New Paragraph

OpEd: Was Emergencies Act invoked without justification?
November 21, 2022
Police officers patrol on foot along Albert Street as a protest against COVID-19 restrictions that has been marked by gridlock and the sound of truck horns reaches its 14th day

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.

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.