New Paragraph

Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss?
February 5, 2020

I, like millions of others across North America, watched the unfolding events of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election with baited breath and loss of sleep. Why? I’m not an American. I wasn’t voting. Actually I wasn’t particularly impressed with the credibility of either of the nominees. But I am a newsy; have lived in a number of U.S./Canada border cities; have travelled the U.S. extensively for work and pleasure; and have many American friends that would be impacted by the selection of the 45th President of the United States of America. In fact the reality was and is that the vast majority of the 7.5 million inhabitants of this planet have the potential of being impacted by the decision of the American people when electing a President.


Since November 9th, I’ve keenly followed the activities of President Elect and then President Trump – and his team, with awe. Mostly out of morbid curiosity of what jaw-dropping “Breaking News” story they may create next. It is often like watching a twisted social experiment that is akin to many reality TV shows, but that is just a coincidence I’m sure.

I wanted President Trump to succeed and I still do. I pray that the U.S. prospers over the four years of his tenure. I liked “some” of his ideas around injecting more proven business strategies into Washington, as well as his professed support of the military, Homeland Security and law enforcement. I knew that he was a flamboyant showman and salesman, but truly hoped that he would also be a “leader”. However I’m sad to report that in my view his “leader” ship has sailed.


Consider this: Through their words and actions, true leaders inspire all of those around them to do and be their very best. They communicate effectively, respectfully and listen to the suggestions and feedback of others. They make decisions based on what is best for the people, as opposed to what will advance their personal agendas or feed their egos. When things go bad, they take the blame and don’t throw others under the bus. When things go well, they pass on the credit – letting the light shine on those they have the honour to lead. They set a positive example of honesty and integrity at all times, and in doing so, they build the trust of those they lead and serve.


Is this what we are seeing from Donald Trump? No. Far from it I’m afraid.


Almost everything that publicly comes out of his mouth is either an exaggeration or a complete untruth. He takes credit for things that he didn’t make happen or never happened at all. He is incapable of admitting a mistake – fueling mistrust when he defends himself through his outright denials or during a series of changing renditions. While doing so, he destroys the credibility of his team and his V.P., as they stick to the occasional true version or often a contrived script while he blurts out contrary remarks. True leaders work with staff to develop consistent but “true” messaging, then speak the truth within established legal parameters. It’s a lot easier, less confusing and much safer.


His communication style is far from authentic or demonstrative of strong leadership. Very few sentences don’t contain his irritating catch-phrases, “tremendous”, “incredible”, “amazing”, “lots of people are saying” and “believe me”. Continually bragging about his alleged successes being much greater than those of predecessor Presidents does little to bolster his credibility amongst the majority of Americans and international observers. That includes consistent reveling about his Electoral College win over opponent Hillary Clinton to deflect from the emerging White House fiasco of the day.


He responds impulsively on social media to anything or anyone he feels may be critical of him, continually digging an ever deeper hole for himself with a 140-character shovel. He constantly spews out inaccurate and divisive rhetoric – on national, international and partisan fronts. He may be inspiring his die-hard base with his brashness in the process, but concurrently pushes international allies further away. Is that what is truly best for the U.S., its relationships, security, economy or citizenry? Is that “leadership”?


Hourly, he tries to convince the public that any media reports that are critical of him or members of his staff are "fake media". This from a man who often during the election campaign and several times since, has made completely nonsensical claims himself, including implicating the father of one of his GOP nomination competitors in the murder of President John F. Kennedy in 1963!


Is it effective leadership to jaundice members of the public against certain media outlets when the public should be able to rely on reports from those very same sources in emergency situations? The same would apply to his referring to the several committee and Justice Department inquiries into various allegations against election team members as nothing more than a “witch hunt.” How does that boost public confidence in these investigations? He’s obviously trying to preemptively discredit results that may point finger at him or his associates. A confident leader would reassure the public by stating: “I fully support the processes and look forward to the results”, then quietly allow them all to run their course.


Donald Trump makes decisions that affect government and the country based on his temper and or personal bias. Great leaders simply don’t do that, even on a micro scale. He fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates on January 30th because she didn’t support his so-called travel ban. Yates, on the other hand, made her decision despite knowing it would be unpopular with the President, due to her sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Who emerges as the true leader in that scenario? Coincidentally, her January 30th firing was 4 days after Yates alerted White House Counsel that President Trump’s chosen National Security Advisor was in fact a national security liability. Trump then waited almost 2 weeks to fire Flynn.


True leaders don’t publicly bad-mouth employees. President Trump told Russian visitors to the White House that recently fired FBI Director James Comey is “crazy, a real nut job”. Trump wasn’t a factory foreman talking to a close confidant over a beverage. He is the President of the United States for heaven’s sake and was talking to geopolitical foes about the leader of one of the world’s most respected law enforcement agencies. Trump fired Director Comey after being rebuffed on his request for Comey’s “loyalty” and his subsequent comments to the media showed a complete lack of leadership. Referring to a dedicated career public servant as a “grandstander” and a “showboat” during a nationally televised interview is the antithesis of leadership and professionalism. Former Director James Comey has more leadership ability and class in his pinky-finger than Donald Trump has in his entire body.


Trump continually laments over the leaks of communications within the White House. Not that such illegal disclosures are ever acceptable, but has he ever considered why that is now happening with such alarming regularity? Has that sort of activity occurred during any past presidency? Perhaps it did to a lesser degree during the Nixon administration – which coincidentally was also a leadership debacle, but at no other time since. It’s an obvious example of my belief that “when leadership is bad – employee morale goes bad, trust and respect dissolve and bad things happen.”


A “boss” – not a leader, is routinely described as a master, a controller and a manipulator. Think about that. Does the current President of the United States routinely display the qualities of a leader or of a boss? In answering that question, some of his supporters will harken back to a recent White House decision they liked or the fact they were impressed with a public statement the President once made. Yes, he will embolden his base with the occasional win while delivering a speech somebody else wrote for him and is a total pivot from his campaign rhetoric, but that doesn't make him a leader. A number of dictators through history were viewed as oratory successes when addressing sympathetic audiences.



The 6th President of the United States, John Quincy Adams once said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”

The 45th President on the other hand, has a lot to learn. Hugely.

Should the Police Chief be blamed for the misdeeds of subordinates?

By Chris Lewis • February 13, 2026
I say "No."

When Oversight Becomes Overreach: Why a Few Bad Officers Must Not Redefine Policing

By Chris Lewis • February 11, 2026
Policing depends on public trust. So does police oversight. When either loses credibility, both suffer and the public they are sworn to serve isn’t sure who to believe or where to turn. In recent years, calls for stronger police oversight have grown louder, often driven by a small number of high-profile misconduct cases. Confidence in institutions by the public – often fueled by ridiculous social media theories and damnations, is more fragile than in the past, and reputational damage spreads faster. Despite the fact that Canadian police officers operate under tight legislative and regulatory frameworks that exceed any other Canadian profession in my view, existing oversight bodies feel pressure to take action quickly when bad things happen, as isolated as they may be. But there is a risk in this moment that deserves equal attention: the risk of overreach. The seven officers who have been alleged to have committed crimes – including serious ones that involve organized crime, must not be allowed to redefine an entire profession. Public trust certainly adds urgency to this moment. When corruption cases like this surface, the public does not necessarily see them as isolated failures. They see a system that is broken and in my view in this instance they see that unfairly. Policing is unlike most professions. There are over 70,000 police officers in Canada, comprised of federal, provincial and municipal officers that work under the worst of circumstances at times and face the harshest of critics. As a result of the arrests of seven serving Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers as well as a retired officer, then the subsequent suspension of two additional TPS officers and two Peel Regional Police Service officers, a large portion of the Canadian public are focusing on the ‘bad’ and forgetting the wonderful and brave police work occurring in their communities 24/7. Officers exercise coercive authority on the public on behalf of the public, often in volatile environments. They have right to take away people’s liberty and in the worst of situations to take lives. That authority most definitely demands the greatest of accountability, but it also demands reasonable, sensible and balanced oversight. Oversight systems designed around ‘worst-case scenarios’ risk governing by exception rather than thoughtful considerations and reality. One of the most overlooked consequences of overly broad oversight is its impact on ethical officers. When serious misconduct is identified, entire services face scrutiny and as a result of the Inspector General of Policing’s announcement to inspect all 45 police services in Ontario, the impacts are far reaching and not isolated to the police service of the members in question. The risk is that the resulting collective stigma will not only damage public trust but will also hurt officer morale; officer initiative may decline; recruiting could be impacted; and the reputation of the entire profession across Ontario will be damaged because of the alleged actions of a few. Oversight that blurs critical lines risks judging officers by association rather than their individual conduct. Officer trust in the oversight system and public trust in the policing profession could both be further harmed. As a result, both the Toronto Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario have rightfully expressed their concern regarding the inspection of all of Ontario’s police services. Their distress is that the announcement may be read by many that police corruption is rife across the province. At this point we do not know how much of this alleged criminal activity occurred off duty, versus on. We don’t know all the details of what they may have done and how, let alone what processes, policies or systems within the TPS that may have to be examined by the Inspector General. He may well have identified them all, but perhaps not. As the investigation portion by police continues, more things for inspection may be identified. In the meantime, I have no doubt that Ontario’s police Chiefs are reviewing their processes based on what they know so far, to ensure their policies, systems and internal oversight mechanisms are as tight as they can reasonably be. The seven charged officers are suspended and before the courts. The justice system is entrusted with dealing with these allegations from here. Others not charged but under investigation are suspended as well. There was no rush to begin a review process as this unfolds. Announcing that it will occur when the criminal investigation is complete and when they are armed with a more fulsome understanding of the issues that should be examined, would have been more appropriate. None of this lessens the need for accountability. It argues for thoughtful processes, analysis and reporting. Misconduct should be addressed decisively and dealt with through due process as it is, but broad oversight driven by isolated wrongdoings risks weakening the institutions we all depend on. Public trust matters. Undoubtedly. But so does institutional trust in police officers. In my view, processes that signal broad-based suspicion undermine the trust they are meant to protect. Oversight works best when it is firm, fair, and controlled.

Police corruption arrests: How do we move on from here?

By Chris Lewis • February 7, 2026
Thursday’s announcement of the arrest of seven serving and one retired Toronto police officers for corruption, was a dark moment for policing in Canada and for the communities that trust their police to always do what is honest and right. At times like this it is too easy for us all to lose trust in those in which we should hold the highest level of trust in society, because of the actions of a few. I believe that we must remind ourselves about all that is good in policing in Canada – where training, standards, equipment, professionalism, governance and competence are second to none in the world. I view this as both bad news and good news stories. The bad news is that seven officers allegedly broke their oaths and committed heinous crimes. Startling, sad and completely unacceptable for the profession and more importantly for the public they were sworn to serve. The “good” news (although I struggle with the word) is that the system worked. Suspicions arose about a certain Toronto Police (TPS) officer’s potential involvement in a crime in York Region. Police there notified the Chief of the TPS, and they quickly agreed that York Regional Police (YRP) would lead the investigation, and TPS would remain in a support role by providing Professional Standards investigators and other assistance as required. I assume that would mean investigative support personnel and access to internal information about the TPS officers in question, like their schedules; what police cars they were driving; assignments and personnel file information, at minimum. By design, the TPS Chief did not have decision-making authority in the investigation. None of that raises any red flags for me. This was a large and complex investigation that eventually involved 400 officers and would require highly experienced investigators and specialty personnel. YRP and TPS have all of that and more. The leaders that addressed the media spoke competently and professionally, leaving no doubt that they would leave no stone unturned. Evidence was gathered and arrests of officers and others were made. The public was then appropriately advised of as many details as we have ever seen released in a media conference when charges were before the courts and an investigation ongoing. TPS Chief Demkiw announced he was seeking to suspend at least some of the officers without pay. That is something that has only recently became acceptable under Ontario’s policing regulations and must be used judiciously. Of course, social media “experts” and anti-police pundits took over from there. Please allow me to offer answers to some of the most consistent queries: Why wasn’t an independent oversight body like the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) brought on to investigate? Police shouldn’t investigate police! It’s not the legislated mandate of the SIU to conduct criminal investigations into police except in specific circumstances around police use of force or sexual assault. Nor is it the mandate of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing. These governing bodies do not possess the expertise or resources to conduct massive criminal investigations into officers and organized crime groups. Only large police services have the critical mass and knowledge to manage such difficult operations. An option for Chief Demkiw was to let his Professional Standards personnel be the liaison for TPS information and potential Police Act charges against TPS personnel that might emerge but leave the investigative support/assistance piece to another large outside service. That would’ve helped suppress any concern around TPS investigating their own. But police services often conduct criminal investigations into their own people with regularity in Ontario, unless they involve senior officers. There’s no hard and fast rule or Ministry guidelines on the issue to my knowledge. The Toronto Chief should step down. This happened under his watch. I cannot speak to his day-to-day job performance, but in my view, Chief Demkiw did not handle this case wrongly. The alleged illegal actions of 0.12% of his police personnel do not justify his removal. If he knew and didn’t take action that would be different but there is no suggestion of him doing anything but throwing his full support behind the YRP investigation. Again, perhaps he should’ve kept TPS out of it as much as possible, but that was a judgement call made in the early stages of an investigation that grew very large over time. All cops are corrupt. Why didn’t other officers stop them? What? This was seven officers in a police service of almost 6000 TPS officers and out of over 70,000 police officers in Canada. It is awful, without a doubt and concerning to say the least, but this does not mean there is a wave of police corruption and ties to organized crime across the nation. As this criminality unfolded and as we speak, thousands of officers are on the streets of Canada, saving lives and risking their own; patrolling communities; preventing crime and victimization; responding to life and death situations; arresting evil criminals and more. They do that professionally, bravely and honestly, or they are held to account under various laws and disciplinary processes. They are governed and regulated more than any other profession in Canada. Yes, some cops (even one is too many) out of those 70,000, commit crimes in their careers, which is unacceptable. Some of that occurs while they are on duty, some not. It is disappointing when it happens, but with rare exception police leaders will not accept it and will deal with it expeditiously through due process. In cases where a police supervisor or executive doesn’t take proper action, they will be held to account as well. As a rule, no one hates dirty cops more than honest cops. They hurt the profession as a whole across the continent. Canadian officers take a reputational hit regardless of where the wrongdoing occurs in North America. We don’t know the details yet of what these accused officers were doing or how much of it they were doing on the job, versus off duty. IF evidence comes to light in the ongoing investigation that colleague officers knew or participated in any way in the criminality, they will be in trouble as well. Let’s not jump to conclusions that other officers “must have known” and let the investigation run its course. Why do officers not have more oversight on the use of police databases? Police officers and a number of civilian colleagues have access to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) database that holds all licenced driver and vehicle registration information in Ontario. Most police cars have computers in them that can access that information, which includes driver’s and owners’ addresses. It is accessed non-stop, 24/7, as a regular part of core police business. Other databases involving outstanding warrants and criminal history, as well as occurrence records are similarly accessed. Government employees that work at MTO or in some other Ministries have like access to people’s names and addresses. That is reality in all 10 provinces. We cannot limit legitimate government employee access to vital systems on the off chance they may be inappropriately used. That includes those that we entrust to carry guns and make life and death decisions. When such databases are misused in some way, proper action must be taken promptly, as it was in this case, as opposed to hamstringing the operability of several hundred thousand honest employees across Canada. Canadian police officers are internationally highly-regarded, but they are human, have frailties and will honestly err on occasion while truly trying to do their best. That can be dealt with and repaired when it occurs. But when officers commit acts of malice, they will be appropriately held accountable and dealt with through due process. That is the bedrock of Canadian policing. Public trust in police is paramount to effective policing, and largely we enjoy that in our country. We cannot let this dark day define what policing actually is in Toronto or anywhere in Canada. Canadians should move forward with confidence that the system did work in this case. Those that violated our trust are before the courts. The vast, vast majority of officers that are still out there bravely doing what they do so well, will never let us down. Please give them a chance.