OTTAWA, ON, July 19, 1993 - The compensation claim against Japan for slave labour performed by Canadian PoWs in World War II is now being filed against the Canadian Government under the terms of international law, but there is a political issue as well. Prime Minister Mulroney held a press conference during an official visit to Tokyo on May 28, 1991 in which he stated that "if Canadians were seeking compensation they should look to their own Government."

The War Amps of Canada has been pursuing this claim since 1987 and has exhausted all the remedies available under the United Nation's Human Rights Commission, which permits a non-governmental organization to launch a claim with the UN body against another government.

"It is a question of three strikes and you are out," Cliff Chadderton, Chief Executive Officer of The War Amps said. When the application was first submitted The War Amps were told to get more evidence. A two-volume report was prepared by the late Dr. Gustave Gingras, former President of the Canadian Medical Association. It showed that the survivors of the Japanese prison camps carried severe permanent disabilities as a direct result of having been forced to work in Japanese war industries under atrocious conditions.

The second submission, made in 1989, resulted in a favourable decision from the Sub-Commission on Human Rights to the effect that there was no moratorium on war crimes. The War Amps were then told that they needed non-governmental organization status to argue the claim, and this was granted the same year.

The next hurdle was a clarification as to whether the United Nation's resolution 1203 which established the procedure permitted the UN agency to deal with compensation matters. When this succeeded, the way was clear for a hearing in August of 1992 at which Japan was given an opportunity to defend the claim. The five members who heard the claim were from the Soviet Union, China, Columbia, Ethiopia and the Netherlands.

According to Chadderton, the decision was negative. He noted that, although the Canadian delegation in Geneva had been fully briefed, Canada did not speak to the claim. "This was a moral victory for Japan," Chadderton said.

Japan stated that the 1951 Peace Treaty with Canada closed the door to further claims. The Canadian Government agreed. The position of the Canadian Government was confirmed in a letter to Chadderton from the then External Affairs Minister Barbara McDougall dated November 20, 1992.

The Sub-Commission found at the August 1992 meeting that the Geneva Convention supersedes any waiver under a Peace Treaty. This was communicated to Prime Minister Mulroney in a letter dated October 18, 1991.

"We then prepared for the next option, which was to launch the claim against the Canadian Government under what is known as the OPTIONAL PROTOCOL," Chadderton said. This claim was registered in Geneva on July 12th of this year, and is based on three main principles of international law.

The first is that a detaining power -- in this case Japan -- is required to pay individuals forced to work in an enemy's war industries at the same rate that it pays its own workers. In today's dollars, this is $19 a day, but the Canadians have already received $1 of this under the 1951 Treaty. The total payment to 500 veterans and 500 widows would be approximately $22,000 each.

The second principle being used as a defence by Japan is that in signing the Peace Treaty, the Canadian Government failed to protect the interests of the Far East PoWs.

The third factor is that the failure of the Canadian Government to support the claim against Japan is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

"Our claim differs from that of the Japanese Canadians who were interned by the Canadian Government and who received compensation of $20,000 each based on a decision of the Mulroney Government in 1989," Chadderton said.

"In accepting the Japanese Canadians' claim, the Government was admitting that the internment of these Canadian citizens was a cruel and unjust act. The case against Japan for maltreatment of PoWs, however, is even stronger in that it is based on the established principle of international law; that is, the Geneva Convention," Chadderton stated.

"We have tried to play by the rules, going through the proper United Nations channels, in the hope that Japan would now pay this just debt. In bringing the claim before the Canadian Government, we are playing by the international covenants, to which Canada itself is a party," Chadderton said.

"Our Government now has a choice. It can go back to Geneva and support the claim, or make a payment itself based on the interpretation that, in signing the Peace Treaty and subsequently refusing to support the claim, it has failed to protect the human rights of a group of its own citizens," Chadderton said.

These are all legal issues and well-founded in law. There is also a political side based, firstly, on the historically-correct concept that Canadians were sent to defend the Hong Kong garrison for political rather than military reasons," he added.

"When Prime Minister Mackenzie King authorized the dispatch of these troops, he was aware that they faced either death or imprisonment. Military intelligence had indicated that the Hong Kong garrison could not be defended. This is a serious matter, because when Canadians volunteered in World War II, it was for military -- not political -- reasons," Chadderton said.

The other political factor stressed in Chadderton's arguments is that Prime Minister Mulroney made a commitment, recorded by the Canadian media, in his press conference of May 18th, 1991, to the effect that the Hong Kong veterans should be looking to their own government for compensation.

"I am sure this gave great comfort to a former enemy and strengthened Japan's resolve to oppose the claim at the Human Rights Commission," Chadderton concluded.