New Paragraph

OpEd: Will Handgun Bans Prevent Violent Crime in Canada?
December 21, 2021
Physicians and health workers protesting in Toronto, walk past a volunteer from the anti-gun group 'Silence the Violence and Shun the Guns,'

My short answer is NO. Not in the slightest.

The Trudeau government recently committed $1 billion to help the provinces and municipalities ban handguns. How on earth they believe that this tremendous chunk of taxpayer money is going to take handguns out of the hands of criminals who would do others harm, is completely mind-boggling to me.



I’ll admit that at one point several years ago, I whimsically supported banning handguns. I was tired of seeing innocent lives taken and reacted in the macro sense, thinking ridding society of handguns that are really only good for shooting “paper (targets) or people” would have an impact. But sober reflection combined with research, analysis, discussions with true law enforcement experts and many friends who are handgun aficionados, told me two things: 1. Banning handguns is an unreasonable expectation. There’s about a million lawfully owned handguns in Canada; and 2. Legal handgun owners are not the threat.


I don’t personally have any skin in this game. Although I Iike guns and carried a handgun (as well as rifles and shotguns) throughout my 36-year police career, I no longer own any firearms. When I did, I was fully trained; acquired and stored them lawfully; and was not a threat to public safety. Similarly, that describes 99.999% of the over 600,000 legal handgun owners in Canada. These folks are not members of gangs and are not committing violent crimes. They’ve had appropriate background checks; are properly trained; and store their firearms safely. The bottom line is they obey the law.


The current Canadian firearms legislation is some of the most restrictive in the world. Unlike our friends to the south, Canadians don’t lawfully carry handguns on their belts, in their nightstands, pockets, gloveboxes and purses. Police here don’t approach every person they encounter with the underlying assumption that the person is armed – either legally or illegally. Our legislation is quite effective.


Crime guns in Canada almost always are smuggled handguns from the United States, where there are more guns than people. Occasionally they are legally owned guns that are stolen for criminal purposes from homes or retailers. On very, very rare occasions, a lawful owner illegally sells a handgun to a criminal or uses a handgun to commit a violent crime. In all my years in policing – including years investigating homicides, I never once saw a lawful owner commit a murder with a handgun. Shotguns, rifles, illegally owned handguns, vehicles, tools, cross-bows, knives, axes, baseball bats and more yes, but never a lawfully owned pistol.

So, who will a provincial or municipal handgun ban impact? Not criminals. Not street gang members, bikers or the mob. It will impact the lawful owners that already obey Canadian legislation.


Criminals are already breaking many serious criminal laws when they possess hand guns and even moreso when they use them. These offences carry potential sentences that may see them incarcerated for years – as long as members of the judiciary don’t treat the offences lightly and have dangerous criminals beat the investigating officers back out onto the streets of their cities.


How often have we read media reports where criminals arrested for violent crime were out on bail when they committed further violent crimes, only to be released on bail yet again? How many police chiefs have made public pleas to judges to seriously recognize the threat gang members are to public safety before releasing them to commit more violent crimes and put the public and cops in further jeopardy?


Just this month, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which if passed will see some mandatory minimum penalties repealed, including several firearms offences.Offences like Discharging a firearm with intent; Using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of offence; and Robbery with a firearm. You know, those run of the mill crimes that have little or no impact on public or police officer safety. Akin to shoplifting a candy bar or unlawfully trapping a bullfrog out of season!


Criminal laws are the only effective leverage we have left, but government doesn’t want to get tougher on gun crime, they want to pull some of the teeth from that one remaining tool. Police are continually threatened with defunding. They’ve lost the ability to street check known gang members. Strategies like bail compliance aren’t effective in a catch and release environment. Gang bangers are no longer afraid of being shaken down by good officers despite proudly wearing gang colours and insignias to show their criminal organization affiliations to the world.


The RCMP are so underfunded that they have little to no resources to chase organized crime or fight smuggling. And gun smuggling requires a tremendous focus. But let’s take a billion dollars and establish provincial and/or municipal laws banning handguns, with limited search and seizure provisions and almost no imprisonment ability. That is not going to cause gang members to run out to find God and seek lawful employment. They aren’t afraid of criminal laws and jail, so the threat of a Provincial Offence Notice from a cop or a ticket from a by-law officer likely won’t result in them cowering in fear or lining up to turn in their guns. Much like the Liberal government promise that legalized marijuana was going to put organized crime out of the marijuana business, it’s laughable.



 It’s time to get tougher, not weaker. Let’s put the money into better protecting the public and our men and women in blue, as opposed to placing them at even greater risk.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

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.