New Paragraph

Stand-out public safety issues for 2017
December 4, 2017

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.

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.