New Paragraph

OpEd: Emergency Act inquiry serves as a reminder of the need for better provincial legislation
December 5, 2022
A police officer walks between parked trucks as he distributes a notice to protesters

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.

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

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

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

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

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

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