety and the safety of police officers across the land. It is smuggled handguns in the hands of street gangs and other criminals that really are taking lives in our streets. Not the long guns that government is going after here – which may look like the long-banned assault rifles in colour and design but are not military rifles or “weapons of war.” They just look scary.


(See previous article: https://www.lighthouseleadershipservices.com/the-expansion-of-the-federal-firearms-ban )


The weapons they are after are often described by government as “AR-15 type rifles”. The Colt AR-15 looks very much like the U.S. Military M-16 of the Viet Nam War era. The M-16, also made by Colt, was an assault rifle. It was fashioned after the AR-15 but could be fired in fully-automatic or burst mode (3 rounds for each trigger pull), whereas the AR-15 was not designed for the military and is a semi-automatic rifle, meaning the trigger must be pulled once for each round fired.


In a 2017 NBC News article, the popularity of the AR-15 is described as follows:


…the AR-15 grew popular not only among people who enjoyed owning the latest tactical gear, but also among recreational and competitive target shooters, and hunters. Many saw it as a pinnacle of firearms engineering — ergonomic, accurate, reliable. “It’s kind of the standard, de-facto rifle now,” said Evan Daire, 23, a gun-range worker in New Jersey who aspires to become a professional target shooter. “No matter what role you’re looking at, it pretty much fills that role.”[i]


To many people, the military look, the construction of a black plastic and metal combination, the light weight and versatility, are appealing. It has that ‘tactical look’ that some people just think is ‘cool.’


The true “Assault Rifle” (fully automatic, etc.) has been prohibited (banned) in Canada for decades. Large capacity magazines are banned in Canada. So, the semi-automatic AR-15, with a legal 5 round magazine, is no more deadly than any semi-automatic hunting rifle with a typical brown wooden stock. It just looks more ominous because to the untrained eye it appears to be an assault rifle.


The AR-15 was not restricted or prohibited in Canada at one time but was eventually designated as a “Restricted” weapon by the Liberal government of the day, meaning that ownership of same required a higher threshold to be met than most hunting rifles or shotguns. That designation was removed by a subsequent Conservative government then put back into place by another Liberal government. The Trudeau Liberal government designated it as a “Prohibited” in its most recent firearms bill. Government claims that the AR-15 and other similar rifles “are specifically designed to inflict mass human casualties and have no place in Canadian society.” Not true.


Recently, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree announced that a pilot project for the buy-back program (including AR-15s) will take place in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Lawful owners – who are currently licensed to possess this previously restricted but now prohibited rifle, are encouraged to surrender their guns and be reimbursed for them until October 2026. It’s reported that the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) has stated they will not participate, and some other Canadian police services are leaning that way as well. Police services have only so many people to do the growing list of things they have to do.


Muddying the waters completely is the leaked audio recording of the Public Safety Minister expressing concerns about the efficacy of the program and the political motivation behind it, basically the very concerns being raised by the lawful owners of the weapons being sought by government.


The actual AR-15 has been used in a handful of murders in Canada, as have other military looking rifles. The semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14 was used in the Montreal École Polytechnique mass murder in 1989 and in the Portapique rampage in 2020, as was an AR-15 and another similar semi-automatic rifle. The Nova Scotia shooter was not licensed to possess any firearms. Both the other rifles he used have both been similarly banned at the same time as the AR-15. Historically, there hasn’t been many mass shootings in Canada compared to the U.S., and only a small percentage of those involved an AR-15 style rifle. I assume in part that is because those that own such Restricted weapons in Canada are licensed, trained, have had background checks and store safely as per our tight firearms legislation.


Let there be no doubt that any murder is tragic and unacceptable, whether it’s by firearm, knife, motor vehicle of whatever means. However, comparatively, the number of people slaughtered by illegally obtained pistols in the hands of people that were not licensed to possess any firearm, is staggering and ever-increasing. This legislation does nothing to address that issue.


Various reports estimate the cost of buy-back program to be in the several hundreds of millions. A year ago, it was reported that the program had already cost $67 million and had yet to acquire one gun. There’s a pile of tax dollars at play here, for something that even the Minister overseeing it apparently has misgivings about.


The RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) are both woefully underfunded and understaffed. They are the pointy end of the stick for securing our international border with the United States, in terms of firearms and drug smuggling, among other commodities. Would the considerable funding for the buyback program not be better spent by investing more in the RCMP and CBSA for human and physical resources? Leave the AR-15 style weapons as Restricted and use the money elsewhere.


By having properly funded federal, provincial and local law enforcement working together with U.S. authorities to investigate known importers/exporters at the same time the border integrity is finally seriously tightened, a significant difference in the northbound flow of handguns could be achieved. That would give Canada a way better bang for the precious buck rather than spending countless millions of taxpayer dollars to take away guns that statistically are not a threat to public safety, from people that statistically aren’t a threat either.


But so far, that isn’t the strategy.


  [i] Schuppe, Jon, America's rifle: Why so many people love the AR-15, NBC News, December 27, 2017, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

By Chris Lewis • March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.