New Paragraph

We’re crying out for leadership to bridge the divides
September 16, 2025

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.

By Chris Lewis June 6, 2026
Police become the default response to bad immigration policy
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.
By Chris Lewis March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."