By: Kelly Patterson

The Ottawa Citizen

June 12, 2007

The federal government is facing off in a U.S. court against some of Canada's most prominent legal scholars, politicians and church leaders in the ongoing war crimes case against Talisman Energy Inc.

The eclectic group opposing the government includes 14 law professors, the United, Anglican and Catholic churches, advocacy groups, and public figures such as Senator Sharon Carstairs, former cabinet minister David Kilgour and Ottawa Centre MP Paul Dewar.

Three former members of the Harker Commission, a federal delegation sent to Sudan in 1999 to investigate the allegations against Talisman, are also in the group.

Together they have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York to reject the Canadian government's recent intervention in the case, in which it argued the U.S. cannot claim jurisdiction, warning that such a move would infringe upon Canadian sovereignty.

Talisman is accused of allowing Sudanese troops to use its oil facilities in southern Sudan to launch an ethnic-cleansing campaign in the late 1990s -- a charge it vigorously denies. Now on appeal, the suit was dismissed for the second time last fall.

Any country should be able to assert jurisdiction when it comes to "certain heinous international wrongs -- including ... war crimes," the group argues, pointing out that Canada has long promoted that point of view on the international stage.

In fact, Canada is using the concept of "universal jurisdiction" right now, it argues, pointing to the case against Desire Munyaneza, on trial in Montreal for alleged war crimes during the Rwandan genocide.

But it has never done the same in the case of a Canadian corporation, the brief argues. The only similar case -- a lawsuit against Cambior Inc. for a massive cyanide spill in Guyana -- was rejected by a Quebec court in 1998 as being outside of its jurisdiction. The case was referred to a Guyanese court, which dismissed the case after almost 10 years of legal battles.

"Canada is seeking to block the (Talisman) court action in the U.S. on the basis of jurisdiction, but offers no indication it would be willing to do anything about it in Canada," says professor Rene Provost, director of the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, one of the scholars in the group.

In fact, the Talisman case exposes a "legal black hole" in Canada, he says, noting that, unlike the U.S., Canada has no law allowing plaintiffs to sue for compensation for crimes committed overseas. Nor does it have strong regulations to ensure firms act ethically overseas, he says.

"Canada is on the wrong side of the street in this case," says Mr. Dewar. He says Canada should stand back and let the court decide whether or not Talisman was complicit in the killings in Sudan.

"This is a court of the United States; it's not some rogue nation deciding this."

Talisman officials were not available to comment at press time.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007