New Paragraph

The downhill slide of true leadership in politics on both sides of the 49th parallel
November 23, 2024

Reposted from Feb. 2020

My July 2017 article “Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss?” 

https://www.lighthouseleadershipservices.com/post/donald-j-trump-leader-or-boss, expresses my then concerns that the 45th President of the United States of America was to that point not demonstrating the characteristics of leadership whatsoever, but was merely a self-centred “boss”. His apparent lack of honesty; transparency; and decision-making ability (i.e. putting his personal goals and needs over country and party), combined with his bully tactics; passing the blame; falsely taking credit…and so much more, in no way exemplified what true leaders do, but were perfectly good examples of what they shouldn’t do. Well guess what? Nothing has changed. Zilch. In fact it’s gone to hell in a handbasket in my opinion.

 

 He destroyed relationships with many allied nations. Much like his private business modus operandi, he bullies, pressures, lies and tries to bowl over anyone, anything or any country in his way. There’s no give and take or relationship building with nations that have stood strong with the US as trading partners or through international conflict. Unless of course you count his love for the ruthless dictators in Russia and North Korean – then he’s all in. Is that what is best for the American people?

 

The lying has reached a fever-pitch. Trump continues to claim “fake media” on every quote of his ridiculous and immature banter that he doesn’t like. That usually means almost every media outlet except FOX News is conspiring against him.

 

During the lead up to the recent Impeachment Trial of President Trump, he defied subpoenas for Administration witnesses and documents. Why? If Administration employees could take the bible in their right hand, swear an oath to tell the truth and give evidence that would clear him, why not encourage them to testify? If White House documents would help his defense, you’d think he’d be fighting like a rabid dog to have them made public. But he vigorously fought all attempts to produce witnesses and records that might prove his innocence – despite valid requests through established legal processes.

 

But what he did do – with abandon, is vilify American citizens that testified under oath against him in the House Committee Hearings. One, highly respected and longtime US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, was disparaged by Trump live on Twitter she was actually giving evidence under oath. She went on to testify that his Twitter comment was “very intimidating”. Only one so-called “leader” in recent memory would do such a thing.

 

Another witness, highly decorated Lt. Col. Andrew Vindman of the US Army, was publicly chastised by staff from Trump’s White house when he testified regarding his observations and concerns as a national security official. This man gave his life to the US armed services and was actually wounded by an IED while serving in the Iraq. Only one so-called leader in recent memory would allow unwarranted criticism of such a man.

 

A January 19, 2020 “Factchecker” article in the Washington Post, claims that “In 1,095 days, President Trump has made 16,241 false or misleading claims.” Have other Presidents of both political parties made false or misleading claims? No doubt. Sometimes quite innocently and other times in a complete attempt to deceive. But over 16,000 in 3 years? I’m not a historian, but come on.

 

What is even more alarming in my view is how the overwhelming majority – almost to a person, of Republican US Senators supported him throughout the Impeachment Hearing.

 

These aren’t stupid people. They’ve heard the facts. They know there’s damning evidence in documents and potentially from current and former Trump appointees like John Bolton that would sink him. But they put party and personal future election fears ahead of determining the truth and doing what is best for the people of the United States. That is NOT leadership.

 

So what’s happening on our side of the 49th parallel in terms of national leadership these days? Well for those that think I must be a “Liberal” (in reality I’m not) because I don’t believe every word that passes through President Trump’s lips (in reality I believe none), Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is far from a shining example of what leadership should be. I can overlook some of the dumb things he did as a young supply teacher, and his broken campaign promises (they ALL do that) but there’s so much more.

 

The SNC-Lavalin scandal in which the PM conducted a number of “flagrant” attempts to pressure the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to drop criminal charges against a large and politically influential company, led to Trudeau’s expulsion of two Liberal Members of Parliament. It also had the PM apparently lying to the Canadian public about what he did or didn’t do in relation to pressuring his AG. Eventually the Clerk of the Privy Council resigned over the debacle and there was a tremendous loss of trust in PM Trudeau over what was a minimum an ethics violation, and I would suggest was at least at face value a criminal act.


And that wasn’t his first ethics violation. He had already been chastised by the Ethics Commissioner for accepting a vacation on a private island that was owned by a lobby foundation. How a Prime Minister could ever feel that was right or that the truth wouldn’t eventually kick him in the derriere, is completely beyond comprehension.

 

The Vice Admiral Mark Norman prosecution fiasco did nothing to restore any level of confidence in the PM’s transparency and ethical posture. As a dedicated, career public servant and military officer, Norman may not have handled the situation particularly well, but he certainly did not commit a criminal act. He actually did what he felt was best for the country, which is far and above more than we saw out of our PM. Everything around Trudeau’s involvement in the affair stinks. With an election forthcoming, the two-year old criminal case was suddenly dropped mid-stream but not before Norman’s exemplary career was destroyed and his life forever altered.

 

None of this diatribe is partisan on my part. I’m an equal opportunity critic when it comes to the failure of leaders.

 

I am a firm believer that leadership is about doing what is best for those you serve and those you lead. Real leaders inspire others to do and be their very best. Every decision is about putting the people first and personal careers second. When things go bad, true leaders own up and take the hit. When things go good, they pass on the credit and allow the light to shine brightly on those they lead. Anything less is an abject failure of leadership. But alas, such failures have become the norm at the helm of both of our beloved countries.

 

If there is a positive side to this depressing tale of two leaders, it is that Canadians can at least cling to the shred of hope that although their “leader” may not be a paragon of truth, he isn’t anywhere near the compulsive liar that our friends to the south are dealing with in their duly-elected President. He’s somewhere close to 16,000 lies short. However neither pseudo-leader is the rock of honesty, ethical-behaviour and transparency that we all deserve.

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.