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.

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.