New Paragraph

Are Canada’s Crime Rates Surpassing U.S.A.’s?
December 4, 2024

I don’t buy it.

A recent Fraser Institute report claims that homicide rates aside, Canada’s crime rates in a number of categories have spiraled ahead of those in the U.S.


They claim:

Since 2014, property crimes (theft, fraud, breaking and entering for example) have increased in Canada, and by 2022 was 27.5% higher than in the U.S.


That should concern all Canadians in my view, but I’d like to put the Fraser statement into context.

American writer Evan Esar once said that the definition of statistics is: “The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.” Certainly, in some cases, we should question the veracity of the stats.


The Fraser Institute is a highly regarded and ethical organization, so I do not doubt their reporting whatsoever. I do question whether the U.S. data used in this instance is accurate or complete.


Canada’s crime statistics are tracked and reported on by the federal government. What is known as Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data is supplied by Canadian police agencies at all levels, as part of a mandatory process. It provides data for analysis, resource allocation, planning and comparison purposes, as well as for government decision-making as to policy and legislative considerations. As it is police generated, it only contains data regarding crimes that the police are aware of – either through citizen reporting or officer awareness.


Although the U.S. program has the same name and intent, it is a voluntary program. There are more than 18,000 police departments in the U.S.A. (versus 160 in Canada). Many of those departments have but a handful of officers and some even less. I am told by U.S. colleagues that an alarming percentage of the smaller departments still use paper reports/records and are not completely computerized. Not all police services supply stats to the U.S. UCR database and in fact it is reported that only 40% reported anything in 2021. Additionally, some reports say that not all police departments submit ALL their data, but only some of it.


The Fraser Institute acknowledges that the stats between countries aren’t necessarily apples to apples, saying that: “There are also issues with the comparability of crime rate data between the two countries due to the differing definitions of crimes and crime classifications (the study has sought to adjust for these differences).”


Regardless of the validity of the numbers, it is concerning that Canada’s crime rates are increasing at all. Why is it happening?


Undoubtedly, socio-economic factors are behind many causation factors, most or all of which cannot be controlled or solved by police services. They simply result in a response by police when they occur.

Mental health, addiction and poverty are significant issues in Canada. If they weren’t, policing would be a cakewalk and cost so much less.


In our ‘Post Covid’ world, Canada is seeing a huge increase in youth crime – including violence. Many young people spent their early teen years and since, having little face to face contact with peers (and adults other than their parents), but instead engaged in social media interaction. The mental health impacts of that period show increased levels of anxiety, and the emotional and behavioural impacts are far from being totally understood.


Some say, and I agree, that there is a diminished fear of consequences in society. Day after day we learn of criminals being apprehended, charged, released, re-arrested and so on. Our bail, sentencing and parole systems do little to stem the concerning catch and release cycle in which many assume to be the new norm. What message is the justice system sending to would be criminals? I realize we can’t keep everyone locked up for every offence, but recidivism shouldn’t be allowed to flourish.


What is the state of parenting out there? Whatever happened to the right from wrong and firm but fair parenting that baby-boomers like me experienced? Fear of dad and/or mom was an equal concern than the fear of the police for me as a youngster and teen. You don’t have to watch the media much now to see videos of mothers and fathers attacking police for ‘picking on’ their kids, who of course are always a “good boy”, despite committing egregious offences.


Organized Crime groups have had a growing impact on local crime in recent years. They recruit young people to commit the front-end crimes like stealing automobiles from our driveways, or committing brazen group thefts from retail stores, knowing they won’t be harshly punished if caught. And we’ve all seen the growth industries of auto and retail theft.


Sadly, there are not enough police officers in some communities to prevent, respond to or investigate the many crimes they face. A triage of sorts results in a slower response and less investigative follow-up for many thefts and other property crimes. Comparatively, I remember spending many hours investigating minor thefts as a young officer up north. But we didn’t have as many competing response priorities. Car thefts were rare; we didn’t have street gangs, car-jackings, home invasions, or many mental health issues to deal with; we had little violent crime, and seldom saw a firearm that wasn’t a hunting rifle. That was then, but the new reality brings a zillion emerging challenges.


But we must remain confident that our police services continue do their very best while working with partner agencies of all sorts to prevent and investigate the heck out of all crimes. In the meantime, we need to support them and advocate for them for funding and staffing, and although we must ensure their accountability, we should NOT vilify them for every honest mistake or for not being all things to all people 24/7.


They cannot do it alone.

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.