New Paragraph

OpEd: Looming questions about transparent leadership coming from the Nova Scotia shooting inquiry
June 28, 2022
Visitors pay their repects at a memorial honouring the victims of the April 2020 murder rampage in rural Nova Scotia, in Victoria Park in Truro, N.S

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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