New Paragraph

Canada’s new border security plan: Where’s the people?
December 20, 2024

$1.3 billion is a lot of money, but it’s nothing more than a good start.

I watched the announcement of Canada’s $1.3 billion six-year plan to “beef up the U.S.-Canada border with helicopters, drones, surveillance towers and sniffer dogs”, as well as a "joint strike force" to target transnational organized crime”, with great interest. Sounded pretty good to the uninformed voter. But what the announcement didn’t include was people to do the work.


All of this comes as a result of President Elect Trump threatening tariffs on Canadian goods if Canada doesn’t get its border security act together. He is concerned that people are illegally entering the U.S through Canada and there is fentanyl being manufactured in Canada and heading south as well. Valid concerns but who’s problem is it? Some argue that the U.S. is responsible to ensure contraband and people don’t enter their country illegally, and not Canada. I agree BUT, as good long-time neighbours and allies, I think we do have a responsibility to work with our American friends for the benefit of both countries. We have tons of guns and narcotics coming north, they have some illegal aliens and drugs heading their way. It makes sense that we work cooperatively.


The recruiting of 100 to 150 people for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and RCMP combined as quoted in the media follow-up, will not go far in conducting investigations, gathering and analyzing intelligence, operating the technology, stopping illegal aliens to and fro, interdicting vehicles and people with smuggled goods on the ground and making arrests. Our border is over 5000 miles long and needs to be secured 24 hours a day, every day of the year to keep deadly guns and other dangerous commodities from entering our country. The meager promise of 150 people maximum would equate to an extra officer here and there in various locations across the land. It’s peanuts.


Helicopters, drones and other technology are very costly musts in the security realm, and long overdue, so that’s a good thing. Acquiring the resources and then maintaining them are tremendous costs to consider going forward, however. $1.3B over a six-year duration will not go far.


CBSA only works at border ‘Points of Entry’, or what Canadians know as border crossings. Interdiction between those points is the responsibility of the RCMP from coast to coast. Mark Weber, the President of the Canada’s Customs and Immigration Union, says CBSA lost 1100 officers under the Harper government and are currently short between 2000 and 3000 members. Weber lists a number of things their officers do not have sufficient staffing to do each day, like check international railway traffic. They didn’t check shipping containers at the Port of Montreal until this past year either, but they redeployed officers for that purpose and have recovered many stolen vehicles that were destined for Eastern Europe and elsewhere. The redeployment of officers for that purpose means something else doesn’t get done at some other CBSA locations. It’s like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Eventually the ship is going to sink and that’s unacceptable when it comes to border security – which includes national security issues to some extent.


Recruiting, training and equipping officers comes at a tremendous cost, and would take a significant amount of time to see it through. The RCMP are already short thousands of officers across the 10 provinces. It is no secret in the policing world that they do not have the people to meet their current federal mandates now. A renewed focus on border integrity by the RCMP within their current funding and staffing envelopes is a pipe dream.


The RCMP has concerning vacancy rates in their provincial contract locations and have publicly stated they are in a recruitment crisis and struggling to meet the needs of their attrition rates. The National Police Federation (the RCMP member’s association) has stated that they are short 1000 officers to modernize and bolster the RCMP’s Federal Policing Program, which includes Border Integrity. Through no fault of the members themselves, the RCMP is hurting.


The announcement also spoke of information sharing and a U.S. / Canada “Task Force” to patrol the border. But to some extent we already do.


I’m sure Trump doesn’t have a clue that U.S. Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies do work very well together and share information regularly. The Canadian resources involved on that front aren’t plentiful though. It involves but a handful of bodies.


The U.S.-led Border Security Task Force (BEST) has been in place at several high-volume border crossings, i.e. Buffalo/ Fort Erie, Detroit / Windsor, etc., for 15 years or more, and in the U.S. / Ontario locations, the OPP, RCMP and other Canadian law enforcement agencies have officers imbedded in those units to facilitate information sharing and cooperative efforts. They are intelligence-led and do some great investigative and surveillance work on both sides of the border. So, it is happening to some degree. It’s just not nearly enough.


The need for more and larger teams would definitely be beneficial both ways, with sufficient federal staffing in place to monitor the border more broadly, 24/7. But, once again, that requires people – “our most important resource” and our most expensive.


Whether were talking about CBSA or RCMP personnel, one officer – fully trained, with salary, benefits and equipment would cost (give or take) $250k per year per. To give the RCMP and CBSA even 2000 members each would be an investment of $1B per year, and in my opinion that would not even begin to meet their current staffing shortfalls, let alone significantly enhance our border security apparatus.


None of these critical staffing needs could be acquired overnight. It would require a significant and long-term strategy and a tremendous financial commitment that is far above and beyond what is contained in this plan.


This cannot wait another six years to take shape. A political announcement to appease the incoming U.S President that contains some needed resources but a total absence of people, just doesn’t cut it. It has to happen now.

 

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.