Why I didn’t endorse the Senate report on terrorism: Senator Mitchell

Liberal senator Grant Mitchell’s reasons for not supporting the Senate report, Countering the Terrorist Threat in Canada, countering Senator Lang’s op-ed (Daniel Lang: The Senate did not call for imams to be ‘licensed.’ Nor were we fretting about nothing):

If what the report contains is problematic, what is left out is every bit as worrying.

We heard from police, intelligence and security officials that their budgets were strained, even as they transferred scarce resources from other major criminal investigations to the fight against terrorism. We also heard about the need for community policing and outreach programs in the “pre-criminal” space; the need for additional research to understand the various pathways to radicalization; and the requirement for rigorous review and oversight mechanisms for the 17 intelligence and enforcement agencies that deal with national security.

These are essential measures if we’re going to deal effectively with this issue, but not one of them is discussed in any serious way in the report.

Clearly, it is important that Canadians understand that we face risks from terrorist threats and that those risks are evolving and changing. However, poorly considered ideas can create division that has adverse effects in our society. This can also make it harder for law enforcement agencies to do their job because the communities they work with may feel alienated and targeted. What we need now, more than anything, are balanced ideas, a smart approach to the threats facing Canada, and for all Canadians to work together.

Why I didn’t endorse the Senate report on terrorism | Toronto Star.