Terror laws take high-level hit

Former minister changes his view

Four years ago, fighting terror was government’s top priority. Now, even a former defence minister acknowledges Ottawa went too far. Known as a military hawk during his time in the Commons, David Pratt now says Canada’s post- 9/ 11 anti- terror laws are so broadly — and so badly — written that they leave those working for the Red Cross and similar humanitarian agencies open to criminal prosecution for just doing their jobs. Even someone who simply donates money to a legitimate aid agency could be liable to 10 years in jail says the former Liberal MP, now special ambassador for the Canadian Red Cross.

That’s because Canada’s antiterror laws make it a crime to knowingly give aid that may end up benefiting anyone who might carry out or — or who might help someone who might carry out — a terrorist act. But the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations are required to be impartial when they hand out aid. Under the terms of its charter, the 96- year- old Canadian Red Cross cannot deny help to those in need just because it doesn’t like their political views and methods, a responsibility that is buttressed by international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.

In these situations, Pratt told a Senate committee earlier this week, it is almost inevitable that some aid flows to people that the government of Canada may regard as terrorist supporters.

In Afghanistan, he said, some of the $ 4.4 million spent last year by the Red Cross and the federal government’s own Canadian International Development Agency may well have ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda supporters and others opposed to the U. S.- led invasion of that country.

Indeed, some may end up in the hands of those attacking Canadian troops who are in Afghanistan as part of the U. S. operation.

“ What’s key to us is to get aid to vulnerable people,” Pratt said in a telephone interview from Ottawa yesterday.

“ And sometimes aid does get diverted. It’s a fact of life in a conflict zone.”

Yet when such diversions occur, he said, the law as written makes the Red Cross, as well as its workers, donors and supporters, vulnerable to criminal prosecution.

Pratt’s submission Monday to a special Senate committee is part of a growing chorus of complaint about Canada’s beefed up anti- terror legislation. Working outside the glare of media attention, the committee has heard from a host of individuals, lawyers, civil rights groups and community organizations that Canada’s response to the terror attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001 was overly broad and ill considered. As part of this response, designed in large part to assure the U.S. government of President George W. Bush that Canada was pulling its weight, the government took aim at what it saw as bogus charities that raise money to fund terrorist organizations. Those who give money to such charities are now liable to prosecution under the criminal code. And the charities themselves may be deregistered.

Ironically, Pratt himself was one of those backbench Liberals who happily voted for these laws.

At the time, he was chair of the Commons defence committee and a strong supporter of closer military ties with the United States. When Paul Martin became prime minister in 2003, he appointed Pratt his defence minister, a post the Ottawa MP held until he lost his seat in the ensuing federal election. Now, however, Pratt says the anti- terror legislation he supported then was far too sweeping.

“ I don’t think this is what was intended,” he said.