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.

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.