lighthouse-leadership

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

Sat, 28 Mar 2026 15:56:45 GMT

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

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 23:43:43 GMT

They used to be simply a "nice to have."

(From BlueLine Magazine March 23, 2026)

There was a time in Canadian policing when the larger police services conducted major investigations independently of neighbouring agencies. Some of the smaller services were reluctant to ask larger departments for investigative help unless the chief knew the case was broader or more complex than they could handle. It was often a matter of not wanting to admit that it was simply beyond their resources and expertise, and, at times, undoubtedly the fear of an OPP or RCMP ‘takeover’ of mid-sized or small services weighed heavily in the decision-making process.

The 1990s Campbell Commission review of the investigation into serial killer Paul Bernardo resulted in recommendations as to how police services should share and manage information, communicate and work more cooperatively on major cases, which were long overdue.

Since the 1960s, Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario (CISO) has encouraged law enforcement agencies at all levels to share intelligence information and work together to fight organized crime. In fact, CISO funding for such investigations is contingent on Joint Forces Operations (JFOs), meaning impacted agencies work under a written agreement as a team, with defined objectives, an established command structure and detailed resource commitments from all. Some tremendous investigations have occurred under the CISO umbrella for several decades. CISO’s mandate has increased since that time to include terrorism investigations and more.

However, the threat of terrorism in Canada was infinitesimal then, and organized crime in Canada was really only motorcycle gangs and the mafia. In the mid-1990s, Criminal Intelligence Services Canada (CISC) identified only five organized crime groups in Canada.

Around the same time, during a meeting of police chiefs from across Canada about a proposed National Strategy to Combat Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, then OPP Commissioner Thomas O’Grady made a point regarding police services working together. He said:

“No one agency has all the resources and expertise to fight organized crime alone. It doesn’t matter if it’s municipal, provincial or federal police services; they are all paid for by the taxpayers. We owe it to them to work together as effectively as possible.”

He was right! Regardless of their size, all law enforcement agencies bring different levels of expertise, legislated mandates and authorities, resources and breadth to an investigation. Why wouldn’t we capitalize on that and work together to investigate these groups in the interest of all communities that they impact? That includes First Nations police services, provincial and federal agencies, such as Natural Resources, corrections, customs, Revenue Canada, CSIS, the military and more.

Where are we today?

CISC now reports that there are 668 organized crime groups in Canada.

Over the past year alone, numerous short-term JFOs have successfully arrested many crime groups operating across numerous municipal, provincial and international boundaries, while trafficking guns, narcotics, stolen vehicles and humans. In Ontario, gang members have been arrested for violent carjackings, as well as many brazen liquor and jewelry store heists. Fentanyl labs have been taken down in a few provinces involving local criminals, organized crime groups and even Mexican cartels. Groups targeting South Asian businesses through extortion and violent crimes have been arrested through a JFO between Peel Region and British Columbia police agencies. Child pornography investigators across the country work cooperatively 24/7 through provincial and national strategies.

“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” – Helen Keller

National and provincial standing joint investigative teams that target the commodities and groups mentioned above continue to do great work across the country.

On the terrorism front, the RCMP leads Integrated National Security Teams (INSET) in several provinces, which unite investigators and security experts at all levels to protect Canada’s national security by detecting and preventing terrorist activities. Much of this collaborative effort emerged from and continued after the 9/11 attacks, followed by the Toronto 18 investigation – during which many lives were undoubtedly saved.

The Greater Vancouver area has an Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT) that collectively serves over 30 RCMP and municipal police communities.

In Ontario, the lessons learned from the Bernardo investigation review were quite obviously in place on Dec. 11, 2025, when Toronto Police and the OPP jointly announced the solving of three cold cases by working together in conjunction with the Centre of Forensic Sciences, to identify the now deceased killer of three young women. In recent years, we’ve seen a number of similar joint investigative successes in homicide cases across Canada.

Winston Churchill once said, “There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.”

It makes me proud to see law enforcement agencies putting aside some of those old protectionist mindsets and working together as allies, rather than competing entities. Crime knows no boundaries, nor should law enforcement.

_________________________________

Chris D. Lewis served across Ontario in the OPP, retiring as Commissioner in 2014. He continues to lecture and write on leadership and policing issues and is the author of the book Never Stop on a Hill. He is also the Public Safety Analyst for the CTV Television Network.

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 18:18:44 GMT

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.

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

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 18:05:11 GMT

I say "No."

The recent arrest of a number of Toronto Police Service (TPS) members has drawn some public outcry that points a finger at Chief Myron Demkiw, with calls for his resignation. I think that is an unfair condemnation of the Chief. He was advised of the concerns, threw his complete support behind York Regional Police and stayed out of any decision-making role.

It’s difficult to understand the role of the TPS Chief of Police and the complexities therein, unless you have been there, or in at least a very high-ranking position.

TPS is comprised of about 8000 employees – police officers and civilian personnel, who work in TPS Headquarters; special investigation and operational buildings outside of HQ; and Division buildings across the city. The organization is divided up in various commands (Community Safety, Specialized Operations, Corporate Services, etc.) that are largely headed up by Deputy Chiefs or civilian equivalents, who have downstream civilian Managers, Chief Superintendents, Superintendents, Inspectors, Staff Sergeants and Sergeants supervising the various Constables and civilian employees.

This is an immense operation that is the biggest municipal police service and polices the largest city in Canada, with a budget of over $1.2B. Think about that!

It is reasonable to think that the Chief will even personally know the officers that were arrested? He likely has never met them. Would he ever possibly interact with them during his long days of dealing with all the budget, HR, infrastructure, operational, media and political issues he and the TPS face 24/7? Would he ever be in a position to assign them patrol zones and daily duties? Would he have a clue how many cars they stopped, or how many charges they laid, or the number of calls they responded to, or arrests made? Would he know that one or two or even 100 of the checks of TPS and Ministry of Transportation databases they made were illegitimate, out of the thousands they each would make in a year? Absolutely not. He’d know none of that and nor should he.

The Chief has Deputy Chiefs and Chief Superintendents that will tell him things that go really good or very bad across Toronto over the course of a day. There are Sergeants and Staff Sergeants should know much of the above but wouldn’t know how many illicit checks of databases might have been conducted. They don’t sit beside each of the several or more of the Constables under their supervision to say “Okay, why did you just run a check on Jane Doe?” They don’t often ride with them in cruisers and watch every computer check they make on their in-car Mobile Workstations either.

Sergeants assign duties, zones, partners, cars and generally each supervise the activities of several Constables at a time. They attend some of the calls they are assigned to see them dealing with the public and making decisions on the fly. They should be making sure they look good, show up for work on time, are fit for duty and interact well with colleagues. They should monitor their investigations, arrests, charges and reports. They are also responsible to scrutinize their training, equipment and administration. That’s a big responsibility for a Sergeant who is also attending major incident scenes, processing paperwork and more. A Sergeant is not going to know every little thing each Constable does on a shift and certainly will never know what they are doing off duty. Nor would any supervisor or executive team members on higher – right up to the Chief.

Police officers are issued guns. They are entrusted with making decisions around the use of deadly force. If we have to assign one Sergeant to directly surprise every single Constable and watch every keystroke they make on a computer, then we are done. Let’s take away all the guns and badges.

If complaints are received about the professionalism of a Constable, Sergeants and Staff Sergeants would have a role in documenting them, meting out minor discipline and ensuring employee behavioural improvements going forward, but the bigger stuff would go up to Professional Standards for investigation. The local Unit Commander (Inspector) would start to get involved for sure at that point, and then it would travel up the food chain from there, but not necessarily all the way to Chief Demkiw.

The Chief wouldn’t be told about most public or internal complaints against Constables, Sergeants and even Staff Sergeants unless they are likely to draw media and/or the Police Services Board’s attention. If Professional Standards feels Criminal or Police Act charges are warranted the Chief would likely be advised, especially if serious and then decisions around suspending are necessary. Other than that, he’d seldom know of the allegations let alone be able to monitor the activities on duty and off, of Constables under his ultimate watch.

If Deputy Chiefs were ever charged with corruption offences, the Chief would have questions to answer from his Board and could fall, depending on what he knew and when and how he reacted or didn’t. Similarly, if Chief Superintendents went bad, knowledge/actions/inaction of Deputy Chiefs would have to be reviewed, and so on. But that’s not what alleged here.

The TPS is not a small work unit like the famous Boston bar “Cheers”, where everybody knows your name. It is a behemoth organization that requires the Chief to able to count on his direct reports, and they on theirs, to prevent misdeeds and take proper action when they do occur, from investigative, process and reparation perspectives. Is that not what he has been doing in this case? Let’s give him a chance.

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

Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:28:25 GMT

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?

Sat, 07 Feb 2026 00:27:35 GMT

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.

U.S. ICE/Border Patrol: Where is the true leadership?

Mon, 26 Jan 2026 01:51:50 GMT

It’s certainly not Bovino, Noem and higher.

Over the past several months the U.S. President’s seemingly valid promise to close the southern border and to rid the U.S. of illegal aliens who are “killers, rapists, drug dealers and individuals from mental institutions” has evolved into something less defendable. Like him or not, it was tough to argue with the public safety need to deport dangerous criminals back to whence they came. I wish Canada would do the same, but in a more strategic way. Chasing undocumented women through Home Depot and dragging U.S. citizens out of vehicles on Main Street – while clad in mostly civilian attire, screaming profanities and with covered faces, has not worked well for ICE and CBP, in terms of public perception and community trust.

Enforcing these laws is not easy for those agencies, even when acting within their legislative framework and with probable cause. Angry crowds; individuals with far-left anti-government convictions who just want to hijack the agenda and commit violent acts; and the doxing of federal agents to cause threats to them and their families, cause untold stress on and danger to law enforcement. None of that is justified and is most often a crime.

The public needs to stay out of these operations. If someone interferes with the agents and/or their lawful operations, they should expect to be arrested. Placing cameras in officers faces or trying to obstruct them as they conduct an activity, does nothing but raise the temperature of the operation and will end with the placement of handcuffs. Videoing from afar is different, but some take it to the next level. If they threaten anyone with a weapon of any kind, they should anticipate being shot and perhaps killed. That is reality.

But at the same time, law enforcement cannot exist without public trust. If the various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entities that are conducting these operations always acted as per the original strategy and didn’t often violate the rights of people based on the look or colour of so-called “suspects”, as professionally as possible, there would likely not be such an inflammation of the normal American citizen psyche. After all, Trump was elected in part based on his stated “criminal illegal alien” agenda. However, the way his goal was operationalized and the questionable tactics often publicly witnessed has denigrated the trust of many citizens on both sides of the political spectrum.

The most recent loss of life occurred in Minneapolis Minnesota on Saturday January 24th. I won’t pass final judgement on the actions of the agents involved in the shooting death of the U.S. citizen there before the results of a professional and unbiased investigation are released. I was obviously not on the ground with those officers to see and hear all they did from their various positions and angles.

I have watched all the videos that have been posted, however, and I will say this: “At this point, it does not look good.”

When I was a police commander and received information from the field of a critical incident, the initial information was seldom accurate. In fact, over the hours to follow it changed regularly. I would not make any proactive statement to the media, but if asked, I would simply say that we had the proper resources on the ground and I would await verified information, etc. If it was an officer involved shooting or chase that involved injuries or death, I would follow the protocol of the mandatory independent investigation, and would generally say: “It’s undoubtedly a tragic situation, and my thoughts are with the involved officers, citizens and their families, but it is an ongoing investigation and I cannot provide any more information than that.”

But what is the DHS leadership saying? What are elected officials saying? Some have already defended the agents and others – like the Governor, are damning them.

Within hours of the shooting CBP Commander Greg Bovino publicly defended the actions of the officers, saying that the deceased man had been armed and that the suspect intended to “do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Yes, he was armed, according to local police, but lawfully licensed to do so according to the 2nd Amendment that many Americans treasure. Regardless, it is not clear in any video so far that the man held anything but a camera in his hand when brought to the ground, and Bovino himself could not bring any clarity to his early statement when asked by the press on Sunday morning. He simply fell back to letting the investigation run its course. Sorry Greg, you’re a day late and a dollar short on that one.

Then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told the media, “This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.” She acts like the deceased man brandished a gun and threatened the officers. Trump administration officials then called the dead man a “would-be assassin.” If that was the case, being shot and killed should have been the expectation, but are we seeing that? Not so far.

How does any of that banter from so-called leaders lend itself to public confidence for an independent investigation that they can trust? True ‘leadership’ involves doing what is right for the people you serve first and foremost, closely followed by the people you lead. These comments do not exhibit leadership at all.

ICE and CBP normally operate in enforcement environments at or near (within a hundred miles of) international border points. They absolutely make dangerous arrests at times. But are they selected and trained to operate within the urban environments we are currently witnessing? Perhaps to a degree, but DHS has hired thousands of agents this past year who have received abbreviated training. That’s never a good thing from organizational and officer risk perspectives. I’m not saying normal ICE/CBP agents aren’t as trained and capable as local and state police officers. I’ve known many and they were wonderful officers, but their basic training cannot be the same. Their operating environments may overlap but are generally different. Similarly, most local cops aren’t trained in border enforcement and immigration laws and practices either.

In the Minneapolis situation, local police are not supporting the operational activities of the federal agents. The Chief of Police and Mayor are both publicly opposed. Support by local police should be a given – not for random stops of people that look Hispanic and yelling demands for proof of citizenship, but during valid probable cause arrests and the execution of warrants. To stand and watch DHS officers who are unprofessionally targeting innocent U.S. citizens – including off duty local police officers of colour, comes with a loss of public trust as well as ethical and civil liability conflicts. However, I do believe it is the duty of local police to protect DHS agents who are being attacked in the street.

DHS should put an immediate halt on any operational activities outside of international border points and pull back from municipalities. Municipal and state police leaders across the country must put their heads together with DHS officials and sort out who does what and how, very quickly. The need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and rules of engagement for their agencies and their people on the street. By being intelligence-led; conducting thorough investigations; working cooperatively and professionally through their varying legislative authorities as they search for and arrest undocumented criminals, they may be able to restore some level of public trust. This cannot continue as is.

CBP’s Greg Bovino gave a passionate speech on Sunday afternoon where he spoke of “choices” made by protestors, politicians and the media. It was apparent that he was passing blame on everyone but the DHS in this debacle. Undoubtedly there have been poor choices by many but come on, man. You, the DHS Secretary and your ICE counterpart need to make the “choice” to pause, reflect, regroup and strategize for the good of the people you serve, the American people. Then your President needs to make the right choice and support the change.

Law Enforcement Facial Coverings: WHY?

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 22:19:33 GMT

I’ve been watching the enhanced and prominent activity of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers over the past several months with interest. Under President Donald Trump’s second Administration, as promised he has directed ICE to arrest and remove dangerous criminal illegal aliens, and specifically pointed out murderers, rapists, etc. That sensible goal has resulted in some bad people being taken off the streets as well as roundups of people that seem to be hardly dangerous criminals, albeit technically “illegal aliens.” Regardless, the issue I want to speak to is the ongoing controversy over ICE officers – some clad in civilian attire for the most part and others wearing ICE uniforms, but all covering their faces in some fashion.

My comments are not “anti-ICE.” I am 100% behind law enforcement but I’m also always honest when I see what I believe is a wrong. I worked with and still maintain friendships with people that are now retired U.S. border and immigration officers. They were the best of the best and I’m sure most current officers are nothing but well intended. This is simply about my concerns around the covering of officer’s faces.

I simply don’t get it. This is not Seal Team Six deploying on a dirt road to nowhere in Pakistan, to kill Osama Bin Laden. This law enforcement operating on Main Street USA, in commercial parking lots and sidewalks. These are law enforcement officers not an anti-terrorist unit. If ICE officers need to hide their faces for some legitimate operational reason like they are engaged in an undercover operation somewhere, they should stay out of the public and media spotlight.

Members of the public that support the covering of ICE officer’s faces, speak of the dangerous work they do and threats of retaliation by relatives and extremists. ICE officials defend the practice and the Acting Director of ICE stated in a July 2025 CBS interview:

“I’m not a proponent masks. however, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE need to keep themselves and their family safe, then I'll allow it.” [1]

If that’s his rationale, I hope they don’t tell him they need heat-seeking missiles with nuclear warheads too. Yes, their job comes with dangers and risk. They’re law enforcement officers not ice cream truck drivers.

If the reason is to mask their identity from potential bad guys (which I simply don’t buy), there are also public accountability concerns, for the good guys. For example, identifying an officer that is alleged to have used excessive force, or has even been unprofessional, is important for the public from a process perspective. In terms of the whole pile of good guys ICE also ends up dealing with, I’m concerned for the safety of ICE when they run up to a vehicle, aggressively screaming commands through their facial coverings, sometimes with guns drawn. If I was a wanted criminal, I would likely know my goose was cooked and have to make a decision in terms of my response. That would be on me. But if I was a legally armed U.S. citizen who knew they had no warrants and had never so much as received a parking ticket, I might respond with some aggressive action of my own if not 100% sure that I was dealing with law enforcement and not some half uniformed/half civilian clothed maniac with a gun. That might include initiating a gunfight or at the very least stepping on the accelerator. That’s a frightening scenario for the lawful public and should be for the ICE officers.

Uniformed police officers in Canada for the most part wear either name tags, their badge numbers or both on their uniforms. In Ontario, it’s the law. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers wear name tags when they enforce our borders. So do many, many local and state police officers across the U.S. They also do not hide their faces except in extremely rare circumstances.

Do all of these officers not make arrests of gang members; illegal aliens; drug smugglers; and dangerous criminals? Do they hide their faces and their names out of a fear of retribution? Do they testify behind a curtain and using a pseudonym during subsequent public trials? Absolutely not.

The same rules apply to our police Public Order Unit (POU) officers that unfortunately have seen more violent protest operations in the past 20 years than they did in the 100 years prior. In Toronto, it has become a full-time job. In addition to a lot of good people that are just exercising their right to peaceful protest, at times POU officers deal with some very radical extremists who want to achieve absolutely nothing but cause mayhem, destroy property and if possible, fight with police.

As a uniformed police officer, tactical team member and investigator – as did many colleagues, I arrested murderers, outlaw motorcycle gang members and local criminals. I interrogated murderers and rapists for hours. I testified against all these people in court. In small town Ontario, every community member knew where my family and I lived. People I had arrested (and even their parents) knocked on the door of my home to further their arguments. I curled with a local man I’d locked up a week before and against several I’d arrested or charged. I was in and out of provincial jails and federal penitentiaries on investigations and prisoner escorts. In London in the 1980s, my wife and I dined in a lovely restaurant, just two tables away from a notorious biker I’d dealt with on a raid and at biker check-points. We simply nodded at each other and ate our meals. Many of the folks I dealt with were simply not nice people. But I was doing police work! If it was all peace, love, flowers and unicorns, everyone would want to do it.

Mind you through all those years, even when I had to use force to arrest some of these individuals or take them into custody at gun point, I treated them like humans. I didn’t disrespect them; didn’t use excessive force; was professional and spoke to them like they were human beings. I truly think that can make a significant difference. In fact, some very bad people I met along the way told me that it did. Some of the publicized ICE interactions with the public have been far from professional. I know their job is difficult and at times they are dealing with complete idiots, but cooler heads should most often prevail.

The leaders of ICE should ensure “Professional Public Interaction” is strongly emphasized in ICE officer training and placed front and center in their rules of engagement, then ban facial coverings during public operations. Take that decision out of the hands of the frontline ICE officers that are bravely out doing their jobs. The officers will be safer and so will the law-abiding people in the community.

[1] CBS News, CBS News presses ICE head on why agents can continue using masks, YouTube, July 18, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOOGyLuRkgU

Without effective leadership, decision-making at the executive table can divide the room

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 20:30:22 GMT

In my view, when all the decisions are made at one end of the room, it’s a failure of leadership.

I recall a time in a police service, where the senior executive table was simply a place for the Chief and Deputies to tell all their subordinate commanders what their latest organizational decisions were. It wasn’t a decision-making venue, it was “We know more than you, so here’s what we’ve decided” table.

Senior management team meeting discussions and decisions were a completely different animal from what they were originally designed to be. They were telling to watch. Who was “in” and who was “out”, was generally pretty obvious when one scanned the crowd over the course of the day. And moving from the A Team to the B Team could happen at the blink of an eye, if someone was believed to have erred.

When the Chief of the day announced a decision regarding a direction on a significant issue that the group would take going forward, most of the time the decision was new to all. Few if any of the other dozen-plus people in the room had been invited to provide input to the matter. Then came the test question to all: “What do you think?”

Inevitably, a few around the table would leap to attention and announce that it was the smartest decision known to mankind, and that they had always felt this was how the service should go. The Chief and Deputies would smile in approval and silently vow to promote those sycophants as soon as humanly possible. Then about half of those remaining would look at the floor and not move so much as a single muscle that might indicate their disagreement. No poo-poo was going to stick to them!

Then there was a handful of operational commanders that were normally sitting fairly close together, gritting their teeth and trying not to bite through their tongues as they quietly determined next steps. Eventually one would speak up and very respectfully disagree with the stated decision. All oxygen then left the room and that vocal participant would get the death-stare from the front of the room. Everyone knew that the handful at the very top were thinking the same thing, “Vile scoundrel, you did not agree with the Chief!”

Some others would pipe in to professionally try to explain why it wasn’t a good idea at the time and perhaps offer some prior considerations or first steps that might be taken. But all that did was add them to the growing “You didn’t agree” list. The decision had been made prior to the gathering, by the boss, with the input of a few – and not necessarily anyone that had a firm grasp on the issues or had ever been blessed with an original thought. Asking for the thoughts of the entire team so late in the game was clearly a waste of oxygen.

The room was clearly divided. Those that would agree to anything suggested from above; those that would quietly acquiesce to the direction of the prevailing breeze; and those that would quite honestly offer meaningful input – even if it conflicted with the views of the Chief and Deputies. Decision-making was a loyalty test: you were loyal to any decision made from above or not. In other words, you were on the train, or you were under it. There was no room for any thoughts or suggestions that didn’t show 100% support.

Loyalty should not mean an absolute and unwavering agreement with every word or action from above. That’s a dictatorship. Should there not be loyalty to do what is right? In the case of a police department, doing what is right should mean what is lawful; what is in accordance with oaths of office; and equally vital – what is in the best interests of community being served and the men and women that are serving it.

I was a loyal soldier throughout my career. I didn’t always agree with the decisions made from supervisors on patrol; direction given from Incident Commanders on tactical calls; or managers of investigations I worked on – or even the decisions made at the very top, but often I did. Regardless, I’d speak my mind when the time and place was right and would move forward with the team. But when the big picture directional decisions needed to be made at the senior decision-making table in the organization, choices that would impact the majority of the police service and its members – perhaps for years to come, as a group we needed to get it right. I needed to honestly offer input regardless of the potential outcome.

An organization needs the right people to evaluate challenges and identify the best options, including the pros, cons and impacts for a team decision. How they get to that decision point varies depending on the complexity of the issue. Feedback from various levels of the organization including the union/association; holding focus groups; conducting longer-term studies, pilot projects, etc., should always be on the table, but are not always required.

What is needed from every supervisor and manager across the service is 24/7 communication with those they lead and a culture of open and honest suggestions and feedback – including criticism. It’s too late to shoot for open dialogue and the development of trust if you only reach out to the men and women that are actually doing the job when a challenge is identified. Ongoing discourse must be a constant as opposed to an exception, so that executive team members are always relatively aware of what their people are thinking.

Once a big decision rises to the senior executive table, everyone in the room should be familiar with the issue, how their area of command is impacted by it and can contribute to the solution(s). The go-forward options and their impacts can then be openly discussed among the informed group and a decision made by the Chief, as opposed to the other way around.

As a leader, my decision-making model wasn’t complex: If it’s the right thing to do for the people we serve and the people we lead, let’s do it. But I wanted to hear the thoughts of the informed group prior to making the call. Then we needed to move together as a team to make it happen – for all the right reasons. The process shouldn’t divide the players; it should unite them.

Centralized and unequivocal decision-making at the apex of the organization will set an organization up for failure. Employees at all levels don’t only deserve a say, their input is paramount to team success. If they feel that nobody cares what they think, not only will they not row together as a team, but they also aren’t likely to help bail when the ship starts to leak.

The 50th Anniversary of the Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU)

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 19:53:31 GMT

Celebration held

Friday October 3 ^rd, 2025, saw the kick-off of the weekend long celebration of the 50 ^th Anniversary of the OPP TRU. An incredible group of volunteers led by retired OPP D/Sgt. Craig Bridgeman – himself an “inactive” member of the then Belleville TRU team, put together a wonderful reunion of active and inactive members from across the country. The event was held at Casino Rama.

I attended the event and was thrilled to see many old friends and at the same time sad that some long-time friends were not in attendance due to their passing over the years. Despite the great turnout, a large number of veterans did not attend for whatever reason, and most of the serving members were committed to operations in West and North East Regions on the weekend. While we prayed for their safety, we reminisced about the many dangerous calls we had attended – either as individual teams, or multiple team calls, and a few significant operations that involved every TRU member in the province.

It was great to see the majority of the members that were trained and became part of the original TRU in 1975 in attendance. All wonderful officers. The initial team was formed to assist in the OPP security efforts required at events in eastern Ontario, as part of the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Following that endeavor, five teams of five members each were formed and placed in London, North Bay, Thunder Bay, Perth and Downsview.

Unfortunately, the original TRU Coordinator, retired Inspector Andy Maksmchuk, who authored a book on TRU, entitled TRU (Tactics and Rescue Unit): The Last Resort in Policing, A Memoir, could not attend the Anniversary due to flight scheduling challenges. Andy could’ve easily provided details of the forming of TRU and its early years of operations.

Although I had the pleasure of speaking at the Saturday night banquet, as did current OPP Commissioner Tom Carrique, who proudly supports TRU and the other programs within Field Support Bureau. I didn’t have to time to sufficiently walk through time from my perspective as an active member and as the Bureau Commander that oversaw TRU, let alone try and fill in the gaps before my arrival. However, the following is a summary of the years I was part of the TRU program.

I attended my initial TRU training at Camp Borden in June 1981, following extensive physical and psychological testing in the Toronto area. Even though I was in reasonable physical condition when I arrived at Camp Borden, it was some of the toughest training I ever participated in. I left there at 155 lbs., my lowest weight since high school and for the decades since!

The instructors that put us through the mill, while running, climbing, crawling and hiking every arduous mile with us, taught us skills that I had never dreamed of acquiring. Not all of our group graduated, but those that did left with advanced proficiency with all the TRU weaponry, self-defense, various tactics and related skills including cover and concealment, rappelling and much more. Instructors there like the legendary Harry Bell, became Gods to me. I strived to be at least half as good as they were.

At that time there were six teams of six officers, stationed in London, Mount Forest, Barrie, Perth, North Bay and Thunder Bay. I was happy to transfer from my northern post to any of those locations but was glad to be assigned to the London team.

The London guys welcomed me with open arms. We largely became life-long friends, at the same time pulling together as a highly-skilled team of tactical officers. We had a challenging call the first week that I was in London, with a number of shots fired before and after our arrival on-scene and before we successfully arrested the gunman. I thought, “Man, this is going to be fun.”

We trained as a team 5 days of every month and were given an hour of every workday to run or work out as individuals. Every fall and spring, we travelled to Camp Borden and met the other five teams for three weeks. We jointly reviewed recent calls and lessons learned, did joint training and ran scenarios day and night. Those were great sessions – hard work and lots of camaraderie. Several senior TRU members from the other teams became heroes to me. Harry Bell, Wayne Pickett, Peter Hrycyshyn, Dave Douglas, Ed Sherwin, my own Team Leader Rick Deering and more. I wanted to be just like them when I grew up! They taught me all the skills I never thought I’d be capable of, as well as how to be a good team member. They also unknowingly taught me a lot about people and about leadership.

When not training or away on calls, we worked in two-man cars on day and afternoon shifts and backed up detachment officers wherever we could. But our main role was to be immediately available to respond to occurrences involving violence, anywhere within the then #2 District, or beyond. If a TRU call did emerge, at least we’d have two officers quickly on scene to help contain it, gather information and prepare for the arrival of the rest of the team. Detachment members loved it when we helped them with occurrences or took calls for them, but some were bitter that we were often away on training or operations. We still tried our best to be helpful when we were around and to have good relations with our fellow OPP members.

London was a busy team. Lots of barricaded person calls, hostage situations, high-risk search warrants with the OPP Drug Enforcement Teams, biker activity, witness protection ops, backing up our Canine Teams tracking bad guys, doing large crime scene searches, VIP protection and more. In 1984, providing security to both Pope John Paul II and Queen Elizabeth, at various locations in Ontario.

It was the best of times and the worst of times. The successful calls were a huge adrenaline rush and involved lots of back-slapping and high-fives. The occasional call didn’t go as well as we hoped when we couldn’t locate a suspect, or murder victims’ bodies were found (although it was our goal to find a body, it was still a sad event when we did); or lives were taken – bad guys, or occasionally a good guy. But we did it all as a team, collectively learned and moved forward. We celebrated the good times, supported one another in the tougher times – on duty and off, and learned from each other every day.

When I became Team Leader in 1985, I found myself “supervising” a great bunch of men. I knew all of their strengths, their weaknesses, their team relationships and their personal goals. I knew their families and they knew mine. They never required inspiration or motivation from me and seldom did they need a gentle kick in the ass. It was like a team of racehorses that couldn’t wait to hear the bell. If anything, I had to slow them down on occasion. But I knew every one of them would take a bullet for me as I would for them.

In 1986, the six teams were amalgamated into three teams of twelve, situated in London, Barrie and Belleville (now Odessa). It was long overdue. Six men responding to an armed man in a house or manhunt in the bush, was never enough. Sometimes we only had four or five members, depending on courses, court, vacation etc., and often, the District Commander of the day was not open to requesting the Mount Forest team to back us up. It was ridiculously dangerous, but we did what we could because that was our job. We would never leave the detachment officers on the ground without giving them all the help we could.

Interestingly and sadly, when we responded to two cop killers in a house in Woodstock in the fall of 1984, we had four TRU members and one spare officer who was fully trained and waiting for an opening on a team to be transferred to. He was a good man. We placed him in the spot we felt he would be least likely to get into a gun fight and unfortunately it turned out to be THE spot. Before it was over, two officers were shot, one fatally and a bad guy was shot and killed. It was a mess. A couple of days later we were told that the bullet that killed Constable Jack Ross was fired from a TRU machine gun. It was the darkest day in TRU history up till that point and perhaps ever.

The news destroyed our member and devastated us all. It damaged OPP colleagues’ confidence in TRU across the province. It was virtually impossible to explain all the details and intricacies to the world so they could better understand the situation we were faced with. But I will say that if I was faced with the same initial briefing details, radio traffic information, lighting, shadows and other circumstances that our member was faced with at the time he fired those shots, I probably would have done the exact same thing. Many things had gone seriously wrong before the gunfight began and then everything came together in a perfect storm, unfortunately.

So, the increase in team strength in 1986 was a welcome change. It did however leave much of northern Ontario without TRU and the OPP has struggled since to provide tactical officers to the north in a timely way.

In all the sixteen different jobs I had in in my 36-year career, I worked with some great people and made good friends. But TRU was undoubtedly the hardest job to leave. Walking away from not just colleagues but amazing friends was difficult for me. But in 1987, I transferred into the Investigations Division at General Headquarters in Toronto and I was gone.

If I got wind of any TRU call happening in the coming years, I’d I watch it like a hawk from afar, always worried about the guys. I certainly kept close contact with a few of the London boys that I had worked so closely with over the years. TRU continued to support uniformed and investigative personnel and save lives in the years to follow. Their equipment, training and tactics evolved so far above and beyond what I had known it was amazing. People like the late Wade Lacroix and Brian Deevy were a significant part of that progress, as were many others to come. Training changed, selection processes were enhanced and the firearms and equipment improved greatly with time. TRU got better and better at doing what they already did so well.

In late 1997, I was promoted to Superintendent and placed in-charge of a brand-new OPP Bureau that would eventually be called Emergency Management Bureau (EMB). EMB was to oversee the TRU, ERT, Incident Command, Crisis Negotiation, USRU and EDU programs, as well as Emergency Planning, but not the team members themselves. We were Like Generals without an army. All the teams, sections and units’ members would report to the Regions and some to the OPP Academy.

I brought Brian Deevy in from Barrie TRU as an Inspector to oversee all of TRU as well as the Incident Command program. He oversaw full reviews into both programs. When I picked Brian for the job, I received accusations of just bringing in my “buddy.” When I asked the whiners to “name someone with more experience and credibility in TRU”, the whining ended. Before it was over our capable team reviewed and renewed every program to some extent..

When all the various reviews were complete, Commissioner’s Committee approved several important recommendations, one being that the three TRU teams would all become “provincial assets” rather than be part of three individual regions. Some Regions had historically treated TRU better than others, and in some cases training, staffing, budget and equipment issues fell to the whim of command staff, some of whom had other priorities to fund. Some teams had equipment that others didn’t, etc. We lacked consistency in several areas across the teams, so we recommended that everything be moved under EMB, with strong links to the OPP Academy for training coordination and record keeping purposes. All our recommendations were approved, substantial changes were made in many sections and for the decades that followed and the foreseeable future, TRU will belong to what is now Field Support Bureau. They have been effectively managed and supported by successive Bureau Commanders since. Their current Commander, Chief Superintendent Dana Earley, spoke at the banquet and very capably commands the FSB.

To all that attended the Anniversary and those that served but couldn’t attend; to all the serving members that were committed to ongoing TRU operations that weekend; and to the many TRU members that left us way too soon, thank you. Thank you for serving the OPP and thank you for working hard to become a member of TRU.

Thank you for bravely saving lives, for protecting our frontline members and investigators. Thank you for all you gave and continue to give – physically and emotionally. Thank you to those that supported and taught me in so many ways since 1981 – at all levels, including right up until I was Commissioner. I’ve never stopped learning from you and you continue to make me proud.

And lastly, never forget that there are no ex-members of TRU. TRU is comprised of ACTIVE and INACTIVE members, but they are all “members of TRU.” I am proudly an Inactive member for life.

And the show must go on!

Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:28:32 GMT

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

We’re crying out for leadership to bridge the divides

Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:54:37 GMT

We need leadership to bring us together

As a child of a border town; someone who has lived within a hundred miles of the Canada/U.S. border for most of his life; a proud Canadian with many American friends on both sides of the U.S. political divide; and an author/speaker on ‘leadership’, watching the increasingly divisive nature of politics in both countries saddens me. I wonder when true leaders will actually do what they should and that is to unite those they lead together in the best interests of each country. Both the U.S. President and Canadian Prime Minister should be working night and day to bring both countries together as neighbors and as the tremendous allies and trade partners they have been since 1876.

Last week’s horrendous murder of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk in the U.S. has become a lightning-rod for divisiveness across the continent. Whether individuals loved him or hated him, no one should be rejoicing over the public murder of a young father and husband. That’s just wrong. But anyone that suggests that they either agree with Kirk’s style or position on political and societal issues, or disagrees, they draw aggressive ire and/or sheer hate from those that do or don’t agree themselves.

The U.S. government has claimed that those who are bad-mouthing Charlie Kirk in the media will be expelled or banned from entering the U.S. Using government agencies to quell free speech that doesn’t meld with party lines is a frightening notion.

In Canada, the political divide manifests itself on social media platforms by the minute. Coverage has been palpable in terms of the Charlie Kirk murder. On both sides of the border the ‘left versus right’ firestorm grows in epic proportions daily, driving extreme levels of hate into politics and into personal lives. ‘If you didn’t like Charlie you must be a lib!’ or vice versa are the calls. On social media platforms the death of a young father has become more about left versus right than about a violent crime, or about right versus wrong. Threats have been received by at least one Democratic Utah state official – blaming her for Kirk’s death. Even Elon Musk has publicly claimed, “The left is the party of murder.” That really helps!

American Republican Party officials at various levels have appeared in mainstream and social media clips making incendiary claims about ‘lefties’ and violence. Some Democratic Party representatives and influencers have made inappropriate comments about Kirk, as opposed to simply proclaiming that murder is never right.

In government and in life in both our countries, the left blames the right for everything that goes wrong then takes credit for everything that is successful, and the right does the same to the left in reverse.

Then many faceless, nameless, gutless morons on social media continuously target elected officials from both parties – or anyone that may take an alternative position, with threats and calls for violence. Some the threats of death are quite concerning.

At the highest level of the political sphere, the President of the United States openly blames the ‘radical left’ for Kirk’s death. He said, “The radicals on the left are the problem, they’re vicious and they’re horrible.” He went on to make a martyr out of Kirk by promising to present him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, offering a state funeral and ordering the flags to half-mast in his honour. He didn’t have a lot to say, nor did many other GOP officials, when a Democratic state politician and her husband were murdered in Minnesota in July. He also joked about Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s husband being beaten nearly to death with a hammer in 2022 and made light of the plot to kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer that same year.

Conversely, former President Joe Biden once said, its “time to put Trump in a bullseye”, not long before a sniper fired a shot and wounded him in Ohio in 2024. He said he didn’t mean for his rival to be assassinated when he made the remark but was referring to the Presidential campaign. However, in the wild-west environment of this age, it wasn’t a bright thing to say.

Members from both U.S. political parties have made comments that could be perceived as inflammatory when it comes to political violence that has been perpetrated on the opposing party. None of this is healthy and widens the political divide tremendously. At the same time, officials on both sides have routinely and maturely condemned political violence, as they should.

Healthy debate over a drink and walking away friends, is largely gone when it comes to politics. Personal and political issues seem more inextricably linked than ever, causing many friendships and family relationships to suffer accordingly.

Whatever happened to respectful political disagreement and debate, and then doing what is best for the ‘people’ as opposed to what is best for the individual and/or party? Why are most political votes largely split along party lines? Do the Conservatives (Republicans) or Liberals (Democrats) not ever get it right in terms of their proposals? It’s always a ‘one for all and all for one’ scenario.

The Late Senator John McCain defended Barack Obama at a public meeting during the 2008 Presidential campaign; was a close friend of Joe Biden on the other side of the Senate; and gave the famous ‘thumbs down’ to a GOP health care proposal because he didn’t agree that it was the best thing for Americans. Now THAT is a level of true leadership that is rarely seen in my view.

Our House of Commons ‘Question Periods’ are a clown show at times. Immature hooting and hollering are the norm when either party is trying to make a point. Votes are almost always along party lines as well. The running of election campaigns that are almost solely based on the criticism of opponents and their ideas rather than the ‘Here’s what I think we need to do to improve the lives of Canadians’ approach. True leaders in either party at any level should vote with their hearts. Sadly, we don’t see that very often.

Promotional processes in both private and public sector organizations typically involve candidates describing their skills, experience, and intended contributions to an interview panel. Slamming the other participants was always a kiss of death on any panels I sat on. But when it comes to electing Premiers and Prime Ministers most of what we hear from candidates is them telling us why the other candidates ‘don’t know what they’re doing.’

If there was ever a time in our history as Americans or Canadians that we needed elected leaders at all levels to lead by example – maturely, objectively and honestly; do what’s best for our independent countries; and at the same time try to maintain the best of relationships with our largest and oldest allies – militarily and economically. Currently, we hear talk of tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, bigger tariffs, no tariffs, and annexation threats by the President. It’s hurting both Americans and Canadians economically.

It would great to see Trump and whoever from the Democrats…maybe Obama (I don’t even know who their leader is anymore) stand side-by-side and face the nation to ask for calm, peace and unity, internally and with partner allies. And similarly in Canada, with Carney and Poilievre doing the same, all followed by state and provincial officials following suit. Can you imagine?

No, you can’t. Because such positive historical events will never happen. But there is nothing stopping all of us from doing our best to not propagate the vitriol and further the divide. We need unity, not conflict at these difficult times.

We are better and deserve better than this.

Self defense in your own home: It’s bigger than fight or comply

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 14:55:22 GMT

There are always many rapidly changing dynamics

The rising number of home invasions and residential break and enter occurrences where residents are in their homes is concerning to say the least.

To add fuel to that fire, it has been reported that Canada now has more ‘home invasions’ per capita than our neighbors to the south. It is difficult to accurately compare Canadian and U.S. numbers due the vast differences between our countries as to how such data is collected, categorized and reported on. Although I don’t believe that any of our crime stats begin to compare to those of the U.S., the fact that Canada could even be close is alarming.

Media stories describing horrendous incidents of murder and the sexual assault of a child during one of these events, as well charges being levelled against a man that retaliated and seriously injured a criminal that broke into his apartment in the middle of the night, have churned up significant public debate. Subsequently, comments made by Premier Doug Ford regarding how he would react if victimized, as well as remarks made by an Ontario police Chief at a media scrum have brought the discussion to a fever-pitch.

Premier’s Comments

I totally get where Premier Ford is coming from following the City of Kawartha Lakes case, when he stated words to the effect that: “I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six”. I’ve said those very words, regarding ‘no other option’ scenarios, but I really don’t think politicians need to comment about issues before the courts without knowing all the facts.

We truly do not know the details of what happened in the case where both the intruder and the homeowner were charged by police, however, the police and the Crown Attorney do. The resulting trial may well show that the circumstances quite warranted both men being charged.

I suspect that although the man there would likely be justified to use deadly force against an intruder armed with a crossbow, perhaps at some point he went too far. Time will tell.

Comments by York Region Chief

I know Chief MacSween. He’s a bright and experienced police chief of one of the largest and best police services in this country.

I listened to his comments several times. What he said when commenting from his prepared text was in essence, “If at all possible get away from the situation and let the police handle it.” Those words were similar to the well-publicized terrorist attack adage: “Run, hide, fight”. In other words, don’t try to take on terrorists, RUN, and if you can’t run then HIDE , and if you can’t – then FIGHT like hell.

He also said he was, “...urging (people to) not to take matters into their own hands…”, and “…urge (people) to call 911 and do everything you can to keep yourself and your loved ones safe...” He added, “Don’t engage unless absolutely necessary…” That was his messaging and in my mind makes complete sense.

But then in answer to a reporter’s question, he said: “The best defense is to comply.” That short verbiage became the story that people are clinging to and IF that was all he said that day I’d be concerned too. But it’s not.

Only engaging to protect yourself or your loved ones does not mean comply and sit on your hands while your child is being sexually assaulted. My God, that is the last thing he would ever suggest or would ever do himself.

The Law

The right to use force in self-defense has been long entrenched in the Criminal Code of Canada, however it’s not a catch-all.

Section 34 gives the authority for anyone – not just police, to use force to defend themselves or another.

But it has to be “reasonable”. So, in the Kawartha Lakes case the question for the Judge or Jury to decide at trial will be, did the man use “reasonable” force to defend himself from the intruder?

In these cases, IF the perpetrator is disarmed, restrained or rendered unconscious, does section 34 give authority to the homeowner to continue to beat, or shoot or stab the perpetrator to death? NO. That would not be reasonable. When the perceived threat is gone, so is the authority to use deadly force in defense of yourself or loved ones. Being pissed off is not grounds to use force. Otherwise, every employee, supervisor, teacher, student, husband and wife, etc., would be justified every minute of every day.

The federal Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, stated his belief that the fear of death or serious bodily harm should be “presumptive” in Canadian law. That’s dangerous in my view. We still must be accountable for the use of deadly force and not automatically be covered by presumptive legislation.

Otherwise, if your drunken neighbor who is known to you wanders into your home with nothing in his hands, you could presume he is there to cause serious bodily harm or death and shoot him. Is that we want in Canada? I don’t believe for a minute that it is. We are not a country where there are more guns than people and kids are not being shot here for playing nicky nicky nine door.

The current law allows for the Judge or Jury to decide whether the fear of death or serious bodily harm was reasonable and whether or not the amount of force used to retaliate was reasonable. I truly believe the police and courts will err on the side of caution in terms of prosecuting and convicting a person in the “iffy” situations that arise.

There will be extreme examples one way or another – some clearly a serious threat and others clearly not. If a stranger with a gun, knife or a crowbar kicks in your door at 3 am it would be an easy decision to use as much force as necessary. Of course, if you are subsequently able to disarm and gain physical control of them, you have most likely eliminated the threat.

Conversely, if an unarmed neighbor’s child comes into your home at 2 pm, in my view it is an easy call.

Then there are many greyer examples possible in between those extremes. In any of these cases, if you can get you and your family out of there to be safe when you hear a window or door broken, why not? I realize that these are tough life or death decisions for untrained citizens and every situation will be different – each one changing in a heartbeat. There’s always a ton of potential variables.

Police officers must make similar decisions every shift they work and even for trained professionals it is seldom easy.

Most often intruders have no intent to harm anyone, but they are just looking to steal and are surprised that anyone is home. It may be a case of “Give me your money and car keys and we’ll be out of here.” Fine. No personal property is worth losing your life over. Another judgment call on your part, but you would have to err on the side of caution. Hiding, fleeing or even negotiating with thieves that don’t want to be murderers may be the best response. It’s not totally “complying” per se but is more bartering to save lives.

What would I do?

When faced with a serious threat like an intruder entering my home at night (armed or unarmed – it can be difficult to determine), IF I could slip my family out a back door to safety, I would. If I could negotiate our way clear I would, and if I couldn’t do that or was unable to keep them or myself safe, I’d do anything humanly possible to neutralize the threat. That includes using deadly force with fists, feet, elbows, knees, teeth or whatever weapon I could get my hands on. At any step along the way, I’d notify police when possible and continue to make decisions in favour of the safety of my family, first and foremost.

What I wouldn’t do – nor would Chief MacSween I’m sure, is fold up like a cheap suit, cry, suck my thumb and let the bad guys do whatever they want to my family. Never.

The worst boss: Nightmare for some, reality for many

Sat, 21 Jun 2025 17:44:02 GMT

Image: new-manager-training.com

Imagine this scenario if you will, getting the worst boss on earth – a person who is the total antithesis of leadership.

Your new “Boss” replaces a leader that wasn’t always right and was getting too old to meet the mental and physical demands of the job, but at the same time treated all those around him with respect. He tried to select people for key positions based on their experience base and his confidence that they may not always agree but the individuals picked would be honest with him, other employees and the client base. He undoubtedly made mistakes here and there and did have some flaws but would readily admit to most of them.

This boss comes back to the organization having committed a list of publicly confirmed misdeeds and illegal acts – many of which would have singularly been a good reason to not hire even the lowest level of employee, and justification for imprisonment for others. However, he was chosen for the top job despite all that baggage. Conversely, he brings not one redeeming quality to the top position.

From day one, it’s obvious that the new Boss is truly a “boss” and not a “leader.”

He has old personal scores to settle and wreaks revenge on many employees that he doesn’t like. Not because they were dishonest, incapable or lazy, but because he perceives that they didn’t want him to return or didn’t always agree with his philosophies and rash actions during past affiliations. This activity causes panic among all employees who know they have no choice but to get aboard his out-of-control train or perish beneath it.

Then – without any deep evaluation or thought, he makes tremendous cuts to many organizational programs – leaving thousands without work and lacking any strategy to provide much needed services to a vast array of client groups. He viciously cuts through the organization like a chainsaw through softwood. Why? Because he can. Some of these decisions may have had some degree of validity following a proper assessment, while others not, but that analysis never occurred.

Most previous positive relationships with partner agencies and the majority of client groups are immediately scuttled by the new boss. He publicly demeans and taunts longtime allies with irrational statements and outright falsehoods. Never in the many decades of history of the organization has such broad-ranging international indignation been felt, largely as a result of his childish behavior. Very few productive relationships remain and although some new ones are developed, they are only with organizations that are poorly considered by clients and upstanding industry players.

His decisions continually fly in the face of the needs of the immense client group but more align with the personal business interests of only the Boss and his business associates – some of whom are either known despots or of questionable character. Company stocks continue to plummet as a result of his silliness. That also has a significant negative impact on the fiscal picture of partner organizations around the world.

Anyone that respectfully expresses disagreement or suggests alternative decisions to the Boss, are sidelined or fired, then are ridiculed and until they become unemployable.

Gas-lighting, exaggerations, denials, the passing of blame and blatant lies are his norm. He seldom speaks the truth about anyone or any situation. The sycophants he has positioned to assist in his destruction of the organization, publicly praise him for his leadership and courageous decision-making, when the majority of employees and clients know it is just flagrant butt-kissing on their part.

He constantly seeks and demands praise, even for things he didn’t do, then sulks and whines when he doesn’t receive it. He falsely takes credit for the few good things that do happen but quickly passes blame when things that have his fingerprints all over them, go horribly wrong.

His God-complex is resounding and worsens with each passing day. His public claims of success – before and since becoming the Boss, and assertions of being the “Greatest Boss in history”, fall flat with anyone that truly knows him.

He aggressively takes advantage of anyone he can but then turns on them at the flip of a switch. No one is beyond being found at the pointy end of his meanness stick. When caught making an error, he’ll blame everyone on his “team” before accepting any criticism. In fact, he’d turn on his own children if he felt it would make him look brave or heroic, or if it would prevent him from public humiliation. He states his 24/7 lies over and over so often to make his base of lemming followers believe him, that he seemingly believes them to be factual himself. Even when he is confronted with witness testimony or audio/video of his brazen lies, he blames others for being out to get him. Being accountable when things go wrong and letting the light shine on others when they go well, is beyond his comprehension. (Can you spell “narcissistic”?)

Although he doesn’t understand the business, he refuses to surround himself with people that do, given that he thinks he knows more than any of them and possibly more than anybody, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time.

Public statements he makes are often completely ridiculous and childish, causing all those around him to force plastic smiles, offer him undeserved praise and nod like pre-programmed bobbleheads. People and even affiliated organizations live in such fear of his thirst for retribution that they either cow-tow to his insanity or prepare for annihilation. He is an embarrassment internally and externally, on an international scale. No past executive has even been so blatantly self-centered, mean spirited and/or inept, nor have they ever had such a negative impact on the organization and its people. It may take decades to repair all the damage he has done.

Thankfully, his employment contract is only for four years, so there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Most of those within and those reliant on the organization, as well as friends, associates, allies internationally pray that this nightmare will end at that time. If it’s not too late, that is.

Just a bad dream for some or a reality for millions of us?

What did the PM’s most recent announcement on border security really mean?

Tue, 04 Feb 2025 23:53:18 GMT

Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?

U.S. President Trump seemed relatively pleased with the commitments PM Trudeau made in their phone conversation on Feb 3 ^rd . From a tariff war perspective, that’s a good thing. I don’t think that Trump really gives a tinker’s damn about the minute amount of Fentanyl that is shipped into the U.S. from Canada, or the handful of illegal aliens that sneak into the U.S. from the north – versus the thousands of illegals and tons of fentanyl that enters the U.S. from Mexico. He simply doesn’t like Justin Trudeau and is therefore swinging his economic hammer in an attempt to ruin him politically, and subsequently we pay the price as a nation.

But let’s examine the reality of PM Trudeau’s announcement:

Move ahead with its $1.3 billion border plan announced in December

Yup, got it. Old news. $1.3B over six years. I recall every word of it and none of it means boots on the ground.

List cartels as terrorists

Big whoop. They are already organized crime groups and police and the courts have legislation to deal with them from investigative and sentencing perspectives. If Canada’s terrorism legislation helps, great, but in essence Canada is changing the definition of ‘terrorism’ if they are going to now call armed thugs that manufacture drugs and transport them around the world ‘terrorists’. I don’t really care one way or the other, but it is not an earth-shattering development in my view.

Reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel

Okay. Old news but still makes sense. In the meantime, they rented two Blackhawk warships that’ll spend as much time on the ground being serviced than flying in the skies over 5000 miles of border, 24/7. The rest of the RCMP is already short of aviation assets to meet their current policing needs nationally, but on we go.

Enhanced coordination with our American partners

In Ontario, Michigan and New York State, the RCMP and OPP already have officers imbedded in several U.S. ports of entry to facilitate cross border intelligence sharing and cross-border investigations. Could there be more of this across Canada? Absolutely.

Increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl

What? There are no ‘people’ to do this. He’ll be looking for the RCMP and CBSA to redeploy officers. Neither agency has the human resources to do this. The RCMP are already short at least 1000 officers for their Federal Policing Program (which includes narcotics investigations) and they are desperately hurting for officers in many provinces. CBSA are short at least 2000 agents just to meet their current needs without an enhanced border security framework that extends beyond the Ports of Entry.

Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working on protecting the border

Name them! CBSA has 8500 front line agents working at the various Ports of Entry. This number of 10,000 must include them, the handful of RCMP officers they can claim are committed to border security across the country and probably the 200 the OPP has at least temporarily assigned to help, in the interests of the safety of all Ontario communities. All of that is a shell game at best.

Appointing a Fentanyl Czar

And who will be anointed? It has to be someone with a strong and current law enforcement background as opposed to a politician. It should be a ‘Drug Czar’ and not one with a Fentanyl specific portfolio, and perhaps the role should simply belong to the RCMP executive that commands the Federal Policing program.

The other reality is, Canada could have a dozen Fentanyl Czars, but there is no one for them to command. He/she will be a General without an army. All police services conduct drug investigations already, 24/7, 365, including Fentanyl cases. Most police services put all the resources they possibly can into dismantling drug manufacturers and traffickers, and include money laundering investigators in their efforts. They don’t need a Czar to confuse their command and control structures. They just need more people to do what they already do very well. And then they need a sufficient number of Federal Prosecutors to ensure hard-fought cases aren’t tossed because of the lack of a Crown Attorney. I won’t bother getting into our catch and release judicial system.

Signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl and we will be backing it with $200 million

I don’t have a clue what that means. Canada has an organized crime intelligence structure in Canada that is second to none. Every province has a Criminal Intelligence Service Bureau, which are linked to the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC). The provincial Bureaus are directed by committees of police leaders. CISC is commanded by a senior RCMP officer. The U.S. do not have a structure that remotely compares. These Bureaus gather, analyze and share intelligence through and with municipal, First Nations, provincial police services and the RCMP, as well as CBSA, CSIS and more member agencies. They also help fund joint forces investigations into organized crime groups – including money laundering and narcotics of all types.

Additionally, they have long established links to the FBI, Homeland Security and the ATF.

So, what changes on the intelligence front with this announcement? Does the PM intend to direct them as to who or what group to gather intelligence on?

Launch a Canada- U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering

Sounds good. It happens intermittently now on a case-by-case basis, but a permanent structure would certainly be better. It doesn’t require the direction of the PM however. The Mounties should be the lead from the Canada side and be the link to all police services here as well as CISC, but once again it requires warm bodies.

Don’t get me wrong, ANYTHING that is done to improve what we are failing so badly at now is a good thing. But this announcement is more political smoke and mirrors than it is meaningful. Theres no meat on the bones here. It also drives me to distraction that it takes the irrational threats and lies of a petulant child from the most powerful bully pulpit on earth to force an elementary start at doing what we should have been doing for years.

When Canada announces a strategy to hire thousands of additional officers for both the RCMP and CBSA, that’ll mean were actually serious. I wait with bated breath.

What police don’t need during a crisis

Sat, 04 Jan 2025 20:09:42 GMT

Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same.

Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin.

At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP.

“Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out.

There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”.

There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers.

But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts.

The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that.

However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating.

In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands.

But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level.

As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind:

Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder.

Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles.

What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant.

Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief.

We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do.

There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference.

Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong.

If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.

Top 5 Public Safety Issues for 2024

cdlewis@live.ca (Chris Lewis) — Sat, 28 Dec 2024 18:57:22 GMT

Violent Crime Remains High

In December each year I identify the top Public Safety issues for the 12 months prior, based in part on the number of interviews I’ve conducted on various topics for Bell Media’s television and talk-radio stations, but additionally through my own analysis of what I see as the issues concerning Canadians in their day to day lives. Without fail, the matters I identify dovetail with the focus of Canada’s police services as they continue to all do their best to prevent crime and victimization in their communities.

So, here are the Top Five Public Safety Issues of 2024 from my perspective, in no specific order:

1. Border Security. Successive Canadian governments have let both the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) down and in turn failed Canadians in terms of tightening up our border with the United States. The longest largely unprotected and thus porous border in the world permits a never-ending supply of firearms (mostly handguns) coming into this country, as well as tons of illegal drugs. Despite Canada’s police chiefs repeatedly raising concerns, the federal government has done somewhere between little and absolutely zero to change that. But when President in-Waiting Donald Trump announced that he will impose tariffs on Canadian goods if Canada didn’t take decisive action quickly around people and Fentanyl southbound into the USA, all hell broke loose. A harried flight by PM Trudeau to Mar-a-Lago inevitably resulted in an announcement to invest $1.3B over six years on December 17, which is at least a step forward, but it is far from enough to allow for the hiring of thousands of additional CBSA and RCMP personnel.

2. Increase in Property Crime. The rise in auto thefts across Canada over the past several years has been quite apparent to Canadians. Well publicized and growing stats as well as videos of violent car jackings and expensive vehicles being quietly stolen from residence driveways, led to the federal and provincial governments investing in joint forces operations and technology to help stem the flow of these vehicles by truck to shipping containers in places like the Port of Montreal. There’s been huge success in recovering vehicles by police and CBSA since and currently the insurance industry and auto manufacturers are working with police to develop technological prevention and recovery solutions. Fingers crossed for even better days ahead, but the issue remains a huge concern.

At the same time, statistics showing the increase in other property crimes across the country are alarming. Residential and business break-ins, brazen smash and grab robberies and other thefts plague our communities day after day. Organized crime groups control both the auto theft and high-end retail theft markets and often use local youth as their foot soldiers, but the many other more common thefts are often linked to socio-economic issues beyond the control of police. Addiction, mental health issues and poverty, or combinations thereof, continue to be a factor in many of the more “minor” thefts, which still greatly concern victims every single day.

3. Increase in Violent Crime. What was known in Toronto several years ago as the “Year of the Gun” is common to many communities – large, small and rural. It’s become the Century of the Gun. The absolute proliferation of smuggled handguns transversing the above-mentioned porous border has led to an abundance of shootings, injuries and deaths – largely involving street gangs. Even more concerning than criminals trying to kill each other, is when innocent people are afraid to walk some streets at minimum, to innocent victims including children being caught in the crossfire.

It’s also frightening that young people are more often committing assorted acts of violence with regularity – from familial gun and knife attacks to bizarre group assaults on unknown sidewalk passersby and even pushing people onto subway tracks. As sociologists, criminologists and mental health experts work to understand the “why”, police continue to respond, investigate and prosecute as best they can.

4. Protests. Public protests in varying forms have sadly become a way of life in Canada. But over the past several years, the frequency, duration and threat levels continue to escalate exponentially. The Israel/Palestine conflict alone has resulted in protracted and volatile protests almost 24/7 in Toronto and some other major cities, but some smaller communities have been affected as well.

Many police services are not adequately resourced to meet the staffing demands of evolving crime or the need for technology, among other challenges, let alone the number of officers required to address these difficult protest operations full time. It is resource draining work and significantly takes away from other police prevention, response and investigative activities that deserve officer’s focus, and there is no end in sight.

Police are in a no-win situation as they deal with most protests. The issues are often highly-charged and emotional for those that are supportive of or opposed to whatever underlying cause is at play. The significant resources required to arrest criminal violators are seldom present without significant planning and pre-deployment, so officers cannot do much more than monitor, record and investigate with the hope of laying charges sometime later. They have to act like hockey referees, waiting for the fight to drop to the ice. That is understandably frustrating to those negatively impacted, but it is the reality of what police can do.

5. Failing Justice System. “Catch and release” and “revolving door justice” are but two of the ways the many public and police detractors describe our bail, parole and probation systems in Canada. Time and time again, violent criminals who are already out on bail are arrested and released again. Criminal law and the rules of engagement are dictated by the federal government and then applied by police, prosecutors and judges that are overseen by the provinces they are located in. It is unacceptable that criminals who are an obvious threat to officer and public safety continue to be released and continue to commit additional violent acts. It is clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense that something has to change. The current federal government, who created some of the current lax rules, has promised change – but what, when and how remains to be seen. Fingers crossed.

I know I’ve made our world sound somewhat dark and gloomy again this year, and it undoubtedly all needs to be fixed post-haste, but in the meantime please know that Canada remains one of the safest countries in the world, and our crime stats – concerning as they may be, pale in comparison to most other nations. Regardless, we need to do better. I know that all police services will continue to try their best and will most often succeed, but they need to be supported by governments at all levels through the provision of adequate resources and a legislative framework that enables them to keep everyone safe. And as good community members, we have an onus ourselves to support them in any way we can.

Wishing everyone a wonderful holiday season and a safe, healthy and prosperous 2025. I ask that you please thank an emergency responder when you can and pray for their safety every day of the coming year.

Canada’s new border security plan: Where’s the people?

cdlewis@live.ca (Chris Lewis) — Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:20:23 GMT

$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.

The expansion of the federal firearms ban

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 19:42:00 GMT

Here we go again….

Thursday’s announcement by the Liberal government to expand their 2020 list of banned firearms has not resulted in gangsters and mass shooters heading for the hills. Firearms legislation never will.

What it has done however is further penalize lawful gun owners in Canada, who have been background checked, trained and licensed to possess these weapons.

It makes me crazy that federal Ministers and spokespersons continue to use taglines like “weapons of war belong on the battlefield”; “AR-15-type rifles” and my personal favorite, “Assault-style firearms”. They also tied the announcement to the 35th anniversary of the horrific École Polytechnique gender-based massacre of 14 innocent and promising young women, which is politically wise timing, but flawed public policy in my view.

To be clear, real assault rifles and other fully automatic firearms have been totally banned in Canada for years, as have large capacity magazines. To possess any of them is clearly against the law. This new list contains rifles that look like military weapons, but they aren’t. They are semi-automatic rifles, that by law can only have a magazine of 5 rounds or less, but they are largely black in colour and have some of the physical characteristics of classic military assault rifles, but that’s where it ends. They are no more capable of killing than any typical hunting rifle. In fact, some of them are .22 calibre and the only war that could be waged with them would be against squirrels, groundhogs and tin cans. Looking scary and actually being a greater threat to public safety than normal hunting rifles that are in homes all over Canada, are 2 different things.

But my question is: “Will a deranged individual consider the ramification of firearms legislation when he or she wants to go on a killing spree?”

The Nova Scotia shooter had the Mini Ruger 14 rifle in his arsenal in 2020, which was banned in the years following its use by the École Polytechnique killer in 1989. It was totally illegal for him to possess it or any of the other weapons he had. It was also illegal for him to murder 22 innocent people, which is a far more serious criminal offence. Sadly, neither of these mass killers feared any Canadian law, so banning this rifle between atrocities did not save a single life. Neither past nor new laws would have stopped these horrendous acts of violence.

The Toronto Van Attack that killed 11 and injured 15 people on Yonge Street in 2018 was perpetrated with a rental van. I do not mean to make light of that tragedy at all, I attended the scene, and it was awful, but the “ban it and all will be saved” premise espoused in this latest firearms legislation is akin to banning white vans. It would not have prevented the Yonge Street attack.

The “buy back” program that came with the 2020 ban and continues with the latest additions to it, will solve nothing. The lawful owners of these now banned guns have not been coming forward so far, but if they did, it would only mean that lawful/trained/licensed owners will not commit a murder with the guns turned in. It’s a flawed program that I liken to the various “firearms amnesty” calls we’ve seen in past years. A few rusty old rifles that someone found in their dead grandpa’s garage get turned in and that’s great, but the bad guys that already possess guns illegally for criminal purposes aren’t likely to suddenly start obeying the law. To think otherwise is laughable.

With isolated exceptions, long guns of any type in the hands of Canada’s lawful owners under our strict legislative framework are not a significant threat to public safety in this country. On the other hand, smuggled handguns from the U.S.A., are.

Street gang members are committing violent crimes with smuggled handguns every day in Canada. The laws governing that are quite plain. Police services are investigating these crimes after the fact 24/7, with great success but at great risk, however at that point someone is already wounded or dead. When arrests are made, a flawed judicial system too often allows these dangerous offenders to be released, again, again and again.

Can you imagine the frustration felt by officers who risk their lives to attend these shootings and then apprehend the criminals responsible just to see them freed and continuing to be a threat to them and the public, over and over? “Catch and release” should be words used by fly fishermen, not by police officers.

The federal government needs to put their money and their mouths on stemming the non-stop flow of handguns into Canada from the south. We are an international embarrassment on that front. A huge investment is required to fix this, rather than investing in going after guns that up until now were legal to own and are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. If those folks do break the law or become a threat, police have the legal ability to seize their weapons through due legal authorities on a case-by-case basis.

As that unfolds, our federal government needs to immediately bring our revolving door bail system to a halt and keep violent recidivism to a minimum before more innocent Canadians and police officers die in our streets.

Let’s get our public safety priorities and investments in an order that aims to save lives, not votes.

Are Canada’s Crime Rates Surpassing U.S.A.’s?

cdlewis@live.ca (Chris Lewis) — Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:43:49 GMT

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.

Is Canada’s border security apparatus broken?

Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:07:24 GMT

In a nutshell, yes.

I, and many others, have opined for several years that Canada needs to tighten up its border with the U.S.A to prevent firearms from entering Canada and harming Canadians. The overwhelming majority of crime guns recovered in Canada have been traced back to U.S. origin, and it is believed that most of those that could not be traced or even located, likely came from there as well. A tremendous quantity of illegal drugs enter Canada across our largely insecure border through the same smuggling routes, which is the vastest unprotected border between any two countries in the world.

That is not an indictment of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) or the RCMP, who collectively have responsibility to protect our border. Nor is it a partisan statement. Both agencies have been chronically under-resourced by successive governments for decades.

I reacted negatively immediately when President-elect Donald Trump recently threatened to implement tariffs on Canadian goods if Canada doesn’t get its border security act together, because I know that more ‘bad stuff’ enters Canada from the south than the other way around. Guns do not get smuggled into the U.S. from Canada and other than some “BC Bud” on occasion, not a pile of drugs are moved into the U.S. from our side of the border. I can’t remember if ever, when I heard of a load of cocaine heading south from Canada being intercepted by U.S. authorities. Why? Because it rarely happens. Cocaine, fentanyl and other drugs do enter the U.S. through Mexico in tons, on a regular basis.

Similarly, not many Canadians are trying to sneak into the U.S.A to seek refugee status, or because they are looking for a better life. However, the U.S. is plagued 24/7 by thousands of migrants trying to enter through their southern border. Undoubtedly many aliens have managed to find their way into Canada via our very relaxed immigration process and then have attempted to slip into the U.S., but that’s why the U.S. has a much more substantive Border Protection Service, all armed to the teeth and supported by technology, vessels, aircraft, dogs and feral cats.

Canadian officials are certainly rightfully concerned about the potential for droves of migrants who are currently residing in the U.S. trying to enter Canada when President Trump takes office and keeps his promise to deport masses of illegal immigrants.

Having said all of that, Trump is at least partly right (words I seldom say) in terms of how our lacking security apparatus might impact our friends to the south. Canada should play a role in supporting the U.S. in preventing illegal immigration and in stopping any drugs whatsoever from entering their northern border. And vice-versa. That’s how two countries that are long-time friends and colleagues should work. Share intelligence, expertise and legislative hooks; conduct joint investigations and collaborate for the benefit of all.

But Canada, sadly in my view, doesn’t have much to offer the partnership. CBSA members are dedicated and do their very best, as are the RCMP – despite their slew of competing, multi-level priorities, but within the current resource envelopes of these federal agencies, it’s like trying to manage an elephant with a mouse.

This week, Ontario Premier Doug Ford hosted a meeting with U.S. and Canadian authorities, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and others to discuss this issue and what can be done. As Premier, he can only do so much but at least he’s trying. The province certainly does have a role – through the OPP and Criminal Intelligence Ontario (CISO). The OPP have embedded officers into U.S. Customs facilities in Buffalo and Detroit for years to help facilitate international intelligence sharing and investigative cooperation. Municipal police services also help as much as possible, but this dilemma is a federal failing for the most part.

It took a lot of hue and cry to get the feds to the table several months ago to develop a strategy of sorts regarding the stolen automobile crisis in Canada, including the export of stolen vehicles through the Port of Montreal. CBSA received some enabling technology to assist in scanning shipping containers for stolen vehicles, but I’m told from a human resources (investigators and analysts) perspective, it’s merely been a shell-game of moving existing CBSA personnel hither and yon to make an impact. That is not a sustainable solution.

Regarding this current matter, Canada’s Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc since stated “We can make additional investments to reassure Canadians that all of the measures necessary are in place and will continue to be in place” (at the border). Well Mr. Minister, at this point effective measures are NOT in place and are a long way from being so.

Why has it taken Donald Trump's threats to wake our federal government up to the fact that our border is like Swiss cheese, and it will take significant funding for human and technological resources – accompanied by a rigorous strategy, to make a difference? And similarly, why must the Premier of Ontario take the lead in sorting out what we can do better?

The only answer is: “Because somebody has to.”

The downhill slide of true leadership in politics on both sides of the 49th parallel

Sat, 23 Nov 2024 16:21:03 GMT

Reposted from Feb. 2020

My July 2017 article “Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss?”

https://www.lighthouseleadershipservices.com/post/donald-j-trump-leader-or-boss , expresses my then concerns that the 45th President of the United States of America was to that point not demonstrating the characteristics of leadership whatsoever, but was merely a self-centred “boss”. His apparent lack of honesty; transparency; and decision-making ability (i.e. putting his personal goals and needs over country and party), combined with his bully tactics; passing the blame; falsely taking credit…and so much more, in no way exemplified what true leaders do, but were perfectly good examples of what they shouldn’t do. Well guess what? Nothing has changed. Zilch. In fact it’s gone to hell in a handbasket in my opinion.

He destroyed relationships with many allied nations. Much like his private business modus operandi, he bullies, pressures, lies and tries to bowl over anyone, anything or any country in his way. There’s no give and take or relationship building with nations that have stood strong with the US as trading partners or through international conflict. Unless of course you count his love for the ruthless dictators in Russia and North Korean – then he’s all in. Is that what is best for the American people?

The lying has reached a fever-pitch. Trump continues to claim “fake media” on every quote of his ridiculous and immature banter that he doesn’t like. That usually means almost every media outlet except FOX News is conspiring against him.

During the lead up to the recent Impeachment Trial of President Trump, he defied subpoenas for Administration witnesses and documents. Why? If Administration employees could take the bible in their right hand, swear an oath to tell the truth and give evidence that would clear him, why not encourage them to testify? If White House documents would help his defense, you’d think he’d be fighting like a rabid dog to have them made public. But he vigorously fought all attempts to produce witnesses and records that might prove his innocence – despite valid requests through established legal processes.

But what he did do – with abandon, is vilify American citizens that testified under oath against him in the House Committee Hearings. One, highly respected and longtime US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, was disparaged by Trump live on Twitter she was actually giving evidence under oath. She went on to testify that his Twitter comment was “very intimidating”. Only one so-called “leader” in recent memory would do such a thing.

Another witness, highly decorated Lt. Col. Andrew Vindman of the US Army, was publicly chastised by staff from Trump’s White house when he testified regarding his observations and concerns as a national security official. This man gave his life to the US armed services and was actually wounded by an IED while serving in the Iraq. Only one so-called leader in recent memory would allow unwarranted criticism of such a man.

A January 19, 2020 “Factchecker” article in the Washington Post, claims that “In 1,095 days, President Trump has made 16,241 false or misleading claims.” Have other Presidents of both political parties made false or misleading claims? No doubt. Sometimes quite innocently and other times in a complete attempt to deceive. But over 16,000 in 3 years? I’m not a historian, but come on.

What is even more alarming in my view is how the overwhelming majority – almost to a person, of Republican US Senators supported him throughout the Impeachment Hearing.

These aren’t stupid people. They’ve heard the facts. They know there’s damning evidence in documents and potentially from current and former Trump appointees like John Bolton that would sink him. But they put party and personal future election fears ahead of determining the truth and doing what is best for the people of the United States. That is NOT leadership.

So what’s happening on our side of the 49th parallel in terms of national leadership these days? Well for those that think I must be a “Liberal” (in reality I’m not) because I don’t believe every word that passes through President Trump’s lips (in reality I believe none), Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is far from a shining example of what leadership should be. I can overlook some of the dumb things he did as a young supply teacher, and his broken campaign promises (they ALL do that) but there’s so much more.

The SNC-Lavalin scandal in which the PM conducted a number of “flagrant” attempts to pressure the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to drop criminal charges against a large and politically influential company, led to Trudeau’s expulsion of two Liberal Members of Parliament. It also had the PM apparently lying to the Canadian public about what he did or didn’t do in relation to pressuring his AG. Eventually the Clerk of the Privy Council resigned over the debacle and there was a tremendous loss of trust in PM Trudeau over what was a minimum an ethics violation, and I would suggest was at least at face value a criminal act.

And that wasn’t his first ethics violation. He had already been chastised by the Ethics Commissioner for accepting a vacation on a private island that was owned by a lobby foundation. How a Prime Minister could ever feel that was right or that the truth wouldn’t eventually kick him in the derriere, is completely beyond comprehension.

The Vice Admiral Mark Norman prosecution fiasco did nothing to restore any level of confidence in the PM’s transparency and ethical posture. As a dedicated, career public servant and military officer, Norman may not have handled the situation particularly well, but he certainly did not commit a criminal act. He actually did what he felt was best for the country, which is far and above more than we saw out of our PM. Everything around Trudeau’s involvement in the affair stinks. With an election forthcoming, the two-year old criminal case was suddenly dropped mid-stream but not before Norman’s exemplary career was destroyed and his life forever altered.

None of this diatribe is partisan on my part. I’m an equal opportunity critic when it comes to the failure of leaders.

I am a firm believer that leadership is about doing what is best for those you serve and those you lead. Real leaders inspire others to do and be their very best. Every decision is about putting the people first and personal careers second. When things go bad, true leaders own up and take the hit. When things go good, they pass on the credit and allow the light to shine brightly on those they lead. Anything less is an abject failure of leadership. But alas, such failures have become the norm at the helm of both of our beloved countries.

If there is a positive side to this depressing tale of two leaders, it is that Canadians can at least cling to the shred of hope that although their “leader” may not be a paragon of truth, he isn’t anywhere near the compulsive liar that our friends to the south are dealing with in their duly-elected President. He’s somewhere close to 16,000 lies short. However neither pseudo-leader is the rock of honesty, ethical-behaviour and transparency that we all deserve.

Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss? (repost from 2017)

Sat, 23 Nov 2024 16:12:25 GMT

Reposted from July 2017 - WHAT HAS CHANGED?

I, like millions of others across North America, watched the unfolding events of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election with bated 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.

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 catchphrases, “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 toher 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, integrity 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.

Promotional processes in police services: We need to promote LEADERS!

Thu, 07 Nov 2024 13:28:25 GMT

Focusing on knowledge of policy isn't the answer

During my law enforcement career, I always struggled with our various promotional processes in terms of their efficacy.

Although they differed somewhat from time to time, at the lower levels they generally consisted of a local recommendation; a written exam (largely based on pertinent legislation and the odd inane puzzle/logic question) and then the top X% would be interviewed by a panel of senior officers. Interview questions were situational in nature, i.e. ‘what if’ scenarios regarding policy and procedure decisions, with the occasional query that might loosely relate to ‘leadership’. It all culminated in a ‘list’ of those identified as being ready for promotion to Corporal or Sergeant. As the list of candidates grew thin, we’d do it all again. The questions didn’t change a lot over time.

I passed some and failed others, each time questioning how the process would actually identify officers that could lead a platoon, unit or detachment. It undoubtedly did at times and some great leaders were selected, but it was more a function of good luck than good management. In other instances, names appeared that most of us knew were a complete train wreck, in that they were lazy; crazy; avoided police work all costs; were afraid of their own shadow; treated people terribly and or couldn’t lead a pack of Boy Scouts to a campfire. Then, many wonderful leaders that I’d follow anywhere never made the cut.

At mid-management levels, there was most often an interview phase, with the top candidates being then put through an “Assessment Centre”, which was four days off-site and comprised of a schedule of group discussions, interviews, an administrative exercise and perhaps a paper of some description. It was better, but still not related to ‘leading people’.

After one process that involved an Assessment Centre in which I was successful, I wrote a 14-page critique of the process and submitted it through channels to the head of our Human Resources Branch. My Superintendent called it my “career suicide memo.” I just wanted those in power to hear it from someone who had been successful so they wouldn’t regard the feedback as being sour grapes. I heard crickets from there.

Months later I participated in a town hall meeting of sorts where said ‘Head of HR’ was a speaker. He opened the floor to suggestions on how to improve our promotional process. I offered several of the points made in my earlier memo, and he seemed truly excited while he furiously make notes. I then pointed out that I had sent all those comments to him by memo, but he had not replied. It was all smoke and mirrors and he really didn’t give a hoot about what any of us thought or said.

At one point interested members had to submit a self-assessment detailing examples that demonstrated how they met the various competencies. Verifying that document for so many applicants was impossible as well. Eventually we got rid of the written exam, advertised every open position and interviewed. That was very challenging to manage in a deployed organization of 9,000 people. Even though we developed some interview questions to delve into the member’s leadership competencies (decision-making, people management, relationship building, change management, etc.), some people fabricated tales about accomplishing things that never happened, while others told true stories about actual events but either exaggerated their involvement or outright lied about even being there. Others had legitimate and perfect examples to give the panel but weren’t always the best at saying “Hey, look at me, I’m wonderful. Pick me.”

Sometimes, particularly at the upper levels, they picked who they wanted and simply placed them into positions. At times the selection was based on who was liked for whatever reason, including who might excel at particular job skill - but not necessarily because of proven leadership skills. Instead, we heard justifications like, "Oh he has a law degree" or "She is a good undercover officer". Again, some good folks were picked and some not. Those promoted were always elated; those not remained disappointed; and thousands of hardworking people that carried the OPP on their backs then had to then work with and for all of the above.

Through those decades and process iterations, it was apparent that some people had jobs that allowed them to study at their desks and they were home every night and weekend to study more and/or spend time with their families. Others were in busy roles where studying at work was not an option, and many of those officers were away from home on operations or investigations five days a week or more. When they finally did get home for a day or two, it was hard to spend the little time they had studying, while their families and the household chores list all needed attention.

We also conducted so-called “360 Interviews” in some specific processes (i.e. Detective Inspector), to seek peer, subordinate and supervisor feedback – including on leadership ability. It was very telling in some cases, but quite resource intensive, expensive, and we always struggled with finding the balance between interviewing those individuals that were identified by the candidates themselves (references in essence), versus picking them more randomly.

As Commissioner, I challenged our management team, HR and the member’s association to come up with suggestions to improve our process. Changes were implemented here and there but no panacea was ever achieved. I failed from that perspective.

I don’t have all the answers to this promotional assessment dilemma for police services. If I did, I would be a rich man. However, in my opinion:

Policy is important, particularly policies that carry a high level of organizational risk if not followed. Legislation is very similar. Lower risk policies and laws can be looked up when they arise, but most or all of them aren’t worth examining in great detail in promotional processes. Knowledge of obscure policies or laws for which violators will only receive a warning or ticket at most, means nothing in the big picture.;
Organizations cannot just promote the smooth talkers; talented fabricators of facts; and people that have time to study but from a leadership perspective couldn’t lead a dog to drink. Most will leave a path of destruction that may not be realized until the lives of a lot of employees are irreparably harmed; and
Proven leadership ability is the most critical element to focus on. Past performance most often indicates future performance, so if an individual is a dumpster fire at one level, they aren’t likely to become the epitome of leadership a level or two higher. Figure out ways to measure that skill that are more definitive than the individual spewing falsities about how good they are. Focus on the impacts they have had at the subordinate and peer levels and not just the opinions of those whose egos the candidate has puffed up.

Effective people-centered leadership will make or break a law enforcement organization. That’s what will inspire people; lead to professionalism, productivity and the provision of quality service; and will greatly contribute to attaining organizational public safety goals.

Make ‘leadership’ the foundational principle for developing, identifying and promoting supervisors, managers and executives.

Some emergency response employees are exposed to Operational AND Organizational Trauma

Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:02:55 GMT

Cover photo from www.tcsupfitting.com

In the emergency response context, there has been much discussion and research over the past 20 years regarding the effects of traumatic events of policing, fire and EMS operations on officers and some civilian personnel. It could be a single occurrence, several events or the cumulative result of many years of dealing with stressful incidents, but undoubtedly many personnel have suffered from varying degrees of mental health issues.

Police and other emergency responders are subjected to many horrific incidents 24/7 in their operational careers. Some of them involve grizzly deaths and untold exposure to danger and at times threats to their lives. In the policing world, making decisions around the use of deadly force and being subjected to assaults and attempts on their lives are not uncommon events.

U.S. police Captain and author Saul Jaeger, M.S. says that police officers “are exposed to an average of 178 critical incidents throughout their career, while the average person encounters two to three traumatic events in their life.” [i] EMS and fire service personnel would likely have similar stats.

Thankfully, the conversation is alive, given that in the past such discussion only occurred around the impacts of war on military personnel. Successful programs and proper resources are now largely in place to help uniformed and civilian employees (mainly call takers and dispatchers) and much has been done to try and break down the stigma that still does exist to some extent, resulting in employees being reluctant to self-disclose any symptoms of an Operational Stress Injury.

But what happens when the trauma that employees are exposed to isn’t related to operations, but to individuals, groups or cultures within the organization itself? Or in other cases, following an operational stress injury an individual experiences ‘sanctuary trauma’ from the organization they expect to be protected by, only to feel even more trauma and stress from unsupportive individuals or laborious HR processes.

Organizational stressors in the policing world, often fall into one of several of the examples below:

Inconsistent leadership style;
Leaders that over-emphasize the negatives (e.g., supervisor evaluations, public complaints);
Difficult co-workers;
An unhealthy organizational culture;
The feeling that different rules apply to different people (e.g., favouritism);
Co-workers seeming to look down on sick or injured members;
Dealing with difficult and/or weak supervisors (poor leaders);
Excessive administrative duties;
Staffing shortages;
Pressure to volunteer free time;
Unequal sharing of work responsibilities;
Bureaucratic red tape/lack of decision-making;
Promotional processes; and
Internal investigations.

Some of those issues may be individual perceptions by some employees and I acknowledge that not everyone can be pleased, but often where there is smoke there is fire. Leadership is key at all levels, and must be consistent, fair, communicative and accountable to mitigate as many of these concerns as possible.

Organizational stressors, such as limited resources, interpersonal conflict, discrimination, and, significantly, ineffective leadership impact the mental health of police officers, much like operational stressors, which include traumatic incidents, risk of physical injury, and high consequence of error. (Simmons-Beauchamp, Sharp, 2022) [ii]

‘Sanctuary trauma’ is described by author Lisa Williams in her 2023 article entitled: Adding Insult to Injury: Sanctuary Trauma and Moral Injury, as:

…refers to the experience of trauma within a supposed safe or trusted environment. It occurs when individuals experience violations of trust perpetrated by members of their institution, or when an institution causes harm to an individual who trusts or depends on that institution. [iii]

In that vein, I recently heard of an incident under my watch, wherein a member who had been involved in a very challenging police operation that resulted in a death to a civilian and serious injuries to several officers, eventually approached a supervisor in our HR, and disclosed the mental health issues he was facing. The HR supervisor apparently replied with words to the effect of “Oh great, another (operation X) case.”

Obviously that disappointing welcome did not give the officer any sense that caring and supportive assistance would follow, which he harbored quietly within until he mentioned it to a retired senior officer friend years later. Here is a case where an officer is suffering from an operational stress injury and is brave enough to come forward following years of anguish, but was then subjected to sanctuary trauma by someone whose job it was to support the member. It made me physically ill to know that despite preaching that our members need to seek the help they deserve and that they will be supported, that such insensitive behaviour was exhibited under my command. How much more destructive conduct occurred at different organizational levels that completely flew in the face of what we were trying to achieve? Attempts to end the “suck it up” attitude exhibited by some supervisors and managers apparently fell on some deaf ears.

Of course, potential harmful internal environments (organizational and sanctuary failures) are not isolated to emergency responders. Companies and agencies of all sizes can be equally susceptible to ‘people’ – alone in or in clusters, at peer, supervisory and/or executive levels, that either inadvertently treat individuals in insensitive and harmful ways or are simply determined to make the lives of some others a living hell.

I propose that even in the policing realm, some of those negative experiences can have an even greater impact on the mental health of those on the receiving end than those exposed to severe acts of violence and threats to their lives. From a ‘career-risk’ perspective, disclosing such environments or seeking help because of their affects, can become even more threatening to hurting individuals.

A 2022 study conducted by Daniela Acquadro Maran , Nicola Magnavita and Sergio Garbarin o, entitled: Identifying Organizational Stressors That Could Be a Source of Discomfort in Police Officers: A Thematic Review , stated the following:

Analysis of the included articles revealed four main themes in organizational factors, the presence or absence of which could influence police officers’ well-being as follows:

Social support from the organization;
Leadership;
Organizational culture;
Bureaucracy. [iv]

Given that ‘leadership’ is my raison d'être, I noted that the report went on to say, “In a previous study by Russel, it was found that there was a lower perceived level of burnout in the group with a leader who exhibited high levels of transformational leadership. This type of leader is able to mitigate perceived burnout, especially when stress levels are low.” In my view this is an important statement.

I’m a firm believer that effective leadership is paramount to building committed employees; strong and united teams; productive and trusting relationships (inside and outside of the organization); high morale; elevated levels of productivity and professionalism; and most importantly: inspiring people to do and be their very best.

Administrative, bureaucratic and cultural challenges employees face that cause them organizational stress, can be identified by leaders that know, understand and listen to employees. Good leaders model caring, supportive and communicative leadership for all supervisors and managers, and they monitor and mitigate unfair or oppressive actions among them. They do all they can to improve working conditions for the betterment of the team when specific failures become apparent. Unfortunately, such wrongs do not always rise to a higher level out of fear of disclosure by the individual(s) affected, or so-called leaders higher in the food chain burying them due to a lack of their personal support or fear that reporting it up might jeopardize their career aspirations.

As always, leadership is a must. In the operational realm, true leaders will guarantee that meaningful trauma support programs are in place; that members understand what is available and how to gain access; and that a continuum of positive organizational dialogue occurs at all levels regarding program criticality. It can’t only be about posting a pamphlet and a contact phone number and then ticking off a box on a ‘To Do’ list. They need to do all they can to ensure that any impediments to members accessing those programs and the help that they deserve, are mitigated and detractors appropriately dealt with.

It's important to note that sadly, having all the effective programs humanly possible will not persuade some employees to self-disclose trauma they have experienced. That remains a reality.

Leadership failings can exacerbate employee operational, organizational and sanctuary trauma in several other ways and the frequency of personnel reporting same, including:

Failing to create a positive culture of understanding, support, respect and trust;
Neglecting to effectively address problem employees and supervisors that impede that culture or violate established processes; and
Failing to develop a supervisory and management team that consistently strives to build employee trust through the best and the worst of times, 24/7, 365 days a year.

Law enforcement leaders cannot prevent members from seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling and experience the very worst situations society has to offer. They can only provide exceptional leadership, offer the best in training and equipment and listen to the suggestions of employees on how to lessen the gravity of some of these occurrences and their impacts. But traumatic operational events will still occur.

However, leaders can and must provide the finest in programs and support to help them deal with such tragedies when they do happen.

Conversely, organizational and sanctuary trauma can be prevented – through best-in-class leadership. Law enforcement employees need and deserve nothing less.

[i] Jaeger, Saul: The Impact of Life Experiences on Police Officers, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2023, https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/perspective/perspective-the-impact-of-life-experiences-on-police-officers

[ii] Simmons-Beauchamp, Bonnie and Sharp, Hillary: The Moral Injury of Ineffective Police Leadership: A Perspective, Frontiers in Psychology, April 15, 2022, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9051365/#:~:text=Organizational%20stressors%2C%20such%20as%20limited,of%20error%20(Schafer%2C%202010%3B

[iii] Williams, Lisa: Adding Insult to Injury: Sanctuary Trauma and Moral Injury, Fit Responder, 2023, https://www.fitresponder.ca/post/adding-insult-to-injury-sanctuary-trauma-and-moral-injury

[iv] Acquadro Maran, Magnavita and Garbarino: Identifying Organizational Stressors That Could Be a Source of Discomfort in Police Officers: A Thematic Review, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8951201/

Make change for the right reasons

Mon, 16 Sep 2024 17:25:08 GMT

Cover Photo from www.quotemaster.org

Sometimes wholesale change isn’t necessary

I recently heard of an incident in a police service where an individual convinced the senior executive that an established unit was dysfunctional and needed significant changes. Without question or consultation, the Unit Manager was reassigned and a new Manager from the “A Team” (coincidentally the same individual that suggested change was required) was placed in charge. Many changes were implemented without consultation, and eventually most of the remaining staff members requested transfers. Those that remained were demoralized. They all felt that they were doing good work, had put their hearts and souls into their jobs, and all they had built had been destroyed.

Within a year, the unit was not showing signs of delivering better service, but staff and client groups felt the changes had diminished the effectiveness of the unit. Management then directed that methodologies largely return to the way they were, and the A-Team Manager was promoted and transferred. Life in the unit went on from there. It was too late for the ousted Manager that may never recover career-wise, while the A-Team “leader” was rewarded for the disaster.

Sound familiar? I know I could take that same template and apply it to a number of leadership catastrophes I’ve watched from afar. It often came down to who was liked by the bosses of the day and who they believed. As above, if an A-Team member said, “That place is a mess, it needs change, I can fix it”, then that was accepted as gospel. No study, no discussion with client groups, no assessment, just banish some committed and hard-working Manager to the backbench and ruin their morale and reputation, then the shining star A-Team member is sent in to “fix” it all. Most often it was not a success story down the road.

Similarly, I saw situations where a good Manager transferred or retired, and the new Manager told the senior executive, “What a disaster this area is but have no fear, I’ll fix it.” The good reputations of retired leaders were sullied forever by bootlickers that managed up and back-stabbed their entire career, but never had an original thought.

The fact that situations like this ever occur is a failure of leadership on many fronts.

Where was the immediate supervisor that the Unit Manager reported to? If the place was a mess, then why wasn’t he or she aware of that and take action to improve service delivery before some uninvolved person meddled for self-serving purposes. Also, before making significant change while ruining a career and the morale of other good employees, there should be some analysis of the business plan and metrics achieved, as well as discussions with staff and client groups. Significant change should never occur solely because of the feedback of an outside individual with a personal agenda. Making change too quickly or without foundation serves neither the unit, the clients, the organization or all involved people very well.

In our rapidly changing world, organizations that are continually assessing their internal and external environments and have developed a culture among personnel at all levels whereby they are constantly looking for ways to better deliver service, will make change for the right reasons. Change that isn’t for the personal gain of individuals but for the customers and the organization as a whole, will lead to success for the company and undoubtedly for the employees therein.

Conversely, companies and agencies that remain in the “that’s how we’ve always done it” rut, will remain stagnant at best and the likelihood of delivering the very best service possible to the client will not be high. But then again, when organizations are properly scanning and assessing their environments and the feedback from clients and employees indicates all is well, then there may only be the need for minor tweaking occasionally and not a need for wholesale change.

A cycle of continuous dialogue is the only path to success, but unfortunately in some work units and entire organizations it is not always seen or felt. In some instances, frustrated employees feel that only a chosen few of personnel have a say and therefore keep their opinions and suggestions to themselves. The default position of “let them figure it out” that emerges helps no one in the long run.

An internal culture of openness, honesty and the feeling of employees that their opinion not only counts but is encouraged, is the key to success on so many fronts, including identifying the “why” the “what” and “how” to implement change effectively.

Sometimes good people make mistakes

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 16:50:44 GMT

Cover photo by: https://mylearningsolutions.org/

I screwed up. There’s no other way to describe it. And I’m sorry I did.

My good friend and mentor, Chief Wayne Frechette used to jokingly say: “Never tell on yourself. There’s a million people out there wanting to tell on you, so why do it to yourself?”

But in this case, I deserve it.

I was pulling right out of a parking lot in Midland today onto what I thought was a totally empty street and crossed 2 empty lanes into the left-hand turn lane on highway 93. What I missed was a high-priced SUV that was turning left from a parking lot across the street into the same left-hand turn lane. He almost hit me through no fault of his own, but he braked and avoided a collision.

He then sat behind me in the turning lane, honking non-stop and waving his arms like his body was aflame. I thought his reaction was over the top, but he was right. If a police officer had witnessed it, I would have rightfully been charged under the Highway Traffic Act and would have fallen on my sword and paid the ticket.

Then he tailgated me about 6 inches off my rear bumper for a few hundred yards, swerving to and fro like he was a Grand Prix racer looking for a gap to pass, still flapping his yap and flailing his limbs. Subsequently I stopped at a red light to turn right, he pulled alongside on my left and we both rolled down our windows. I apologized right away and said “Sorry buddy, I screwed up. I’m sorry.” But he continued to rave and swear and give me a lesson on the various sections of traffic law he thought I’d violated and called me awful names. My tender psyche was indelibly bruised in the verbal exchange. I thought a physical altercation might ensue, but he didn’t emerge from his dirty and over-priced vehicle, and I remained in my more moderately valued – albeit very clean, car.

As I drove away, pondering the implications of being called such hurtful things, I reflected on what started all this uproar and what caused him to drive like an idiot in response. He was right and I was wrong.

So why am I telling on myself? Because it is a reminder that everyone makes mistakes. I know the traffic laws as well as anyone. I drive safely and effectively. I’ve driven across Ontario a million times and up and down the continent several more. I’m very cautious because I don’t want to hurt anyone firstly; secondly because I don’t want to wreck my car and have my insurance rates skyrocket; thirdly because my wife then called me equally mean names; and lastly because I do not want to put our local officers in the position where they would have to charge the former OPP Commissioner with an offence.

Despite my best efforts and normal due care and attention, I missed seeing him. I need to be more careful 100% of the time, and never fall into the lull of “I’m a good driver, I’m a careful driver and if a mistake is made, it’s the other guy’s fault.” I in fact made an error that could have caused two vehicles to be damaged, at minimum and likely a fist fight. I’ve been in way too many punch-ups and have lost as many as I’ve won. I value my car and what’s left of my tired old body. I need to do better, and I will.

Please drive carefully out there folks and watch for the other guy. It could be me.

Police Group Support of Donald Trump

Sun, 08 Sep 2024 17:51:47 GMT

Cover Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images Newsweek

Just last week, the U.S. Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the self-proclaimed “largest and oldest law enforcement labor organization in the United States”, publicly announced their support for Donald J. Trump in the 2024 election. As a retired law enforcement officer, this sickens me.

The FOP is not a bargaining group but is a voice for police officers and given that they represent police – with over 370,000 members, the FOP is very politically influential. The general public doesn’t necessarily understand their “fraternal” role. They just see them more broadly as being “police”. Their influence should be about ensuring police agencies are well funded, sustained and that legislation supports their efforts to protect U.S. citizens.

In part, the FOP Mission Statement says: “to promote and foster the enforcement of law and order”. Is that what Donald Trump is about in any way shape or form? In my opinion, he only supports police for political capital purposes and only when they aren’t searching his home for the national security documents he denied having, or his bank accounts when investigating him for fraud. He constantly criticizes the FBI (coincidentally also a law enforcement agency), who are under the leadership of the current Director (Wray) that he appointed.

During the infamous January 6th attack on the U.S. Capital buildings which at most Trump incited and at least sat and watched on television, 140 officers were assaulted, some very seriously. Four officers who fought against the attackers have since taken their own lives. Trump has called the attackers “patriots”, said “We love you” to them and vowed to pardon those since convicted if he becomes the 47th President of the United States. This is not a man who supports police, despite scads of photographs of him smiling with his thumb up, surrounded by them in numerous photo-ops. Many of those photos nauseate me as well. They are all staged for political purposes.

In Canada, provincial legislation prevents police officers from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates in an election. Thank God. Disciplinary action would result against officers who stand up at a microphone and publicly announce their support criticism of a candidate from any party. But not in the U.S. apparently. Some Sheriffs and Police Chiefs have openly supported or vowed not to endorse various political candidates, at media events or party conventions. And in the case of the FOP, they have publicly endorsed a candidate who has already been convicted of multiple crimes; is currently charged and awaiting trial for a litany of criminal offences in several jurisdictions; was found civilly responsible for rape; has made bizarre and demeaning public statements about women; and had a close friendship with deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Think about that!

I cannot imagine what impact the FOP statement has had on the perception of Kamala Harris supporters in terms of the ability of FOP members to provide policing services and enforce the law “without fear or favour”. It’s bad enough that having a bumper sticker or front lawn sign that indicates a voter’s support of an opposing candidate may result in damage to property or physical assault from cult-like supporters in the U.S., but do those that support Harris now have to fear the police too?

I know that may be a far-fetched assertion, and I know that the vast majority of FOP members are just honest cops that would always do their jobs in a fair and unbiased manner, but public trust in law enforcement is key, and this FOP announcement may well hurt trust in policing among half or more of the U.S. population. It is also important to note that although the FOP President speaks for the entire membership, I don’t believe for a second that all 370,000 of the members agree. The majority may not, but only a few have spoken up in disagreement.

Adolf Hitler liked to see police in photo-ops as well. Pictures of German civilian police officers patrolling the streets shoulder-to-shoulder with SS soldiers in WWII did nothing to enhance the trust of the fearful public that they had anywhere to turn for protection from the initial violations of civil and human rights and on to the horrific atrocities perpetrated. He also placed the civilian police agencies under the command of the same General that the SS soldiers reported to. Mind-boggling for sure, but that’s what dictators do. They also try to convince the public that any news organizations that criticize them are “fake media”, and those that laud them are to be trusted and believed. I’m glad Trump doesn’t do that. Oh wait…

It’s time for new laws to govern protests in Canada

Wed, 04 Sep 2024 22:47:18 GMT

Photo by Arlyn McAdorey/The Canadian Press

At their Annual General Meeting in Halifax last month, the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association adopted a resolution, “calling on all levels of government – federal, provincial and municipal – to acknowledge and address the unsustainable demand on police services” caused by the current protest environment in Canada. I totally support that call and suggest that Canadian laws also need to be modified to reflect current protest realities.

The days of the occasional labour protest (or strike); the odd anti-logging protest and the sporadic morality demonstration at abortion clinics, are long forgotten. Protracted First Nations protests started in the 1990’s – largely based on outstanding land claims and indigenous rights, became more volatile over time and resulted in lives lost in some cases and complete shutdowns of transportation hubs in several others. Many linked and very disruptive protest trends followed, like the “Occupy” movement, “Black Lives Matter” and the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor and Coutts, Alberta simultaneously. More recently, often extremely unstable Pro-Palestinian demonstrations have impacted most major cities in Canada. The emotions in these events run particularly high as the deadly Israel-Hamas conflict continues.

All levels of government have been impacted by the immense drain on police resources across the land. Only the largest of police services have full-time resources committed to “Public Order Units” and even they cannot keep up to the tremendous staffing pressures they are facing. The contingent of officers required must come from somewhere. They are either pulled from other areas of their jurisdiction, therefore leaving other patrols, calls and duties undone, or they are brought in on overtime. Either way it’s costly, tiring and the resource demand is unsustainable.

Police services’ approach to addressing protests is largely governed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter and

Rights of Freedoms, which was written in 1982, and states in part:

“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(d) freedom of association.”

The “freedom of assembly” principle has led to the often-used expression of the “right to peaceful and lawful protest”. Does anyone really think that “peaceful” and/or “lawful” protest is what we have routinely seen across Canada in the past 25 years?

Even the most peaceful protests often violate the law on some level. Blocking traffic; impeding pedestrian movement; trespassing on university and government grounds (once told to leave), may not involve criminal offences, but often do violate municipal by-laws and provincial legislation. Then of course what starts out peaceful sometimes goes on to break criminal laws, up to and including total mayhem – like smashing business windows, assaults, burning police cars…just to name a few.

It’s one thing for police not to step in and try to remove a group of non-violent protestors who may be breaking a municipal by-law or traffic law on public property for a short period. It gets increasingly difficult to standby and give time to those blocking a highway temporarily, or when protestors enter private property like university grounds en masse for their cause. Much public criticism of the police will come regardless of how they respond, but in essence protests of that kind have been considered to be keeping with the intention of the Charter.

More recently protestors have been entering private buildings like shopping malls and sports venue property to rant and rave. That should be completely out of bounds in my view.

Large scale protests that result in the breaking of criminal laws become almost impossible for police to address without drawing police resources from across the province or country, at the same time that those other jurisdictions are facing similar challenges. Even in cases where court injunctions exist, police cannot be expected to immediately have the resources and a sound operational plan in place to remove protestors without jeopardizing officer and public safety.

In the case of the Caledonia land dispute, following months of very troublesome and at times violent actions between Six Nations protestors and police, the provincial government of the day purchased the contested property from the developer and then told Indigenous protestors that they could remain there until the land claim proceeded through the courts. (It took 15 years) The OPP then could not evict those on the land but had to try and keep non-native protestors – who were frustrated by the long-term disruptive impacts on their property, community and local traffic flow, from going on the property and physically confronting the Indigenous people there.

Sympathetic protests then erupted in or near other Ontario First Nations communities. Undoubtedly mistakes were made at times, but it was a no-win situation, and for the first time in history the OPP had to rely on several large police services to supply countless officers to support them, stretching resources in a number of jurisdictions throughout.

I don’t think the forty-two-year-old Charter of Rights considered any of these probabilities when it was drafted.

I worry that the continuation of some of these causes will continue to result in significant protest events, and that emerging issues – particularly associated to world conflicts and divisive political elements, will result in even more public/police conflicts. Each protesting group learns from tactics in past events; social media allows them to amass substantial resources; and the likelihood of volatility seems to grow each day.

A level of patience, communication and a gradual application of force in these situations will always be the preferred police approach. But governments at all levels must ensure police resources keep up with growing demands AND must develop legislation that allows for more clarity, so that both the protestors and police understand what is and isn’t acceptable in public demonstrations going forward.

Is it okay for leaders to change their minds on critical issues?

Sat, 31 Aug 2024 18:53:26 GMT

Cover photo: https://medium.com/

There has been considerable attention to U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’ recent interview with CNN and a number of other public comments she has made in recent years in which her opinion on some key issues seems to have changed from years gone by. Of course, for election purposes, the opposition is trying to make hay with that.

It’s hard for me to be “non-partisan” when discussing U.S. politicians and what they say and do, given that although I’m generally a conservative at heart, I think Donald Trump is the biggest threat to the well-being of the U.S. - which is my second home; to Canada’s long-standing wonderful relationship with its biggest trading partner; and world peace.

No one in recorded history has changed their position to suit their audience more than Trump, often a number of times on single issues. In the interests of fairness, please know that I have written articles in which I have been highly critical of Canadian PM Justin Trudeau and some of his key Ministers in terms of what I have viewed as complete failures of leadership. I don't pick on individuals because of party affiliation. I’m seldom critical of anyone in a partisan way, I just have strong feelings about what good leadership is and isn’t.

When I was a junior Commissioned Officer in the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), I had strong feelings at times about the direction the OPP was going. Sometimes I liked what I saw and other times I did not. When asked questions at the boardroom table or during promotional interviews over the years, I voiced my honest opinion of “things we need to do”; “things we need to change” and “things we need to stop doing.” I voiced those positions based on my role at the time, and more importantly because I didn’t necessarily know all the facts. I did not fully appreciate the environment that my superiors lived in. I didn’t know the pros and cons of various approaches from their perspective. I held those beliefs based largely on my narrow view of the OPP’s policing environment.

Some of my answers were accepted by the higher-ups of the day and some were not, but I was always forthright.

Each time that I was promoted to higher positions over the years to come, I could clearly see that decisions I would make would impact a larger cross-section of the OPP and not just the area that I had previously served in. I could also see that my strong positions on some issues didn’t make sense in a changing environment.

In reflection and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I truly did “flip-flop” my opinion on a number of matters throughout those years. I now know that I also failed some areas of the OPP because I really didn’t consult them enough, even though throughout my career I told myself that I had to make decisions in way in which I considered the impact on other Bureaus, Regions and Commands.

Even after being Deputy Commissioner for a number of years and always expressing my opinion to my Commissioner, when I assumed the Commissioner role, I much better understood the bigger picture and the impacts of decisions I would make going forward.

So, should it be world news when some elected officials – on both sides of the political aisle, change positions over time on matters that they come to better understand? I do not believe so. But they had better be able to articulate the thought processes that resulted in the change so that voters won’t simply assume that they are indecisive or bowing to election cycle winds.

The key to all of this is that leaders – including politicians, need to constantly scan the environment (or have smart and honest staff that do) and create a culture of open and honest dialogue throughout the organization so that feedback and suggestions flow upward all the time. When important decisions may significantly impact certain areas of the organization, extensive research and evidence gathering needs to occur so that all the facts, thoughts, pros, cons, impacts and alternatives are gathered and considered. That may well involve target audience focus groups.

Effective communication is key. If people don’t understand the “why”, they often won’t understand the rational for a decision; how it might impact them – or perhaps not. Nor will they appreciate the need for them to speak up honestly and respectfully through whatever established or informal channels, so the higher ups know the facts.

A leader that makes a decision in absence of all the facts, is failing some of those they lead. But when they do because they were put on the spot or didn’t consider some consequences appropriately, it does not mean that they need to hold that position indefinitely. True leaders can and will change direction when they realize that the decision may not have been in the best interests of the people they lead, or when the environment simply necessitates change.

In a rapidly changing world that has countless environments within it also shifting at the speed of lightning, to NOT make evidence-based changes of opinion on critical issues on occasion, would be a failure of leadership in itself.

Leading Change: A changing world without strong leadership is like ship without a rudder

Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:38:56 GMT

In my recent article Change causes fear and fear causes stress – and we’re all feeling it , I spoke of the massive and continuous change to our environment on a number of fronts, including technological, political, pandemic impacts, economic, world conflicts and public safety. I also suggested that our “leaders”, that being a number of elected officials, company and agency executives and more, are not leading effectively to get us all through these challenging times.

So, what are my and your expectations of these ‘leaders’ (or at times – ‘pseudo-leaders’) and what should we see an feel in them to develop our trust that they will collectively lead us through to better days, or at minimum help us more effectively adapt to an ongoing changing world or individual crises?

I repeatedly claim that “Leadership is leadership”, regardless of profession or sector. In business, government, military, emergency response, public service or not-for-profit. True “leaders” are going to get people through the tough times and help them celebrate the good times.

A leader is someone who always puts the good of the people he or she leads and serves before any personal needs or agenda. That of course applies to every decision leaders make, which must always be in the best interests of “the people”. Decisions, strategies and actions should never be about making the leaders themselves look good. They have to make decisions based on what is best for others, as opposed to what will advance their personal agendas or feed their egos.

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. 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.

Is this what we are seeing from our leaders? No. Far from it in some cases I’m afraid.

From the employee perspective, they see many so-called leaders as “bosses”. A “boss” – not a leader, is routinely described as a master, a controller and a manipulator. That’s not what building trust is about and certainly does not pull a team together to work hard to accomplish common goals. Sadly, we still see that in some.

Communication is key. It should be a demonstrative continuum of honesty, ethical behaviour, integrity, open and respectful dialogue, finding happy mediums in difficult times and people working together to do the right things for the right reasons. It should also be about learning from what has happened but focusing on moving forward and making things better for all.

Successful leaders communicate regularly and consistently. People don’t want to hear nonsensical claims and rose-colored glasses promises. They want and need to hear the facts; what the leader is doing to get them through the mess; and what they as citizens (and/or employees) can do to help.

It should never be about personal agendas and partisanship, or protective mistruths. And it should never include infantile name-calling and belittling attacks on others. Disagreement should never result in divisive discourse – politically or in any environment. That is totally unhealthy.

It’s critical that leaders build and maintain trust. Trust is a fragile commodity which is difficult to gain and can be lost in a nanosecond. It is normally developed over time, through day-to-day interaction, in relatively normal situations and not when the chips are down. That trust will pay enormous dividends in difficult times, but without developing it prior to, when the poop hits the proverbial fan, it will be too late.

Our leaders must set a positive personal example at all times. That includes in their private lives. A leader can say and do all the right things publicly, but if their personal life is a train-wreck, they will lose credibility. Integrity is key and wannabe leaders without it will fail themselves and us.

Instilling optimism in people that feel threatened and/or vulnerable isn’t easy. But as a leader, that should be a priority. How and when they communicate – including listening to criticism and suggestions; building trust by creating that environment where people know they have our best interests at heart, is paramount.

In this digital era, there are many ways to communicate – email, phone, video, etc., and leaders should use them all to capture all audiences, but they should never overlook the need for some face time. People need to look into their leader’s eyes on occasion to close the circle of trust.

In the 1800’s, the 6th President of the United States, John Quincy Adams said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” Our modern leaders need to get with that 200-year-old program.

Too many of them have missed the memo.

___________________________________________________________

With excerpts from: Never Stop on a Hill; Crisis Communications; What has happened to true “leadership” in Canadian politics?; Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss? All by Chris D. Lewis

Change causes fear and fear causes stress – and we’re all feeling it

Sun, 25 Aug 2024 18:55:55 GMT

I didn’t know that I was afraid of change until someone pointed out to me that most people are. Frankly, I hadn’t really thought about it.

But over the years, on both professional and personal fronts, I began to realize that some things were just easier to leave as is. It could be as simple as a change of social plans or trying to figure out how a new microwave works; going from paper files to computer technology; or on a larger scale, moving to a new home and neighbourhood. I eventually learned that people fear change because the status quo is too easy. But changes were fairly seldom and more minor then.

We now live, work and play in a rapidly changing world. Change is coming at our lives and careers – and at our organizations, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Sometimes those changes are but minor speed bumps on the great road of life and at other times they are seemingly monstrous cliffs that will take every ounce of will we can muster to either defeat or circumvent them.

The ongoing cycle of change is not about to go away soon. Technological advancements are coming at us at lightning speed. Many of them make our lives easier, but others create organizational challenges in terms of exorbitant financial, training and implementation hurdles. Others impact the lives of many as simply unaffordable or too difficult to manipulate for an aging population, forcing some to live outside the digital world. Cybercrimes like identity theft; internet bullying; public shaming through social media platforms; and the sexual exploitation of children, don’t only impact enforcement agencies and the judicial system, they impact us all, either directly or through the victimization of friends and family.

The ravenous twenty-four-hour news cycle of mainstream media combined with assorted social media platforms continue to transform how we receive and digest news stories. We are continually bombarded with information – much of it unconfirmed and inaccurate. Who and what do we believe? The days of standing at a grocery store checkout and reading gossip magazines to learn that a three-hundred-pound male pro wrestler gave birth to a Tasmanian Devil, have been replaced with social media bursts that we can read anytime and anywhere on our smart phones.

The COVID pandemic negatively impacted the entire world. Despite best efforts, many of us got COVID – some more than once, but the majority of the world tried to avoid it, either by isolating from friends and family and perhaps avoiding any public gatherings or settings and or by wearing masks and disinfecting our hands and more.

It was a game-changer in terms of public health – physically and mentally. It was ‘change exercise’ extraordinaire

Other change issues through societal events and socioeconomic matters have increased levels of stress among people in communities around the world.

We’re experiencing international conflicts that are more devastating than many people of the world have seen in their lifetimes; the increasing threat of terrorism; domestic mass shootings; large, violent and protracted public protests; guns and gang violence; rising housing prices; climate change and the related public safety threats; and very divisive political turmoil – just to name a few.

From an employee perspective, volatile economic and trade markets that may significantly alter or eliminate some industries are always a concern to an employee that is hoping to see their career through to retirement.

Emerging technologies have impacted workforces significantly. Artificial Intelligence is predicted to put masses of people out of work as it matures and expands. Every change of government at the federal or state/provincial level brings political promises to “end this” or “build that”. That affects markets, different industries, jobs, farmers, etc., etc.

The stress of “how will this impact my life, career, stock portfolio, investments, interest rates and my ability to feed my family” undoubtedly takes a toll on many segments of society.

It’s easy for people to say that they will not stress over things they cannot change. I wholeheartedly agree – in theory. But actually doing it is a different story. Those fears and that stress may change how we live our lives and can also change our perception of our safety and security and that of those we love.

That’s where leadership comes in. In companies, government agencies, the media, educational institutions and at all political levels. We need leaders from top to bottom who communicate effectively and will listen to the concerns, fears and suggestions of those they lead.

We need leaders that will make well-informed decisions that are always in the best interest of those they serve and lead, regardless of self-promotion and political party goals.

We need leaders that are honest. Leaders that will tell us the truth regardless of whether the news is good or bad. We need to know they’ll always try their best, but when they fail they’ll stand tall before us and admit failure but go on to explain how they intend to mitigate the problem.

We need leaders that will build our trust – day after day, in good times and in difficult times. Then when the nuclear dumpster-fire begins, we can all look up and confidently say, “That’s our leader. He (or she) will get us through this.”

Are we getting that kind of leadership in our daily lives? Does that describe your leaders at work? Is that what we are seeing in government agencies, large corporations and in elected officials – locally, provincially and nationally? I do not think we are, except in isolated pockets.

Personally, I don’t believe that this politically divisive, dog eat dog world that more often than not teaches: “If you can’t beat them lie about them” and “Screw your colleague over to better your position yourself”, has developed the type of leaders we need.

We cannot negotiate the change, the challenges and the stressors of the current world without ‘leadership’ and we’re not getting it.

So how do we do it? Stay tuned.

Next article: “Leading in a Changing World”.

The Impact of TRU Friends

Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:35:17 GMT

I am a lucky man. Truly blessed in fact.

Between family and close friends – in and outside of policing, I’ve been greatly supported throughout my life and career, right up until this day, through the best of times and the worst of times.

During my 36-year career I was lucky to work in good detachments and bureaus with wonderful people, many of whom I’m friends with to this day. They were the best of the best.

I was also fortunate to be a member of the OPP’s Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU), or ‘SWAT’ for my American friends, for several years. We received extensive training and were specially equipped to respond as a group to calls involving firearms, including armed and barricaded persons and hostage situations.

Through some tough operations – some tragic, my close teammates were always there for each other, although sadly we didn’t always fully disclose how we felt or perhaps blamed ourselves for any failures. Nor did the broader Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) of that era understand the traumatic impacts surrounding some operational events or how to support us through them. Those were different times.

All that being said, thankfully we always survived the tragedy of the day – more through good luck and friendship, than through good management or professional help.

Without a doubt, the TRU member group continues to have huge impact on my life from a personal perspective. Many of the TRU friends I developed over those many years are not people I often see or speak to, but their heart-felt offers of support always abound when they are perceived to be needed.

Some of my very closest friends at this point in life were not part of TRU and in some cases weren’t OPP or even cops. My comments here don’t mean to lessen the strength or value of their friendship. They’ve been prominent through thick and thin when I faced some very difficult health challenges in my life. I’m simply reflecting on the overwhelming strength of the TRU members as an entity.

Just an example, in the few weeks following back surgery in July I heard from many friends, but the TRU ‘network’ was particularly alive and well. Calls and emails came from far and wide. Some came from members who had left the OPP to join other police services and others from folks on both sides of the border that were never TRU but were tactical officers in other police departments that had taken courses or worked with OPP TRU. Even others were TRU members that came long after my time and I may not have even met.

In addition to the many standard “Get well soon” messages came offers to drive me anywhere, including to other cities; complete yard work at our home; or do “absolutely anything” I needed. This is not only a powerful network of men, it’s a network of powerful men. Some of the toughest I’ve ever known. Although we're all getting older, the group is still so strong they could flip my home on its side if they set their collective minds to it. So, when they say “anything”, they mean it.

I recently met with a small group of TRU veterans for breakfast. Some hadn’t seen others for a while, but seconds in, everyone was laughing, sharing stories of past calls – good and bad, as well as the recollections of the antics of some colleagues. We got caught up on who is where and how they are, then we parted ways after a couple of hours, sharing warm handshakes and bro-hugs. We all left knowing that any one of us would still take a bullet for another at the drop of a hat.

I also proudly belong to the Ontario Provincial Police Veteran’s Association (OPPVA), that provides great support and fellowship to retired members, as well as regular social events and notifications of various happenings. I often wonder when I look at the OPPVA, “do retirees of private sector organizations have similar strong networks that provide that ongoing feeling of ‘family’ and keep them informed on a variety of issues?” I hope they do. I’m sure some of the emergency responders’ professions like firefighters, paramedics and the military have similar associations, but that may well be it.

I can’t imagine that once an employee receives their gold watch from a private-sector company, strong and everlasting ties to a large and supportive contingent of former colleagues exists. Policing is special and I’m so thankful for that. But the TRU fraternity is an extremely unique group within the policing realm. They would do anything for me, as I would for them.

Someone once said, “There are no ‘former’ TRU members. They are all either ‘active’ or ‘inactive’ members.” I couldn’t agree more.

I’ve been so fortunate to have once been a young active member and continue to be an old inactive member of that brotherhood. It’s been an amazing 42 years for me, and I’m honoured to still enjoy their overwhelming friendship and support. Thanks for having me boys.

Farewell to Chief Barry King

cdlewis@live.ca (Chris Lewis) — Thu, 08 Aug 2024 20:27:48 GMT

Farewell

Photo from: www.dodsandmcnair.com

Chief Barry King passed away on August 3 ^rd , 2024. He was my friend and a mentor.

Following a number of years as a skinny young military police officer (I’ve seen the pics!), Barry joined the OPP in 1964 and served at Brockville OPP until 1969. For his retired small and mid-sized police Chief friends that served in the trenches with Barry as they fought the potential takeover of their services by the big, bad OPP, yes, Barry had been a Provincial! None-the-less, he challenged the OPP and its leaders – including me, whenever he thought we were wrong. And sometimes he was right!

Barry moved to the then Mississauga Police and eventually the newly formed Peel Regional Police, where he advanced through the ranks and was prominent in a number of high-profile events and investigations.

He then left Peel in 1987 to become the Chief of the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service. My hometown. That’s where I first got to know Barry. The Sault PS and OPP got better than average service from the OPP’s Polygraph Services Unit at that time, because I was one-third of the unit, and my parents lived there. I spent many weeks in the Sault working with both services on a variety of cases each year, and Barry always took the time to find me and say hello. It was always clear to me when he walked around the Detective Office in the Sault PS at that time that he was well-accepted by the investigators there.

As I visited many police departments in my investigative roles back in the 80s and 90s, it didn’t take me long to figure out who the real leaders were at the Chief level and who were those that simply occupied the chair. I could feel it the air and then see it for myself as I watched the interactions. Then of course the folks I worked with at the time would quickly fill in the blanks and tell me how they honestly felt about the various incumbents. Barry was a respected leader.

He moved to the Brockville Police Service and became Chief there in 1995. It was a smaller service for him, but it grew and modernized over the 12 years of his leadership. I got to know him even better then, after I took over the OPP’s Eastern Region. Several smaller PS Chief colleagues there were not supporters of the OPP, but Barry remained fair and moderate. He’d contact the OPP for assistance in a heartbeat if he felt it was in the best interests of his community or his officers, and then publicly laud us for our support. At the same time, he’d contact me if he had a concern, rather than get into slamming us in the media. He’d also attend public events and stand proudly beside me in uniform as a united policing team. I could always count on Barry to be the honest voice of sweet reason and not fall into the "us against them" agenda that existed at the time. That’s leadership and I learned a lot about it from him over those years.

When he retired from Brockville in 2007, policing lost one of the best, but Barry remained active in many community safety organizations over the years following. He also remained prominent at provincial and national Chief’s Association meetings – adding to them all.

We kept in touch by email and at various events, and of course I always enjoyed his company and advice.

During one episode of what was then a CP24 live monthly call-in show that I appeared on with host and news veteran Sue Sgambati, we received many calls from unknown citizens, some supportive of police; some not; and others downright ridiculous. One evening Sue said, “We have Barry on the line from Guelph” and the caller started. He commended the Ontario government for appointing me, went on and on about what a great guy I am, and then threw a lob-ball question at me that I could’ve answered in my sleep. I recognized Barry’s voice immediately, but he never mentioned that he was a retired Chief.

I last saw Barry in Guelph months ago when a mutual friend and I took him out for lunch. Despite his long and arduous battle against cancer, he looked good. He smiled, laughed, told stories and had a beer like the old Barry. I was so glad that I got to see him that way.

Barry called me on July 17 to tell me that he was going downhill and to say goodbye. He thanked me for our time together. He said, “We got a lot of good things done.” Sad, but a class act to the end. I had a lot more to thank him for than the other way around.

Rest in peace brother.

Please join me in thinking of his loving family at this difficult time.

The Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump – A Colossal Security Failure

Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:35:16 GMT

Elite assassin, complex plot or security failure?

Trump Photo: PTI - Business Standard

I am not a conspiracy theorist. Far from it. But I am inherently suspicious by nature and always try to look beyond the reported “facts” and dig deeper into what some might readily accept as obvious conclusions. 36 years in policing will do that to a person.

Full disclosure – I’m not a fan of Donald Trump. But as a former President he deserves proper US Secret Service protection.

I am old enough to remember the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the decades of conspiracies and hearings that followed. I thought about that controversy in the hours and days after a shot was fired at the former President in Pennsylvania last week. I also considered the experience gained through my years involved in hundreds of operations, including providing security to elected officials at all levels; the Royal Family; U.S. Presidents and other international leaders.

Yes, I am an armchair quarterback. That’s my current role. But I am one with years of experience in various capacities, including as a member of a tactical team; a military trained police sniper; a tactical team leader; and the Commander of all the OPP’s tactical resources in Ontario. I understand all the facets of operational planning – including command and control; contingency planning; resource deployment; communications; and on and on. I lived and breathed this stuff for many years of my career, at all levels. But what I saw occur on July 13 ^th in Butler, Pa. was far from in-keeping with my expectations of the U.S. Secret Service.

I realize that the Secret Service cannot do it all. They do have overall responsibility for the security of the event and for the protection of the President however. The Agent in-Charge of the event determines where the inner perimeter begins and ends, and ensures the Secret Service is responsible for security within it.

But as you draw concentric circles and levels of security away from the President, they must rely on state and local police to supply various levels of protection, including lower-level tactical support; uniformed officer presence; and traffic control.

‘Who does what’ and levels of accountability would be clearly delineated in the event’s Operational Plan, as well as reporting/communication channels established. The leaders of all the involved agencies would eventually sign-off on the final plan.

At any rate, in my view, a building with a largely flat roof and a clear view, 130 yards away from the stage where the President will be speaking, should be within the inner perimeter and under Secret Service control. The average deer hunter is able to shoot a man-sized target with a basic hunting rifle equipped with open sights at that range, so a person with a scoped rifle should be quite capable of striking a human head quite easily at that distance. That is not a location that should be staffed by local police from small-town USA. It should have been secured in a way that in which law enforcement would be on that roof – and not assassins.

Early reports indicate that some local officers were positioned inside that building, but I’m not sure what their role was. Others were reportedly on foot patrol in that area. None were on top of the building. Further reports suggest that local police were aware that there was a man with a gun trying to get on that roof for 20 minutes before shots were fired. What was communicated to the Secret Service at that point is still not publicly known.

Communication is always key and preferably all involved officers would be on the same radio channel, but the Command Centre would have personnel monitoring every police channel, real-time. The time between an officer at that site yelling “man with a gun” into their radio, to Secret Service rapidly moving the former President to safety, should be a matter of seconds.

I’m certain that Secret Service Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) dictate that when an armed threat is perceived within the inner perimeter, agents must remove the President from the threat without hesitation. The President is no longer in charge, his protectors are. Their job is to get him low to the ground to minimize his target-profile and extract him as quickly as possible, including by force if necessary. He’d be given the “Bum’s Rush” so to speak.

When Ronald Reagan was shot on a street in Washington DC in 1981, there was no fanfare. He was shoved into a vehicle hard and fast, and the vehicle sped off. He wasn’t allowed to find his shoes. He didn’t get to stand completely upright for the shooter or another assailant to finish the job while pumping his fist triumphantly.

When shots were fired at Trump, he should have been treated the exact same way – down and out of danger. Very little was known at that point and there could have been multiple snipers carrying out a coordinated-fire attack. And it’s important to note that even if the agents knew with some certainty that there was only one shooter and he had been neutralized, they should never have allowed Trump to attain a fully upright and unprotected position, for a photo-op of him raising his fist in victory like he was guerilla leader Che Guevera.

About 30 seconds passed between agents getting him on his feet until he was off the stage. That is insanity and seemed to simply be contrived showmanship by a very slightly wounded former TV star.

During his speech to the RNC days later, Trump stated: “…felt something hit me really, really hard on my right ear”. The reality is that velocity of a 5.56 round should be just shy of 3000 feet per second, at 130 yards. But the bullet barely cut his ear and the wound didn’t even require stitches. Any real impact would have caused significant damage to his entire head that he would not have walked away from. Just the velocity of a high-powered rifle bullet passing so closely by his ear would normally cause immediate disorientation and temporary hearing impairment. The fact that we didn’t see that concerns me, but strange things happen that are unexplainable at times.

I also find it odd that Trump could be on a public stage less than a week later, giving a speech with his ear covered by a strange gauze pad that looked like a tiny pillow, versus a typical bandage. More showmanship?

I do not support the theory posed by some that this was an event staged by Republicans for election support purposes. My God, an innocent man was killed, and others injured. But I can see how some could perceive it that way, given the timing, the theatrics, the history of the players involved and the security failures.

I also don’t believe the other ridiculous allegations that Joe Biden tried to have his political rival killed. How stupid. I don’t think the 20-year-old assassin that failed in his assassination attempt was a member of Seal Team 6.

I am confident the FBI investigation into the event will tell us ‘who did what to whom and why’ over the coming weeks. I’m also certain that this was an epic failure by the Secret Service and some partner agencies.

Reporters keep asking me what the Secret Service needs to do differently to provide adequate protection to those they are sworn to protect. The answer is simple: They have been doing this for years and they have a ‘playbook’. Go back to the playbook. Do what you’ve always done. Follow your SOPs and contingency plans and training, but don’t be afraid to amend them as new challenges emerge. Exercise your plans regularly. Make sure all the checkboxes in the plan are ticked before the POTUS walks on stage. If there’s a location where you’re afraid a bad guy with a gun can shoot from – put a good guy with a gun there. If something bad happens, follow the playbook and get him/her out of danger, without stopping for a photo-op. Let other agents neutralize the threat.

Over the coming weeks, involved agencies will be forced to paint a more accurate picture of what went wrong. They’ve been pretty quiet so far. Some officials will undoubtedly lose their jobs and conspiracy theories will emerge and flourish every which way. Trump will continue to make hay with the fact that he was ‘wounded in action’.

But the bottom-line that emerges for me, as all the finger-pointing and theories unfold, is this: an innocent person died; a bad-guy died; others were wounded; security failed; and a former US President deserved much better protection.

LEADERSHIP: Should we promote the people that challenge us?

Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:51:28 GMT

We need to promote those that make decisions in the best interests of our organization and its people.

Photo: www.istockphoto.com/

Earlier this week I had the privilege of speaking to the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) delegates at their annual conference. This year’s conference theme was Leadership Matters – Harnessing Policing Excellence , a topic near and dear to my heart.

As a long-retired police leader that only knew less than half of those present, I wondered what the attendance for my presentation might be. I was pleased to see a large crowd that seemed truly interested in my slant on the topic, including many senior officers and chiefs that are past retirement age, but still committed to those they lead and obviously willing to listen to what an old ‘yesterday’s news’ colleague had to say.

I truly believe that ‘leadership is leadership’, regardless of rank or vocation, and that has not changed since I was a Corporal almost 40 years ago. What has changed are the pressures today’s police leaders are facing in a rapidly evolving world, with change coming at them at a much more significant rate than I faced in my career. The need for effective leadership in policing has never been more critical.

I talk with police employees all over North America on a regular basis, through speaking engagements, informal face to face and social media interactions. I spoke to one yesterday – a 28-year Constable, unrelated to my engagement at the OACP Conference, who told me this:

“We promote people who won’t challenge leaders above them instead of those who do. How are leaders going to get better if they aren’t challenged?”

This wasn’t coming from a bitter officer who was never promoted, but is a university educated, highly-respected member who has never sought promotion. It was simply a personal observation that was offered in frustration.

It caused me to think back to my own career and similar irritations that I felt over the years.

I recall senior management meetings where you would receive a death-stare from the head table if you didn’t blindly agree with something the Commissioner or one of the Deputies said. The few that would quite respectfully state their disagreement and/or suggestions for an approach that might better meet the needs of those we led would be treated with disdain, likely followed by a one-on-one meeting with their Deputy.

Conversely, those that would jump up and blindly agree with everything suggested from above would be greeted with an approving smile. Eventually, no matter how well considered and intended their contrary suggestions may be, those that offered them became tainted meat in the eyes of the executive.

As a junior member of that team, I observed these happenings closely – as did others, and quickly learned who among us was more likely to be promoted next. But I, and a few others with similar values, took the risk and stayed the course. “I am what I am” I guess.

When I addressed the OACP delegates, I offered the following analogy based on my time as Commissioner, as food for thought:

Let’s say I had a completely off the wall idea and brought 2 senior leaders in one at a time to run it by them. No matter what inane proposal I offered, the first subordinate would jump to attention, say “I agree Commissioner. I’ve always felt we should do that. You are the most brilliant Commissioner in history, and I love you.” That individual would then leave and tell his direct reports, “You wouldn’t believe the stupid idea the dummy had this time. I fought him on it, but I lost.”

The second person I brought in would listen intently to my insanity, appear completely consternated and respond, “Have you lost it? We can’t do that”, explain why and offer alternatives. However, if I said, “Thanks for the input, but I need you to do this”, he’d argue some more and eventually move forward with my decision without bad mouthing me in the process.

I then posed this to the audience, “Who would you rather have on your team? A so-called leader that never tells you what they truly feel, or one that will challenge you to do the right things?” The answer is quite simple in my view. But is that how things in our organizations have always been? Is that the environment in our organizations now? Have we created a culture of honesty where input is sought, welcomed and considered – in the best interests of our people, or do we promote those that accept our every command or suggestion without ever providing valuable input on the road to success? How as senior leaders do we identify all the potential pitfalls and landmines ahead if we refuse to hear about them and sideline those that offer them??

When I was Commissioner, I never had a Deputy Commissioner that didn’t know I wanted their honest opinion and that I desired them to challenge my decision-making. In fact, I told a retired Deputy friend recently, “If I’d wanted a yes-person, I certainly wouldn’t have picked you.”

True leaders create a culture where innovation, ideas, suggestions and respectful criticism are not only welcome, they are expected. They set a positive example and encourage leaders below them to do the same.

The sycophants that only manage up and not down need not apply.

The Passing of Thomas B. O’Grady – OPP Commissioner Emeritus

cdlewis@live.ca (Chris Lewis) — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:25:05 GMT

On April 16, 2024, we lost an incredible police officer and leader from the OPP family. At the same time, his beloved wife Betty, his children and grandchildren all lost the dearly loved patriarch of theirs.

Tom O’Grady had a storied police career that lasted 42 years. He joined the RCMP in 1956 as a young 18 year from Northumberland County in Ontario and following a short stint in Rockcliffe Park (Ottawa), was posted to the Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. Then in 1958, Tom left the RCMP and moved back to Ontario. In those days the RCMP would not allow their young officers to wed and given that he married the lovely Betty that same year, it appears the RCMP lost a good man over their policy.

Tom subsequently served with two small municipal police departments in what is now Durham Region, before joining the OPP in 1961.

His OPP career took him first to Bradford, then Stayner, Huntsville and by 1972 he was assigned to the OPP Anti-Rackets Branch at OPP Headquarters in Toronto. He flourished in the investigative realm and was promoted several times there, including to Detective Inspector upon his transfer to the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB). He led a number of complex homicide and other major cases across Ontario, including into outlaw motorcycle gangs and even an international case that involved the possible overthrow of a Caribbean country by extremists.

That is when I first met Tom O’Grady, when he was in the CIB and came to London Detachment to conduct some interviews. My Staff Sergeant at the time asked me “Do you know that guy?”, and I replied that I had only heard his name, and in a positive way. He said, “He could well be the Commissioner someday.”

At that time, I didn’t even know what a CIB Inspector was, but after meeting Tom, learning of his cases and watching his interaction with other members, how he spoke and carried himself, my career goal was cemented. I was determined to be a CIB Inspector at some point in my career.

Commissioner O’Grady went on to lead the CIB then was promoted to Chief Superintendent in-charge of the entire Investigations Division, and with a couple of other brief stops, was appointed to be OPP Commissioner in February 1988.

I never really interacted with the Commissioner much prior to the early 1990s. Then through various assignments and investigations, I had to meet with him on occasion and even briefed the Solicitor General and Ontario government committees with him. I was always so impressed with the way he spoke and the impact that had on those he was addressing, whether they be political or police leaders. He maintained a calm, reassuring presence, enunciated his words carefully and purposefully, all while exuding knowledge, confidence and professionalism. There’s no doubt they all admired him greatly and I was certainly proud to call him “Commissioner”.

I attended a meeting with him in Ottawa in the mid-90s, regarding a national strategy to fight organized crime. He sat at a huge table, quietly and thoughtfully, as movers and shakers in police leadership from across the country debated various options and strategies to tackle the growing organized crime threat. After many had spoken and the tide of the discussions had ebbed and flowed, he indicated that he had something to say. When he had the floor, all the other police Chiefs and Commissioners focused intently as he articulated his views – expressing agreement with portions of the earlier dialogue and some contrary thoughts. That changed the direction of the entire conversation. Others nodded in agreement and then the Chair spoke, and the entire group indicated their consensus.

One of things he said to the group, and it struck me, was: “Whether it be federal, provincial or municipal police services, they are all paid for by the taxpayers. And it’s all the same taxpayers. We owe it to them to work together effectively and to get it right for them.”

I told him after the meeting that I thought in future meetings – that involved a galaxy of egos and agendas, he should simply speak first, everyone would agree, and we could wrap things up much more quickly. He laughed and said, “Well, they all need to have their say.”

I didn’t realize it then, but through those interactions I learned valuable lessons that would help me in my journey as a police leader.

In 1995, Tom called me to his office in Orillia. He was very concerned about a letter to the editor that I had sent to a major newspaper to correct some misleading reporting they had published.

Although I had worded the letter carefully, he felt that I had disregarded his instructions to the entire OPP to not engage with the media about a controversial issue that the OPP had been criticized over. Although I made a brief counterargument, there was no doubt in my mind that I was not going to sweet-talk my way out of this discussion, so I fell on my sword.

He asked, “Why do you do these things?” It appeared t he had the perception that I spoke my mind a bit too directly at times. He had me there! I replied, “Because they pissed me off.” He said, “Well they pissed me off too, but I didn’t write them a letter.” I said, “Perhaps you should have.” He went on to tell me that I wasn’t alone in that thought and that someday he would publicly speak to the issue, adding, “In the meantime, the next time you’re pissed off, come and see me before you write the press.”

I reported directly to him through my years at Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario (which he assigned me to) and then he promoted me to Superintendent two years later. I totally appreciated that he never threw the towel in on me over my media letter. Other leaders I worked for over the years certainly would have.

Tom O’Grady led the OPP through some challenging years. Ten of them in fact. Fiscal, relationship, public safety and media challenges that we had seldom ever faced as an organization required a high level of patience and strategic thinking. Although as a minor player at the time, I didn’t always agree with the direction chosen or some of the players he promoted to executive roles, but I respected Tom as our leader and did what I could to support him and his agenda, as I did for every Commissioner to follow.

I would eventually find out that being Commissioner of a 9000-person organization can be a lonely position. As a rule, making suggestions to the boss and then disagreeing with his or her decision on occasion isn’t all that stressful. Actually, it’s a pretty easy go. But when the buck stops with you, as it did with Tom for a full decade, it’s a whole different world. I know many people didn’t agree with all my decisions or promotions over the years either – and at times rightly so. Despite Tom’s or my best efforts to get it right, at times we didn’t. That reality comes with the turf.

Commissioner O’Grady retired in 1998. I couldn’t make it to his retirement celebration, but I sent him a letter to wish him well and to thank him for his leadership, his unwavering support of all of our men and women, and for his belief in me. I added at the end, “Even though you’re retired, anytime I’m pissed off, I will give you call before I write a snotty letter to the press.”

We chatted on many occasions over the years to follow. He would still give me his opinion if I asked, but never once offered it when I didn’t. His sage advice and at times silence, was always valued and greatly appreciated.

When I wrote a book on leadership in 2016, I interviewed Tom as well as several other past and current Canadian police Chiefs. In response to my question regarding the importance of leadership, he offered this thoughtful feedback:

“It has been said that the public is generally oblivious to good policing, rather it is the absence of it that draws public attention and concern.

By comparison, an efficient and effectively functioning organization is the result of good leadership, a fact that usually goes unnoticed. Only when the organization begins to malfunction does the subject of good leadership or the lack thereof become a subject of public debate.”

Well said, Sir.

I’ll miss Tom O’Grady. As I do, I will certainly keep Betty and his family in my thoughts. They’ve suffered a tremendous loss.

Rest in peace Commissioner.

From guns and gangs to Bill C-21: Canada's top public safety issues in 2023

Tue, 19 Dec 2023 20:25:17 GMT

From guns and gangs to Bill C-21: Canada's top public safety issues in 2023

As a career police officer, author, speaker and CTV News’s Public Safety Analyst, I watch public safety events unfold around the world, with a particular emphasis on policing. I write about some issues, talk about others, but I consider them all.

The top five issues of 2023 from my perspective, in no specific order:

MURDERS OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS

The fall of 2022 saw an unprecedented rash of murdered police including the murder of OPP Const. Greg Pierzchala in a shooting near Hagersville on December 27, 2022 – the same day he was told that he had successfully completed his probationary year. The first five months of 2023 saw a continuation of that tragic and senseless loss.

Const. Travis Jordan and Const. Brett Ryan of the Edmonton Police Service were shot and killed in hail of gunfire in March. Later that month, Sûreté du Québec Sgt. Maureen Breau was stabbed to death in Louiseville Que. Then OPP Sgt. Eric Mueller was fatally wounded by gunfire east of Ottawa in May. Most recently, RCMP Const. Rick O’Brien was shot in killed in September in Coquitlam BC. Other officers were seriously wounded in these incidents and in others, for no other reason than their wearing of uniforms. I pray that it was just a really bad year and not a sign of things to come.

BILL C-21

An act to place even more regulations around firearms ownership in Canada, including a freeze on the legal sale of handguns, was passed by the House of Commons in the spring and just recently proclaimed into law. I do not believe anything in this legislation will mitigate the threat of the violent use of smuggled U.S. handguns by criminals on the streets of municipalities and in Indigenous communities in this country. Smuggled handguns have always been illegal – as have true assault rifles and so-called 3D guns, and those that choose to use them are not afraid of the law, up to and including murdering fellow Canadians. The only people that will be impacted by this legislation are legal collectors and sport shooters that already obey the law to the letter, as well as the commercial businesses that lawfully sell handguns to them.

A so-called Red Flag law will give private citizens the ability to apply for a firearms prohibition against someone. Existing criminal code provisions already allow ‘police’ to seek ownership suspension and to obtain warrants to seize firearms from those that pose a threat to public safety, or without warrant in exigent circumstances. Will these public applications help? I’d prefer to see police remain the focal point on this. In addition, penalties upon conviction for some firearms offences were enhanced, which is great, but this same government was responsible for reducing some of those penalties since they came into power. I guess what was old is new again.

There are other items contained within the act but simply put, government’s claim that C-21 is “comprehensive” and suggestions that it is a game-changer of sorts are political rhetoric at its finest. I assure you we won’t soon see lineups of violent criminals and gang-bangers turning in their guns and applying for service industry jobs. Nor would the contents of this bill have prevented the Nova Scotia mass shooting or even the recent shooting deaths of children and adults in my hometown of Sault Ste. Marie, all of which were committed with illegally possessed firearms.

GUNS AND GANGS

And on it goes. The violent saga continues. I’m resigned to the reality that I may well have this item in my top five for the rest of my existence. We will not arrest our way out of this scourge. Police need support – from governments, the courts, the public, educators and various social service agencies. Mental health and addiction professionals have a huge role as well, as do parents. In the long-term, keeping young people out of destructive lifestyles is critical and in the short-term, rigorous intelligence gathering, investigations and enforcement is a must, including bail and parole improvements and stemming the 24/7 flow of handguns from the U.S. into our communities. If the federal government doesn’t soon support the RCMP and border protection officers with adequate funding and human resources to work international firearms smuggling cases and to interdict guns before they get into the hands of criminals here, we’re in trouble. That is where the firearm threat truly lies. Provincial and municipal police can help fight gun smuggling but can’t monitor thousands of kilometers of international border.

THE EMERGENCIES ACT INQUIRY

The commission, established following Canada’s questionable decision to invoke the never used Emergencies Act during “Freedom Convoy” protests in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada in January and February of 2022, was led by Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Paul Rouleau. His report was released in February 2023.

Justice Rouleau largely defended the government’s decision to invoke the act, stating that he had concluded that a “very high threshold required for the invocation of the act was met.” I don’t agree, but he’s a Justice, and I’m not. However, he did go on to say, “I also reach this conclusion reluctantly.”

He was critical of police and government in terms of their “missteps” and “failures” around anticipating, planning and collaboration, following months of inconsistent evidence that showed tremendous communication disconnects from police leadership and personnel, and government agency perspectives. He felt that some of these errors allowed the Ottawa protest to take root and become so complex that government had to take extraordinary action (my words, not his).

Then RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki was effectively thrown under the bus by government bureaucrats and elected officials, who seemed to remember things differently than she did as to what she told them and when during the protests – things that should have lessened government anxiety that the act was required to restore order. Frankly, in my opinion, her evidence had much more of an air of sincerity around it than that of the contradictory witnesses but I digress. She submitted her letter of resignation as commissioner two days before Justice Rouleau released his findings.

INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

The Israel-Hamas war is horrendous to watch from afar, as is the ongoing Russian attack on Ukraine. The deaths of countless innocent people – including the rape and torture of women and children and destruction of historical buildings and infrastructure, is profound to say the least. But besides the provision of Canadian government tax dollars in these dreadful situations, there are other potential and significant impacts on us here in Canada.

Public protests – both pro and con, particularly around the Israel-Hamas war conflict - continue to occur. Some have been aggressive, and I predict over time will increase in intensity. These events are resource draining and publicly divisive at best. Will related acts of terrorism occur as these conflicts continue? Antisemitic and anti-Muslim threats and acts, even around places of worship and schools, are significantly on the rise. Police will be challenged from intelligence, prevention, response and investigation perspectives and it will get worse before it gets better. Police are already responding to new types of crime every day, but the old crimes and demands haven’t gone away. Now this. Something has to give.

I apologize if I sound doom and gloom, but these are serious issues that we all need to consider. It’s not new though. We’ve always had challenges and always will but I am confident we will remain light-years ahead of most countries in terms of our safety. I have complete trust in Canadian police to continue doing their best to make a difference and keep us safe but they need help – including from us and the governments we elect.

Wishing all a wonderful and safe holiday season and prosperous new year. Please thank an emergency responder when you can and pray for their safety every day of 2024.

Why the hunger to label all bad things as 'terrorism'?

Tue, 28 Nov 2023 21:01:28 GMT

Sadly, awful things continue to happen in society – 24/7, around the world. Tragic, violent events that unfairly take the lives of innocent people and forever destroy the lives of families, friends, witnesses and responding agencies, do take place. Although terrible, they are seldom ‘terrorist’ acts, however. They are often criminal acts like murders and mass shootings – sometimes for no other reason than evil, retribution or insanity. They include horrific car crashes that happen because of carelessness, impairment or a physical or mental health issue. At other times spectacular fires and explosions occur through design or construction flaws, train derailments, electrical mishaps or gas leaks. And yes, occasionally a number of these events are intentional acts for a variety of motives – but are not perpetrated by extremists.

But more often than not, when these tragedies do occur, the fallback assumption by the public is ‘terrorism’. I believe we tend to use the term way too broadly.

The Criminal Code of Canada, at section 83.01 defines terrorism as:

“An act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public…“with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.””

Thankfully, by definition, so far that has only happened a handful of times in our country’s history, with very few fatalities.

What is behind the tendency for people to try and fit awful events into a little a little box entitled terrorism? Does it help people to better accept such tragedies by labelling them with that category or does that classification create unneeded fear and anxiety among the masses?

My good friend and colleague, career intelligence analyst and now terrorism author, Phil Gurski, describes it like this: “We have had ‘terrorism on the brain’ since 9/11 and many go right to the ‘it must be terrorism’ button when they hear of an event like this.” (Niagara Falls Rainbow Bridge explosion)

I’ve been in arguments with people from all walks of life when they’ve described murders and other violent acts as being ‘terrorism’ and I took an opposing view. I certainly do not claim to be an expert on anything in life, but I often have an informed opinion, and some become quite indignant when I disagree with theirs.

When a violent may be the act by terrorists, investigative responsibility, command and control changes, from local or provincial police to the RCMP, but all those agencies still have a role to play in the mitigation and investigation. Federal assets (including the military), different laws and authorities may kick in as well as the potential penalties for those ultimately convicted. But normally police do not require those additional resources or far-reaching powers and authorities during day-to-day domestic criminal investigations and trial processes.

The bottom line is that murder is still a criminal act, it’s just the motive behind it that changes. Most of the investigative procedures and protocols remain fundamental, but terrorism ignites national and international interest; brings in intelligence and security organizations that may otherwise not be involved; and creates the possibility of similar attacks occurring simultaneously or perhaps very soon.

Some readers may ask: “Who cares?”

There are two ways of looking at the scenario of using the term terrorism too broadly:

1. People can end up being so unnecessarily stressed out that it affects their feelings of vulnerability, enjoyment of life and their mental health; and/or

2. Calling everything terrorism may create a feeling of “here we go again” whenever people hear the word. My fear is that hearing it regularly will make the word become so routine, that if and when real terrorist events occur people will simply roll their eyes and not listen to authorities or take the suggested precautions.

We always say in policing, “Treat every death as a homicide until proven differently.” Similarly, erring on the side of caution when responding to potential terrorist acts and investigations is the right thing to do.

When law enforcement ‘treats’ an event as an act of terror until proven otherwise it makes complete sense. They can reclassify it when they know more and then command, control and investigative responsibility can return to local officials.

But let’s only call it what it is when experts tell us what it is and how we need to respond, and not draw the worst possible conclusions every time a bad thing happens.

The thirst for info should not outweigh the need for facts

Sat, 25 Nov 2023 20:50:15 GMT

A misquote from the main character in the old Dragnet television show from the late 1960s resulted in a popular phrase, “Just the facts ma’am.” Although Sgt. Joe Friday never actually said that exact string of words, the premise was and remains an important one. As a police investigator, he wanted the facts, not a bunch of speculations, rumours and exaggerations.

The mainstream media most often worked under that principle. Many outlets still do, but not all – particularly the politically connected ones. The days of verifying critical information before releasing it to the public and perhaps jeopardizing a future trial or unfairly maligning an individual or organization, are long gone to some.

In my view, the main reason for that evolution is the proliferation of social media and the ability to float outright lies and embellishments as well as the inclination to throw the proverbial shit at the wall to see what sticks. Former President U.S. Donald Trump turned it into an art form over the past decade, and sadly many of his colleagues, followers and politicized media organizations have followed suit. And that comes from faces and names that we know and recognize! Then there are the nameless, faceless trolls that never have anything nice or remotely accurate to say about anyone or anything.

This constant flow of social media misinformation on world events has put untold pressure on credible media outlets to report “something” immediately and before their news deadlines – as opposed to verifying, or they fall behind the curve. Even when they do confirm details relatively quickly, the false information is already out there, and it is then like swimming up Niagara Falls to get the facts communicated. That flow of bits of facts combined with tons of misinformation can cause unnecessary anxiety among community members and often costly over-reactions by political leaders and then unnecessary scrambling by the various government agencies they lead downstream.

Speaking of Niagara Falls, case in point: when a car crashed in a fiery ball on the U.S. side of the Rainbow Bridge there early Wednesday afternoon, all hell broke loose. Within seconds social media posts claimed terrorists with explosives from the Canadian side had attacked the port of entry on the American side. One major U.S. news outlet reported it as fact immediately. Others announced that “there were reports” of a terrorist attack. As security and law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border were trying to sort out the who, what, when, what and why of the event, some U.S. Republican politicians used it to criticize President Joe Biden and his border security policies. Many Americans truly thought that terrorists from Canada had attacked the United States. The reality that eventually emerged was that there were no explosives, there was no terrorists at all, but a NY man and his wife were killed after driving at insane speeds through the city of Niagara Falls New York and crashing at the U.S. Customs property.

Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre questioned PM Justin Trudeau in the House, as to government’s action plan to provide security for Canadians, stating: “We’ve just heard media reports of a terrorist attack…” In fairness he did not definitively say it was terrorism, but simply quoted the story as reported by several media outlets. The PM replied quite appropriately (and I seldom agree with him), but regardless 2 days of political attacks of Poilievre followed, like it only can in that world.

Nonetheless, all the swirl that resulted from initial and inaccurate media reports that emanated from social media jib jab, turned a tragic but spectacular fatal car crash – unfortunately at a high-profile location on a U.S. holiday weekend and at the same time as the Israel/Hamas war, into leading world news coverage.

I do not blame U.S. officials for treating the crash as a potential terrorist attack until proven otherwise. It’s easier to gear down and turn the federal investigation over to local authorities when you’re sure, then it is to spool up to a national security investigation a day or two later. I think they managed it quite appropriately. Social media and the resulting frantic spin took it from there.

Unfortunately, we cannot stop the silly side of social media. False flags, unfair finger-pointing, untrue allegations and slams against individuals, politicians, public officials, and organizations likely won’t lessen soon. We cannot legislate intelligence and maturity, nor can we satiate the thirst for information as opposed to facts. But do the rest of us have to believe it, further it and add to the mayhem? Should elected officials not stay out of the fray and not further dangerous falsehoods that scare the heck out of millions of people just to discredit rivals? We have enough real and desperate issues in the world to address without having to face a never-ending circus of misinformation free-for-alls.

How or why this horrific crash occurred remains unknown. We do not yet know if it was intentional or the result of impairment or a physical or mental health episode. We do know that terrible things happen on occasion. But we must rely on authorities to take control when they do; determine the reality of the threat and issue public safety advisories accordingly, with mainstream and social media platforms being credible and honest players in the process. We the consumers of the information and the political masters of the responding agencies, all need to take a deep breath, hear the facts from our experts and think logically before hitting the panic button.

Leadership = Risk. Accept that and promote accordingly.

Thu, 17 Aug 2023 21:19:55 GMT

“I think you make impacts by taking risks.”

Shenae Grimes

I believe that you can make even bigger impacts – negative ones, by not taking risks.

Life is risky from the day one emerges from the security of the womb. All our lives we make decisions that could cause us personal or career harm.

On the leadership front, there is no end of risk – day after day, 24/7. Risk for you, your people and your organization. The only way to avoid it is to never do anything, ever.

But in my view, to NOT take risk as a leader is risky in itself. The lack of decision-making or the fatal flaw of not making decisions for the right reasons should be the demise of many so-called leaders – depending on the experience, ability and mindset of those higher up the food chain. But weak leadership teams won’t recognize the many issues at stake and the rationale for decisions when things do go bad, and will forever tag some individuals as the “one that failed.” Whether the senior team leans in terms of their own ability and experience is a crap shoot in many organizations.

From another perspective, if those you lead view you as afraid to take risk or incapable of making decisions, they are undoubtedly going to wonder why they are taking such enormous risks when you won’t and will question if you will truly have their backs if things go bad.

Decisions will often go well and will be huge successes. Some decisions won’t go particularly great, but life will go on. Other decisions will be total train-wrecks unfortunately. The true test of the leader will be their reaction to all of those scenarios and whether they give credit to those who carried it out when things do go well and take the hit on occasions that things don’t.

In policing – in which risk is inherent 24/7, I saw cycles where people were promoted because they never failed. They had no black marks in their files. There were deemed to be “good guys” by an influential individual or group of what I call “pseudo-leaders”. But did they ever really take a risk? Did they ever make an arrest? Did they ever go out after dark?

Then conversely, some great, honest, hardworking officers who stayed operational in risky environments – working the road, investigations, undercover, tactical units and more, failed on occasion and in the minds of some non-leaders above, were forever considered "failures". Promising careers turned bad on a dime.

The so-called “good guys” that were rewarded for never failing, never had an opportunity to fail, because they never did anything. They learned that you never fail if you never take a risk.

These non-combatants (as my friend calls them) that did get promoted often continued the cycle of destruction by promoting more people that never disagreed with them, made a sound decision or did a day of police work. Not all obviously – some great leaders snuck through the system but when they did it upset the leadership applecart and caused competitive friction between leaders that “walked the walk” and those that only “talked the talk.” The balance of power issues that resulted could be destructive.

The Chief or Commissioner of the day and their senior officers in most services generally picked their inner circle in their own likeness, but for some the “true leaders” made them feel insecure, so, they opted to promote those that would quietly acquiesce to their every whim. The bulk of the organization then quietly shook their heads, believing that some leaders they believed in didn’t make the grade and some that had never really done anything including make decisions were climbing the ladder of success while dragging others down.

The system often perpetuated itself from there, creating massive leadership voids that took years to overcome. When that happened, the resulting failure of leadership impacted morale, decision-making and the development of future leaders for years to come. That’s hard to recover from.

“Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.”

Robert F. Kennedy

Employees at all levels in private and public sector companies have to take risks. In policing, those risks often jeopardize lives or at minimum can be life-altering and unfortunately, mistakes will happen. However, we can’t throw the towel in on our people when they honestly err and cast them aside like an empty chicken bucket. We should always differentiate honest mistakes from maliciousness when doling out punishment and moving forward, or we will dissuade our people from ever taking risk in their daily duties.

We have all experienced the opposite unfortunately, that being weak-kneed leaders that accept credit for the efforts of others and/or pass blame for their own blunders on the rare occasion they make a decision. If you do either of those things even once, you are not a leader, and your goose will be cooked. It will spread like wildfire and you will lose whatever credibility you may have had, perhaps forever – at least with those you are supposed to be leading.

True leaders step up to the plate when there is a risk worth taking – for those they serve and for those they have the honour to lead. They lead by positive example and try to develop true leaders to replace them. Those are the people that should be further promoted. I’ve seen many people in leadership roles that were the furthest thing from leaders. They were so afraid to make decisions because of a fear of adversely impacting their chances for promotion – based on their fear of the weak pseudo-leaders above them, that they never took a risk or made a decision, ever. Sometimes their fear became a self-fulfilling prophecy when some true leaders came to power that rightfully believed taking calculated risks is the job of a leader.

The lesson in all this is that if you are afraid to take risk or will point fingers and run screaming into the night when things go bad, then accept that leadership is not for you. Find another role. It will save you a lot of stress and a ton of heartache for those around you.

*Taken in part from my book “Never Stop on a Hill” (2016).

Leadership: Do you give second chances?

Fri, 14 Jul 2023 21:10:44 GMT

“We all make mistakes, everybody should be given a second chance.” - Lailah Gifty Akita

I don’t agree that “everybody” deserves a second chance. Some acts are so egregious that forgiveness isn’t an option in my view. However, from a leadership perspective, many acts by employees are forgivable – and many more people deserve a subsequent opportunity than are afforded one.

I firmly believe that leadership is not easy. If it was, everyone would want to do it.

As a leader, I didn’t always get it right. At times I was too hard on people that made mistakes. Generally, not for accidental errors made by staff that were honestly trying their best, but more so for intentional acts that were done without any consideration for the impacts on others, and/or cases of pure stupidity.

But in other instances, I was unforgiving of some that disappointed me through their simple carelessness or perhaps because I just expected better from them. Occasionally, I was more charitable and gave second and even third chances to those that I liked personally. At other times I over-reacted and then held long-time bad feelings for folks that maybe were good employees overall but just weren’t my cup of tea on a personal level. When you don’t particularly care for an individual, it can be much easier to find fault in things they do, when the reality of the matter is that they may be hard workers that do things perfectly right.

Was that fair on my part? On reflection, in some situations, it was not. For leaders, fairness is extremely important and although I constantly preach that leaders need to be able to distinguish ‘error from malice’ and dole out any reprimands accordingly. But sadly, I didn’t always live up to my own adage. I regret that I failed some I have led by judging and reacting unfairly to their perceived transgression.

“These men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they, and all others, shall have.” - Abraham Lincoln

I was recently watching the final season of Apple TV’s series, Ted Lasso, as Ted pondered whether to hire back a previous coach that had turned on him. He then said the following:

“I hope that all of us, or none of us are judged by the actions of our weakest moments but rather by the strength we show when or if we are given a second chance. If you were judged by your actions in your weakest moments, would you have cause to be trepidatious?”

His statement really resonated with me.

I recall specific instances when I stopped supporting some colleagues and friends that I felt had wronged me. Sometimes it was based on what others told me these folks had done or said. I now know that in at least a few of those cases what I had been told was untrue, but I had opted to believe someone I trusted that was in fact trying to hurt others while trying to better position themselves in my eyes. In hindsight, I undoubtedly made some poor decisions that subsequently unjustly impacted careers and relationships in a negative way. I’m sure that led to a breakdown in trust in me as a leader among those that were wronged. Some deserved the second chance I mistakenly didn’t offer them.

Renowned leadership author and speaker Robin Sharma said: “Forgiveness isn't approving what happened. It's choosing to rise above it.”

I didn’t do that often enough and to those that I hurt through my failures – I apologize. I wish I could have a second chance to do better myself, but unfortunately life is not that easy.

“Having a second chance makes you want to work even harder.” -

Tia Mowry

What has happened to true 'leadership' in Canadian politics?

Fri, 30 Jun 2023 17:01:27 GMT

Over the past seven years we have watched the decline of honesty and integrity among some U.S. political leaders on both sides of the aisle. The Trump era has seen childlike name calling, immature and dishonest rhetoric, complete character assassination and verbal attacks that are not only aimed at elected officials and candidates but reach into their parents, children and even the attractiveness of spouses. It’s far worse than the typical partisan and occasional personal criticism of political rivals that has always been present. It has become nasty, threatening and dangerous.

Although former President Trump started the age of verbal silliness, his gaggle of cult-like lemmings – including some high-level officials, have followed his lead in earnest as they continue to spread misinformation and stoke the flames of aggression. Far-right, armed and threatening militia groups have formed. This led to violent attacks on some state buildings, and even a fatal assault on the nation’s Capital building over what they were led to believe was a “stolen election.” The so-called “leader” of the strongest democratic nation on earth did nothing to stop the carnage, but simply sat back and grinned as the plan he inspired unfolded.

“Ugly” doesn’t begin to describe what we have seen and influential political “leaders” aren’t trying to stop the insanity. Many of them support, condone or initiate the disturbing activity. Any that do stand up to the lies and violence are inevitably ousted from the party. Others keep their disagreement to themselves out of fear of losing the political support of Trump and his base of voters.

I realize I’m pointing strongly at the Trump side of the issues, but undoubtedly there has been some name calling and mistruths propagated on the Democratic side of the spectrum, including some far-left activists who have also led some violent confrontations. All wrong for sure, but small potatoes compared to what the Trump regime has spawned.

We used to say, “Well that’s their problem?” But how are things on our side of the international border? Bad and getting worse I’m afraid.

This kind of divisive discourse was relatively unseen at this level in Canadian politics until recent years. There was always open childishness in the various legislatures that I found embarrassing to watch. I’m sure an element of publicly made false allegations and quiet backstabbing have always occurred since Confederation. That’s politics. But a 24/7 continuum of unprofessional and often misleading verbal assaults to and fro between the major parties and leaders is much newer to us. There’s a total lack of respect that permeates many of the players. They seldom reach a consensus on any issue, and it never seems to be about what is best for Canadians, but what is best for individuals and party politics. How is this leadership?

The so-called Freedom Convoy that hit Ottawa and some other major centres was a protest like no other. It was allegedly conceived to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates and international travel restrictions, but it was more than that. Canadians of all shapes, sizes and political stripes participated, ignited by some key far-right bad activists, and the resulting criminal activity, community impacts and tension were palpable. Political leaders were even unable to agree on whether paralyzing a city and demanding the removal of government was inappropriate.

The ethical issues surrounding our PM and some of his key ministers have been resounding. From the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the firing of two female cabinet ministers to questionable Trudeau family travel issues. Then there was the controversy emanating from the release of investigative information following the Nova Scotia shooting. All of this was followed by the Freedom Convoy protest and the invoking of the never-used Emergency Act legislation, and most recently the Chinese election influence debacle. It has become increasingly difficult to trust the words of the PM and his devoted band of Musketeers. To the untrained eye it would appear that not only did two female ministers lose their jobs on his watch, a female RCMP Commissioner was thrown under the bus as the PM dealt with significant finger-pointing – at him.

Conversely, the leader of the Official Opposition, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, hasn’t been a pillar of virtue when it comes to following the Marcus of Queensbury Rules. He spends more time spewing venom about the PM than he does telling us what Canada will look like under his leadership, should he win the next election. Some of it has been humorous, much of it extremely quick-witted, but it’s growing old. Enough already. We need to move forward as a country and we need adults in the room to actually lead us through these difficult times.

As a speaker and author on leadership, I watch these issues very closely. Leadership should be about doing what is right for the people being served and making tough decisions accordingly. It should be a demonstrative continuum of honesty, ethical behaviour, integrity, open and respectful dialogue, building trust, finding happy mediums in difficult times and people working together to do the right things for the right reasons. It should also be about learning from the past but focusing on the future and making things better for all. It shouldn’t be about personal agendas and partisanship, or protective mistruths. And it should never include unprofessional and infantile name calling and belittling attacks on fellow Canadians. Is that what we’re seeing?

We need leadership across the board in this country. Canada has always been a cut above, and the citizens of every municipality, province and our entire nation deserve nothing less.

I certainly know who I won’t vote for in our next federal election and if the other guy doesn’t put his big-boy pants on soon, I’ll be hard-pressed to support anyone. That makes me sad.

What has happened to true “leadership” in Canadian politics?

Thu, 29 Jun 2023 21:35:07 GMT

Over the past 7 years we have watched the decline of honesty and integrity among some U.S. political leaders on both sides of the aisle. The Trump era has seen childlike name calling, immature and dishonest rhetoric, complete character assassination and verbal attacks that are not only aimed at elected officials and candidates but reach into their parents, children and even the attractiveness of spouses. It’s far worse than the typical partisan and occasion personal criticism of political rivals that has always been present. It has become nasty, threatening and dangerous. The dishonesty is now so disturbing that it’s hard to know what to believe about who.

Although former President Trump started the age of verbal silliness, his gaggle of cult-like lemmings – including some high-level officials, have followed his lead in earnest as they continue to spread misinformation and stoke the flames of aggression. Far-right, armed and threatening militia groups have formed. This led to violent attacks on some state buildings, and even a fatal assault on the nation’s Capital Building over what they were led to believe was a “stolen election’. The so-called “leader” of the strongest democratic nation on earth did nothing to stop the carnage, but simply sat back and grinned as the plan he inspired unfolded.

I realize I’m pointing strongly at the Trump side of the issues, but undoubtedly there has been some name-calling and mistruths propagated on the Democratic side of the spectrum, including some far-left activists who have also led some violent confrontations. All wrong for sure, but small potatoes compared to what the Trump regime has spawned.

We used to say, “Well that’s their problem.” But how are things on our side of the international border? Bad and getting worse I’m afraid.

This kind of divisive discourse was relatively unseen on this level in Canadian politics until recent years. There was always open childishness in the various legislatures that I found embarrassing to watch. I’m sure an element of publicly made false allegations and quiet backstabbing have always occurred since Confederation. That’s politics. But a 24/7 continuum of unprofessional and often misleading verbal assaults to and fro between the major parties and leaders is much newer to us. There’s a total lack of respect that permeates many of the players. They seldom reach a consensus on any issue, and it never seems to be about what is best for Canadians, but what is best for individuals and party politics. How is this leadership?

The so-called Freedom Convoy that hit Ottawa and some other major centres was a protest like no other. It was allegedly conceived to protest Covid vaccine mandates and international travel restrictions, but it was more than that. Canadians of all shapes, sizes and political stripes participated, ignited by some key far-right bad activists, and the resulting criminal activity, community impacts and tension were palpable. Political leaders were even unable to unite as to whether that action to paralyze a city and demand the removal of government was inappropriate.

The ethical issues surrounding our PM and some of his key Ministers have been resounding. From the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the firing of two female Cabinet Ministers; to questionable Trudeau family travel issues; to the controversary emanating from the release of investigative information following the Nova Scotia Shooting; on to the Freedom Convoy Protest and the invoking of the never-used Emergency Act legislation; and most recently the Chinese election influence debacle, it has become increasingly difficult to trust the words of the PM and his devoted band of Muskateers. To the untrained eye it would appear that not only did two female Ministers lose their jobs on his watch, a female RCMP Commissioner was thrown under the bus as the PM dealt with significant finger-pointing – at him.

Conversely, the Leader of the Official Opposition, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, hasn’t been a pillar of virtue when it comes to following the Marcus of Queensbury Rules. He spends more time spewing venom about the PM than he does telling us what Canada will look like under his leadership, should he win the next election. Some of it has been humorous, much of it extremely quick-witted, but it’s growing old. Enough already. We need to move forward as a country and we need adults in the room to actually lead us through these difficult times.

As a speaker and author on leadership, I watch these issues very closely. Leadership should be about doing what is right for the people being served and making tough decisions accordingly. It should be a demonstrative continuum of honesty, ethical behaviour, integrity, open and respectful dialogue, building trust, finding happy mediums in difficult times and people working together to do the right things for the right reasons. It should also be about learning from the past but focusing on the future and making things better for all. It shouldn’t be about personal agendas and partisanship, or protective mistruths. And it should never include unprofessional and infantile name-calling and belittling attacks on fellow Canadians. Is that what we’re seeing?

We need leadership across the board in this country. This is Canada for God-sakes. We have always been a cut above, and the citizens of every municipality, province and our entire nation deserve nothing less.

I certainly know who I won’t vote for in our next federal election and if the other guy doesn’t put his big-boy pants on soon, I’ll be hard-pressed to support anyone. That makes me sad.

Has society become desensitized to critical issues?: Lewis

Sat, 24 Jun 2023 17:01:26 GMT

Has society become desensitized to critical issues?Or have our priorities gone completely awry? Perhaps both?

For example, it is truly awful that five people lost their lives in the North Atlantic while riding in a private company’s unsafe submersible, having paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to tour the aquatic gravesite of the RMS Titanic. But it became international news fodder for days while taxpayers from several countries paid millions upon millions of dollars to try and rescue these folks who had knowingly put their own safety at risk.

Don’t get me wrong. Of course they had to search and try to save those lives. We always do and always will. We don’t abandon ill-prepared and -equipped hunters who get lost in the bush because of their economic class.

My point here is that we won’t spend money on critical issues, and we don’t give attention to the plight of those who aren’t living the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Would the entire international community respond en masse to a sinking boatload of Cuban immigrants? And would it top the media cycle for four straight days?

If we collectively put half the North American media and public focus and funding used during the Titan implosion on vulnerable people, crime prevention, homelessness and policing alone, we’d save many more lives than five.

What else was going on concurrently last week that received little leading news coverage, no public fury and a complete lack of tax dollar commitment to prevent a recurrence?

In North America alone, kids are being abused, going to school hungry, and being led down a path where drugs and crime will become their only option in life, each and every day. Unhoused people, and those affected by mental health issues and or addictions, are living on sidewalks or in encampments. Violent crime is increasing in both urban and rural areas. On average there is more than one mass shooting per day in the United States. Canada’s numbers are much less stark, but remain concerning.

Schools are attacked and kids killed or forever traumatized with regularity. Seventy-five people were shot in Chicago last weekend alone – 14 of them fatally. Hundreds of refugees drowned in the Mediterranean Sea last week as they fled their homelands for better lives. That tragedy received only an infinitesimal amount of media coverage in comparison to the deaths of the billionaire adventurers.

More cops have been murdered in Canada in the past year than in any other year in history. Almost daily a police officer is shot in the U.S. At the same time so many continue to call to “defund police” and therefore impact officer safety and put prevention and community safety programs at risk. Where is the broad public outcry and headline news? We hardly ever talk about those societal issues comparatively.

Then there’s never-ending, nauseating government waste; spending more public funds on issues in other countries than on our own social service agencies, homelessness and our veterans; the vilification of police – sometimes by elected officials, including pulling them from schools; getting soft on crime; scales of justice that almost always tips towards criminals – giving more rights to them than to their victims and to the police who are trying to prevent violence and victimization. I could go on.

In one 24-hour period last year I watched a police funeral for two fallen Edmonton Police heroes that were shot and killed. These fine young men represented the eighth and ninth murders of Canadian police officers in seven months. Just before their funeral service began, news from the U.S. emerged regarding another mass shooting at a school, with three children and three adults dead. The shooter there was quickly shot and killed by responding Nashville police. Shortly thereafter, a Sergeant in the Sûreté du Québeclost her life after being stabbed while arresting a suspect in Louisville, Que. She was the second female officer murdered in Canada since RCMP Constable Shaelyn Yang was killed in Burnaby B.C. in last October.

As CTV’s Public Safety Analyst, in years gone by, I would have received numerous calls for interviews from the network TV and radio stations regarding each of these horrific events. But I didn’t. I only received a few calls regarding the huge Edmonton funeral.

Please know I am not complaining about a lack of work. Not at all. But it is simply an indicator to me that things have changed dramatically in the nine years I’ve been on contract to Bell Media. The public is getting desensitized to real public safety and socio-economic issues and mainstream news reporting that is unbiased and verified.

Why? Have we as a society hardened ourselves to public acts of violence? Has there been so many mass shootings, suicides, fentanyl deaths, mental health crises and cops being killed for no other reason than their uniforms, that we don’t react with the same shock, awe and thirst to fix it? Do we now take those tragedies and horrendous issues impacting large segments of society for granted as being inevitable life events and the new norm?

God, I hope not, but once again, I’m not optimistic.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

Debate over police budgets needs to be more nuanced: Lewis

Thu, 23 Feb 2023 20:40:00 GMT

Why do rising policing costs not always equate to less crime?

That was the question posed in a recent paper published in the Canadian Public Policy journal which found that there was no clear link between rising police budgets and lowering crime rates.

I’m not disputing the data or analysis in the study but the various influencing factors and underlying issues are much more complex than the average reader might appreciate.

It is true that over time, police budgets (mostly comprised of salary dollars) increase and always have a substantial impact on government budgets. It is also a reality that some crime categories rise per capita and some decrease over those same periods. Decreases can be due to prevention efforts, key arrests, or a range of other factors. Some of those factors are within the control of police, where others are not. Regardless, the goal is to lower crime numbers year after year.

The ridiculous calls by some to “Defund Police”, have thankfully fallen on deaf ears. The reality is most police departments are barely making ends meet with what they have. Some have less personnel now (i.e. Toronto) than they did prior to the pandemic.

Policing in Canada was once largely provided by ill-equipped uniformed patrol officers, who received rudimentary training that consisted of the law, related procedures and police powers, as well as self-defense techniques. When things ‘got big’, they were supported by some specialists of sort – like detectives and what we then called ‘Identification Officers’ who could photograph, gather and preserve evidence – including blood, hair and fibers and fingerprints. That was pretty much it. No tactical teams, cameras, armoured vehicles, computers, digital radios or DNA. ‘Community Policing’ was often the function of a one-officer or small unit per police service. Crime prevention as an entity, fell to that one person or unit.

But even then, salaries formed much of the police budget.

Then the policing environment changed. Organized crime grew from a handful of groups to hundreds. The world shrunk as the digital world expanded rapidly and crime extended across all borders. Investigative techniques became more complex. Technology evolved as did the ability to victimize the public more broadly, as did the cost to police services to purchase technology and train personnel to use it. Transistor radio networks which once lasted decades moved to digital systems with equipment that became dated every few years.

More police specialists – like tactical teams, proceeds of crime investigators, financial crime experts and CSI units, came out of necessity. More advanced police vehicles, uniforms, cameras and weaponry evolved, and acquisition and maintenance costs grew exponentially. Legislated standards and expensive training all became a must. Court decisions impacted disclosure rules and the processes to obtain various judicial authorities, all of which came with a tremendous cost to police services.

More recently, the threat of terrorism forced police agencies to better gather and analyze intelligence, on a global scale. Surveillance operations and investigations of this magnitude require the deployment of massive resources 24/7, from all levels of policing, to prevent attacks and the massive loss of innocent lives.

Immigration continues to contribute greatly to Canada’s growing population. Concurrently, affordable housing availability continues to diminish amid rising housing costs. This does not make for a good situation from a homelessness perspective.

I’ve often said police work would be a cakewalk if it was not for the impacts from poverty, addiction, mental health issues and the homelessness that often emanates from some of the above factors. Many detractors cry that police have taken over the response to mental health and addiction occurrences as part of some intentional ‘job-growth’ conspiracy, but the fact is that police would rather not have to deal with any of those matters, ever. Unfortunately, that’s not the real world and police have to be ‘all things to all people’ in many instances, or no one would respond. Cuts to many social services that would professionally address a number of these situations, have resulted in police becoming the fallback response.

But even if every community had the best of programs and personnel to handle these matters, police would inevitably have to respond as well in most cases. Bad things sometimes happen to good people despite best intentions, and dedicated and well-intended personnel from these agencies would be in physically dangerous situations at times. Those instances would require a timely police response, so officers would have to be very close at minimum and often in plain sight to deter assaultive behaviour from occurring.

Mental health challenges aren’t only growing among those the police serve. All police services are dealing with those issues internally. Many services report record-setting numbers of personnel suffering from post-traumatic stress injuries alone, in addition to depression and other emotional health issues that impact all of society. Although I’m heartened that members are more often seeking the help they deserve, there is a human and financial cost to that as well. (It’s important to note that the past 18 months saw more murdered police officers in Canada than ever in our history.)

The smuggling of assorted forms of contraband – including narcotics, firearms and people, into Canada – as well as stolen vehicles out of the country, impacts all communities, and the RCMP continues to suffer from a shortfall of resources to address it. Moreover, the vast majority of guns used in violent crime in Canada – particularly when involving street gangs, are smuggled handguns from the U.S. That trend continues to grow and impacts public safety in Canada in municipalities of all sizes as well as rural and indigenous communities, and at a time where our national police are challenged to play a leading enforcement role.

The horrific sexual exploitation of children through the internet is a global issue. It has required a huge increase in dedicated investigators and technology. As has monitoring extremist groups through the internet and physically in our communities.

Protracted, linked and sometimes massive protests occur daily in this country. Often several occur simultaneously. Intelligence gathering, monitoring protest groups online, planning and responding to events has become a significant and resource intensive responsibility for police. At one time, the occasional labour strike was as close to a tense protest as police ever saw. When they did occur, police amassed a large group of officers and dealt with it. Now highly trained and equipped units must be in place to meet the full-time demand.

The pandemic years also took a horrific toll on police resources and budgets. Many tax dollars were spent to purchase personal protective equipment. Although certain calls for service diminished over those years, others like mental health calls and domestic disturbances increased, while police services struggled to meet their staffing needs as their own employees and families dealt with the personal consequences of COVID.

Police oversight is undoubtedly a necessity but continues to grow and also comes with a financial cost to police services.

Through collective bargaining, police salaries continue to rise and are a huge part of any municipal/provincial budget. Officers are well paid given their difficult role in society and from recruiting and retention perspectives. Vehicle and fuel costs as well as other operating expenses are rising also.

And don’t forget, our justice system is a huge contributor to rising police costs. Revolving door bail and parole systems where violent offenders are released quicker than officers can write their reports; numerous appearances where officers have to sit in court on overtime all day only to not get called as witnesses; criminal cases being tossed after days, months or years of investigation because of trial delays; and so on.

So, is rising police spending allowing police to adequately address new business?

Remember, the old business has not gone away. Assaults, murders, break-ins, robberies, thefts, domestic disturbances, traffic issues – including collisions, deaths and injuries ALL still occur with regularity, at the same time police are trying to properly meet the modern challenges mentioned above. You cannot look at rising policing costs and increasing crime rates as a failure. It’s way bigger than that. Most often these larger budgets are barely meeting inflation, while trying to address emerging crime numbers, growing public order events and ever-increasing complexity all around. Something has to give in this process.

It’s also important to note that no two municipalities are the same or face the same challenges. City “A” may have the same population as city “B” but many local factors come into play in terms of their local crime trends. Social, economic, housing, education, government services, industrial, demographic, climate, geography and other nuances can influence criminal activity.

What is the answer?

Police leaders must always do the right things to prevent crime and victimization in a fiscally responsible, open and honest way. When crimes do occur, they must similarly ensure the service is committed to professionally and effectively investigating and bringing suspects before the courts, within the parameters of the law and the Charter of Rights.

They need to be adequately funded to do that, not unjustly crying “there will be blood in the streets”, but at the same time honestly fighting for what their members truly need to protect the public and their members. The vast, vast majority do just that.

Governments must be armed with the facts and provided with the confidence that their police service is as effective and accountable as possible, then publicly defend and fully support their service, not further drag them down for some personal or partisan motive.

Lastly, we all have a role to play in understanding the realities of policing – knowing that they will have many successes and occasional failures, and do all we can to help them achieve ‘our’ mutual community safety goals.

A catch-and-release justice system is not working for Canadians: Lewis

Sat, 07 Jan 2023 17:01:24 GMT

According to Google, the meaning of 'catch and release' is "when a fish is caught and then returned to the water unharmed so that it survives and continues its existence in its natural environment." That might be very appropriate when referring to walleye and trout, but it is not working for Canadian society when it comes to violent offenders.

When Christopher Husbands entered the Toronto Eaton Centre in June 2012 and subsequently killed two people and wounded five others, he was on bail following an arrest for sexual assault. He was a known gang member. Successive Toronto Police Chiefs have publicly reported cases of gang violence committed while the members were already out on bail for violent offences.

Umar Zameer, a Toronto man charged with the murder of a Toronto police Const. Jeffrey Northrup, in July 2021, was eventually released on bail. The court is betting that he won't kill another cop.

Mohammed Majidpour of Vancouver had been convicted 30 times for such offences as assault with a weapon and uttering threats but was still released on bail when arrested for assaulting a woman with a pole in September 2022. He's been released and arrested several times since. This guy gets out before the arresting officer finishes typing the report.

Myles Sanderson had been paroled two-thirds of the way through his four-year, four-month sentence for threats, robbery, assault with a weapon and assaulting a police officer, despite being assessed as high-risk to re-offend with violence. He had fifty-nine criminal convictions in his relatively short life and was a wanted parole violator when he stabbed eleven people to death in the James Cree Nation in Saskatchewan in September 2022.

Most recently, OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique publicly said he was "outraged" that one of the accused murderers of Haldimand OPP Const. Greg Pierzchala was out on bail for firearms charges and for assaulting a police officer at the time of the killing. One has to ask themselves, "Would Const. Pierzchala have been murdered if Randall McKenzie had still been in custody?" Commissioner Carrique's feelings are obvious, as I'm sure are those of the thousands of police officers that attended this wonderful young officer's funeral on Wednesday.

This issue is as old as the hills and comes from the failings of various governments, but in my view, the past several years have seemingly been the worst period for government decision-making that negatively impacts public safety in my 45-year connection with law enforcement.

Their Bill C-5 resulted in some mandatory minimum penalties being repealed, including several firearms offences. Offences like discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of offence and robbery with a firearm. You know, those run-of-the-mill crimes that are of little risk to the public or police. At a time when violent crime and the use of illegal firearms are historically high in Canada, the decision was made to go soft on gun crime. But don't worry, we're cracking down on those legal gun owners that have been through background checks and training courses. How often are those people a threat?

At the same time, changes around bail consideration within Bill C-75 potentially allow more violent criminals to be released awaiting trial, particularly when "circumstances of Indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations are considered at bail, in order to address the disproportionate impacts that the bail system has on these populations." I get that there are disproportionate representations of Indigenous people and people of colour in our court and prison systems. There is a host of socio-economic issues that need to be dealt with in a long-term strategy to address this disparity, but regardless of an offender's race, colour or difficult lives, the public and police need to be protected from those who commit crimes of violence, as much as reasonably possible.

I am not advocating that accused persons should be held without bail on a whim. I appreciate that, in most cases, being held awaiting trial may mean years of incarceration in a judicial system that moves at glacial speed. That flies in the face of the basic principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.

In the majority of criminal cases, the release of the accused on bail is obviously not a risk to public safety, like a first-time charge for a minor assault stemming from a bar fight. Obviously, there is no need to limit their pre-trial freedom. At the other end of the scale are pathological killers who are a serious threat to community safety and must be held.

And then there are cases in the middle that reasonably could go either way, but currently, the rights of the accused seem to trump the rights of potential victims to personal safety. The question for court officials becomes, where is the line in the middle?

When it comes to both bail and parole considerations, the scales need to be much more balanced to protect the public and police and not slanted to protect the rights of the accused. At this point, they are tipped too far the other way.

The other question is, why is our system so painstakingly slow? In cases where accused violent offenders are denied bail, an expedited process is obviously in their best interests and the best thing for the community as a whole.

Besides the obvious bail concerns, having trials occur much quicker will be better for all players – victims, accused, witnesses and police officers. Various provinces have tried to speed things up, however I'm not aware of any significant success stories thus far. Trial processes still tend to drag on forever, and some serious charges of violence have been dropped because they have taken too long to be heard.

I'm not suggesting that the U.S. has the perfect system by any means, but often people there are charged with serious crimes, then tried and either convicted or absolved within a year. The police officer that killed George Floyd in Minnesota was brought to trial and sentenced to jail in less than a year of being charged.

Our entire judicial system needs to be reformed – federally in terms of legislation governing bail, sentencing and parole, and then province by province to seek more effective, safe and speedier processes.

The time to tip the scales back is long overdue on all fronts so that the system errs on the side of public safety. We're talking about dangerous people here, not fish that occasionally bite a worm. Catch and release must end.

From convoys to gun control: CTV's public safety analyst looks back at some of the top issues of 2022

Fri, 30 Dec 2022 06:19:52 GMT

2022 was an interesting year in Canada, on a number of fronts, but for me, protests, senseless deaths, inquiries and legislative controversy dominated my world as CTV News’s Public Safety Analyst.

Here is a look back at some of the stories that stand out, listed chronologically:

1. The anti-government Freedom Convoy protests, which seriously disrupted some Canada-U.S. border crossings and a few major cities – most predominantly Ottawa, started 2022 off with serious challenges for law enforcement and all levels of government, and considerable public debate. Poor analysis of police intelligence and the lack of a solid strategy and pre-positioned resources to prevent the largest of the protests from taking root in the nation’s capital, led to weeks of playing catch-up. After the blockades in Windsor Ontario and Coutts, Alberta were dismantled by police, officers came to Ottawa in droves and eventually ended that mess as well. The Liberal federal government invoked the never before used “Emergencies Act” during the days between the police action in Windsor and Coutts and the Ottawa operation, claiming the legislation was requested by police, leading many to believe that act saved the day. The reality of that connection remains unclear.

2. The ongoing Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission into the horrendous 2020 mass murder there uncovered a number of failings on the part of the RCMP in terms of their operational response to the shooting as well as media, public and inter-agency notification processes. Quite significant details also emerged as evidence showed the RCMP Commissioner had directed investigators to publicly release specific details as to the makes and calibres of the firearms used by the killer against the wishes of the Nova Scotia RCMP leadership. This raised allegations and some denials regarding the federal government pressuring Commissioner Brenda Lucki to push for public disclosure of the firearm particulars in an effort to further their legislative agenda. We may never know the complete details with this situation, but it did not paint a good picture of the RCMP commissioner or her government masters in my view.

3. The subsequent legally-mandated hearing into the enactment of the Emergencies Act during the Freedom Convoy highlighted a number of lessons-learned from policing and local government perspectives, as well as critical disconnects between and within police and government agencies. It also became clear that although police leaders agreed it helped, they had never requested the legislation, claiming they finally had a robust plan formulated as well as sufficient resources to implement it, and still had a number of existing authorities and enforcement options available to them. Once again, apparent communications failings between the RCMP commissioner and the Liberal government loomed large, but in this case the Prime Minster and other key advisors and ministerial staff essentially threw Commissioner Lucki under the bus in their evidence. Following weeks of testimony and submissions, Justice Paul Rouleau is currently preparing his findings into the matter.

4. A September stabbing attack on the James Smith Cree Nation in Saskatchewan resulted in 12 dead, including the two brothers responsible for the slayings. A number of community members were also injured. It required a significant response and then man-hunt for the killers, involving the RCMP and a number of municipal police services. Police communications and notification protocols worked very well throughout the massive operation and agencies seemed to effectively work shoulder-to-shoulder.

OpEd: Emergency Act inquiry serves as a reminder of the need for better provincial legislation

Mon, 05 Dec 2022 06:19:50 GMT

Enacting the Emergency Act last February to end the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa may or may not have been in keeping with the legal threshold for invoking the never before used legislation. My vote is “not”, but I digress. The mandatory hearing into that legal question has ended its fact-finding phase and Justice Rouleau is currently penning his findings and recommendations.

The largely well-presented and scripted evidence of the Prime Minister and that of some key ministers should have laid out a transparent process and some semblance of a rational justification for the invocation of the Act. I truly hoped that I had been wrong in my assessment of it being no more than a political game of smoke and mirrors and that key evidence from government would prove me so. But that was not to be.

For the first month that evidence was presented – particularly in cross examination, it appeared largely to be a post-mortem of police planning (or lack thereof) and at times an outright attack. Albeit it interesting for the most part and demonstrative of some planning, communication and response failings on the part of police, none of that evidence in my opinion demonstrated that the threshold for the activation of the legislation had been met. And moreso, it cemented the fact that the police had not requested it.

Then came the evidence of protest “leaders”, although I use the term loosely. The only thing that emerged from that show in my view was proof that an unorganized group of clowns somehow drew a cast of thousands together to disrupt some major cities and international trade routes for weeks – at a tremendous cost to taxpayers. It was more by happenstance on their part than good management. It is scary to wonder what a well-organized and more calculated team might actually be capable of.

Regardless of the findings of the process, we may never clearly know the reality of the decision-making methodology used by cabinet or the true details of their discussions. The testimony of elected officials and senior bureaucrats has been political theatre at its finest. I am guardedly optimistic that Justice Rouleau could see through that and that recommendations made will assist all going forward, as will the critical lessons-learned by law enforcement leaders, planners and city officials.

Will the Emergency Act be rewritten to address the definition of “National Security” and more? At minimum it would be nice to see a definition that isn’t a moving target or best guess by cabinet. After all we never did hear from the government lawyers that advised cabinet that they were justified in their action. It’s kind of odd to say the least, that in a legally mandated inquiry before a commissioner who is also a Justice in the Court of Appeal – in front of a room full of lawyers, we couldn’t hear what lawyers said to Ccabinet members while debating a legal issue. Only in Canada.

What is abundantly clear to me is that it is time to renew provincial emergency legislation to better meet the needs of the protest environment and let the federal legislation continue to be directed at the “big one” (like a real insurrection) when truly required. Sadly, although it hasn’t happened yet, we all know an event of that proportion may happen at some point. However, the vast majority of large events could be effectively handled by the provinces under a renewed framework that has more teeth.

Policing is a provincial responsibility. The provinces are accountable for police legislation, standards, training and oversight. They also each manage their own Provincial Emergency Act. In the Ontario example, the act contains an overarching process piece that generally applies to any provincial emergency, as well as a number of annexes that are specific to individual types of emergencies. It even has the Provincial Counter Terrorism Plan attached as an annex. An additional segment that addresses the overwhelming and protracted protest environment is now worth developing.

Some of the issues that at this point in our history need to be discussed and addressed (at minimum):

Inter-provincial authority for police officers in emergency situations. It needs to be simpler and expedient;
The ability for provinces to force some service-providers (i.e. towing companies) to assist and be legally indemnified while doing so;
A clear and transparent process to enact the legislation through a bi-partisan committee with a sitting-government majority, where relevant threshold issues are documented upfront;
Traffic routing, “no-go” pedestrian zones, towing and driver’s licence suspension authorities all clearly established in one document without having to turn to several disparate pieces of provincial legislation to meet operational needs; and
Rationale and process clarity for linking into federal emergency legislation as well as for accessing federal resources.

I’m not suggesting that such enhanced provincial legislation be enacted every time a crowd gathers on Main Street as some will fear. That would conflict with the Charter of Rights and any form of rational thought. Thousands of legal protests happen across Canada every year and very seldom disrupt an entire province or the whole nation. Nor do they very often cripple a major city for weeks; require an influx of thousands of police officers; and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to address. But when such large and complex events do occur, police need the legislative authority to deal with them effectively and safely.

It is often said that all organizations should “plan for the worst but hope for the best”. That is particularly applicable to agencies that protect communities, provinces and countries.

The Freedom Protest showed us that it’s time to plan better on many scales and the more planning and preparation that can be done in a general sense now – and not in the middle of a crisis, makes total sense. From there, we just have to hope for the best from our police services and political leaders to consistently do what is right, and always for the right reasons.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

OpEd: Was Emergencies Act invoked without justification?

Mon, 21 Nov 2022 06:19:49 GMT

Clearly the ongoing Emergencies Act hearing in Ottawa has shown a number of disconnects surrounding the planning for and policing of the February 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa. Some small, many huge. Communication gaps between and within some police agencies and their leaders, among elected officials and bureaucratic representatives within the different levels of government, the various groups and individuals engaged in part or all of the three-week protest; and in terms of the various legislation and the definitions therein.

In the interests of brevity and because the confusing evidence in this hearing makes my head hurt, I’ll stick with the assertion by some and disagreement by others that the Freedom Convoy Protest activities constituted a “threat to national security” and therefore require the invoking of the federal legislation.

The Canadian Security and Intelligence Services (CSIS) Act defines a threat to national security quite seriously, using language that conjures up images of international espionage, sabotage and a violent overthrow of government. It’s the “big one” in my view and thankfully something that Canada hasn’t seen in 50 years. Without using these exact words, having to take “war measures” to combat a significant insurrection comes to mind. As a career police officer, that has always been my perception of the meaning of the term.

On the other hand, Public Safety Canada’s Critical Infrastructure website describes its mandate in dealing with “disruptions of critical infrastructure” that could result in “catastrophic loss of life or adverse economic effects, and significantly undermine the safety and wellbeing of Canadian communities.” It’s pretty serious stuff as well but more of an attack on things that could result in a public safety threat, as opposed to more of an attack on government and people.

In terms of the Ottawa protest, a hearing document that describes the forthcoming evidence of the Director of CSIS said that the protest did not meet the threat to national security as per the CSIS legislation and that there were no signs of foreign influence.

Supt. Pat Morris, the head of the OPP’s Provincial Intelligence Bureau, was of like mind when he provided very similar testimony past month.

Some other police witnesses have stated their belief that the events were in fact a threat to national security. OPP Commissioner Tom Carrique explained his belief that the protest compromised national security in terms of the threat to “…transportation, critical infrastructure, border crossings, economic security – all of those things.” Once again, all key considerations for police and government leaders, but were any or all of those issues present at the Ottawa protest? Border protests in Coutts, Alberta and Windsor, Ontario were both dealt with under existing legal authorities and prior to the Emergencies Act invocation.

The Emergencies Act itself states a national emergency is defined as an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that either “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians” or “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.”

I haven’t heard any evidence so far that such a threshold was met in Ottawa. In fact, career CSIS and Canadian Security Establishment analyst and author Phil Gurski said in his November 2nd, 2022 Ottawa Citizen article, “And yet, from what we have seen and heard to-date, there has been nothing – absolutely nothing – that supports the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.”

Jody Thomas, the Prime Minister’s National Security Advisor, who you would hope would know a thing or two about the required legislative thresholds, testified that the CSIS Act definition was too narrow in her view, and that the protest was a “national crisis”, a threat to the economy and interfered in the daily lives of the people of Ottawa.

Thomas also torpedoed RCMP Commissioner Lucki’s evidence that she had communicated that police still had options to end the protest and that there was finally a plan in place to do so. Lucki’s evidence is clearly inflammatory in terms of government’s claim that the Emergencies Act was required. Despite Commissioner Lucki appearing to be very protective of her government masters while testifying in this instance and during the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission, she was effectively thrown under the bus by Thomas’ denial that the critical information had been passed on.

More communication gaps? Bad memories? Or government targeting their “fall-girl”?

A number of police witnesses testified that the protest could be dealt with within existing legal authorities – as has every local, provincial and national protest in Canada since the dawn of time. (Some others had all cross-country trade and commerce transportation routes completely blocked and others were quite violent.)

However, Minister Mendicino claimed that the police had actually requested the legislation. I don’t recall a single police witness testifying that Emergencies Act was required or was requested. Not even former Chief Peter Sloly who did publicly claim there was not a police solution to the protest at that time. Another disconnect?

Ontario Premier Doug Ford legally declared a state of emergency on February 11, 2022, which was of some help.

Most or all those testifying so far agree that the Emergencies Act “helped” too. I’m glad it did, but I suppose one could argue that completely blocking every highway, county road and cattle trail leading into the National Capital Region with barbed-wire and police dogs prior to would have helped as well. But that would not have been justified, legal, reasonable or responsible. That should be the test in my view.

Who is right and who is wrong in all of this remains to be seen, but the public deserves better than the litany of communication failures; convenient memory gaps; and varying interpretations of the threat and the solution by some senior officials, while others appear to have done their duty and honestly related what they saw, heard and believed. “Who did and who didn’t” in the big scheme of things, is still a best-guess in too many instances. It shouldn’t be a matter of finding fault in this hearing, but a matter of finding the truth and then taking those to task who strayed from the truth and have lost valuable pubic trust.

Let’s hope the cream eventually rises to the top in all of this mess so community members know who they can still trust going forward.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

OpEd: A former OPP commissioner on what he would say to grieving officers following recent line-of-duty deaths

Wed, 02 Nov 2022 06:19:48 GMT

Following the murders of three Ontario police officers in September and October, I gave considerable thought to what local and other Ontario colleagues of these fallen officers were dealing with from emotional and morale perspectives. I knew they were all hurting to various degrees and how that might impact them both personally and professionally. I appreciated from my own experiences as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police that a large number might be questioning their own personal safety while working the streets of their communities, in what they feared might be the new reality. At the same time, I suspected that many were going through a very sad period, grieving for their deceased colleagues and their families, while harkening back to previous losses of life that impacted them forever.

In my role as CTV’s Public Safety Analyst, I was interviewed many times after these deaths. Some of the questions that resonated with me each time were those surrounding the police service leadership and what they were thinking and feeling through those dreadful days and weeks. I was asked about chief’s and leaders meeting with families immediately following the murders. Then during the funerals I responded to queries about how the members attending would be feeling and what their senior officers would be saying to them to try and build up their spirits. In addition, I was asked what I would say in similar circumstances and if I had ever had been in a similar situation. Sadly I had. Way too many times in fact.

I never had to personally advise a family of the death of an OPP loved-one, but I did meet with a number of grieving OPP spouses and children fairly soon after several tragedies. In some cases, I personally knew the deceased officers. Words can’t begin to describe the emotion surrounding such events. In one particularly upsetting incident, I was at a hospital emergency department when the young sons of an OPP officer were told that their father had died from gunshot wounds he had received. One of the sons was trying hard to be strong for his devastated mom and when I put my hand on his shoulder to try to console him, he buried his little face in my stomach and sobbed. That very moment still makes me cry when I reflect on it 12 years later.

I remember meeting with teams and at times whole detachments after they had lost a colleague and friend. As a leader you can’t walk into those discussions with a prepared script, you just need to understand their emotions; try to say the appropriate things to help; encourage dialogue among them and with other supporting personnel; and promise your personal and organizational support. It’s never easy, but unfortunately leadership isn’t always for the faint of heart.

When I visited Afghanistan in 2011 with Canadian police leader colleagues to visit deployed police personnel, I spoke to L/General Stuart Beare of the Canadian Army. He had recently repatriated the body of another young soldier to Canada after being killed in action there. When I asked him about the impact of the many deaths of personnel on the mission, he said words to the effect of:

“No matter how bad things get, it doesn’t change who we are or what our mission is. We are the Canadian Armed Forces and our mission is to support the people of Afghanistan in achieving peace and stability.”

That resonated with me, and I’ve thought of it often since and I would’ve used very similar language in addressing the devastated personnel of the Toronto and South Simcoe Police Services if I was their chief. I would have reminded them to think back to why they joined the police service to begin with – to serve the community; to give back to it and keep it safe. I’d have added that the fallen members would not want us to give up and stop being police officers and remind them that those officers would want us to continue be resolute in our goal to protect the public and each other from victimization.

So fast forwarding to these difficult days and long after I met Stu Beare, police personnel need to remind themselves – as I have many times, “No matter how bad things get, it doesn’t change who we are: the police, or what we do: protect the public and each other.”

Although extremely sad, I always walked away from police funerals with a feeling of positivity. They gave me strength. Having seen throngs of members of various emergency services standing united as a big public safety team to honour a fallen member, supported by hundreds of community members who truly support the police and were deeply touched by the loss of one of their officers, I felt a renewed confidence in our validity and our future. I also left with a stronger determination to continue to perform my sworn duty. That is why I joined policing and what the fallen member would expect of me and my fellow officers.

I’m confident that is exactly what the members of Ontario’s police services will do going forward. I pray for their safety as they carry out that important mission.

OpEd: Recent police deaths highlight the need to support grieving frontline officers

Fri, 28 Oct 2022 06:19:46 GMT

Although long retired from law enforcement, my heart still skips a beat when I hear of a police officer being killed in the line of duty. I want to drop to my knees and scream.

I can remember every police funeral I attended – whether I personally knew the officer or not, it broke my heart. Most police officers experience similar emotions I’m sure, including having the events trigger deep and dark memories from past traumatic incidents they experienced over their careers. It’s never easy and it tends to drag down the morale of all police officers in the days to follow.

Sadly, Canadian police officers have lived through that nightmare again and again over the past several weeks, each death compounding their powerful sense of loss and in some cases their diminishing resolve.

The murder of Toronto Police Const. Andrew Hong on September 21 followed by the murders of Constables Morgan Russell and Devon Northrup of the South Simcoe Police Service – who were also killed by gunfire less than three weeks later, left police officers devastated and many were understandably asking themselves questions about the reality of policing in 2022. Some retired officers were publicly expressing safety concerns for serving members and occasionally stating words to the effect that they wouldn’t want to be police officers in these difficult times. That expressed sentiment spreads far and wide among communities and potential police applicants.

Within weeks of those two tragedies – that had already left many officers and citizens wondering if it could possibly get worse - RCMP Const. Shaelyn Yang was stabbed to death in Burnaby, BC. A fourth Canadian police officer was intentionally killed in 37 days. During all of that tragedy, Const. Travis Gillespie of the York Regional Police was killed in a traffic collision with an alleged impaired motorist while driving to work. As devastating as his death was, it did differ in that he was not actively conducting policing duties at the time of his death. Regardless, it added to the overall narrative about the dangers of policing.

All the attention to these events is understandable. It even had me pondering the risks of modern-day policing in Canada and the impact that might have on police recruiting and the future of the profession.

Canadian policing has seen similar dire trends in the past that at the time raised concerns that policing was seeing a new norm. Four RCMP officers were shot to death in an incident in Mayerthorpe, Alberta in 2005. Three more RCMP were murdered and two injured in a mass shooting in Moncton, NB in June 2014. The OPP and the Toronto Police Service have each had two officers murdered in a single incident at different times in the past 50 years. Over the course of a single calendar year, six officers were murdered a number of times in Canada – as recently as the mid 1980s.

That information is not meant to say it has been worse or to anyway downplay the tragic impact of four Canadian police officers being murdered in a four-month period. It was only provided to demonstrate that we have had horrendous years in this country in the past. At those times police officers undoubtedly questioned our ability to move forward, but we did.

For at least the past 10 years Canadian police have also been under fire from other perspectives.

Lots of individual issues can drop police morale, even without the loss of life like we have just seen. Budget and staffing levels are problematic in several jurisdictions, which ultimately impacts response times, stress and officer morale. In other cases, leadership failures at various levels in some police services have negatively impacted employee morale.

Bail and justice system issues loom large on the morale and officer safety fronts as well, when many cases dangerous individuals are arrested on gun charges while already on bail for similar offences but are seemingly released before officers have had time for a lunch break. Additionally, the anti-police “vocal-minority” vitriol of some individuals and groups that are captured in mainstream and social media feeds with cries to “defund police”, while making constant allegations of police racism and the unlawful use of force, challenges morale. Concurrently, officers respond to back-to-back traumatic incidents and to violent and protracted public protests. The ongoing stress emerging from the combined total of these challenges can very much affect a broad number of uniformed and civilian police employees.

Policing is a dangerous occupation with many risks to the physical and mental health of officers. Some detractors argue “well that’s what police sign up for”, which is ridiculous. We all know that many other careers are dangerous as well, but police face risk while serving the public and it is one of very few vocations where some people murder personnel for no other reason than their uniform. Although Canadian police are now better trained, armed and equipped than ever in our history and are well-aware of the inherent risks, none of them sign up accepting that being injured, psychologically scarred or killed simply comes with the turf.

As a group, Canadian police officers are second to none on earth. They will always face internal and external challenges in performing their duties; they will experience traumatic incidents, public criticism and sadly, the occasional loss of a colleague. I’m confident that despite those obstacles, they will continue protecting the public from victimization 24/7, 356 days a year. And thousands of young Canadians who are in high school or post-secondary education right now will apply and be hired to replace officers when they retire. But our police need our help and support.

They still don’t hear enough from the quiet majority that love and respect them. We all need to communicate our appreciation whenever we can. They do hear negativity – largely through nameless, faceless, social media trolls that either don’t have a clue of which they speak or have ridiculous and/or untrue criticisms. If have they did have a valid complaint, they’d bring it to the appropriate oversight body for investigation and let the cards fall. But instead, they anonymously fling dirt into the social media swirl to see what sticks. Good citizens could counter a lot of that damaging silliness by telling the many true stories of police professionalism and commitment to their communities.

Let’s all help these wonderful public servants through this current hard time – and offer our thanks when we see them, knowing full well that when we are at our worst in life, they will bravely respond to be there for us.

Chris Lewis is a former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police and the current public safety analyst for CTV News.

The Cycle of Police Criticism

Sun, 23 Oct 2022 21:27:18 GMT

By Chris D. Lewis

The never-ending criticism by anti-police factions and some so-called community leaders continues to paint a picture of mass discontent with police services across the USA. This of course has cascaded across the border into Canada. The rhetoric, some deserved - most not, can't help but drag down the spirit of a number of police officers and their families across the continent. It seems law enforcement can no longer do anything right in the minds of the vocal detractors.

As a long-serving officer and police leader that never hesitates to defend the good or conversely castigate police personnel that don't play by the book, I feel compelled to offer my perspective.

Police officers are entrusted with tremendous powers, including the authority to use deadly force and to restrict the freedom of others. They must be held fully accountable when they don't use those powers fairly and judiciously.

I believe that the vast, VAST majority of police officers are honest, committed and brave people that truly do the right thing for those they serve 24/7. Then there are a few others that never should have been hired. They violate people's rights and use their authority wrongly – sometimes criminally. Although they are but a very small minority, they continue to drag down the profession, as lay people often assume that these idiots represent the entire police culture. That's so sad in my view.

Please know that the men and women of your local police, sheriff, state/provincial and federal law enforcement agencies are out there right now doing what they do so well. You deserve nothing less. However, they need your trust and support.

On occasion honest officers will make honest mistakes. When they do, they need to accept responsibility for their actions and move on to serve communities as per their sworn oath to lawfully protect life and property, fairly, impartially and without bias.

Others – that tiny minority of men and women in blue, purposely violate policy, laws and the rights of others, with intent. Then they will do all they can to avoid detection, sullying the image of a wonderful profession along their distasteful journey. Police Chiefs and Commissioners will do all they can to prevent that; will investigate it thoroughly when it does occur; and then must let due process run its course.

Maliciously done or not, all police wrongdoings must be dealt with through effective and transparent processes, with the eventual punishment properly fitting the transgression.

Accordingly, police officers, civilian personnel and police associations must step forward and do all they can to help rid their organizations of those that wrong others, hurt the profession and break down community trust. Then governing officials and the media need to fairly address and report on all the good and the bad that does occur in policing day after day, so that the public knows the truth – rather than some inflated and biased version of the events.

The police cannot survive without the sacred trust of those they serve, and will continue to do their best to deserve your confidence. Please do your best to help them succeed, so that everyone can be safe. We are all in this together.

OpEd: Police response to Texas school shooting was failure of epic proportions

Tue, 19 Jul 2022 06:19:45 GMT

I don’t profess to be an expert in anything in life but I do have a firm handle on the various aspects of policing, some more than others. As I provide analysis on “public safety” matters for Bell Media television and radio stations, I simply apply my decades of experience to the circumstances presented and provide commentary. I always assume that I don’t have the complete facts and/or assumptions that the police officers faced when they went into a scenario. I just attempt to bring context to the big picture – including a variety of possible factors that we may or may not know at a given point in time - and try to present those thoughts in a balanced way. Inevitably some will view my opinion as being too harsh or not critical enough in many situations. I accept that, but it is my opinion.

I spent most of my police career in leadership roles within the Tactical Operations and Major Crime Investigation areas of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). I was a member of those units, sections and bureaus at all ranks in my career, from constable up to the highest senior executive levels and then overall as commissioner. Most of my media interviews involve investigative and tactical matters. I’m not claiming to be an expert in these areas, but I do know this stuff well.

The horrific mass murder at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas was beyond comprehension to everyone from the beginning. To most, it was also impossible to understand what appeared to be a slow and confusing police response that elicited many more questions than answers. Believe me, it’s also been difficult for many current or retired law enforcement personnel to rationalize the response – including me.

By way of background, ‘Tactical teams’ are groups of several to a dozen or so police officers that are highly trained and equipped to respond to high-risk events – like a barricaded person (lone gunman in a building); sniper; and/or hostage situation occurrences. Generally, they are committed to that work fulltime for a number of years and they are good at what they do.

I was a member of the London OPP Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) in the early 1980s and became the team leader in the mid 1980s. Then after working in major crime for several years, I was assigned to amalgamate all the OPP emergency response units under one bureau and was put in-charge of all the tactical units. We had hundreds of professionals responding to hundreds of dangerous calls in an immense and evolving landscape, 24/7. I saw a lot of changes over those years.

From the early days of tactical units in the 60s and 70s, the uniformed officers first on scene of a gun call would contain the situation; gather information; evacuate surrounding areas and await the arrive of the tactical team. Negotiations would be established, and tactical assault plans developed in the event that the shooter started to kill hostages. Then only tactical team members would enter the building until proven safe. If there were no hostages, the old “time, talk and tear gas” approach remained the most appropriate response.

But prior to the late 90s, “active shooters” in public places like theatres, concerts and schools were few and far between. In fact, the first one that really sticks out in my mind was in Columbine, Colorado in 1999. Before that tragedy, gunmen rampaging through public places and shooting numerous unknown potential victims wasn’t a big concern. The contain and negotiate approach still made total sense until then.

After Columbine and a few similar events, including the killing of several Amish girls at a rural schoolhouse in Pennsylvania in 2006, police developed an approach whereby uniformed officers would be trained and equipped to respond immediately during an active shooter situation to “stop the killing” and “stop the dying”, rather than wait for command personnel and tactical teams to respond. The belief was that a small team of officers (three or four, or less if necessary), with or without the presence of a supervisor, could aggressively move directly towards the sound of gunfire and neutralize the suspect to prevent the shooting of more victims and to save those already wounded. Although the name of the program varied here and there, it generally became known as Immediate Rapid Response (IRD). Some police departments also equipped police cruisers with additional “breaching” equipment to assist in forcing open fortified doors to enable access to the shooter and save precious time.

From a command perspective, the senior ranking officer on scene, which may only be a sergeant, assumes command of a gun call operation, which may include roadblocks; aviation; canine; explosive disposal; hostage negotiators and more. Eventually a more senior officer will attend that has been trained to command these incidents, to varying degrees depending on the size of the department and their resources. Each unit within the response group most often has a supervisor of the unit (tactical, negotiation, etc.) and they each report up to the incident commander. There should never be any doubt as to who the overall commander is.

After-action debriefings are held and documented after every operation so command/control, policy, equipment, communication and training issues can be improved going forward. On occasion that may include command and communication flaws being identified that necessitates personnel changes being made – including incident commanders.

Uvalde was an “Active Shooter” incident and not a barricaded person or hostage situation. Officers entered that school shortly after the shooter and videos show that shots were fired by the killer while they were in the building. They knew where he was. They knew children were dead and likely more were injured and dying on the floor. Police were even talking to hiding children by cell phone. This was NOT a situation where police could afford to waste another minute waiting for a full tactical team response and or to negotiate with the gunman. It required an IRD response, and they had more than enough personnel to do it. Yes, it would be high-risk, and some officers could be injured or killed. That’s awful but protecting and saving lives is what police do. That’s their primary responsibility. There are varying reports regarding the IRD training status of the officers from the several agencies that were represented, but I cannot imagine that they weren’t in my wildest dreams. An IRD should have occurred within minutes.

The chief of the district school police department was on scene and it was his jurisdiction. He doesn’t believe he was in charge. Who did he think was? Life or death decisions needed to be made in the best interests of those children and direction given to the officers there. The leader of the police of jurisdiction is always in-charge unless an agreement exists to have someone with more expertise take over, and if so, that is widely communicated. In the Uvalde tragedy there was a complete void of leadership.

State Police; Border Patrol; Sheriff’s Office and other police agencies had officers in that school. When the lack of leadership became apparent, somebody needed to step up and take charge but no one did. How many more hours would it have taken before a real leader said ‘enough, you guys cover here, here and here, and Billy, Caren, Fred and I are going in.”

It’s apparent that no plan existed for responding to such calls at schools in that district. Therefore, plans weren’t exercised, regularly updated and communicated to all players. That was a tremendous shortcoming.

There was obviously a total lack of operational communication. The chief that should have been in command didn’t even know who was in charge. The video of the officers in the hall as the classroom door was breached, showed an obvious reaction of surprise that would indicate that they didn’t know the breaching was even occurring until it did. That it itself is pretty telling.

The entire police response was a failure of epic proportions.

On July 17th the Texas House Committee Review members declared that “the entirety of law enforcement…shares systemic responsibility…” and I absolutely agree.

I hope that more in-depth studies will be conducted by experts and panels at various levels in Texas, and that additional details and comprehensive recommendations emerge. They must.

Because in my view from afar, law enforcement failed the children, the teachers, families, the community, and the law enforcement profession on that fateful day. Something has to change there and all jurisdictions need to reflect on and learn from those mistakes.

OpEd: Looming questions about transparent leadership coming from the Nova Scotia shooting inquiry

Tue, 28 Jun 2022 06:19:44 GMT

In April 2020, a man dressed as an RCMP officer and driving a mocked-up RCMP car, shot and killed 22 people in rural Nova Scotia. Three others were wounded. This horrendous act of violence completely shocked communities, a province and a nation to their core.

Many questions followed from concerned community members, the media, grieving families and governments at all levels. How did this happen? Why? Could it have been prevented or stopped sooner? Could the public have been better warned? All valid enquiries undoubtedly, many of them directed at the police of jurisdiction, the RCMP.

This was the largest murder spree in Canadian history and occurred at 16 locations over an immense geographic area. The killer set fires at many of the shooting locations; changed clothing and vehicles at times; and evaded police for half of a day before being shot and killed by two RCMP officers at a rural gas station.

There were but a handful of officers working in that jurisdiction when the mayhem began that evening. Many others were called in to assist over the 13-hour ordeal, from far away RCMP detachments and provincial headquarters units. One RCMP officer was killed and another injured by gunfire early in the series of events. The whole traumatic event hit the involved officers very hard of course. The series of deaths and destruction they witnessed that night was not dissimilar to a theatre of war. It would have been a policing challenge for any police force on the continent, let alone for a small contingent in a large policing jurisdiction.

The RCMP are Canada’s federal police from coast to coast, but in eight provinces they are also under contract to be local police in many jurisdictions as well as the “provincial police”. That is the policing environment existing in Nova Scotia.

It is not a secret in the Canadian policing world that the RCMP are very short of staff in their contract provinces. National security priorities have reportedly drained RCMP provincial staffing complements, causing many detachments to be crucially short of personnel compared to officer workload.

The RCMP has conducted an extensive investigation including the forensic examination of numerous crime scenes, to attempt to learn everything they can about the killer Gabriel Wortman, including his history of violence and the motive behind this mass murder; the origin of the involved firearms and ammunition; who might have known or been involved; and much more, including their own response and decision-making issues within. Police services always conduct an After-Action Review following any major event, including command and control; resources; policies and training issues that may require changes in order to more effectively face similar events in future.

Undoubtedly, despite trying their very best to protect and save lives and capture a killer that night, mistakes would have been made. Not with any malice, but human beings under intense duress will make errors – some inconsequential, and some critical. And this was the biggest and worst event any police officer in Canada has ever faced. That isn’t meant to excuse mistakes, but to put the reality of the challenge into context.

On top of public criticism of the RCMP in terms of their response to Gabriel Wortman’s senseless reign of terror, looms allegations of leadership failings within the senior management of the RCMP and most recently, against the commissioner, then minister of public safety and the prime minister. It is important to note that RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, Minister Bill Blair and PM Justin Trudeau all deny allegations against them.

The Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) was announced in late 2000 to conduct an independent examination of the Nova Scotia murders and response, and to make recommendations to protect communities in future. In short, the mandate of the MCC is to examine the responses of involved law enforcement and government programs.

The MCC subpoenaed documents from several agencies, including the RCMP, for examination and analysis, which is an exhaustive process. Witness interviews followed, some conducted in-camera by investigators and others by MCC commissioners on video. The subpoenas are not permissive. Agencies must produce all documents and not cherry-pick what is relevant.

Over the past few months criticisms of RCMP managers and executives, within the RCMP’s “H” Division (Nova Scotia) and headquarters (Ottawa) have risen and are disconcerting.

RCMP member frustrations over decision-making procedures among supervisors and managers during the hunt for Wortman have risen through the testimony of RCMP witnesses.

The Corporal in-charge of the “H” Division Emergency Response Team (ERT) was highly disapproving of management surrounding the lack of technology and air support faced by ERT members. He was also critical regarding what he viewed as a lack of emotional health support for his members by his management team, testifying that the situation was “disgusting.” Even more damning was his assertion that the RCMP is a “broken organization.”

The number of known deceased victims released to the public in the days following the murders by RCMP senior management came under dispute between lower-level officers and managers.

Most significantly, this past week, the MCC revealed that four pages of notes taken by Supt. Darren Campbell, a prominent RCMP figure in the investigation, were not provided in the disclosure and only handed over when the MCC expressed their valid concern about the omission. Who removed them and why is yet to be made clear, but no other notes are suspected to have been held back.

Campbell is a respected investigator, having served across Canada. These personal notes were written by him during an April 28, 2020 phone call between himself, A/Commissioner Lee Bergerman and Lia Scanlan, the RCMP’s civilian director of strategic communications, with Commissioner Lucki and others in Ottawa, in which Lucki expressed her displeasure that information regarding two of the firearms Wortman used in the murderous rampage was not publicly released as per her direction. The allegation is that Lucki had specifically instructed Strategic Communications to release that information in a press conference, but they did not. According to Campbell’s notes, Lucki claimed that she had promised the Minister of Public Safety and the PM that this information would be released to assist them with forthcoming firearms legislation, which was subsequently released within days of the telephone admonishment. Campbell admitted that he had instructed the communications personnel to not release the information out of fear that the release would jeopardize ongoing investigations into those firearms. In my opinion that seems like a well-reasoned position for an experienced homicide investigator to take early in an investigation. Campbell also wrote that some in the meeting "were reduced to tears and emotional over this belittling reprimand."

Of course, this disclosure raised much criticism and media coverage, leading the commissioner, Minister Blair and the PM to all express concern and confusing denials that stated that they did not interfere in the investigation. Lucki did subsequently say that she regretted the tone of that telephone call but stood firm that she had not made the statements claimed by Campbell.

In my view, Supt. Campbell put his career in great peril when he made the notes about his commissioner. If the notes were contrived, the move was complete insanity. If they were accurate, he was the pillar of integrity. I suspect the latter, particularly given that his immediate boss, Bergerman, was with him and made some similar notes. And the nagging question in my view is what would be the motive for either of them to risk their careers by making false notes about their boss at that time? The true test will be when Bergerman (now retired) and Campbell both testify under oath at the MCC. Will they risk criminal charges of perjury by sticking to that story if it isn’t true? I think not.

As far as the minister and PM go, who knows. It’s certainly not the first time the PM has been dimly viewed in a “he said, she said” situation (i.e. SNC Lavalin). Will every aide to them support their version if asked? Some of them are very young and have long careers ahead of them.

Will Commissioner Lucki continue to stick to her story that she didn’t say it and that government didn’t ask her to? Will others in the room with her at the time support her version of the events? They’ll certainly risk all if they do and if it isn’t true. Regardless, it has become a public battle between some top officers in the force and the timing isn’t pretty.

RCMP member morale is extremely low across the country due to a variety of working condition and public controversy issues. Some municipalities and some whole provinces are actively examining alternative policing options. From member and community trust perspectives this is not at all good.

PM Trudeau and a few ministers are already surrounded by finger-pointers regarding their inconsistent statements concerning the Emergencies Act enactment last winter.

The bottom line here in terms of Brenda Lucki, Bill Blair and Prime Minster Trudeau is that true leadership should be about honesty, integrity and trust, and involves making decisions that are in the best interest of those being served and being led, and NOT about misleading or lying to those groups to protect the career(s) of the so-called leader.

Somebody isn’t telling the truth in this mess. It’s time for that person or persons to belly up to bar, be honest with those being served (Canadians) and those being led (the men and women of the RCMP) and fall on a proverbial sword or two.

Canadians and RCMP members alike deserve that from their leaders. Anything else is a complete failure of leadership.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

OpEd: Provincial election aside, it’s time to properly fund the Ontario Provincial Police

Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:19:47 GMT

As a public safety analyst for Bell Media’s television and talk radio stations, I’ll always give my honest opinion on policing issues – including regarding OPP matters, when asked and if it’s within my police experience. Although I’d do anything to help my former police service, I will not insert myself into OPP matters in any way unless asked by the commissioner.

However, I continue to hear of troubling issues from former colleagues regarding critical OPP staffing challenges and feel an obligation to comment and express my concern.

I was the OPP commissioner, and deputy commissioner, etc. I know the drill. I’m confident that behind the scenes the current commissioner continues to quietly plead his case to the provincial government for more human resources, but he cannot go public with that pitch or there’ll be another staff vacancy in the OPP – his.

My comments are NOT a critique of Commissioner Carrique and his team. I’m sure the OPP would be at full strength if it was his call. And I totally appreciate the numerous competing financial priorities faced by the Ford government. None of this is easy. But something is going to break if not soon fixed and the people of Ontario and the men and women of the OPP will bear the brunt of the impact.

The OPP deliver frontline policing to a large chunk of Ontario’s municipalities. They also provide support in a variety of ways to municipal and First Nations police services on request – from the smallest to the largest. No one service can do it all and they all help each other, but as the largest and the one with the biggest footprint, much of that provision of support does fall to the OPP. That includes 24/7 uniform backup, forensics, detectives, emergency response, public order, specialty investigations and more. They are funded in part to do that by the taxpayers of Ontario; they do it with pride and do not seek reimbursement.

At the same time, they conduct traffic and marine patrols, enforcement and investigations, and search and rescue operations in OPP jurisdiction, to over a million square kilometers of geography. ALL of that is an expensive business, requiring vehicles, vessels, aircraft, fuel, equipment, buildings/infrastructure, uniforms, supplies and the most expensive resource, “people.”

Over the past several years, the OPP has been forced to leave hundreds of employee vacancies to meet government financial challenges. Although the OPP commissioner oversees the preparation of the OPP budget within general set guidelines, it is adjusted (most often trimmed) and submitted through the solicitor general and staff to the appropriate Ministry of Finance officials for consultation, adjustment and eventual approval by government.

The commissioner must be reasonable of course in terms of his budget request, and staffing numbers must be in keeping with municipal policing contract obligations; demonstrated workload; proposed new business lines (units); as well as anticipated supplies/services/technology numbers.

When government says cuts are required, the only area where that is generally feasible in any appreciable amount, is in salary dollars. That requires some staff vacancies not be filled, and the vast majority are police officer positions. Determining where those positions can be left open becomes the challenge. Some detachments, units and bureaus will feel the pain. The bigger the cut, the bigger impact it will have. Every commissioner under governments of all political stripes since 1909 has been faced with this process, however some financial times have been more fiscally demanding than others.

So how does this impact public safety?

In many cases, OPP policed municipalities and unincorporated areas will have less police officers to patrol and respond to calls for service. OPP officers will have less available back-up and relief to attend courses or vacation. Crimes and collisions will have less officers available to respond and investigate. Other police services won’t be able to count on the OPP for assistance with the same frequency, and in more remote areas of Ontario there is only the OPP available to assist.

Accordingly, I regularly hear from detachment officers all over Ontario that “nobody is working.”

Between ongoing vacancies, officers who can’t go on patrol because of various health issues being accommodated, officers calling in sick or off-duty on long-term medical leave, etc. they say, there are not enough people to handle the workload.

In one large OPP detachment, I was told that they often had less than four officers on duty during the past summer on days when they would once have had a minimum of a dozen working. That lead to calling in personnel on overtime, burnout for all, increased levels of stress and little ability to take time off.

Full-time OPP units like tactical or investigative teams will have fewer potential recruits to draw from within the OPP. How will they meet the increasing need to fight organized crime? Help other agencies? Stem the flow of handguns into Canada and get more illegal firearms off our streets? The math doesn’t work.

Think back to the various Freedom Convoy protests last February and how Ottawa Police needed outside police assistance. It took weeks for the OPP and RCMP to get sufficient resources in to assist. Not because they didn’t want to help. Not because there were insufficient laws. It was because both organizations are vastly understaffed and could not free up sufficient members and ship them long distances to help in a timely way.

The totality of this scenario is untenable. Adequate and effective policing cannot be sustained in OPP jurisdiction; other police services – including Indigenous police services and their communities – will continue to be negatively impacted and it is not in the best interests of OPP employee well-being and in particular their emotional health to let it continue. In addition, this situation will undoubtedly impact OPP morale and could lead to professionalism and productivity challenges.

Anything less than committed, professional and dedicated police officers undoubtedly hurt public trust, and police services cannot survive without community and recruit pool trust.

The premier has recently stated that improving police funding is a priority for his government, which is wonderful. I’m sure many of Ontario’s police services can use a boost, particularly the OPP. It’s sad that it’s only being spoken of with an election on the horizon, but better late than never. Let’s get it done now and never let it get this bad again.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

OpEd: Illegal protests aside – is it time to end COVID-19 vaccine mandates?

Sat, 05 Feb 2022 06:19:43 GMT

Before Twitter erupts with accusations that I support illegal acts and community-crippling trucker protests, let me state unequivocally that I don’t. Nor do I, as a rule, believe that we should change public policy or legislation to meet the demands of law-breakers.

I am triple vaccinated and never questioned the need for mandatory vaccinations. Personally, I’d get dozens of shots to protect myself and my family/friends from being ill or dying from a virus. But that’s me. I respect the contradictory views of others.

A number of first responders are opposed to vaccine mandates – which I don’t support ( See my OpEd: “Ontario’s Police Officers Should Be Vaccinated" ). Similarly, a number of nurses and other hospital personnel are refusing to be vaccinated. Some Canadian Forces personnel are digging their heels in and risking dismissal. Personally, I do not agree with them either. They are all public servants that were hired to protect the public.

In the early days of COVID, truckers were allowed to cross the Canada/U.S. border as they hauled goods between countries without so much of producing a negative COVID test. They only had to show their passports to prove citizenship. That was through the worst of COVID variants. Restaurants, bars, gyms and a host of other establishments were in full lockdown. The rules around accessing hospitals and nursing homes were extremely challenging. In fact, it broke my heart that we were not able to visit our father when he died in a nursing home in 2020. But these rules were established for the betterment of the health of Canadians in very uncertain times.

Then vaccines were developed and delivered, slowly making their way into the arms of Canadians – including truckers. Cross-border rules got tighter and tighter for travellers crossing land borders, but not truckers. Even when the border was totally locked down, truckers still had the unfettered ability to cross. I thought that was crazy, but I also appreciated the need to meet supply chain demands.

Then in mid-January 2022, when the Omicron variant seemed to be flattening and provinces were loosening many COVID restrictions, provincial and federal rules were tightened, forcing truckers to have proof of vaccination in order to return from south of the border, and the U.S. established the same for those entering that country. At that point, almost 90 per cent of truckers had been vaccinated. So, in essence, there was a diminishing health risk as restaurants were opening to a larger degree. Truckers were largely vaccinated, but apparently, it was time to clamp down on them. It seemed oddly contradictory, but I’m neither a lawyer or a public health official. As the pro-vax guy that I am, I really didn’t care.

Fast forward to late January, and the truck convoy for “Freedom” began its cross-Canada trek to Ottawa to protest vaccine mandates. Even though the provinces own part of the mandate authority, the protest was focused on the nation’s capital. Highways were clogged and eventually the downtown core of Ottawa came to a standstill and was then plagued with blaring air horns 24/7. A host of other ridiculous and disturbing acts occurred and still do by people at least “associated” with the convoy. It’s a quandary of epic proportions, to say the least, and well past the realm of a “peaceful and lawful” protest. A similar blockade was also established on the international border in an isolated area near Coutts, Alberta. This weekend protests are occurring in a number of Canadian jurisdictions. None of it should have occurred and none of it should continue – plain and simple. This veiled attempt at “Freedom” has disrupted the lives of already stressed out Canadians that were all hoping a relatively manageable level of COVID was drawing near.

In the middle of this mess, a few provinces are easing a number of COVID restrictions in an attempt to manage Omicron more like how we currently address the flu. A number of countries around the world are taking similar action, some even returning to pre-COVID practices.

Is all of Canada heading that way soon? Protests aside, is it the right thing to do? I hope so, but who knows. The protestors don’t know either because they have yet to speak with provincial or federal health authorities. Instead, police are responsible to negotiate through this tense situation and then wear the results. The premiers and the prime minister all have a pile of officials beneath them that could at least protestors out and either explain where mandate rules are going, what they can or cannot do in terms of policy and why, and their inability to change any rules on the U.S. side.

If their position is that they will not have any dialogue while protests are ongoing, fine, say that and at least agree to have ongoing and structured dialogue between appropriate federal and provincial authorities and trucker representatives when the protests end.

The police will have to enact an “arrest and tow” solution soon. In fact, it’s probably a few days too late in both the Coutts and Ottawa scenarios, but it has to happen. It will be a large show of force. It will be resource-intensive and costly. People will be hurt without question. Lawsuits and investigations will result, and sympathetic protests will continue to emerge. It will be a drawn out and painful exercise but has to happen if the blockades don’t end immediately. That’s the only solution remaining if the protestors don’t get their way.

I fear that after all the smoke settles, Canada and the provinces will be afraid to remove additional mandates in the near term out of fear that the electorate will think that they “caved in to criminals.” It would be sad in my view IF making the changes is the truly right thing to do for Canada as a whole now, if governments hold off from making appropriate policy changes immediately for no other reason than the illegal protests and instead wait until the smell of tear gas dissipates from the air.

If it is the proper time for mandate changes, they should do it now and weather the political fallout later. If it truly isn’t the right time, then damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

As I say in my leadership lectures and writings: “How can it ever be wrong to do the right thing?”

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

If You Snooze You Lose

Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:45:17 GMT

Photo: Ottawa CTV

The ongoing protest by truckers and more in our nation’s capital is a perfect storm that is being managed by police agencies who had no part in the underlying political decisions that led to this quagmire. Nor can police negotiate a solution to the border crossing Covid protocol concerns raised by the truckers. For the most part the federal government is the lead body – with some linkages to provincial health ministries, but the focus of the protest is in Ottawa for a reason: because the participants want answers and action from the feds.

From a public security perspective, the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP are the lead agencies and are supported by several partner agencies. It’s not their first rodeo and they have a robust security plan in place. Although they will be criticized for everything they do and everything they don’t, in my view they’ve handled this very well to this point. Although the protest has been “relatively” peaceful – in that there hasn’t been rioting, looting, fires etc., as we have seen in a number of massive protests around North America over the past several years. There have been some incidents of concern occur of course, including the infantile, disturbing and unacceptable desecration of national memorials and monuments; racial emblems were exhibited; homeless shelter volunteers were intimidated; aggressive threats were voiced, harassment and beer cans hurled at journalists and more. Much of that may well have not been perpetrated by the truckers’ group in fairness, but by hangers-on that have no valid concerns but appear at every protest just to cause problems for authorities.

So, what happens next? Well from a “leadership” perspective, in good times AND in bad the people need to hear from their leaders and not in a partisan way that simply criticizes the comments and action of opposition entities. We have heard some messaging from the federal Conservative Party Leader – who met with at least some protest organizers, which to many seemed like an endorsement of their action. Provincially, the Premier and Solicitor General have made some comments that were critical of the apparent illegalities that have occurred and the protest’s impacts on the community. An Independent Provincial MPP participated in the protest and was inflammatory in my view when he made disgraceful comments about opening the security barricades in support of the protestors. Even former U.S. President Donald Trump, who supported those he called “Patriots” that violently attacked Congress on January 6, 2021, has jumped into the fray, also supporting the protest in our capital. He was nauseating of course, but at least he said something. However, so far in these worst of times, leader numero uno has been asleep at the switch.

I get that two of the Trudeau children have Covid. That’s unfortunate and scary at minimum and I hope the children quickly recover to good health. At the same time the PM reports that he has now tested positive but apparently is “feeling fine”. Of course, he must obey isolation protocols, but can quite easily communicate through video and tele-conferences.

Then finally at noon today, our Prime Minister popped out of his undisclosed groundhog hole (2 days early I might add) and spoke well as he often does, staring into the camera and speaking with empathy about how hard the pandemic has been on Canadians. He also referenced some of the hateful acts committed in Ottawa over the weekend, and thanked Canada’s truckers for their gargantuan efforts (until last week) to fulfill our supply chain needs, but did not address any plans to mitigate this ongoing protest fiasco. Despite questions from reporters, we did not hear anything about his strategy or action plans.

I believe Canadians (especially Ottawa residents) wanted to hear that “they’ve made their point; awareness has been raised and dialogue continues; but enough is enough.” And perhaps truckers should have heard that “current vaccine cross-border protocols will be re-evaluated in concert with real-time health/scientific risk assessments, and modified if deemed appropriate.” He needed to explain that lives are at risk and taxpayers are paying the better part of a million dollars a day for the security piece alone. He needed to reassure the electorate in a firm and decisive way that the situation is being dealt with; there is a plan in place; and we will get through this, together.

As fictional TV football (soccer) coach Ted Lasso said so well: "There's two buttons I never like to hit: that's panic and snooze." [1] I agree and sometimes it’s a delicate balance.

Well Mr. PM, it’s not necessarily time to panic yet, but we’re 3 days in and this short break from snoozing isn’t enough. [1]

People Magazine: 21 of the Best Inspirational Quotes from Ted Lasso, https://people.com/tv/ted-lasso inspirational-quotes/ October 07, 2021

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A COP?

Sat, 15 Jan 2022 21:54:03 GMT

But you think police officers are lazy and overpaid?

Then let me ask you this:

Have you ever attended an autopsy on an innocent little 4-year old boy that was pulled out of a pond on Easter Sunday?

Have you ever seen the remains of a university student that was raped, beaten and set on fire?

Have you ever attended the autopsy for a mother of 5 that was shot in the head then forced to sit in court for weeks on end to guard the smiling, self-righteous, millionaire husband that had her killed?

Have you ever given first aid to an officer that was shot, promised that he’d be okay and then died while you knelt at his side?

Have you ever seen the lifeless bodies of two murdered children who still clutched little bags of candy in their hands after they were stabbed to death?

Have you ever listened to the confession of a grandfather that had anally penetrated his 3 year old grandson?

Have you ever picked through the remains of a house fire to gather up the charred remnants of the victims?

Have you ever interviewed a young female officer that found her dead police partner after he was shot in the head?

Have you ever had to console a boy who just watched 2 men murder his aunt?

Have you ever searched ditches for body parts that were cut off of a female murder victim?

Have you ever investigated the rape and murder of a young girl and brutal attack on her mother?

Have you ever had to search a dumpster for the body of a toddler?

Have you ever laid on the cold ground all night while a maniac fired shots over your head?

Have you ever sat face to face in an interrogation room with a smiling teen psychopath that had butchered 3 people?

Have you ever comforted a close friend after he shot a killed an armed suspect?

Have you ever been punched, kicked, spit on and bled on, but still had to put on a happy face and finish your shift?

Have you ever interviewed a frightened 5 year old after an adult stranger grabbed her so hard he bruised her vagina?

Have you ever watched a father identify the body of his beautiful and successful university student daughter after she committed suicide?

Have you ever had a broken-hearted boy bury his face in your stomach and bawl his eyes out after his police officer father had been shot and killed?

Have you ever sat with a crying father as he debated whether to pull his police officer daughter off life support? Did you ever stop a car in a desolate area in the middle of the night - while alone, to find the driver was an escapee that had murdered 6 people?

Have you ever entered a home through a window all alone, to find an elderly man because neighbours were concerned, only to find him long deceased by suicide?

Have you ever had to crawl around a dark yard during the night looking for 2 teens that shot up their teacher’s house over a classroom issue?

Have you ever been face to face with a drunken career criminal as he screamed obscenities at you, claiming that he “pays your salary” when he reality he’s never had legal employment in his entire life?

Have you ever crawled around a burning and smoke-filled house with your partner, trying to locate a sleeping victim?

Have you ever entered a house to find and wrestle with a hiding gunman?

Have you ever rolled down a staircase with a naked psychiatric patient that had slashed himself up and was still armed with a butcher knife?

Have you ever been to a violent domestic quarrel on Christmas Eve and watched little kids crawling around a dirt floor as you took away their drunken parents?

Did you ever respond to a shooting where the gunman had long fled, but arrive at the very moment he returned with his rife?

Have you ever climbed inside a twisted vehicle to console an elderly man as firefighters worked to free his mangled legs from the dashboard?

Have you ever investigated a suicide where a man killed himself with a shotgun blast because he thought he was dying of cancer…but he really wasn’t?

Have you ever had to knock on the door of a house and deliver the horrendous news to a family that their young loved one would not be coming home…ever?

I didn’t think so, and I’m truly happy for you.

Well, I have done each and every one of those things, and lots more, and I never felt I was being overpaid for a moment while I did. Thankfully I safely made retirement after 36 years and although I would do it all again, it took away some pieces of me that I’ll never get back.

It also left me with horrendous memories that will haunt me forever.

Many police officers and other emergency responders across the land have done all of that and much, much more. Some paid with their physical and/or mental health, while others gave their lives.

But do you know what? Every once in a while, one of those officers will make an honest mistake while truly trying their best. When he or she does, the armchair-quarterbacking, second-guessing, over-sight, isolation, investigations, rumor-mill, criticism and negativity – from those who should know better and many who don’t, will be boundless. But they will persevere, because that’s what they do on the street – take the crap, move on and try to stay strong, knowing that the good days will still outnumber the bad.

Please support them. They do it all for you.

OpEd: Will Handgun Bans Prevent Violent Crime in Canada?

Tue, 21 Dec 2021 06:19:42 GMT

My short answer is NO. Not in the slightest.

The Trudeau government recently committed $1 billion to help the provinces and municipalities ban handguns. How on earth they believe that this tremendous chunk of taxpayer money is going to take handguns out of the hands of criminals who would do others harm, is completely mind-boggling to me.

I’ll admit that at one point several years ago, I whimsically supported banning handguns. I was tired of seeing innocent lives taken and reacted in the macro sense, thinking ridding society of handguns that are really only good for shooting “paper (targets) or people” would have an impact. But sober reflection combined with research, analysis, discussions with true law enforcement experts and many friends who are handgun aficionados, told me two things: 1. Banning handguns is an unreasonable expectation. There’s about a million lawfully owned handguns in Canada; and 2. Legal handgun owners are not the threat.

I don’t personally have any skin in this game. Although I Iike guns and carried a handgun (as well as rifles and shotguns) throughout my 36-year police career, I no longer own any firearms. When I did, I was fully trained; acquired and stored them lawfully; and was not a threat to public safety. Similarly, that describes 99.999% of the over 600,000 legal handgun owners in Canada. These folks are not members of gangs and are not committing violent crimes. They’ve had appropriate background checks; are properly trained; and store their firearms safely. The bottom line is they obey the law.

The current Canadian firearms legislation is some of the most restrictive in the world. Unlike our friends to the south, Canadians don’t lawfully carry handguns on their belts, in their nightstands, pockets, gloveboxes and purses. Police here don’t approach every person they encounter with the underlying assumption that the person is armed – either legally or illegally. Our legislation is quite effective.

Crime guns in Canada almost always are smuggled handguns from the United States, where there are more guns than people. Occasionally they are legally owned guns that are stolen for criminal purposes from homes or retailers. On very, very rare occasions, a lawful owner illegally sells a handgun to a criminal or uses a handgun to commit a violent crime. In all my years in policing – including years investigating homicides, I never once saw a lawful owner commit a murder with a handgun. Shotguns, rifles, illegally owned handguns, vehicles, tools, cross-bows, knives, axes, baseball bats and more yes, but never a lawfully owned pistol.

So, who will a provincial or municipal handgun ban impact? Not criminals. Not street gang members, bikers or the mob. It will impact the lawful owners that already obey Canadian legislation.

Criminals are already breaking many serious criminal laws when they possess hand guns and even moreso when they use them. These offences carry potential sentences that may see them incarcerated for years – as long as members of the judiciary don’t treat the offences lightly and have dangerous criminals beat the investigating officers back out onto the streets of their cities.

How often have we read media reports where criminals arrested for violent crime were out on bail when they committed further violent crimes, only to be released on bail yet again? How many police chiefs have made public pleas to judges to seriously recognize the threat gang members are to public safety before releasing them to commit more violent crimes and put the public and cops in further jeopardy?

Just this month, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which if passed will see some mandatory minimum penalties repealed, including several firearms offences.Offences like Discharging a firearm with intent; Using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of offence; and Robbery with a firearm. You know, those run of the mill crimes that have little or no impact on public or police officer safety. Akin to shoplifting a candy bar or unlawfully trapping a bullfrog out of season!

Criminal laws are the only effective leverage we have left, but government doesn’t want to get tougher on gun crime, they want to pull some of the teeth from that one remaining tool. Police are continually threatened with defunding. They’ve lost the ability to street check known gang members. Strategies like bail compliance aren’t effective in a catch and release environment. Gang bangers are no longer afraid of being shaken down by good officers despite proudly wearing gang colours and insignias to show their criminal organization affiliations to the world.

The RCMP are so underfunded that they have little to no resources to chase organized crime or fight smuggling. And gun smuggling requires a tremendous focus. But let’s take a billion dollars and establish provincial and/or municipal laws banning handguns, with limited search and seizure provisions and almost no imprisonment ability. That is not going to cause gang members to run out to find God and seek lawful employment. They aren’t afraid of criminal laws and jail, so the threat of a Provincial Offence Notice from a cop or a ticket from a by-law officer likely won’t result in them cowering in fear or lining up to turn in their guns. Much like the Liberal government promise that legalized marijuana was going to put organized crime out of the marijuana business, it’s laughable.

It’s time to get tougher, not weaker. Let’s put the money into better protecting the public and our men and women in blue, as opposed to placing them at even greater risk.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

Impacts of Police Leadership on Public Trust

Fri, 12 Nov 2021 22:26:37 GMT

Over the past several years, there have been increasing levels of community and media discussion regarding reportedly waning levels of public trust in North American policing – particularly by but not isolated to, people of colour. Much of this has emerged from high-profile inappropriate acts of use of force by police officers – some being blatant criminal acts like the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis Minnesota in 2020, which resulted in nationwide protests across the USA. Other well-publicized use of force events, although certainly questionable, were ruled to be legally justified, however remained quite concerning in the court of public opinion, particularly following the focus that came from the George Floyd tragedy. At the same any allegations of criminal behaviour police – on duty or off, receive a great deal of media and public focus, as do the disciplinary and or court processes to follow. All of them, whether proven to be false or not, leave a stain on the profession that the vast majority of honest and committed officers across the land are left to bear.

Although a number of polls have shown some recent increase in overall public trust in police since the 18 months since George Floyd’s death, it remains a serious issue of concern, and so it should. Police cannot survive without the trust of those they are sworn to serve. People are less likely to report crimes they have witnessed or suspect to police officers they do not trust to treat them fairly and with integrity, and or protect them from reprisal. And even more so, people will be very reluctant to disclose horrific details regarding cases where they have been victimized with public officials they do not trust. It also negatively impacts the profession in many other ways, including recruiting and retention issues.

Have police always committed unlawful acts but they are now better publicized through the various media platforms? Is it a failure in police recruiting processes? Are the questionable and blatant cases involving the use of force against people of colour indicative of systemic racism within police departments? Perhaps. Regardless of the causes, public trust is vital to effective policing and organizational strategies must be employed from top to bottom to sustain it.

As a student of and author/presenter on leadership, I feel it is critically important to examine the linkages between public trust in police and police leaders, as the public perception of police services is bigger than the members on patrol. I don’t believe there has been sufficient acknowledgment of the leadership impacts on these matters.

It is my belief that effective leadership can positively influence the morale of the workforce in any public sector organization or private enterprise, including policing. “Morale”, although difficult to define, ultimately impacts the productivity and performance of the workforce, as well as their behaviour, in terms of professionalism. In a police service, performance and professionalism weigh heavily in the development and sustainability of the trust of the public the agency serves.

“Trust” in the leaders of an organization is paramount to its success. Although only earned through effective leadership and not because of rank or position, if the men and women don’t trust the daily decision-making of their leaders, they can’t be expected to trust them in dire situations, and that lack of trust can lead to behavioural issues.

In my opinion, effective leadership and the morale of the organization are inextricably linked. Morale then impacts the professionalism and productivity of the organization’s members and how that productivity and trust can greatly influence public opinion and therefore the “trust” a community has in its police service, is key.

Morale

After 23 years in policing, in 2001 I was transferred into the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Eastern Region as its Commander. Following many years at General Headquarters (GHQ), I like a number of HQ colleagues, “thought” that I had a good grip on what was going on in our front-line operations. How wrong I was. I really had no idea and was about to have my mind opened on many fronts.

One of the many misconceptions I had was that morale was deplorable in our front-line detachments, particularly in the Eastern Region. “Morale” is an elusive beast in my experience, in that it’s next to impossible to measure, but the impacts can be profound where it’s poor. Over the several years prior, I’d commanded tactical and investigative units, largely comprised of hand-picked people. I was pretty spoiled in terms of being able to simply move the few poor-performers back to uniform when necessary without hesitation and never having to make the best of out of less than stellar and committed staff. I was determined to find out where morale was good or not, and why in my new are of command.

What I actually found after months of visiting detachments and through talking extensively to people from all ranks, was that although in fact morale was not rock-bottom, there was poor morale in some locations; extremely high morale in a few stations and there were pockets of high morale and low morale within others.

Factors Impacting on Morale in the Police Workplace

In my view, the factors impacting the level of morale there at that time, and largely throughout policing, was and is always related to one or more of three things, which hold true to this day:

1. Staffing levels .

There were detachments that were poorly staffed vis-à-vis workload. We had intentionally left positions open to offset budget shortfalls. Where four officers on a platoon were justified, at times only one or two were available. Where there should be sixty Constables in a detachment, at times only forty were posted there. Many officers were over-worked and therefore felt unsupported by their leaders.

2. Facilities .

That largely being infrastructure: technology, vehicles, equipment and buildings.

There were detachments that were in deplorable physical condition, as 1960’s era buildings were deteriorating and were built for a detachment complement that was half or less of the current staffing levels. In one detachment when the several Constables sat around the one or two computers in the main office at shift change, they could smell the toilets from the cell-block. Their police cruisers were in poor repair and there wasn’t enough staff to properly maintain a duty roster with adequate uniformed coverage. But surprisingly, morale there was high.

There was a similar station that was so old and run down that there was an infestation of rats in the building. Then the rats started disappearing because snakes were eating them. I kid you not. But the bottom-line was, despite the facility failings and poor staffing levels there, again, morale was high. Coincidentally, both of those detachments had strong leaders in command.

Conversely, there was a detachment that had a modern new building, newer cruisers and the staffing level was pretty good for their workload. But the morale there was rock-bottom. Other detachments, had high morale on some uniformed platoons and investigative units, low on others.

3. Leadership .

Almost without fail, the detachments or platoons having low morale – other impacting factors being relatively equal, suffered from the third factor, that being a lack of effective leadership . They had commander that seldom left their office; did not communicate effectively; picked favourites who could do no wrong and unfairly targeted others. They were not leaders in any way, shape or form. It became obvious that leadership was the over-riding factor. It raised morale in poor situations and lowered it in otherwise good conditions. It was abundantly clear to me that the effectiveness of leadership at that time directly impacted employee morale. The good leaders kept morale high and the weak, poor or non-existent leaders dragged it down.

Impacts of Morale

What is the impact of morale on a police service?

“Improving morale is good for business. The Gallup Organization estimates there are 22 million actively disengaged employees costing the American economy up to $350 billion per year in lost productivity, including absence, illness, and other problems that result when workers are unhappy at work. Leaders who keep their employees involved, engaged, and connected are ultimately improving business performance through their people. Employees want to believe their ideas are being heard and want to feel empowered to make decisions and changes in the workplace. Taking time to build relationships with employees through personal interactions is a key step that managers can take to keep morale high.” (Harrison, 2007)

When people think back on their careers, I’m sure most have had times when they felt better about themselves, the job and their organization than during others. Most of us have had peaks and valleys in our careers and personal lives, including weeks, months or even years where we felt so disconnected that we considered changing employers or professions. I was in that position myself – more than once in fact.

When people find themselves in a work-life “valley” so to speak, are they normally working for supervisors that inspire them? Do those leaders offer the confidence and support to be the best that the employees can be? Do they really care what motivates their subordinates as individuals, or what their strengths and weaknesses are? Do they do and say the right things and provide the right mentoring and encouragement for staff members to be successful? Likely not. It’s more probable that they provide little or none of that and in fact in some cases are guilty of deliberately trying to make the lives of some people a living hell.

Do people work their hardest and treat people they interact with professionally when their morale is in the toilet? Is that not the time when they do dumb things, slough off calls and conduct inadequate investigations as opposed to when feeling supported and inspired? It’s simple human nature to be more productive and professional when you go to work feeling good about your yourself and your organization.

In addition to the negative impacts low morale can have on the day-to-day performance and professionalism of police officers, i.e. attitude, public interaction and motivation, severe challenges can arise when leaders aren’t properly engaged and are not providing the best of leadership to those they lead.

If you closely examine any past major scandal in policing in North America, there has almost always been a leadership failing at some point in the chain of events. Somewhere along the timeline a supervisor or manager dropped the ball, either deliberately or because they just weren’t addressing issues and doing what they are paid to do. Those leadership failures could go as high as the Chief/Sheriff (or equivalent).

Not that poor leadership will turn a subordinate police officer into a thug; make them shake-down drug dealers or commit murders, but in the majority of these cases, when wrong-doings become public, officers are heard to say, “I knew something was going on” , or “It doesn’t surprise me knowing those guys.” In such cases, why didn’t some colleague officers report their observations and even more importantly, why didn’t supervisors see it coming and take proper action when allegations of impropriety surfaced? Why didn’t those in the chain of command appropriately act when they saw that some officers seldom left the office and rarely laid a charge, when they also knew certain officers were living well above their means financially? How were some officers allowed to spend 10 hours a shift surfing porn on the Internet without leaving the building? Where were supervisors and managers when the employee’s paperwork didn’t match their expenditures or when officers couldn’t account for their time?

I am not suggesting wilful blindness here, although at times that has been the case. Some of the officers involved in some of the more publicly known scandals, were in fact NCOs (or higher) themselves. We’ve all been guilty of trusting some subordinates more than we should. But most often, when these calamities arise and cause no end of embarrassment for a police service, some supervisors or managers, “leaders” in organizations, had neglected to do something along the path that could’ve mitigated or totally prevented the public shame.

Trust

“Trust” is a critical nexus to organizations ultimately earning and retaining public trust. Jim Burke, Former CEO, Johnson and Johnson said:

“You can’t have success without trust. The word trust embodies almost everything you can strive for that will help you succeed. You tell me any human relationship that works without trust, whether it is a marriage or a friendship or a social interaction; in the long run, the same thing is true about business, especially businesses that deal with the public.” (Constantino, 2011)

Trust impacts policing in a number of ways. The officers and personnel within the department can earn and sustain a level of public trust by their actions, on duty and off. As I have said a million times, there is a high expectation from the public that the police will be the “good guys” and incidents that portray the police in a negative light, deserved or not, totally shake public confidence in the officers as individuals and in police organizations. Unproductive and unprofessional police officers undoubtedly hurt public trust. The loss of public trust in a police service may not only result in witnesses and victims being reluctant to report crimes, but a relentless 24/7 negative focus of the media on a police organization is only one trust-impacting incident away.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Model Policy on Standards and Conduct states:

“Actions of officers that are inconsistent, incompatible, or in conflict with the values established by this agency negatively affect its reputation and that of its officers. Such actions and inactions thereby detract from the agency’s overall ability to effectively and efficiently protect the public, maintain peace and order, and conduct other essential business. Therefore, it is the policy of this law enforcement agency that officers conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects the ethical standards consistent with the rules contained in this policy and otherwise disseminated by this agency.” (IACP)

Public Trust

In 2011, I visited the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service and met with a number of senior officers there. They were in a state of rebuilding and rebranding that force. Following a number of scandals involving police corruption, they faced a tremendous uphill battle in earning public trust. One senior officer told me that the average citizen had the attitude that, “if you call the police they won’t come, and if they do, they’ll be corrupt anyway”. What a sad and difficult situation to recover from.

In a Message from the Director General entitled: “Management of the RCMP Disciplinary Process 2009-2010 Annual Report”, Chief Superintendent Richard Evans said:

“The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and indeed all law enforcement agencies in Canada depend on public trust to do their job well. When citizens start to question the actions of the police and that public trust is shaken, police work becomes immeasurably more difficult. This is readily apparent to the RCMP which works in communities, both large and small, all across Canada. Since local Mounties are well-known within their communities, any questionable police conduct will likely have a direct impact on the reputation of the local detachment. Law enforcement agencies depend on the willingness of the public to share information and provide assistance; neither will be forthcoming when citizens do not trust the police. Earning public trust may take years while its loss can take seconds. It is the foundation upon which rests the RCMP’s ability to protect Canadians and to enforce the law.” (RCMP website, undated)

That statement truly applies to all police departments across the world.

During a panel discussion at the 2012 International Conference for Police and Law Enforcement Executives in Seattle, Washington, in which I participated, Chief A.C. Roper of the Birmingham, Alabama Police Department said: “Community trust can be fragile. It is difficult to build and difficult to maintain. It requires a constant effort”.

The public deserves that effort.

Leadership and Trust

The issue of internal trust also impacts the ability of leaders to effectively lead and to ensure morale and thus professionalism and productivity remain high. That trust doesn’t come because a leader has rank or positional power, it has to be earned.

Trust in a leader isn’t earned overnight. For the most part, people don’t develop the trust of their leaders in crisis situations, but through their day-to-day interaction. Even when the level of trust is high, it can be impeded at the blink of an eye if leaders let their people down when things go bad, particularly if they try to pass the blame or fail to step up to the plate at the right time and in the proper way.

It’s not human nature to develop the level of trust police leaders require without a personal connection of some degree with the people they lead. Those leaders that sit in their offices, are seldom seen outside the building, rarely seen in the media, and don’t so much as say good morning to staff members in the hallways, are destined for failure.

How many times have police officers heard or said the words, “We never see him (or her)” in regards to a police leader. “He has never darkened the door of our office”. If the people don’t know the leader except for the photo on the police agency’s website or in its Annual Report, how are they ever going to develop any level of trust in him or her?

On the other hand, those leaders that take the time to casually chat with people, get to know them as much as possible by name and role, actually interact with them at public events or even in operational situations, will help develop that necessary connection.

In its 2012 “Professionalism in Policing Research Project” paper, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) stated:

“A number of questions suggest that police officers do not believe that the organization or its senior managers take an interest in their concerns. Lack of support is related to reduced trust and lower commitment to the organization’s success. To enhance support, police agencies need to communicate their concern for employees’ well-being, solicit employees’ input on decisions affecting them and provide support for employees’ goals.” (Maguire/Dyke, 2012)

The same principle holds true in terms of police leadership and the trust in him or her by the community. Open, transparent communication with media, public and governing entities; meeting with them as appropriate and being front and centre in good times and in bad, is a big part of a Chief’s role. Then ensuring a similar and consistent leadership culture throughout the organization is a must.

If the leader isn’t seen publicly except to shake hands, hand out awards and kiss babies on occasion, and isn’t regularly heard speaking in response to various policing and public safety issues, when the chips are down the public isn’t likely to say “Hey, that’s our Chief. We’re going to be okay.”

As well, the quality of investigations and response times isn’t just the responsibility of the officers on the road. All supervisors have an important role to ensure quality service is delivered and to guarantee that the members are properly resourced, trained, equipped, supported and led to be successful in doing what they do. The leaders cannot simply tell governing authorities and the public that it’s “Not my fault”, but the fault of their employees. The buck should always stop at the top.

Then once earned, trust has to be retained, for the leader to succeed. Day after day, year after year, the concerted effort on the part of the leader has to be there. Asa result, when the big and challenging event occurs, those being led will walk through broken glass to get the job done, because the leader that they trust so much will be there with them, will give them direction that they are confident in and if things go bad (and they will), he or she will stand tall, take the blame and support them through it. When things go well (and they most often do), he or she will allow the light of success shine on those being led.

CONCLUSION

In summary, I contend that morale profoundly impacts productivity and professionalism, which then impacts public trust. Public trust greatly influences the success of the police service, which in turn further builds the trust of the public. Key to all of this, is the ability of the leader to build the trust of the employees he or she leads and the community being served, therefore keeping morale and public trust both high. “Leadership” therefore is the lynch-pin to public trust.

We therefore have to develop, select and promote police leaders that truly understand that and are committed to live by that model.

Chris D. Lewis was a police officer for 36 years, retiring as the 13th Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), one of North America’s largest police services.

Including excerpts from Never Stop on a Hill (2016) by Chris D. Lewis and Impacts of Leadership on Professionalism and Public Trust in Policing, (April 23, 2012) Professional Standards in Policing (POL-4001-12W-20293), Georgian College by Chris Lewis.

___________________________

[i] Harrison, T., Change Morale Improve Productivity . InTech. May 2007. Retrieved from http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=Career_Front1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=61426

[ii] Constantino, J., How Do You Build Trust. Business Marketing Success. March 2011. Retrieved from http://businessmarketingsuccess.com/2011/03/22/how-do-you-build-trust

[iii] Model Policy on Standards of Conduct. IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center . (undated). Retrieved from http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ProfessionalAssistance/ Ethics/ModelPolicyonStandardsofConduct/tabid/196/Default.aspx

[iv] Message from the Director General, Annual Report Management of the RCMP Disciplinary Process . 2011. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/adj/ann-09-10/report-rapport-eng.pdf

[v] Maguire, S., Dyke, L., CACP Professionalism in Policing Research Project - Survey Results. June 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cacp.ca /media/library/download/1242/Survey_Results.pdf

How to F*** Up a Company in 7 Easy Steps: A Manual for Dummies

Tue, 12 Oct 2021 22:36:27 GMT

By Chris D. Lewis

I continually read and write articles about the criticality of effective leadership in building morale and a positive organizational culture in terms of the professionalism, buy-in and contribution of employees. In my book “Never Stop on a Hill”, I outlined all the important aspects of true leadership; how people can make or break your company and highlighted the need to inspire them to be and do their very best.

But I regularly speak with employees of private and public sector organizations that tell me that what they are seeing, hearing and feeling out there is the antithesis of effective leadership. This is understandably dragging them down; taking away their desire and that of their colleagues to work hard and try their best to help the organization prosper. This has to negatively impact the success of these companies and agencies at least in pockets and potentially as a whole.

Given the apparent will of so many pseudo-leaders to blow it and therefore fail their people, their organization and its clients, I decided I would do my part to provide them some much-needed advice on ‘how to’ completely bomb. Why only go half way? Here’s how to totally F*** things up:

1. Treat everyone like crap. Remember what supervisors did and said over your career that made you want to suck your thumb and cry or quit. Do all of those things and more to those that report directly to you, and also to colleague “leaders” around you. That will help drag them down as well, so they can further add to the fun of making the lives of ALL employees a living hell.

2. Do not reward good employees or challenge the bad. Let everyone do what they want, or do nothing if they choose. Show the hard-working and committed employees that their efforts mean zero, and prove that that the lazy employees that abuse the system; disobey the rules; and do nothing will go totally unchecked, but will still collect the same pay check every two weeks. In fact you should try to promote some of the very worst people to send a resounding message to the good!

3. Do not communicate. Screw them. The employees don’t need to know what is going on and why, so don’t tell them. Nor do you need to know their thoughts; ideas or suggestions on how to provide better service or be more efficient. If you need their advice, that means you don’t already know everything yourself. After all, you’re a boss and they aren’t, so what the hell do those peons know about anything? How silly.

4. Destroy morale. Happy employees will only come to work on time, work hard, won’t call in sick as often; will smile and treat people – including customers, with professionalism and respect. They might even actually start to feel good about themselves and not want to quit! Jesus. Who needs that nonsense?

5. Do everything you can to make employees feel disconnected. Don’t acknowledge their efforts; NEVER thank them; and don’t do or say anything to make them feel understood, valued or appreciated. What good could possibly come out of that? You certainly do not want them to feel that their opinion counts, or they might then try to offer suggestions or God-forbid attempt to slide in unwanted input to steer your boss-like decisions. (See number 2 above.)

6. Never support anyone, ever. If they start thinking that you care about them and want to help them succeed in their careers or in their personal lives, that could lead to morale “building” rather than your ultimate goal of “destroying” morale. If you acknowledge the positive happenings in their lives (like the birth of children, marriage, new homes, birthdays, vacations, retirement, etc.) or offer them support in the dark days (i.e. physical or mental illness, family deaths, financial hardships or divorce) they will think you must be weak. Remember: These people are merely numbers on a company payroll. They are not people that have needs or challenges in life and if they suddenly do, you don’t need to know and it’s not your job to help anyway. What are you supposed to do?

7. Know nothing about an employee. Do your best to never even know their first names. In fact don’t know anything about them! If anything more than “hey you” is required, just call them by their last names, or “buddy”, “kid” or “sweetie”, as opposed to “Bill” or “Sue”. They’ll love that. Your goal should be that when they quit or go off totally broken mentally and or physically, retire and/or die, you should be able to proudly boast “I never even knew his or her first name”. You also don’t need to know if they are married; have children; have parents; where they are from; where they live; what their personal interests are; what their experience levels or areas of expertise might be; and where they want to go in the organization. In fact, the more you know about them, the more you’ll be tempted to actually seem human at times. Despite articles to the contrary, that is NOT a good thing.

If you are successful, you will contribute greatly to the total failure of the organization. Morale will continue to plummet; sick leave will rise; productivity will deteriorate, professionalism will be non-existent and you’ll lose clients in droves. People will quit or transfer and you’ll be unable to attract replacement personnel because the word will spread like wildfire that you are a complete dick.

And if you happen to be a so-called leader in a police department, where I had the pleasure of serving for decades, a lack of professionalism will lead to a deterioration of community trust. The public will not want to report crimes or tell your officers things they’ve heard or suspect. Victims won’t feel comfortable telling the people you “lead” about awful things that have happened to them. Your members will inevitably do bad things and community leaders will do everything in their power to either promote you so you can screw things up at an even higher level, or kick your useless ass out of the door before you make things even worse. Either way, you’ll have succeeded in sucking the life out of your people and destroying the will of the organization.

Well-done!Mission accomplished.

_________________________________

Chris D. Lewis was a police officer at all levels for 36 years and the 13th Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, one of North America’s largest police services.

OpEd: Ontario’s Police Officers Should Be Vaccinated

Thu, 07 Oct 2021 06:19:41 GMT

To me, and I assume to most police officers, the policing profession is about protecting the public . That is protecting them from harm and victimization. And “prevention” is the priority as opposed to responding to calls for service and investigating crime. Any cop worth his or her salt would much prefer to prevent someone from being victimized before it happens. Second to protecting members of the community, comes protecting fellow officers and third comes protecting one’s self. That is the order of importance: public safety; officer safety; self-preservation.

Year ago a police association leader said, “Our people come first.” I disagreed and said, “No they don’t. They are a close second. If our people came first we’d never leave the office. We wouldn’t rush to dangerous calls or run into burning buildings. Nor would we charge into a home to prevent a woman or child from being physically abused. We do all of those things and more because it’s about the public first and foremost.” Obviously officer safety is a very significant issue, but the public comes first.

So fast forward to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that has killed so many people around the world, including almost 10,000 Ontarians, and has made 600,000 more ill – some of whom had to fight for their lives and may be facing a life of yet unknown health challenges. Surprisingly, the debate over mandatory vaccinations for police officers ensues.

Some police chiefs have ordered all uniformed personnel to be vaccinated by a stated date. Others are encouraging, but are not issuing an edict. Little to no policy has been issued to police chiefs by the Ontario government, although the Ford government did state that “all 64,000 employees of the Ontario Public Service (OPS) will be required to get vaccinated or else submit to regular COVID-19 testing.” Of course OPP members are part of the broader Ontario Public Service, however I remain unclear as to how the OPP fits into those instructions.

The federal government has decreed that all public servants including the RCMP must be vaccinated or face consequences that include forced unpaid leave and other forms of disciplinary action.

But some Ontario police associations are pushing back at mandatory vaccinations. The Toronto Police Association (TPA) is opposed to the mandatory vaccine announcement made by Toronto Police Chief Ramer. The Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA) spoke positively about the health benefits of being vaccinated, but they also stated that they “will support and protect the legitimate concerns and objections of our members.” The reactions of other Ontario police associations are mixed.

The Police Association of Ontario (PAO) to which all other Ontario police associations belong, stated in an August 25 ^th release: “It is the view of the PAO that our sworn and civilian police personnel members who are eligible and able to be vaccinated against COVID-19 should be vaccinated.” The release also calls for a province-wide approach to this issue that is “thoughtful, purposeful and consistent.” It doesn’t speak to mandatory vaccinations, but it certainly is a mature and commonsense statement.

It strikes me that the pushback by some Ontario police officers and a number of police associations flies in the face of both public and officer safety. The average police officer and many of their civilian personnel interact constantly with members of the public they serve 24-7. At times it involves making arrests and the use of force, including applying physical restraints. At other times it entails extensive face-to-face interviews of victims, witnesses and suspects in homes, confined police cars and offices. Why wouldn’t all police officers want to maximize their ability to protect those members of the public that they interact with? Similarly would they not want to better protect the colleagues that they work side-by-side with for long shifts from potential exposure to the virus? What about their own health and safety and that of the spouses, partners, children, parents and other family members that they return to at the end of the day?

Police are provided with body armour; self-defence training; personal protective equipment including puncture-proof gloves; as well as firearms and other use of force options, and so they should be, to protect them from the many threats they face in their daily duties. Most or all of that training and equipment is mandatory, not optional. Vaccines should be mandatory as well.

Police were identified as one of the first groups to be given the COVID vaccine because of their close interaction with the public. But SOME of these officers and SOME of their association representatives are choosing not to accept that protection. It doesn’t make sense in my view. If they all wanted the vaccine but their chiefs decided they didn’t need it, there’d be no end to the justified uproar that would follow.

Even if one buys the argument that the officers can choose their fate as far as their own protection, it’s not just about them but about others they come into contact with.

Although I firmly believe that most Ontario communities greatly trust and respect their police officers, that critical trust has undoubtedly been tested over the past several years through a number of events in North America that have put a negative spotlight on police – sometimes earned and sometimes not.

The vast majority of public health experts across the globe agree that vaccination is the only thing that will stop this deadly menace. This is a golden opportunity for police to demonstrate leadership in their communities in terms of the safety and trust of the people they are sworn to serve.

My message to Ontario’s police officers: Please be safe and get vaccinated to keep others safe.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

Retirement: The Loss of a Sense of Belonging

Fri, 21 May 2021 22:47:35 GMT

I’m not afraid to admit that I struggled with retirement after 36 years in policing. Quite a bit in fact. On occasion I still do.

It isn’t that I’m no longer “the Commissioner” whatsoever. I loved my job and the ability to positively impact the lives of thousands of wonderful personnel, but I don’t miss the politics, the financial pressures or the stress one little bit.

What I’ve come to realize is that retirement has brought me a lack of a “sense of belonging”. I belonged to the same great police department for most of my adult life. With that I had ring-side seats to the greatest show on earth! Watching from the benches isn’t near as gratifying. I’m not whining or complaining about my lot in life, I’m just being honest about the retired life versus a life in policing. I suspect many retirees feel the same.

Having a plan going into retirement certainly made my transition easier. I had a couple of contract jobs lined up; a motorcycle to ride; a fitness level to renew and a “honey do” list of tremendous proportions. I’m sure that those who retire and sit on the couch not sure what they are going to do for the remaining decades of their lives struggle even more than I did. And we all know others that simply don’t care at all and maybe never really did care about the job or the people. They’re not likely to miss what they were never passionate about.

My phone went from dozens of calls a day and hundreds of text messages, to complete silence. I initially had to shake it to see if it still worked. For awhile it bothered me that I wasn’t hearing from people I once heard from hourly and met with daily. Then as time went on I thought, “I may not be as busy as I once was, but those folks still are.” I also recalled that I hadn’t always regularly contacted people I thought the world of when they retired.

I put former colleagues into 4 categories:

1. The people that were loyal and dedicated employees that truly enjoyed working with you and appreciated you, but are simply too busy in their lives to regularly connect.

2. People that never did really particularly care about you or dislike you, but interacted with you because their job forced them to.

3. People that never liked you in the slightest. And lastly,

4. People that went out of their way to be seen and heard because they thought you could help their career, but deep down didn’t really care if you lived or died.

That’s not a criticism, it’s just the reality that a career as a police executive brings. Some love you, some hate you and some really don’t care either way. I firmly believe that if you’re truly a supportive and caring “leader” that people trust and connect with, you’ll have way more loyal followers than haters, but all those categories come with the turf. I’ve fought the urge to attend most policing events. It simply isn’t my role anymore, as the OPP has had 2 great Commissioners since my departure. They don’t need me hanging around at every turn. I also never wanted to be that police leader that never really went away, so I carefully select what I go to and which events I don’t.

So what do I miss?

I miss people. I don’t miss the circus but I do miss the clowns. I miss formally interacting with uniformed officers and civilian employees at all levels, as well as their families – celebrating their successes in the good times and helping them through the bad. I miss saying hello to staff in the halls of our HQ, in the cafeteria and parking lot. I miss meeting volunteers like the Auxiliary members, the Pipes and Drums and the Choir, and expressing my appreciation for all they do.

I miss outside agency partners. I enjoyed working together with them to deal with problems that were bigger than us all. I miss the communities we served, including “most” of the politicians and “all” of the good folks that supported us as we did what we could to protect them from so many forms of victimization.

I miss chasing the bad guys. Not that I personally did any of that in the last many years of my career, but I still loved to see our people working so bravely to keep communities safe and then smiling like a proud father when their criminal, traffic and tactical operations came to a successful conclusion. Thankfully some of that need is still met through my ongoing media commentary on policing issues. That at least makes me keep current on public safety challenges across the globe.

I miss hearing the day to day stories that warmed my heart. Tales of our officers finding a lost child or shoveling the snow off the front walkway of an elderly citizen, and so much more.

I miss sitting around the senior management table with the Deputy Commissioners and others as we brainstormed various approaches to the latest challenge as a team.

I miss walking the lines of our personnel in their dress uniforms at recruit graduations, police memorials and sadly the occasional police funeral. Simply shaking the many hands and saying hello to our folks always recharged my batteries no matter how solemn the occasion might be.

But mostly I just miss actively belonging a great organization that is comprised of great people who are committed to public safety. Although in my media role I will be honestly critical on occasion, I’ll always be in their corner and proudly cheering them on from afar. I have accepted that my role is to be an ambassador for them, for the policing profession and for all emergency responders. I will do that with passion and immense pride.

Real leaders appreciate that employees are human and will err

Sun, 13 Dec 2020 09:11:09 GMT

I recall a leader in a large police service that progressed very rapidly through the ranks without any operational experience whatsoever. This “leader” was never in a position to make a hard decision, never took any risk and therefore never made any mistakes that were high profile or came to the attention of the senior executive.

When subsequently placed in a very high-ranking operational position, the individual was surrounded by some extremely capable people who appropriately guided their boss to success. That situation occurred more by good luck than good management. But when the leader rose to the pinnacle of the police service and had the ability to personally pick an executive team, only those that would never do anything but acquiesce to the leader’s every thought and suggestion were selected.

This had a disastrous impact on the organization. Because the leader had no appreciation for what occurred in major operations or investigations, the leader micromanaged by asking ridiculous questions constantly, which worked their downstream through the executive and supervisory ranks – non-stop. The real leaders below – who truly knew what they were doing and how, then felt completely untrusted and quickly grew demoralized. The barrage of second-guessing then forced them to make dumb queries to the supervisors below them in order to respond above, causing further unnecessary effort, waste of time and tremendous angst down the line.

Then, God forbid some operational member would have the nerve to make an honest mistake. Let’s face it, in 24/7 patrol operations; major crime investigations; and tactical ops, the occasional bad thing will occur – not through malice or incompetence, but because we do not yet hire robots. There will always be an element of risk associated with decision-making. The option is to not take risk and not make any decision, but that is not in the best interest of the members of the public that police are sworn to serve. Well intended and sound decisions will sometimes go awry through no singular persons fault. When that happens, immediate contingency plans need to snap into place to mitigate any damage; the situation needs to be later debriefed; equipment, policy and training implications assessed and improved where possible.

However this particular Chief would write off any supervisor or executive that may have had any involvement in the “error”. The individuals would become radioactive in the minds of the senior executive that surrounded that Chief. None would ever raise their hand to defend and support the members. Those involved would then be forever unfairly remembered across the organization as “He’s the Commander from the John Doe shooting mess”. Or “She’s the Inspector that screwed up the Jane Doe investigation”.

This occurred in part because the Chief had never had to make a tough decision and/or because of a total failure of leadership.

Over the years to come, little mistakes then evolved into big internal messes, because fearful subordinates involved in operational errors remembered how Officer X or Y had been pigeon-holed over some past perceived error then thrown under the bus. Some teams chose instead to form conspiracies in an attempt to work their way out of the wrath of the senior executive through a series of mistruths rather than own up to the error. The bigger issue then became the lying – which obviously shouldn’t occur, but if the members had felt they would be fairly assessed and supported following an honest mistake, they wouldn’t have tried to cover it up. A number of good police officers fell into that trap, some being forever ruined as a result and some leaving the organization and moving on to successful careers elsewhere. I am not defending dishonest police officers whatsoever.

My point here is this:

Real leaders know that on occasion things will go bad. They also know that the people they lead are human and will occasionally err.

They understand that there is a huge difference between malicious acts, total carelessness and well-intended mistakes. Accordingly, the punishment must fit the crime, so to speak.

The well-developed leaders that have “been there and done that” will have had opportunities to fail; taken risk; and occasionally made what turned out to be the wrong decision. But they learned from the experiences and developed valuable scar tissue to help them face the next crisis, with the support of the true leaders above them.

As well, some senior leaders with little to no operational experience, still exhibited stellar leadership by purposely surrounding themselves with credible leaders that would always tell them the truth and push back accordingly when then they were micromanaging. Their immediate subordinates would simply tell them, “Here’s what happens in these situations and here’s how we deal with it. He/she knows what to do, so let them do it.” The leader would listen to that sound advice. Then if things didn’t go well, the leader would ensure things were reviewed, assessed, debriefed and made better for the future. Those involved in the honest mistake incidents would be treated with respect, supported and provided with any additional training, coaching, etc., as required. The members directly involved and those watching from the sidelines would actually see the modelling of true leadership and then feel confident in taking risk and making decisions going forward.

It’s not rocket-science. Where possible, organizations should promote people with proven hands-on experience AND demonstrated leadership ability. But when the person being promoted doesn’t have the experience, he or she better have the leadership ability to listen to the people around them and then properly discern malice from error. Our people and our organizations deserve that.

OpEd: We need to “Re-Fund” not “defund” police

Mon, 21 Sep 2020 06:19:38 GMT

Cries to defund police across North America are for the most part fuelled by people who will never be happy until police are unarmed; seldom seen; and let everyone do whatever they want, whenever they want. Valid concerns over the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police in May have spiraled to this ridiculous notion that all police are bad and that less of these evil beings would prevent such a tragedy from occurring in future.

[See OpEd: Is it time to defund policing?]

Yes, police need to do better than they have in some cases, in some communities. There should never be any systemic or individual racism, or any excessive use of force, within any police department, anywhere.

Undoubtedly, “de-escalation” should always be the go-to response by police – as opposed to use of deadly force, where feasible. Police services must have strict policies regarding the use of force, including positional-asphyxia and carotid restraint issues, as well as kneeling on throats, so as to not kill people being arrested – unless as a last resort to protect the lives of innocent people.

I agree that in some instances, mental health professionals – either alone or in partnership with armed police officers, would be a better approach to wellness checks and non-violent mental health occurrences. That is of course with the knowledge that despite best efforts, some reported “non-violent” calls will become very violent in a heart-beat.

Police executives should always be assessing the environment and continually developing effective partnerships with other agencies, while making policy, training, staffing and deployment changes to best meet the policing needs of the community. Police budgets are forever going to be a huge issue for municipalities and Chiefs must always endeavor to meet those needs in a fiscally prudent way. They owe that to elected leaders and to their taxpayers.

But guess what? We have great police services in Canada! All of this and so much more has been in place for years across this country and is governed by legislation and oversight frameworks like no other profession.

Having said that, we have seen a number of poor decisions and occasional blatant criminal acts by police officers, so police services must constantly strive to be nothing less than the “best of the best”, and are obliged to do so within a reasonable fiscal envelope. That standard must continue for all eternity.

Many police budgets – including the provincial police forces and the RCMP, have been cut and slashed incessantly, despite emerging crime trends; increasing salaries; the growing threat of terrorism; rising equipment and technology costs; and protracted public protests that have at times grown violent and resource intensive. Some services struggle to staff their patrols. The Toronto Police Association continues to raise concerns about stacked calls; response times and officer safety issues. A number of services have taken officers from investigative units to fill uniformed patrol vacancies. Some OPP detachments that once deployed several officers on a shift are down to only a couple of constables on duty, because of budget shortfalls. That is ineffective and dangerous, especially in isolated communities that are many miles from backup. As well, a number of provincial investigative units are heavily challenged to meet their mandates in assisting other agencies.

A municipal police friend told me several years ago, that “At one time when we called the OPP for help with a major occurrence, it was like calling in the National Guard. They showed up in droves. Now they’d be lucky to be able to send us an officer or two.” I’m afraid that situation has worsened since.

The RCMP is in terrible shape. Their detachments in the contract policing provinces (i.e. Nova Scotia) are woefully short of personnel. In Ontario, the RCMP is no longer a major player in the organized crime investigation world. Through no fault of their members, National Security investigations are the priority and every man, woman and child investigator is assigned to those operations.

As a rule, when funds are cut, staffing suffers. When a personnel shortage occurs, prevention programs and training are often the first on the chopping block. Preventing victimization is one of the most important things police do, and training is critical to officer safety and to adequate and effective policing. But the reality is that the organizations have to be able to put officers in police cars.

Something has to give. Legitimate efforts by police leaders in civilianizing some roles; and deploying personnel and responding differently – in a data-driven way; while maximizing technology, continue. However there is often still a delta between the need for armed officers and staffing realities.

What are the broader impacts of the current state of policing on officer morale and wellness? The dialogue and focus on providing professional support to help police personnel deal with the impacts of singular occurrences or a career of responding to traumatic events has increased over the past several years. But working short-handed day after day while dealing with a constant barrage of criticism from armchair critics – some deserved and much not, does nothing to promote member wellness.

So is it an acceptable option to further cut police budgets because of the flexing of muscles by some community groups and further denigrate this already fearsome state of affairs? I think it’s a recipe for disaster.

Alternatively, we need to “re-fund” our police services back to appropriate levels to best meet community and officer safety needs, not further “defund” them. I truly believe the majority of reasonable citizens would prefer to see more but perhaps better police, than see fewer officers and even less effective police services.

In support of that, we also need to hear a much louder voice from the largely silent majority of people that truly do support their police services. They need to “defend” police, loud and clear.

I fear that if this lopsided “defund police” rhetoric and negativity continues to swirl, it will bring policing to the point that it will be all but impossible for police services to keep communities safe and healthy. The ability to attract good recruits and retain healthy police officers will continue to decline. There won’t be enough critical police mass to meet public safety needs and police services will be forced to have their phone numbers unlisted in order to operate within their funding envelopes.

President Donald Trump: Continues to fail as a leader

Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:21:14 GMT

In my June 17, 2017 article: Donald J. Trump: "Leader" or "Boss"??, I outlined my reasons for believing that U.S. President Donald Trump is far from the epitome of leadership, but is truly an abject failure as a “leader”. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/donald-j-trump-leader-boss-chris-lewis/

Many of his campaign aides and confidantes have been charged and sentenced to jail; are awaiting trial and/or currently under criminal investigation. Arguably, according to legal experts, if he wasn’t the sitting President of the United States he would have been indicted himself. In fact, he may well be charged with a variety of financial crimes as soon as he is out of office. He’s refused to open up his tax records despite almost four years of false promises to do so. Why ?

He lauds tyrannical dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, but has alienated world leaders of many democratic nations. To what end ?

Most recently, recordings of his interviews with famed journalist Bob Woodward for his upcoming book Rage, have clearly shown that he deliberately misled the American people about the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic, and despite knowing the reality of the virus’ threat, his failure to take decisive action in a timely way has led to the loss of thousands and thousands of U.S. lives.

But despite all of that and proffering lie after lie and spewing nonsensical drivel every time he opens his un-presidential mouth; and making almost every decision based on what will advance his own political career and family business interests – a large percentage of his base still believes he is the best thing for their country. That is frightening to me and should be to us all on both sides of the international border and beyond.

We have our own house of horrors from a federal leadership perspective in Canada as well, as our former drama teacher PM continues to demonstrate personal failings time after time, but this article isn’t about him. Stay tuned though!

Because of my interests in the topic of leadership and what makes good leaders great and bad leaders abysmal, it pains me to hear and see Trump’s sycophants speaking of him as a great “leader”, when in reality he is the total antithesis of a leader in every way humanly possible. Many of these marionettes were highly-critical of him and called him out quite honestly prior to his assumption of power. Now the Lindsey Graham’s of the world stare at him like they are love-struck teenagers and arduously defend his every bizarre move.

Let’s take a brief look at the qualities of a good leader versus what we see from Donald Trump:

True leaders effectively communicate in an open and honest way. Trump has told more lies in the past four years than all the prior U.S. Presidents combined, ever. Fact checkers point out dozens of his lies every time he speaks publicly. The Woodward tapes alone irrefutably show he has lied to the American people in a very dangerous way over the Corona-virus, to the point that he may have committed criminal offences akin to criminal negligence causing death.

He claims he didn’t want to unnecessarily inflame the pandemic situation or cause panic.

Real leaders strive to turn chaos into calm, but not at the expense of the loss of life! They tell the truth. They explain the situation; the risks involved and outline the plan of attack. They then keep people up to date – honestly, as what is being done and what to expect next, but inspire confidence that “we will get through this, together, as a team”.

What Trump did in this case is like a police chief telling the public that although they have heard that there is a sniper on the roof of a downtown building, there really isn’t, or he only has a squirt-gun, so they can safely walk the streets without fear. Or a fire chief telling tenants that the fire in their building was minor and was put out, only to have them enter back into an inferno and to their likely death. Would either of those situations demonstrate leadership?

Good leaders make decisions based on what is best for people they serve and the people they lead. Unlike Trump they don’t make decisions for personal gain, i.e. re-election. They make decisions that they know might personally hurt them, but they do so with the confidence that it is the right thing to do.

True leaders encourage dissention; criticism; feedback; suggestions and innovation. Trump routinely appoints people and sings their praises, but turns on them like a jackal when they don’t blindly agree with his every ridiculous whim. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Rex Tillerson, John Bolton, Generals John Kelly and James Mattis and dozens of others come to mind as those that were pushed to the side or fired and publicly vilified by Trump. No U.S. President since 1789 has had such an all-encompassing turnover of key administration members. Why is that? Certainly not because Trump is a great leader.

Good leaders don’t profess to know it all. They pick good people, encourage them to offer the best advice and then act on it. As OPP Commissioner, I oversaw a budget well in excess of $1B. I am not good with money and have never been able to manage my personal chequing account without help. The OPP had wonderful financial experts that advised me as to what I could do, should do and how to do it, legally and in the best interests of OPP personnel and the people of Ontario. Trump on the other hand knows more than his Generals; more than his intelligence agencies and much more than Dr. Fauci. Think about that.

And lastly, real leaders set the positive example for those they lead. It’s never a “do as I say, not as I do” world to the true leaders. For example, hypothetically, if there was a deadly pandemic killing hundreds of thousands of followers and public health experts were telling people that wearing a mask to protect themselves and others was critically important, a real leader would wear a mask and not mock those that do.

Enough said.

How to F*** Up a Company in 7 Easy Steps: A Manual for Dummies

Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:33:18 GMT

By Chris D. Lewis

But I regularly speak with employees of private and public sector organizations that tell me that what they are seeing, hearing and feeling out there is the antithesis of effective leadership. This is understandably dragging them down; taking away their desire and that of their colleagues to work hard and try their best to help the organization prosper. This has to be negatively impacting the success of these companies and agencies at least in pockets and potentially as a whole.

Given the apparent will of so many pseudo-leaders to blow it and therefore fail their organization and its clients, I decided I would do my part to provide them some much-needed advice on ‘how to’ completely bomb. Why only go half way? Here’s how to totally F*** things up:

1. Treat everyone like crap. Remember what supervisors did and said over your career that made you want to suck your thumb and cry or quit. Do all of those things and more those that report directly to you, and also to colleague “leaders” around you. That will help drag them down as well, so they can further add to the fun of making the lives of ALL employees a living hell.

2. Do not reward good employees or challenge the bad. Let everyone do what they want, or do nothing if they choose. Show the hard-working and committed employees that their efforts mean zero, and show them that the lazy employees that abuse the system; disobey the rules; and do nothing go totally unchecked but still collect the same pay check every two weeks. In fact you should try to promote some of the very worst people to send a resounding message to the good!

6. Never support anyone, ever. If they start thinking that you care about them and want to help them succeed in their careers or in their personal lives, that could lead to morale “building” rather than your ultimate goal of “destroying” morale. If you acknowledge the positive happenings in their lives (like the birth of children, marriage, new homes, birthdays, vacations, retirement) or offer them support in the dark days (i.e. physical or mental illness, family deaths, financial hardships or divorce) they will think you must be weak. Remember: These people are merely numbers on a company payroll. They are not people that have needs or challenges in life and if they suddenly do, you don’t need to know and it’s not your job to help anyway. What are you supposed to do?

7. Know nothing about an employee. Do your best to never even know their first names. In fact don’t know anything about them! If anything more than “hey you” is required, just call them by their last names, or “buddy” or “kid”, as opposed to “Bill” or “Sue”. They’ll love that. Your goal should be that when they quit or go off totally broken mentally and or physically, retire or die, you should be able to proudly say “I never even knew his or her first name”. You also don’t need to know if they are married; have children; have parents; where they are from; where they live; what their personal interests are; what their experience levels or areas of expertise might be; and where they want to go in the organization. In fact, the more you know about them, the more you’ll be tempted to actually seem human at times. Despite articles to the contrary, that is not a good thing.

And if you happen to be a so-called leader in a police department, where I had the pleasure of serving for decades, a lack of professionalism will lead to a lack of community trust. The public will not want to report crimes or tell your officers things they’ve heard or suspect. Victims won’t feel comfortable telling the people you “lead” about awful things they have had happened to them. Your members will inevitably do bad things and community leaders will do everything in their power to either promote you so you can screw things up at an even higher level, or kick your useless ass out of the door before you make things even worse. Either way, you’ll have succeeded in sucking the life out of your people and destroying the will of the organization. Well-done!

Mission accomplished.

OpEd: Ontario police union flag flap

Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:19:37 GMT

A controversy recently erupted over the Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA) flying a “Thin Blue Line” version of the Canadian flag at their office building in Barrie, Ont. It was raised a month ago on the mast that the Canadian flag normally flies on.

Members of the public and a number of commentators have expressed opposing views on that move, opining that it appears the bargaining group for the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) are protesting against the anti-police sentiment across North America and are thumbing their collective noses to the critical issues.

First of all, the OPPA organization does not represent the Commissioner of the OPP and are not under his control, but in essence are the union for OPP employees. They are not bound by any OPP or Ontario government policy on the flying of flags at their office facility. In addition, there are no federal or provincial laws against totally defacing the Canadian flag, let alone changing the colour and putting a thin blue line across it. The OPPA is not obligated to fly any flags at all or can fly 20 of them in any array of designs and colours if they so choose. In fact, they very recently flew a rainbow flag in honour of Pride Month and in support of their LGBTQ2+ members.

These tasteful Thin Blue Line flags and similarly adorned T-shirts and ball caps are made and sold in both Canadian and U.S. versions by a private company that donates many thousands of dollars to the families of fallen officers. The “thin blue line” is said to represent the line between “good and evil”, which police officers proudly feel they represent in society, some giving their lives to the cause.

OPPA President Rob Jameson released a public response to the concerns, explaining that their traditional Canadian flag was taken down as it was worn out and had to be replaced, and that the Thin Blue Line flag was raised to support the family of murdered Nova Scotia RCMP Constable Heidi Stevenson and to “represent support, solidarity and respect to our fallen heroes.” It will likely not be there permanently, but in the meantime it is in no way meant to be disrespectful.

One of the critics, author and university professor Paul McKenna, is quoted in a CBC News article by Ani Bessonov on July 28, Former senior OPP official calls police union decision to fly Thin Blue Line flag ‘tone-deaf’. McKenna, is an accomplished author and university professor, and was a mid-level civilian manager and the OPP Librarian 30 years ago. He describes the move by the OPPA to be “thick-headed” given the current swirl opposition to policing occurring across the continent. I disagree with his comments. I respect Paul’s extensive work on community policing matters for decades, and very much admire and value the contribution of civilian personnel in police services, but it is uniformed police officers that are under the gun so to speak and struggling more than ever to hold their heads high through the recent 24/7 barrage of allegations of racism and brutality.

Although many of the public concerns expressed are valid in a number of jurisdictions, social media platforms have blurred jurisdictional and international borders so much that it’s become difficult for many citizens to remember where some horrendous acts actually occurred. Most of the blatant and questionable cases of racism and or excessive use of force by police have occurred in the U.S. Having said that, some have occurred in Canada as well and when proven versus perceived, are totally unacceptable. As well, a number of the egregious events – although illegal and racist acts, did not involve police at all, but are still front and centre in some media commentary. All of this has resulted in a series of public protests, many of which becoming violent and destructive in some major U.S. cities, including devastating attacks on innocent police officers who don’t have a racist or violent bone in their bodies. When children are carrying signs that say “F*** the police” in marches through city streets, it really strikes deeply at the core of the majority of cops that just want to truly serve and protect those very same children.

Then throw in the “defund the police” rhetoric and threaten to remove large percentages of already stretched police budgets, and you have exactly what I am seeing throughout many police departments – that being plummeting morale. And when morale goes bad, officer productivity and professionalism can go bad as well, which can have a significant impact on public trust in the police. It’s a recipe for disaster that somehow, society at large and their police officers need to work through for the good of all.

Yes, there are other organizations and dedicated people that occupy that important thin line between good and evil, including the military, other emergency services and more. It is bigger than police, but the police are key players and are the group that is specifically being maligned. Is it so bad that our police cling to an image that reminds them of why they became police officers and lets them hold their heads a little higher in these difficult days? I think not. With everything going on in our world right now, I truly believe we have much bigger issues to concern ourselves with.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

OpEd: Is it time to defund policing?

Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:03:09 GMT

OpEd: Is it time to defund policing?

Much discussion has occurred as of late regarding the concept of taking money away from the rich (the police) and giving it to the poor (social services). Some so-called experts have argued that it’s time to that it's time to "disarm and defund the police" and for funds to be redistributed to other needy social services programs. In fact the city Council in Minneapolis just voted to disband their current policing model in favour of a yet unknown system. I don’t argue the need for more mental health and social services experts, but we can’t simply snap our fingers and cut police funding in favour of other programs. But the police are far from rich and disarming police in North America isn’t even an option in my view.

I won’t even get into the ridiculous notion of taking guns away from police. All I will say is that I’m glad the RCMP officers in Nova Scotia were armed on April 19th, 2020.

Although I agree that many solutions to community problems would be better addressed by entities other than the police, financial cuts to many of those agencies have resulted in police becoming the default response to many social issue challenges that they’d rather not be. They have been forced to do more with less for a number of years, and yes, that isn’t working.

Increasing salaries as well as rising costs for technology, vehicles and fuel have caused police and political leaders to closely examine how to get the best bang for their dwindling dollar, through a variety of service delivery model options. Most police chiefs and boards have been wrestling with this dilemma in excess of 10 years.

But even in the best of financial times, police leaders owe it to their constituents to ensure they are as efficient and cost effective as possible. They must continue to lead progressive change before it leads them. Police associations must have input into the change process and accept that there is no new money out there despite emerging crimes and additional responsibilities being dumped on police. Times are tough for everyone, but it will require the input of all if they ever hope to be successful.

Much work has been done and change is occurring across Canadian police services to be effective and efficient, not just because of financial pressures but because they want to be the very best for the people they serve in terms of preventing victimization, protecting property and reducing the carnage on highways, waterways and trails.

Many police positions have been converted to civilian positions, not always resulting in a salary cost savings but getting the best people doing some critical jobs, whether it be HR, IT, accounting, analysis, forensics and more.

Police have had to stop doing some of the things they once proudly did. Attending so-called minor occurrences – which was a service police proudly provided for decades, is no longer possible in many places. Citizen self-reporting of some property incidents through the internet, with telephone follow-up by police personnel is much more common now, freeing up officers to attend more serious calls for service.

Prevention programs are key. They still require time, people and funding but are more cost effective than responding to and investigating crime, however the more critical benefit is the prevention of victimization. Current prevention models including crime abatement strategies and the “community mobilization” or HUB concept which brings police, various social service agencies, mental health professionals, educators and community groups together to mitigate societal conditions that lead to crime, are having significant impacts in many municipalities. It will take time for those programs to justify a reduction in the need for police officers in some situations, but it is certainly heading in that direction.

A number of jurisdictions are teaming up mental health workers with police to try and defuse and de-escalate mental health crises. Others have developed programs to ensure victim assistance experts are responding with police to spousal abuse occurrences and then conducting effective follow-up in an attempt to prevent further victimization. Most don’t work 27/7, but such programs are working very well in areas where the workload is such to make this partnership cost effective. It is much more challenging to operationalize these programs in rural areas and in isolated communities, like in the northern regions of Canada.

In a perfect world, there would be no homelessness. No poverty. People wouldn’t be suicidal. There would be no addiction or alcoholism. People wouldn’t suffer from mental health challenges. Disenfranchised youth wouldn’t feel that joining a street gang is a better option than going to school and having a fulfilling career, or that school and employment aren’t even attainable for them. These tragic situations become significant drivers for police response. Undoubtedly more effort needs to be put into all of these systemic issues and more, long before they result in interaction with police. Sending an unarmed mental health worker to a chat with a suicidal addict who may have a knife at 3am – regardless of how brilliant and dedicated he or she may be, will at times result in violence. Then the police will respond to investigate the assault or murder and a family will be grieving. The key is to mitigate the underlying issues before the crisis erupts in violence.

In the meantime, police services still need a critical mass of armed officers to conduct many operational responsibilities that do require same. In utopia, mental health professionals could attend calls where people are in crisis without police support, but unfortunately we are not there yet. Who would make the decision that a counsellor would attend alone or police would go as well, and based on what criteria? Is the call-taker tasked with determining if “the caller seems nice”? Sending a counsellor to a call where a person is suffering from a mental health crisis sounds logical, at least until he or she pulls out a knife or jumps out a window. The reality is that these are potential life or death decisions at times.

Weapons calls; violent and destructive protests; tactical operations; robberies; assaults; theft investigations; traffic enforcement and collision investigation; homicides; trespassers; domestic disputes…and so much more, still require the police, who in many cases are already suffering from a shortage of resources. To cut them even further before an effective infrastructure of social services, counsellors and mental health professionals is in place and proven to be reducing police calls for service, will be a recipe for disaster. If some racist and or bully police officers causing a death by using excessive force while legally arresting a man for a crime is the cause for change in the structure of policing, we must remember that all the social services agencies in the world would not have prevented police from responding and making an arrest on that day. If these programs were all in place, police still would have attended and made an arrest. How and why they used deadly force and whether or not racism was the driver, is the issue in that case.

Getting policing from where it currently is to where it should be is undoubtedly the right thing to do. Overreacting and throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of a tragedy caused by some bad cops in Minneapolis is not the solution.

OpEd: Is there systemic racism in policing in Canada?

Sat, 06 Jun 2020 10:30:53 GMT

No, not in my view.

However I do believe that there are racist police officers in most or all police services in this country and across North America.

This is not a Master’s thesis or an empirical research paper. It is simply my opinion, based on 36 years serving as an officer and leader of one of North America’s largest police services and having additionally studied police activities and the analysis and reporting surrounding same, for the 6 years since.

The many protests – mostly peaceful that are occurring around the world following the murder of a Minneapolis man of colour at the hands of police, are quite rightfully demonstrating against racism and against police brutality, neither of which are acceptable. Focused and respectful dialogue on these topics is a good thing in my view. Some of the resulting narrative concerns me though, as Canadian police are being accused by some of “systemic racism”. I don’t believe that broad-brush characterization is accurate or fair.

My understanding of "systemic racism" is that racism is entrenched in an organization’s members, policies and processes, which then results in certain racial groups being categorically treated unfairly. It would be a pervasive culture of racism.

Is that what we are seeing in Canadian police services?

Racism is not confined to white people. And similarly is not only directed towards black people. Unfortunately racism exists throughout all societies – entrenched more deeply in some than in others, but it involves people of all colours.

Racial profiling or what became known as “carding” in Ontario, started out decades ago as a process that was never meant to be unconstitutional, discriminatory or to offend the rights of community members whatsoever. Officially known as “street checks”, the intent was to have a process for police to record information about suspicious people in suspicious circumstances with the hope that someday that information would link with other information gathered and help solve crimes. I submitted hundreds of them as a uniformed police officer on outlaw motorcycle gang members traveling across the province; known criminals in high-crime areas and who they were associating with; and more. Traditionally that has been an expected role for police, but never designed to be a racially-based system.

Thankfully, “Walking while black” has never been an offence under any legislation, however the “application” of the street check system by some officers in some locations in some jurisdictions led to a disproportionate number of people of colour being checked by police. The statistics in some municipalities spoke for themselves. No police chief would knowingly accept officers arbitrarily checking non-white citizens and gathering information from them for no valid reason, but it was happening. Fragile relationships between some community members and their police services understandably grew. That well-publicized concern inevitably affected police agencies from coast to coast and substantive change resulted.

A number of organized crime groups are ethnically based. Outlaw bikers are mostly white. Triads are Chinese. MS-13 members are largely Hispanic. La Cosa Nostra – Italian. East European organized crime groups are just that – eastern European. That is not a damnation of any of those racial groups whatsoever, it is simply a reality.

In Toronto, the majority of street-gang members are young black males. In northern Ontario, street gangs are almost exclusively comprised of Indigenous people. If Toronto police and the OPP are doing their jobs in relation to street gangs and are aggressively targeting them through legal intelligence gathering, investigation and enforcement, then they will be dealing with young men from specific racial groups. Arrests will be made and confrontations will occur as a result. The police at times will have to use force when making such arrests and unfortunately sometimes that won’t be pretty. But why are so many black and Indigenous young men drawn to the destructive street gang lifestyle? Why are so many living in poverty or suffering through addictions? There undoubtedly is systemic racism within the socio-economic factors that lead to those realities and that is concerning.

Certain areas within some specific municipalities are made up of a significant majority of people of particular ethnicities. As a result, that is the segment of the population who the local police interact with as victims, witnesses, suspects and the motoring public in that area. As a young officer I worked in a region that was largely inhabited by French-Canadian people. Did I stop more French motorists than English? Did I arrest and charge more French people than English? Of course I did, but it wasn’t done with ill-will or bias. That was simply the local demographic. But was I on patrol thinking to myself “I have to arrest and charge some French-Canadian folks tonight”? Of course not.

But what is important in all of the above is that all Canadians – regardless of race, creed, religion, lifestyle, age, gender or colour, are being dealt with professionally; respectfully; legally; fairly; within the rights afforded all in the Canadian Charter of Rights and legislation; in an equitable way; and within the core values of their police service. If members of one group are being treated differently in any way than members of another group, then that’s discrimination by the individuals that do it and those that allow it. If the policies, practices and leadership of the police service allow or condone such inappropriate behavior or don’t effectively address it when it occurs, then the racism is systemic.

Most or all of Ontario police services have anti-racism policies; diversity programs; and hold public dialogues with various community groups where issues are aired, discussed and solutions developed. Police services also have targeted recruitment programs to ensure the services are comprised of uniform and civilian employees that represent the cultural and racial make-up of the community. Some of those are more successful than others, but I know they all try. They also have imbedded policies and disciplinary codes that must be adhered to. Once again, these processes aren’t foolproof or perfect by any means, but officers continue to be formally disciplined or charged through them.

Three of the biggest police forces in Canada are led by people of colour. None of these leaders or any of their counterparts across the land wants anything less than the best from their people and for their communities. But unfortunately bad things happen on occasion, once again because they hire “people” and provide policing services to human beings. That’s not an excuse for bad officers, bias, excessive force or inappropriate behavior, but it is the reality they face.

Ontario has led Canada in the independent oversight of police, regarding complaints against police and the use of force by them. These systems are not flawless and don’t always result in the outcome desired by complainants and/or the officers involved. They are managed by people and humans are not perfect. But they must continually try their best to do the right things for the right reasons and strive to be better.

Investigations into police use of force must focus on a number of issues: Was it justified? If not, did it occur through malice, negligence or an honest error? Were criminal or Police Act offences committed? And throughout, was it racially-based? What level of disciplinary action applies if the policies or rules weren’t followed? And lastly, is there anything to be learned from the event from training, policy and equipment perspectives? Not answering these questions and taking decisive and fitting action as appropriate, is a failure of public policing. I firmly believe that Canadian police leaders are strongly committed to that principle.

Public trust is a fragile commodity for police that is earned one interaction at a time. When it breaks down because of bad officers, good officers are no longer trusted either.

It is the responsibility of the police service leaders, all employees and unions to challenge the bad officers and send a clear message that members will be held accountable for their actions.

ALL police services can, should and must do better for ALL the people they serve. They can never rest on their laurels and accept anything less than a constant determination to do better and make progressive change where required. However that doesn’t mean that racism is pervasive through Canadian policing or that “policing is broken” in this country like some would have us think. It is unfair to the vast majority of officers to suggest otherwise.

ANALYSIS: Anti-racism protests: legitimate concerns overshadowed by criminality

Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:14:33 GMT

(Photo by Philadelphia Inquirer via AP)

The violent protests across the U.S. following the murder of African-American George Floyd at the hands of a bully white Minneapolis cop last week continue to grow in numbers and intensity. Peaceful protest is a fundamental right of both American and Canadian citizens, but the level of violence and destruction we are witnessing is disheartening and never justifiable.

Former officer Derek Chauvin was arrested and charged in that horrific case of police brutality. Some of his former colleagues may also be charged as a result of the ongoing investigation, so while many remain hopeful that the justice system is properly running its course in this case, millions of Americans view this as yet another act of racism and a criminal use of deadly force by police.

In a number of cases police have been quite justified in taking the life of a criminal who just happened to be a person of colour and race was not a factor in the decision by police. Sometimes the officer using deadly force was also African-American. These are all tragic situations regardless. In other circumstances young black lives like that of Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery have been unjustifiably taken by people who were not police officers at all, but all of this tragedy unfortunately blends into an overall mantle of real and perceived racism and police brutality.

Thousands have taken to the streets in protest – many peacefully and others aggressively. Protesting by yelling, marching, blocking streets and swearing at police is one thing, but a number of other people have taken it to a frightening level. Police are being viciously assaulted in cities nowhere near Minneapolis. Businesses are being looted, burned and otherwise destroyed. Many jobs are being lost at a time when employment numbers are already plummeting due to COVID-19. People are being arrested and injured. A Federal security officer was killed in Oakland. Police have no choice but to ramp up their own militarization in response and the National Guard has been deployed to Minnesota and many other states. They are trained as soldiers, not cops and their rules of engagement differ.

Most often, peaceful protestors and rightfully concerned citizens lose control of their legitimate agenda on both sides of our border to idiots who want nothing more than to loot, cause damage and fight with the police. Extreme left and right agitators come in from other centres and couldn’t care less about the underlying issues. The important and valid message is then lost to criminality. Well-intentioned protestors lose their voice and their credibility.

No good will come out of this and God forbid protestors or police officers are killed in one of these skirmishes. The resulting spiral will not be good for anyone.

We cannot forget that were also in the middle of a pandemic. Millions of people are out of work, with their health and livelihoods in jeopardy. This not only adds to their level of anxiety but allows them more time and freedom to get involved in protest activities. Most commonly the mob mentality takes over and people who start out as peaceful protestors get caught up in the momentum and conduct acts that they never imagined participating in.

The police have a critical role to play in terms of how they respond to these difficult situations. They’re often being viciously attacked and undoubtedly in fear for their own safety. They don’t want or deserve to become punching bags or have objects hurled at them because of the illegal actions of some cop they don’t even know and they would rather be anywhere on earth but dealing with a violent mob. Cop tempers are going to flare as a result, but firing rubber bullets at media representatives and/or using excessive force against peaceful protestors won’t help their credibility or public trust and support whatsoever. They are paid to be professional and judicious, so they must always take the high road and not exacerbate an already grievous situation. Then police leaders need to respond appropriately when officers don’t play by established rules. A number of Chiefs have done just that. Others are front and centre in trying to bring calm from chaos.

We have seen very positive instances where peaceful protestors have actually banded together to protect police and prevent properties from being destroyed. Hopefully that mindset continues and grows, as the crowd can at times more effectively police themselves than law enforcement can. Concurrently, community and police leaders must do all they can to prevent their people from committing acts that unnecessarily spark even more violence.

Closer to home, Toronto Police are dealing with the controversy surrounding their interaction with 29 year old Regis Korchinski-Paquet, who died after falling from the balcony of her apartment last week on May 27th. That tragedy is being independently investigated by the province’s civilian police oversight body, the Special Investigation Unit (SIU), so Toronto Police cannot publicly release any details about what their officers saw or did. Other than some rumours emanating from family and friends of the deceased, there is no evidence from video or independent witnesses that suggests any wrongdoing by police in this instance. Time will tell, but if grounds to lay charges do exist, SIU will undoubtedly lay them. SIU is often criticized by both police and the public regarding the time investigations take and on occasion its findings, but Ontario has been lightyears ahead of all provinces and most U.S. states in the efficacy of independent oversight of police use of deadly force.

On the heels of the Minneapolis case, this Toronto death also resulted in a massive anti-racism demonstration in Toronto on Saturday. An estimated crowd of 4000 people marched the streets – although largely very peacefully, then protested outside Toronto Police Headquarters. There was certainly some public tension along the route, but it doesn’t appear that any violence or arrests resulted. The fact that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s family called for a peaceful demonstration likely contributed to the calmer atmosphere. A large Vancouver demonstration also remained peaceful, but another in Montreal saw some violence occur.

I pray that some semblance of sanity soon prevails before this bedlam gets even worse. In my view it will take strong “leadership”, including a continuum of respectful dialogue among elected officials at all levels; police, protest, religious and community leaders; criminal justice system players; parents; community members; as well as unbiased media reporting, to at least calm the storm. From there, those same influencers need to work together and lead lasting change to prevent and eliminate racism through all sectors across the continent.

We will never totally end racism unfortunately. It will always exist in different ways within some cultures and among some individuals. But no matter our lot in life, we all have a role to play to set the positive example and help ensure that becomes the exception and not the norm.

The murder of George Floyd

Sun, 31 May 2020 10:45:26 GMT

The death of an African-American man at the hands of Minneapolis police on May 25th has once again spawned numerous violent protests across the U.S. over what was obviously a criminal act by at least some of the four involved officers. One of the officers quite calmly knelt on the neck of George Floyd – who had been arrested for suspicion of a minor criminal offence, for just shy of nine minutes. Floyd was clearly in distress for about six of those minutes and totally unresponsive for almost three, however that knee remained planted on his neck throughout.

Carotid artery restraints by police have led to a number of unintentional deaths across North America in the past and as a result most police departments have eliminated them from officer safety training and educate officers about the dangers involved in that practice. “Positional asphyxia” is another concern when an arrested subject is restrained in a position that causes breathing challenges.

Having said that, when an officer is fighting for his or her life, anything goes, including the use of techniques that may result in the death of the attacker. But we didn’t see such a threat in the George Floyd case. On the video we did see a large man who was handcuffed behind his back mildly resisting police, but largely under control by the three officers holding him down while a fourth stood and watched the concerned crowd. Floyd continued to say that he couldn’t breathe. I’d be trying to wrestle my way out of that position too if I struggled to breathe, which begs the question, was he resisting arrest or resisting death?

Derek Chauvin, the officer that knelt on Mr. Floyd’s neck and is now charged with 3rd Degree Murder, did not appear to be afraid for his safety at all. In fact he actually had his left hand in his pants pocket throughout most of the incident. His posture was not at all indicative of fear of serious injury.

All four officers were immediately fired from the police department. Good. Then Chauvin was arrested four days later. The fact that his arrest took so long understandably concerns Mr. Floyd’s family and the public. I appreciate that the investigators and prosecutor wanted to get it right. Police do have the legal authority to take lives when fearing for their lives or the lives of others, so confirming or negating such justification would be key in determining charges, as would clarifying whether the death was intentional (1st or 2nd Degree murder) or conscious recklessness (3rd Degree).

Examining the legality of the arrest of Mr. Floyd would be essential, but not onerous. Determining cause of death including conducting toxicological tests always takes a day or two. Interviewing witnesses takes time. Viewing different videos from various angles including body camera footage requires some work. Investigating potential relationship issues between Chauvin and Mr. Floyd – given that they apparently worked at the same club for a number of years, would be important in terms of any conflict that may have pre-existed between them. But is four days acceptable for all of this concurrent effort? Not in my view, but I admit I don’t know all the factors and challenges they faced.

So what happens now for the other three former officers? Did any of them try to stop Chauvin? Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman suggested Friday that he anticipates charges. It has been reported that one of the officers expressed concern about Floyd’s position and suggested rolling him over. A subsequent check for Floyd’s pulse appeared futile. Why wouldn’t they then remove the handcuffs and start CPR even if they had to arrest Chauvin to do so? Thin blue line be damned, the out of control officer needed to be stopped.

In my view, Chauvin’s actions are inexcusable and undoubtedly criminal. The apparent inaction by the other officers to stop him is unacceptable and perhaps criminal. All in all it was a horrifying event that taints police across North America. It made me ill to watch it and I haven’t talked to a single serving or retired police officer that isn’t sick over what they saw in the video of the last nine minutes of the life of George Floyd. I can only imagine how his family felt.

Was it racism, just police brutality or both? I don’t know, but I can understand why African-American people all over the continent would view it as yet another example of police racism. There are racists in policing. It’s simply not enough to point out – as I often do, that thankfully the numbers are minimal and that the vast majority of officers are not. Even one racist officer is beyond acceptable and the public deserves better. African-American people have been experiencing racism and socio-economic inequity for centuries. They have also repeatedly heard from elected leaders that “something has to change”, but it doesn’t. It’s very similar in many ways to the concerns of Canada’s Indigenous people which has led to protracted and sometimes violent protests across this country. The FBI is now tasked with investigating the civil rights aspect of Mr. Floyd’s death and if there was a racist facet, the former officers will have even bigger legal fish to fry.

The horrendous criminal actions of a bully cop in Minneapolis or anywhere for that matter is intolerable, and such blemishes on the police community must be excised quickly and decisively through due process. We haven’t always seen that in the past which is a total failure by some elected officials and some police agencies, which furthers levels of emotion and frustration.

But violence begets violence, so cooler heads need to prevail before the current tension spirals downward into civil war. I don’t see the current divisive and inflammatory U.S. President up to the challenge of leading the country through that hell. Something indeed has to change – once and for all, in policing and beyond.

Crisis Communications

Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:40:40 GMT

The recent international events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic have shown local, national and world leaders communicating with the people across their areas of responsibility in a variety of styles and levels of expertise. Some have been good, some awful and some rather ho-hum. As effective communication is paramount to successful leadership, and inspirational leadership is critical to organizational success, I have watched this unfold – particularly across Canada and the United States, with keen interest. Leadership will most often make or break groups of all types (i.e. teams, companies, societies) and leaders cannot succeed without communicating effectively.

In my view, the acceptance – or not, of the messaging of any political leader, often comes down to three factors: the effectiveness of the content and delivery; trust in the individual; and/or the political leanings of audience members. In some instances, leaders who have not always been effective communicators have risen to the challenge in what are very ominous circumstances. Some have communicated more effectively in these tough times than they have historically done on a day to day basis. That hasn’t necessarily developed avid feelings of confidence in those that for political or personal reasons have not trusted the leader in the past, but in some cases, even a jaded old guy like me has thought, “Not bad!” after watching and listening to “leaders” that I don’t usually have much of respect for or trust in.

If any of these political folks were turn to me and ask me for suggestions on how to lead through this challenge, and I’m quite confident they won’t, I would offer the following:

1. Lead. Leadership isn’t always easy, but in times of crisis, people are looking to their leaders to be “in-charge”. They want the leaders to guide them and to offer them the confidence that everything will be okay, by offering facts and clear direction. They are seeking comfort and in bad situations sometimes they have no one else to turn to for that but their leaders. It’s your job to go forth and actually lead.

2. Build and maintain trust. Trust is a fragile commodity. It is difficult to gain and can be lost in a nanosecond. It is normally developed over time, through day to day interaction, in fairly normal situations and not when the chips are down. Do all you can for the months and years prior to the disaster to build the trust of the people, then when the poop hits the proverbial fan, people are much more apt to look to you and say, “That’s my leader and we will get through this!”

3. Communicate regularly, consistently and honestly. People don’t want to hear farcical stories and rose-colored glasses scenarios. They want and need to hear the facts; what government is doing to get them through this mess; and what they as citizens need to do for their part. That’s why they pay you the mediocre bucks.

I was asked recently in an interview, “Do we always have to see the Premier or Governor or PM or President speaking on this issue?” I said “No. We need to hear from Ministers and subject matter experts too, but if there was ever a time that we need to see the leader of the province/state or country front and center, it’s now.” I likened it to when I was Commissioner. I wasn’t there to do press conferences on every drug bust or homicide, or to simply appear to shake hands and kiss babies. When bad things happened, the public and our staff needed to hear from ME. So make sure they hear from YOU.

4. Correct the record. When the facts change, and they often do in the fluidity of an emergency, the leaders must update the people. Don’t let what turned out to be a false statement linger and take root. Correct it and move forward.

5. Make decisions that are best for the people. Leaders that make and communicate decisions that are clearly in the best interests of themselves, their families or their wealthy business colleagues and not best for the average citizen, are failing their electorate. The majority of people will see through that and trust in those leaders will be lost. Make the right decisions for the right reasons.

6. Take responsibility for missteps. True leaders take the fall when things go bad. Even when it may well have been a subordinate official that erred, there’s no mileage in passing the blame. The general public and management team will both lose trust in you when you do. Take the hit, do damage control and move on.

7. Listen to experts – don’t try to be one. Any leader that thinks he or she knows everything isn’t a leader at all. Listen to those experts that truly know the business and then let them speak publicly on issues that are over your head. As Mark Twain so famously said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

8. Give credit and show empathy. It is not about you. Touting all the wonderful things you are doing non-stop and not recognizing the people that are giving their all in horrendous circumstances or the citizens that are frightened and/or suffering, makes you look like an uncaring narcissist. Is that what you want your legacy to be? Likely not, but if it is, then step down.

This dreadful virus is undoubtedly impacting the world and may well be a game-changer for us all for the rest of 2020 and beyond. But we will get past this, together, as a big, international team. In the mean time we must collectively keep our heads on straight. We can only hope that our elected officials provide the effective leadership we want, need and deserve to keep us moving forward on the right path. I’m confident that we will survive!

Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss?

Wed, 05 Feb 2020 11:01:50 GMT

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.

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.

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”?

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.

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.

The downhill slide of true leadership in politics on both sides of the 49th parallel

Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:50:10 GMT

My July 2017 article “Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss?”

https://www.lighthouseleadershipservices.com/post/donald-j-trump-leader-or-boss

expresses my then concerns that the 45th President of the United States of America was to that point not demonstrating the characteristics of leadership whatsoever, but was merely a self-centred “boss”. His apparent lack of honesty; transparency; and decision-making ability (i.e. putting his personal goals and needs over country and party), combined with his bully tactics; passing the blame; falsely taking credit…and so much more, in no way exemplified what true leaders do, but were perfectly good examples of what they shouldn’t do. Well guess what? Nothing has changed. Zilch. In fact it’s gone to hell in a handbasket in my opinion.

What is even more alarming in my view is how the overwhelming majority – almost to a person, of Republican US Senators supported him throughout the Impeachment Hearing.

None of this diatribe is partisan on my part. I’m an equal opportunity critic when it comes to the failure of leaders.

The critical role of leaders in First Responder wellness: Are you up to the challenge?

Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:06:25 GMT

Most people that actually care, understand that “leadership” is about inspiring people be and do their very best. That could be at work or play, and/or simply apply to life in general. In the working environment, it most often relates to leading employees to the achievement of corporate goals through various strategies and initiatives.

But leadership is always about people, regardless of the environment in which they are participating. We don’t employ robots – at least not yet, but we hire human beings with basic and complex feelings; personal and professional goals; and the need to feel a valued member of the team.

Some so-called leaders don’t get that it’s not about them but about the people they lead. The leader’s self-centered desire to accomplish great things only to put the spotlight squarely on them, will never occur without inspired employees that buy into the goals and are committed to working their buns off to make them happen. If not, the targets and strategies will never be accomplished and everybody loses.

In the emergency response context, employees are often faced with traumatic and threatening situations that singularly or cumulatively can be life-changing from both physical and emotional perspectives. That unique environment requires the strongest of leadership to support personnel through the most difficult of times.

In recent years, we have thankfully begun to more openly discuss issues around Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Additionally, we have heard some alarming stories of suicides among serving and retired emergency services workers. Although such tragic emergency responder deaths are not always related to PTSD, and the reality is that members of the public without PTSD commit suicide as well, even one suicide by a police officer, firefighter or Paramedic is unacceptable. Organizational leaders from top to bottom need to be united in ensuring effective mental health programs are available and well communicated; that members are fully supported in dealing with PTSD challenges; and ending that the ever-prevalent stigma that often dissuades employees from seeking the help they need and truly deserve.

But PTSD isn’t the only issue impacting the emotional health of emergency responders. There are many reports emerging of employees being bullied by superiors and peers, and other allegations of employee harassment and the retaliatory abuse of staff that have somehow offended agency brass. I’ve been around the horn enough to know that some of these stories would be completely false; a number exaggerated; but many others a complete reality.

One also has to consider the current environmental realities facing policing, and perhaps other emergency responders. Budget cuts; public criticism; a real-time media spotlight; social media attacks; burnout; a justice system that puts dangerous offenders back on the street; multiple layers of oversight – some of which does not occur in an effective manner; guns and gangs…just to name a few. It’s difficult enough for leaders to keep morale high even in the best of times, let alone with that constant, malignant swirl.

Leaders have significant roles to play in ensuring a healthy workplace from PTSD, harassment, bullying and morale perspectives. They have to set the standard. It is their duty to do what is right and for the right reasons, to support their people, communicate effectively, connect with them and keep morale as high as possible. That is the key recipe for organizational success.

Sometimes the leader truly has the best of intentions and quite innocently believes that subordinate managers and supervisors are doing what’s right, only to be let down. You cannot follow the dozens of managers that report up to you around and double-check everything they tell you. Conversely, at other times the senior executive could be completely culpable in failing those he/she leads.

I know in my tenure in leadership roles, I mistakenly thought things were better than they really were at times. I believed some colleagues that I trusted when they told me everything was good. Then I similarly believed them when they told me some employees were bad and needed to be dealt with harshly. On many occasions those that had advised me wrongly had been misinformed by those that guided them. In other situations they were deliberately not being forthright with me. I now know that at times I failed our people by trusting some advisors too much and then inevitably condoning bad behavior by some and over-disciplining others. It was never done maliciously by me, but I have to accept responsibility for the times that it occurred under my watch. The buck stopped with me.

So what do leaders need to do to make a difference and not let their people down? In my view they MUST:

· Set the positive example of leadership and do everything possible to ensure their example permeates the organization at all levels.

· Create an open, respectful and trustful environment with employees.

· Communicate and model the standard of acceptable behavior. Treat people well, with respect, and treat them fairly.

· Ensure that supervisors and managers across the organization do the same and tolerate nothing less from them.

· Encourage an environment in which employees will feel supported and empowered to report bullying and harassment; and will openly access employee wellness programs.

· If you suspect something doesn’t totally meet the smell test, ask more questions. You can’t afford to get it wrong and unjustly impact lives and careers.

· Take swift and decisive action when policy is not followed by others, whether they be managers, supervisors or peers of members that are being victimized.

On one hand it’s not rocket-science but merely commonsense. On the other hand it’s not easy to do, but you owe it to all around you to give it your very best in a unrelenting manner.

If the OPP can do things better it should. But it does care about its people.

Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:47:50 GMT

If the OPP can do things better it should. But it does care about its people.

The CBC Fifth Estate program “Officer Down” aired March 10th, was billed as being a “raw and honest insight into a culture at one of Canada’s biggest police forces that has led to a series of suicides by OPP officers”, but in my opinion it unfairly tarred an entire organization as being unsupportive and uncaring. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In these difficult times, I truly hope the majority of the OPPs wonderful men and women – the ones that know the OPP isn’t perfect but that still love the force and want it to succeed, stand up and defend the organization.

Is any police service immune to these issues? Has any service absolutely nailed the PTSD issue? Is there a police department in North American that can say they don’t lose more members from suicide than through line of duty deaths? Sadly, no. It’s an issue that we can never lose sight of. ALL police services need to do all they can to support their people and to prevent that from happening.

I was Commissioner when the Ombudsman came out with his report on PTSD that slammed the OPP as not caring about its people. His theatrical and negative portrayal of the OPP infuriated me, as did his mischaracterization of a number of issues. I had silently dealt with a number of personal issues myself, following many years of experiencing traumatic events, at a time when programs were substandard to non-existent. I did not want our people to endure that same emotional roller-coaster. I also knew that we were doing lots to support our people through singular and cumulative traumatic incidents, only to be awakened by his report to the fact that we were not doing enough.

When the dust settled, we implemented a significant project to do more and to serve our people better. The Deputies and I were totally committed to doing all we could to ensure effective and confidential programs were in place; that they were well-communicated; and to try to mitigate the stigma issues that still existed. It was the right thing to do. We subsequently were doing more at that point in time than any other police service in Canada in my opinion, and our report back to the Ombudsman demonstrated that. He actually complimented us on our progress. That work has continued in the five years since my departure. Then came three tragic suicides of members in 2018, leading to another examination of what is working, what isn’t and what else could be done to support OPP personnel. That work is ongoing. I know that Commissioner Hawkes was equally committed to that, as were the Interim Commissioners since.

If there are issues that need to be fixed and things that the OPP can do better, the executive owes it to their people to do just that. Then, the entire supervisory team and all OPP colleagues – whether uniformed or civilian and regardless of rank or position, also have a role to play in eliminating stigma issues. The biggest challenge still remains “stigma” and all the best programs in the world won’t help if members suffer in silence because they feel that to use the programs will make peers and supervisors think they are weak.

OPP Recruiting continues to be inundated with direct hire applicants from other services. Members talk between services. They know which services have what to offer, or not, and the OPP is most often viewed as a great police service that generally treats its members quite respectfully and like the adults and professionals that they are.

There’s a small group of members out there, some retired, that are determined to change that positive perception because of real or perceived unfairness to them. No bullying or harassment is ever right or acceptable. None. Perhaps some of these folks were truly treated poorly at some point, which is sad. And some of it happened on my watch, which I feel badly about. I thought many of the great programs we put into place in my tenure were working, only to find out that a number of members at various ranks didn’t buy in, didn’t support others and still treated some members unfairly. It’s hard to fight that as the leader. You often don’t know about failures until they become glaringly obvious and then it’s too late.

Someone is broken. But I was the boss and I have to accept ownership for any mistreatment that was inflicted. I apologize for that.

But perhaps “some” just don’t want to accept any personal responsibility for their own failings and want to blame everyone but themselves for the way their own careers went.

I’m confident that there are thousands of current and past OPP members that don’t agree with many of the allegations made, but we continue to hear from the vocal and negative minority while the majority remains mute.

Members should speak for themselves – good, bad or indifferent. They are not lemmings and shouldn’t simply follow some of these people as they try so hard to paint a great organization as uncaring. At the same time everyone should contribute their thoughts and suggestions on how to make things better for all. That’s what the dialogue should be about.

A LETTER SENT TO STAFF SERGEANT RICK FOLEY OF THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE WELLNESS UNIT

Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:11:26 GMT

*Letter shared with the permission of OPP Constable Pete Tucker

"Hi Rick. As my friend and a member of the OPP health and wellness team, I wanted to reach out to you and express my thoughts on a recent TV show by the 5th Estate I just watched called "Officer Down". I found the episode to be very inaccurate, one sided and biased towards the OPP. While I feel compassion for those who have reached such a destructive mental state that they harm themselves (and their families) by committing suicide, I don't believe the OPP offers NO help before reaching this point. I do not believe the OPP isolates or bullies their officers. I do not believe the OPP has an attitude of "Hear no mental illness, see no mental illness". I have never suffered from suicidal thoughts or PTSD but I have been severely stressed, both mentally and physically by injuries I have suffered on the job as the result of an accident. When I speak publicly of the OPP I do not blame them for the cause of my accident, in my case a motorcycle accident. I do not blame them for the scenario that put me in the situation where I got hurt, the equipment they provided me to do the job or the leadership that was in charge of me that day.

I found the OPP's support through four months of hospital stays to be tremendous. I never felt alone. I never felt forgotten. The OPP provided counseling to my wife and 4 children to help them cope with our tragedy. This help was not asked for, it was provided, no questions asked, by the OPP. The OPP never asked me to return to work, I wanted to. Unlike the TV show which stated front line police work is stressful and fosters mental issues and work place bullying/harassment, I found the opposite. For me, the OPP allowing me to return to front line duties is something I wanted. Nobody in the OPP made me do it. In fact, the OPP made me jump through so many hoops (mental, physical, physiological) before allowing me to return to front line duties, it drove me crazy at times. All I wanted to do was get back to being who I was before the accident, a cop. The OPP just wanted to make sure I was safe, prepared and ready. I was never pushed.

Being a member of the OPP and returning to the only job I have ever known as an adult is one of the main reasons I feel I am successful today. The OPP has provided my family and I a life which allows us to achieve or dreams and financial goals. I do not feel the public received an accurate portrayal about how well the OPP takes care of its officers. I have NO complaints, only gratitude. One day I will retire. It will be a happy and sad day at the same time. It will be well deserved but the end of a chapter of my life I really enjoyed. Considering I was offered a WSIB pension and the opportunity to retire early but I still choose to return to work (Front line duties by CHOICE), it proves I must really like my job and feel valued. I will never "burn" my uniform when I retire but keep it as a memory of a great time in my life.

I write this so you understand that the OPP, yourself and our health and wellness team, do not do meaningless work. You have not failed us all. I am a success that you have had and should be happy about. I am grateful and you should be proud. If we are open to negative comments and complaints from those who feel betrayed by the OPP, we should also be open to praise and respect from those who feel the OPP stood up and took care of them, mentally and physically in their greatest times of need."

PC Pete Tucker.

Note: Pete Tucker was seriously injured in an on-duty police motorcycle crash on Highway 400 near Barrie in 2014. His leg was subsequently amputated, however due to his incredible strength and resilience, and with the support of his family, friends, colleagues and the medical community, he returned to full police duties in the Niagara Falls OPP Detachment.

Change, change and more change in the OPP

Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:14:50 GMT

https://www.cp24.com/news/a-view-from-the-top/oped-change-change-and-more-change-in-the-opp-1.4327009

Why are some organizations reverting back to "Centralized Decision-Making"?

Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:19:08 GMT

I distinctly recall the decision-making model of the 1970’s in my para-military organization being very hierarchal. Shift supervisors had specific authorities bestowed upon them based on set policies. Anything above their pay-grade went to a higher-level manager for a decision, and then on and on up the food chain from there. Although our binders of written policy were prefaced with the caveat that they were “only a guide”, the reality was that if you couldn’t find the answer to your question within that policy while pondering a decision-making dilemma, you had better contact someone with more stripes, pips or crowns on their shoulder-boards. God help anyone who had the nerve to make a decision contrary to what was etched in policy and/or outside their policy-driven span of control. The grey areas were few and far between!

I don’t know that it was an overly onerous model at that time frankly, it’s just the way it was. We didn’t know any different. However, there were less external oversight bodies; no 24-hour live news or social media pressures; and less public scrutiny. So even if you couldn’t contact the appropriate manager by telephone immediately, they wouldn’t likely hear about the incident or be questioned about it before you told them anyway. That was then.

In the two decades to follow, for the most part the benchmark for decision-making was pushed down to the lowest possible level. Lower-level managers were given much more control over their allotted budgets; there was less second-guessing of local operational decisions; and mid/senior level managers were allowed much more latitude to select/promote people for vacancies within their areas of command. “Some” so-called leaders still tended to micro-manage within their areas because it was the nature of the individual, not because it was an organizational ethos. Certainly, some managers took advantage of the situation and improperly made the odd decision without considering the broader organizational impacts, but for the most part those individuals were taken to task.

But a large number of supervisors and managers I meet with in my work tell me that many organizations of 2019 have shifted back to a more centralized model, negatively impacting morale and ultimately hurting the self-confidence of those managers and their trust in the executives of those organizations.

Some claim that they have little to no decision-making ability and that almost all decisions are made centrally, and that local manager input is largely disregarded. This obviously creates a feeling of malaise among those managers and much frustration across the majority of employees who are continually waiting for a seemingly routine decision to be made by “someone, or anyone”. When a decision from the centre does come, particularly when it is totally contrary to the locally suggested course of action, irritation abounds, particularly when there is no rationale communicated as to the “why”.

We all know managers that were so reluctant to make a decision out of fear that an error could cost them future promotions, that were never promoted because they couldn’t make a decision. As a rule, executives should limit the amount of decision-making required by them and drive as many decisions down as safely and reasonably as possible. We need to encourage innovation and some level of risk-taking within broadly established parameters.

We’ve also experienced good managers who were actually effective decision-makers until they had to report to a micro-manager executive that ineptly questioned them non-stop until they lost self-confidence and similarly second-guessed their subordinates ad nauseam.

Downstream from these examples, managers, supervisors and many employees often threw their hands up in despair, developing the “why even bother” attitude. This did nothing to develop employees or build employee trust. They lost interest as well as complete confidence in those above them, and their morale deteriorated. And we all know what happens when morale goes bad: people go bad and bad things happen.

In my view, there is a clear need for centralized decision-making in some circumstances:

· Low-frequency matters that bring a significant level of risk to the organization, from financial, legal and/or precedent-setting perspectives. Examples being: broad bargaining group issues that will result in high-risk labor relation conflict; and civil liability matters that may establish unworkable standards and financial loss.

· Issues that will broadly impact the organization, as opposed to an individual area. Example: High-profile actions that may cast a negative light over the organization; and issues that will affect operations/administration in multiple areas of the organization.

It’s a given that on occasion, circumstances and the need for expediency will require immediate decisions on a local level. When that happens in circumstances as described above, then the need for a speedy notification up the executive chain is essential. Effective communication and required damage control – if any, can then occur.

Effective leaders will:

· Set decision-making boundaries based on reasonable organizational needs, balancing them with efficiency and expediency realities;

· Ensure executive-level decisions and the rational for them are properly communicated to subordinate managers to them not only understand the decisions but to further develop their decision-making expertise;

· Include discussion around the need for consistent decision-making at managerial and supervisory meetings to encourage regular off-line dialogue between managers and supervisors;

· Encourage managers, supervisors and front-line employees to be innovative, flexible and take some calculated risk in their decision-making roles; and

· Provide positive feedback on the good decisions and debrief the poor ones with those involved – always recognizing the difference between honest attempts, complete thoughtlessness and malice.

We generally hire smart people and promote capable folks. More often than not, doing the right thing for the right reason is a part of who they are. Wherever possible, allow them the opportunity to prove that.

Should our cops be allowed to smoke pot?

Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:23:14 GMT

I didn’t agree with the legalization of Canada’s marijuana legislation from inception. Although I supported “decriminalization” for small amounts, for a host of reasons I thought – and still maintain -- that legalization was a disaster from the get-go.

[ October 5, 2015 Op-Ed: Decriminalization versus legalization of pot ]

I believe that the vast majority of police leaders in this country felt the exact same way.

Despite law enforcement concern, legalization is upon us. Time and honest analysis will eventually determine who was on the right side of this experiment.

In the meantime, Canada’s police services, their leaders and their associations are struggling with related policy issues as to whether or not officers can use marijuana at all, and if so, how long before an officer’s tour of duty they are able to use the drug.

Policies vary from A to Z, with some services declaring a total prohibition for officers from using pot either on duty or off, to some ordering that officers cannot smoke or eat this stuff for time periods varying from 28 days to 24 hours prior to duty, to policy that they must simply report for work “fit for duty” (legally sober).

We all know it’s simply a matter of time before officer marijuana use becomes an issue in a police use of force investigation or during evidence presentation in legal proceedings, but those are bridges yet to be crossed. Having said that, prohibiting the use of a legal product by officers while off duty seems like a legal challenge waiting to happen. I do not see that position as reasonable, practical or defendable. But where should the line be drawn in terms of the use of pot by an officer and his/her eventual reporting for work to protect the public they are sworn to serve?

I’m not marijuana expert. I can’t quote research and stats about the long term effects of marijuana use on the human brain. But I do know what I have seen during my 61 years on this earth, including 36 years as a police officer. Marijuana does have both short and long term effects on its users.

Marijuana generally affects people differently than alcohol. Sadly many people suffer from the effects of long-term use of alcohol, including alcoholism. A number of people will disagree, but marijuana is addictive as well. Undoubtedly there are people walking and driving around this world in a complete fog as a result of their decades of marijuana use.

Many experts agree that the regular use of marijuana brings an increased risk of psychotic disorders , including hallucination and paranoia. A number of experts also agree that marijuana use by younger people increases the risk of them having a lower IQ later in life. These are but a few of what I believe are the commonsense arguments against the complete legalization of this drug. But I digress.

Expert opinions vary regarding the period of time that the consumption of pot will negatively affect work performance. In my perfect world, no law enforcement officer would use marijuana, ever. Ideally, no cop would drink alcohol; smoke cigarettes; eat fattening foods; have marital problems; face personal mental or physical health issues; or get PTSD. In that perfect world they wouldn’t have to risk their lives or get punched or spit on either. But that is not the world in which they live and work.

The reality of life is that police services hire human beings. “Robocop” was only a movie and police only use robots in extremely high-risk activities like bomb disposal.

For the most part, they also only recruit mature adults who are then highly trained and issued firearms and granted extraordinary powers – including the authority to take lives in specific situations.

Like it or not, our current elected government has made pot a legal consumable. From here on in, police leaders must treat its consumption by officers like they do alcohol. Cops can’t consume alcohol on duty except in special circumstances – like working undercover or when attending sanctioned events. They shouldn’t be allowed to smoke a joint at work either.

Officers must report for work being “fit for duty”. That includes not being impaired by alcohol or drug – prescription, over the counter and/or pot.

They can’t carry alcohol around with them in their pockets or briefcases at work or have it in their lockers. It makes total sense to similarly apply that rule to marijuana in the new legalized pot world in which we live.

As a related note, perhaps it’s time to revisit the implementation of random drug-testing on emergency services personnel. Unless legislation is passed, such a move by organizational leaders will undoubtedly result in bargaining group and contract negotiation challenges, but so be it.

Regardless, let’s keep the rules simple, reasonable and realistic. Then lets trust these adults to do what is right and subsequently deal with the few that don’t play by the rules – through due process.

Are our police officers 'de-policing?

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:28:41 GMT

In her February 12th, 2018 Ottawa Citizen article, reporter Shaamini Yogaretnam outlined a recent study conducted by Greg Brown, a former Ottawa Police Service officer and current doctoral researcher, which details a concerning situation in North American policing.

Brown interviewed thousands of police officers in Canada and in the U.S. – including hundreds in Ottawa, and claims “de-policing — or avoiding proactive policing” due to a variety of factors, is a growing trend. He describes it as “an officer choosing not to engage in discretionary or proactive aspects of police duties” due to among other things, ever-increasing public scrutiny along with the use of recording devices and resulting social media postings – which can be misinterpreted. Subsequent misconduct allegations regarding racial profiling or conduct violations can then result in disciplinary proceedings or other legal processes. That has always been the reality of policing – and so it should be, but with some real and many perceived police wrongdoings becoming viral postings on social media sites, apparently some officers have chosen to avoid the potential for conflict altogether.

Proactive policing should be a big part of what police do. It shouldn’t be all about responding to radio calls. High visibility patrols; checking out suspicious people in suspicious circumstances – not based on race; interacting with youth; preventing crime and victimization – are all critical roles for police officers.

Some are blaming the Ontario government’s regulation regarding “carding.” More commonly known as “street checks,” this activity has recently dropped significantly among a number of Ontario police services. Historically an activity that was meant to be a core function of policing in terms of delving into the suspicious actions of some, it was apparently misapplied in some jurisdictions and a disproportionate number of people of colour were seemingly targeted by some officers. This was not reported to be widespread across Ontario police services. That situation was never acceptable. Unfortunately, the inappropriate actions of a minority of officers in some police services resulted in a knee-jerk reaction by government, leaving all Ontario police services with rules that have all but ended street checks.

Police are already the most highly regulated, governed and legislated profession in Canada and the Ontario government wants to increase that under the Bill 175, Safer Ontario Act, 2017.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission; local police services boards; the Office of the Independent Review Director; the Special Investigations Unit; and internal professional standards bureaus, all endeavor to ensure that officers are playing by the rules and within the boundaries of all legislation – including the Police Services Act.

Although effective and transparent governance and oversight is a good thing for a publicly funded profession that has the immense powers of being able to restrict liberty and use deadly force against citizens, many officers feel the balance has tipped to the point where everything that they do is overly scrutinized.

All of that being said, I personally think the malaise identified by Mr. Brown is bigger than regulations, governance, public scrutiny and/or the use of social media by the public.

I believe that a key issue is declining officer morale. This is a huge problem in a number of police services. And when morale goes bad, productivity and professionalism can plummet, which is never a good thing in policing. I communicate with officers from all over North America and in the 40 years I’ve been talking to cops, I’ve never seen it worse. Why is that?

In my view, police employee morale can be negatively impacted by all of the above, as well as anti-police rhetoric and protests; violent acts against police; and the seemingly never-ending swirl of mainstream and social media criticism. Other key influencing factors are police resource challenges, change and leadership failings.

Staffing shortfalls usually cause significant morale issues. Of course, the increasing cost of policing combined with municipal revenue shortfalls contributes to the need for organizational change, and that often leads to more internal strife and morale impacts. After all, there are two things cops hate: the way things are and change. This never-ending cycle of change is here to stay and cries out for the most effective leadership humanly possible to help lead police employees through the change process, as well as the day-to-day stressors of an already difficult job.

Government and police leaders at all levels need to be supportive of their officers. That doesn’t mean writing blank cheques and throwing more resources at them. But they do need to communicate; seek feedback; involve employees in the change cycle; build trust; be honest, accessible and resilient. Simply hiding silently and hoping all the problems will go away is not leadership. Nor is publicly stating words to the effect that “if you don’t like it, quit”, as we saw one municipal leader do when dealing with police employee unrest in recent years. If employees don’t feel that they at least have a say; that their leaders appreciate and understand them and are doing their best to help meet their needs, morale will never improve among officers – the bulk of whom are dedicated, hard workers.

Many officers I have spoken to complain about the modern police leadership model that seems to focus less on people and more on strategic plans; inputs and outputs; results and statistics they can measure and then take personal credit for. Getting the best bang for the limited buck and achieving community safety results are very important. There is no doubt. But if personnel don’t trust and respect their leaders and feel the same sentiments coming towards them in reverse, morale will not improve and those critical business goals will never be met. “People” have to come first for everything else to come together.

The public and media have a role too. Officers need to feel supported and not face a constant barrage of criticism. In the current environment, the “vocal minority” of anti-police groups – some with legitimate agendas and others that will never accept anything police do as anything but racist and ill-intended, often loudly control the narrative. Yes, police will err and that should be effectively addressed by the many oversight bodies mentioned above. But what about the thousands of positive interactions that occur between the police and the public every day in this province alone? Where are the silent majority and why aren’t they speaking up to defend their police for all the brave and wonderful things they do? It’s time for them to step up to the plate and counter some of this negative nonsense.

I agree with Mr. Brown that the current situation is not good. However, I remain optimistic that the vast majority of officers out there – who are honest and committed to the communities they serve, will not turn a blind eye to illegal acts that may result in a threat to the public and victimization to those they are sworn to protect. But without support at all levels – internally and publicly, and without effective leadership from top to bottom in their services, all the strategic plans, oversight and regulations in the world are not going to keep their morale above its current state.

Without strong and effective leadership, as well as public and government support, many police officers will only do what they have to do and no more. None of us want that – not the officers or the public they serve. We want them to professionally keep us safe and secure. I truly believe that’s what the overwhelming majority of our police officers want as well.

Stand-out public safety issues for 2017

Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:33:39 GMT

It was an interesting year for public safety around the globe on a variety of fronts, from acts of international terror; to political unrest and weather related disasters. Thousands of innocent lives were once again needlessly lost through intentional and unintentional acts.

Although we remained relatively safe here in Canada, including in the Greater Toronto Area, we certainly didn’t emerge unscathed or without controversy. We did face a number of concerning matters around legislative change; violence and the potential threat to public safety – the following being the top three issues that stand out for me over 2017:

Senseless and cowardly acts of terrorism occurred around the world, including within North America. Although our friends and neighbours south of the border experienced a number of “ISIS inspired” attacks, very few such acts occurred in Canada.

Six people were shot and killed and many injured in what elected officials have called a terrorist attack at a Quebec mosque this past January. Although the Canadian-born suspect in that attack had espoused anti-Muslim views, there does not appear to be any known links between the suspect and terrorist groups. He has been charged with six counts of murder and other offences, but none related to terrorism. Regardless, the act was both tragic and terrifying.

Terror-related charges were laid against a Toronto woman last summer following a golf-club and knife attack at a Toronto Canadian Tire store. Only a number of minor injuries were inflicted in that incident by the suspect who openly avowed her commitment to ISIS.

Most recently was the vehicular attack and subsequent stabbing of an Edmonton police officer this past fall. Several people were also injured during the ensuing chase. A male Somalian refugee was charged with both criminal and terrorism charges in that horrifying event.

It’s only a matter of time until we see a more deadly terrorist attack on Canadian soil. The ISIS playbook calls for their followers – most of whom having bought into their destructive ideology through the internet – to perpetrate attacks in any way possible. Deadly assaults with motor vehicles have become commonplace but are almost impossible to prevent. Despite efforts to “harden” open areas where the public often congregates to enjoy social events, as well as government buildings which may be symbolic locations for attacks, there are millions of sidewalks, open intersections, parking lots and boulevards where a vehicle could easily jump a curb and cause significant harm – intentionally or not. We cannot harden the entire world, nor should we.

We have to continue to enjoy all the places and events we choose to attend and not completely change our daily lives. It sounds insensitive, but there is a greater chance of being hit by lightning than being killed in a terrorist attack in Canada. In fact it’s important to note that while many Canadians understandably worry about the threat of terrorism, more Canadians are killed every single day in this country by motor vehicles being driven by inconsiderate people who are either impaired by alcohol or drug or inattentively using their phones, than are killed by terrorists on Canadian soil each year. That is the biggest threat to public safety in this country but does not get near the attention and concern that even an assault by someone yelling a pledge to ISIS receives.

In the meantime, federal security agencies, provincial and local police work hard with international forces to identify; surveil and investigate targets that may be a threat to Canadians. Although their resources are stretched to the limits, they have prevented many such attacks on the public and will continue to mitigate more plots in future.

I only wish the federal government would make it easier for them by not allowing those who have travelled to the Middle East to fight in support of ISIS to return home and threaten our safety and security. I realize there are a variety of complex issues around barring Canadian citizens from entering Canada, but why not err on the side of caution and turn them away. They made a conscious decision to leave and support a terrorist group abroad, so sorry about their luck.

Canada’s marijuana legislation will come into effect July 1st of 2018, some dubbing the forthcoming national holiday as “Cannabis Day” as a result. The Liberal government promised this legislation during the last federal election and it would seem that the entire exercise has been more about campaign promises than public safety or health. I don’t for a minute buy the government claims that legalization will take pot sales out of the hands of organized crime or that it will make it more difficult for children to get access to marijuana. Organized crime will always be the bargain basement for drug sales – with less overhead and no regulatory impacts. Cigarettes have been legally sold for centuries in Canada but organized crime groups continue to make billions of dollars of annual profit from illegal sales. How will marijuana sales differ? And young people will often have easy access to pot without even leaving their comforts of their parents’ homes.

Law enforcement friends in Colorado certainly sing a different tale on the public safety and policing impacts of this legalization than Canadians have been led to believe. Canadian police Chiefs are openly warning the public that they are not ready for this legislation. Impaired driving concerns and a host of other enforcement issues worry them, but alas, it’s coming at us way too quickly. Stay tuned.

Lastly, what concerns me even more, is seeing relationships between the public and the police continue to be tested across Canada. The well-televised negative events (real or perceived) we have seen across the vastness of the US haven’t helped Canadian law enforcement one iota. Many people see bad things happen on one side or the border and assume they are happening here too, and there is no doubt that bad things do befall Ontario on occasion. This past year saw a number of investigations into alleged and actual police improprieties in our province. Whether it be a couple of police officers caught on tape making fun of an intellectually challenged girl; officers charged with sexual assault; or judges professing a lack of trust in police witness testimony, it is rightfully a cause for public concern.

Canada is blessed with highly-paid; well selected, trained and equipped police officers who are respected by colleagues around the world as being among the best of the best. They work seamlessly with other Canadian law enforcement agencies through linked databases and similar standards 24 hours a day to prevent victimization and to investigate offences when they occur. As a result of that and more stringent gun control laws, our crime and violence rates are mere pittance compared to many other civilized countries. Regardless, community trust in the police is earned one interaction at a time. When officers violate that trust, the news spreads like wildfire and hurts all of policing across the board. It becomes the “one bad apple” maxim on steroids.

Canadian police are highly regulated and have more oversight than any other profession in Canada in my view. Ontario is raising that bar even higher through renewed policing legislation in 2018. There are policy standards as well as checks and balances to control everything police do, as well as independent mechanisms to monitor and investigate them when accusations of impropriety do arise. Sadly they do arise on occasion.

Allegations of biased policing are levelled periodically. Claims of excessive use of force are made. Illegal acts may be committed by officers at work or in their personal lives at times. None of that is acceptable when it does occur, but inappropriate actions occur in infinitesimal amounts compared to the hundreds of thousands of professional exchanges between the police and the public that unfold every day in Canada.

The police can’t operate in isolation of the communities they serve. They have to work with the public to keep communities safe and must work to encourage people to report things they see and hear – especially relating to potential terrorism or gang activity. But the public has to feel confident that they will be treated fairly and impartially or they will not come forward as victims or witnesses. That ball is in the court of the police themselves, but the vocal minority that continued to fuel anti-police sentiments unnecessarily in 2017 did much more harm than good. Police need to play by the rules and most do. But we ALL need to give them a chance and allow due oversight processes to take their course when they don’t.

Although we were very fortunate on a number of fronts this past year, I hope 2018 is even a better year for all concerned.

Who needs assault rifles?

Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:37:51 GMT

The most recent mass-shooting tragedy at a church in Texas has once again picked the scab off the U.S. gun-control wound. Some are touting the fact that a brave local man used his own assault-rifle type firearm to prevent the gunman from slaughtering even more innocent worshippers, while others are decrying the fact that the killer was allowed to possess such a weapon given his mental condition and previous convictions for violent offences. I certainly see the various sides of this debate – but one perspective looms much larger for me.

The AR-15 class of firearm is a high-powered rifle that is designed for one thing – killing people. Yes, some legitimate owners shoot paper targets or hunt with them, or simply like owning them out of some perceived personal security need, but let’s be serious: they are a military type weapon that shoot lots of bullets at a high velocity as quickly as one can pull the trigger. They can also be easily modified to shoot fully-automatic. That much firepower and the ability to shoot 90 rounds in 60 seconds might be quite appropriate in combat situations but is not required for target shooting or killing deer.

The firearms debate in the US is always an incendiary one. Die-hard “right to bear arms” supporters don’t want to hear that the Second Amendment was written before the Civil War and when Americans lived mostly in desolate surroundings without telephones, street lights, the ability to call 911, the police or the military. They had to arm themselves with single-shot muzzle-loaders for protection against attacks from foreign armies for the most part, but also from wild animals and bands of roaming fugitives. At that point in time, semi-automatic rifles with huge magazine capacities weren’t even imagined.

When I get into spirited debates with those that strongly believe “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” I love the vacant glare I receive when I say “and people would kill a lot less people if they didn’t have guns.” That particularly applies to rifles like those used in the Sutherland Springs church tragedy; in the Orlando night club massacre; and of course in Las Vegas just weeks ago.

Similarly, other gun advocates will point out the tragic reality that many innocent people around the globe – including recently in the US, have been slaughtered by ISIS inspired individuals driving cars and trucks. The question that often follows is, “So what are you going to do, ban cars?” Like arguments are made relative to the use of knives to commit murder.

Cars and trucks were designed for other valid and non-aggressive purposes but have undoubtedly been used recently as a weapon of choice to deliberately kill people. Many people in fact. But never 25 in a church. Or 58 at a concert venue. Nor can you walk into a building with one, hell-bent on killing members of the public.

Knives have and will kill as well. One, two – maybe three or four at a time. That is awful, tragic and so very wrong. But running into a public venue like a church and killing dozens of people with a knife is a very unlikely scenario. It will seldom be met with great success before the attacker is punched unconscious or hit over the head with a chair. But it’s much tougher for the general public to mount a defense from an individual with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle and dozens of rounds of ammunition.

President Trump and many others try to counter the gun control movement with the argument that a heroic man in Texas likely saved lives when he shot at the killer with his own assault rifle. That is true. But how often in all the mass shootings we have seen in the U.S. since 21 people were fatally shot in a California McDonald’s restaurant in 1984; through the horrors in Columbine in 1999; the Aurora theatre shooting; Orlando’s Pulse nightclub slaughter, and more – in a country where there are almost as many guns as people, have we seen such examples of armed citizens neutralizing the threat with any firearm, let alone an assault-rifle?

Following the horrific murder of 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, some argued that teachers should be armed. Give me a break. What will they argue now – arming church pastors? Why is the answer for some to put more guns out there? I’m certainly not trying to make light of these senseless and heartbreaking murders, but there should be less guns in public places, not more. Does the public really want everyone in a church, theatre or concert drawing a weapon and firing hundreds of rounds at what they perceive as a threat?

I’m not against guns. I rather like them actually. I’ve owned many and carried one for 36 years of policing. But I owned shotguns and hunting rifles that could only carry three rounds. I owned firearms that were designed to kill wild game, not dozens of people, and I had no desire to take them with me to church.

Many have stated that if the U.S. did not take affirmative action to keep assault rifles out of the hands of unstable criminals and radicalized fanatics following the Sandy Hook shooting, it never will. I hope they were wrong. Partisan politics need to be pushed aside in the interest of American lives. Even with proper processes, checks and balances how can anyone but law enforcement and the military justify the need for an AR-15 type weapon?

Even if I bought into the theory that every sane and law-abiding American should have the right to carry handguns (and I don’t), a handgun and an assault-rifle are two different animals. Enough is enough. Ban them.

Do Torontonians still love their police?

Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:41:51 GMT

A recent Newstalk 1010 “Pulse of Toronto” survey presented the views of Torontonians on a variety of issues, including the Toronto Police Service (TPS). The TPS component indeed provided some concerning and surprising results to me.

The survey states that “6 in 10 (61%) Torontonians indicate they'd "be scared" if they were "pulled over by a police officer for no apparent reason”” and that “51% believe many/most/all Toronto police never really get punished for any wrongdoing they commit on or off the job.”

The survey also said that a concerning number of respondents feel the Toronto Police Association (TPA) cares more about its members than about citizens and policing and quoted several other disturbing perceptions among those surveyed about Chief Saunders’ effectiveness, police treatment of “black/dark-skinned” citizens, and other issues that demonstrate that public trust in police is waning.

Where is all of this coming from?

The TPS is a good police service. I truly believe it is one of the best of its size in North America. The vast majority of officers and staff are honest, hard-working and committed to public safety. Crime rates in Toronto (including homicides) are miniscule compared to similar sized cities in the U.S. That doesn’t mean they are totally without fault of course, no police service is.

Canadian policing is probably the most regulated and governed profession there is, and public oversight is extremely high – through legislation, boards, public complaints and use of force investigation bodies, as well as extensive media scrutiny. Occasionally bad things will occur unfortunately, but members will most often be held accountable through due process.

The past few years have seen public and Toronto Police Services Board concerns raised over street-checks (or “carding”); the criminal conviction of Constable Forcillo in the death of Sammy Yatim; a few high-profile incidents and trials around alleged police misconduct; as well as the well-publicized protest by the TPA over the TPS modernization initiative. Those few instances – in some cases totally unacceptable and in other cases where the validity of the criticism is debatable, should be far over shadowed by all the good things TPS members do to protect people and property, 24/7, year round. However, whether an allegation of wrongdoing by police ends up being substantiated or not, it can still become a public perception issue for community members. I get that.

We live in a society that is highly-impacted by a 24 hour real-time news cycle and inundated by social media reports that are often exaggerated or completely inaccurate. Unfortunately more people use the veil of anonymity social media provides to spread criticism and false allegations than do the majority of citizens that value their police service. At the same time, the U.S. has been plagued with wide-spread concern over police use of force and allegations of racialized policing, resulting in volatile anti-police protests and furthering police criticism. I’m convinced that this negative publicity south of the border has impacted the Toronto survey to some degree.

Chief Saunders is a good police chief. He came up through the ranks and was publicly endorsed by the TPA during the selection process. He is committed to the people of Toronto and to the members of the TPS, but at times has to make very difficult decisions that will not please everyone. I believe he makes those decisions in the best interests of community safety, closely followed by what is best for the employees of the TPS. The citizens of Toronto must come first – even before officer safety. If the officers came first, he wouldn’t allow them to leave their stations and risk their lives to protect the people of Toronto. But officer safety is a huge concern for him too. He has been there and has done that work himself.

The TPA leaders on the other hand, will never be re-elected if they voice a position that staffing cuts are acceptable. I’m sure they care about public safety as well, but let’s be honest – membership satisfaction and safety will always be their most critical concern.

Policing is an increasingly expensive business and very little structural and service-delivery change has occurred within the TPS for decades. Most Canadian police services have and are going through substantive change to be as effective and efficient as they can. TPS is not alone.

I don’t know if all the recommendations made in the TPS Modernization Project are valid or not, but Chief Saunders and his team believe them to be. I also don’t know if the TPA was properly consulted throughout the modernization process, but I can’t imagine in my wildest dreams that Chief Saunders would agree to a plan that unnecessarily places officers at even higher levels of risk than they would normally face. Right or wrong, this obvious divide between the TPS and TPA executives does nothing to maintain public confidence in its police service.

I’m not questioning the accuracy of the Newstalk 1010 survey, which was conducted by a reputable firm, but people are people and opinions change with the wind. We have all seen political surveys where nominees are shown to be highly favoured during election campaigns, only to suffer humiliating losses when the dust settles. That is simply human nature at work.

I think most Torontonians still love their police. Regardless, TPS and TPA obviously have some work to do to rebuild public trust to the levels they have enjoyed for many years. That critical trust is built one public interaction at a time and the ball is firmly in their court to fix it.

Legalizing marijuana is not that cut and dry

Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:15:29 GMT

I’ve had my say on the marijuana legalization debate during a number of interviews and in my October 5, 2015 article: Op-Ed: Decriminalization versus legalization of pot.

Although I did not agree with the old enforcement model whereby people of any age could obtain criminal records for life over possessing a few joints, I also do not support the federal government’s direction on legalization. However, I fully understand that the marijuana legalization ship is well under sail. But while discussing the related issues recently with some former police co-workers, I felt my blood pressure rise once again over what I believe are blatant matters that are being somewhat misrepresented through federal government spin.

One former colleague – and probably one of very few current or former police chiefs in Canada that support legalization, MP Bill Blair, stated publicly at an April 13, 2017 press conference that: “It will be far more difficult for kids to get access to it when this new regime is in place, than it is today.”

He went on to say, “Today, the decision to sell or not to sell to that child is often being made by a gangster in a stairwell.”

Sorry Bill, it is not that cut and dry.

I tried smoking marijuana in my teenage years. I also tried alcohol. What scared me away from pot was the fact that it was illegal. I could easily buy it from fellow students in the locker room, who although were breaking the law were far from organized crime thugs in a dimly lit stairwell, but I did not want to risk getting a criminal record, so I didn’t. But I certainly didn’t mind helping myself to the alcohol in my parents’ home on occasion or having friends who at least looked of age purchase it through the LCBO on my behalf. That was my thought process. I know many of my friends at that time felt the same way, so many of us shied away from pot. All of the former colleagues I recently spoke to operated under that exact same mindset when they were in their teen years. Will our decision-making model of old not apply to the youth of today while accessing legalized marijuana?

When the new regime is implemented and many parents of Canada’s youth are purchasing pot legally (or in an alley somewhere) and it is now in their homes and often as accessible to kids as my father’s liquor cabinet was to me, what will the new-age decision-making process be? I predict that many more kids will try marijuana than ever did when I was a teen so many decades ago. The argument that it will become harder for young people to access marijuana makes little to no sense. It will be in fact easier for them to obtain. It will be everywhere.

Mr. Blair also stated publicly that “we need to be able to compete effectively with organized crime and take this business away from organized crime.” Yes, I agree organized crime will lose some of their marijuana sale profits, but in the competitive marketplace, they will always offer a much cheaper product for pot consumers.

Cigarettes have been legal for years and organized crime has still made zillions of dollars by undercutting legitimate manufacturers and government taxation schemes. When illegal cigarette manufacturing started to flourish in the early 1990s, it was completely impossible for licensed tobacco companies to compete against their rock-bottom prices. However these off the grid plants were not subject to government standards; inspections; or licensing and tax fees. The illegal cigarettes of the day were well known of be of inferior quality and an even greater health hazard to smokers as a result. It was an accepted fact that manufacturers routinely swept excess tobacco off the floors of their plants and added it to the mixture – not caring for a minute about the additional chemicals, dirt and rat droppings that got caught up in the sweepings. But smokers still bought millions and millions of these poor quality and illegal cancer-sticks because they were cheaper.

The cost to legally grow pot will be astronomical. Government standards for cleanliness, equipment, content and security will be very costly to meet – and so they should be. Then add licensing fees and taxes to the mix. Organized crime groups will always undercut the legal grower’s prices and their business will flourish because of the reality that more citizens of all ages will smoke pot when they will longer have to worry about being prosecuted for simple possession. I'm not good at math, but a bigger market than ever and the ability to offer a product (although inferior) at much cheaper prices without the background checks required of legal growers and with little overhead = organized crime wins. People will still buy pot – most likely more people than ever, and many will not care about the source or quality when they can get more product for their money on the black market.

We know it’s coming – that’s a given. But let’s go into this with our red-rimmed eyes wide open.

lighthouse-leadership

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

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

I say "No."

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

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

U.S. ICE/Border Patrol: Where is the true leadership?

Law Enforcement Facial Coverings: WHY?

Without effective leadership, decision-making at the executive table can divide the room

The 50th Anniversary of the Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU)

Celebration held

And the show must go on!

Government is determined to buy back guns from licensed owners

We’re crying out for leadership to bridge the divides

Self defense in your own home: It’s bigger than fight or comply

There are always many rapidly changing dynamics

The worst boss: Nightmare for some, reality for many

What did the PM’s most recent announcement on border security really mean?

Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?

What police don’t need during a crisis

Top 5 Public Safety Issues for 2024

Violent Crime Remains High

Canada’s new border security plan: Where’s the people?

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

The expansion of the federal firearms ban

Here we go again….

Are Canada’s Crime Rates Surpassing U.S.A.’s?

I don’t buy it.

Is Canada’s border security apparatus broken?

In a nutshell, yes.

The downhill slide of true leadership in politics on both sides of the 49th parallel

Reposted from Feb. 2020

Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss? (repost from 2017)

Reposted from July 2017 - WHAT HAS CHANGED?

Promotional processes in police services: We need to promote LEADERS!

Focusing on knowledge of policy isn't the answer

Some emergency response employees are exposed to Operational AND Organizational Trauma

Make change for the right reasons

Cover Photo from www.quotemaster.org

﻿

Sometimes wholesale change isn’t necessary

Sometimes good people make mistakes

Cover photo by: https://mylearningsolutions.org/

Police Group Support of Donald Trump

Cover Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images Newsweek

It’s time for new laws to govern protests in Canada

Photo by Arlyn McAdorey/The Canadian Press

Is it okay for leaders to change their minds on critical issues?

Cover photo: https://medium.com/

Leading Change: A changing world without strong leadership is like ship without a rudder

Change causes fear and fear causes stress – and we’re all feeling it

The Impact of TRU Friends

Farewell to Chief Barry King

Farewell

The Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump – A Colossal Security Failure

Elite assassin, complex plot or security failure?

LEADERSHIP: Should we promote the people that challenge us?

We need to promote those that make decisions in the best interests of our organization and its people.

The Passing of Thomas B. O’Grady – OPP Commissioner Emeritus

From guns and gangs to Bill C-21: Canada's top public safety issues in 2023

From guns and gangs to Bill C-21: Canada's top public safety issues in 2023

MURDERS OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS

BILL C-21

GUNS AND GANGS

THE EMERGENCIES ACT INQUIRY

INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

Why the hunger to label all bad things as 'terrorism'?

The thirst for info should not outweigh the need for facts

Leadership = Risk. Accept that and promote accordingly.

Leadership: Do you give second chances?

What has happened to true 'leadership' in Canadian politics?

What has happened to true “leadership” in Canadian politics?

Has society become desensitized to critical issues?: Lewis

Has society become desensitized to critical issues?Or have our priorities gone completely awry? Perhaps both?

Debate over police budgets needs to be more nuanced: Lewis

Why do rising policing costs not always equate to less crime?

What is the answer?