OTTAWA, ON, November 19, 1996 - The failure of the Canadian government to take steps to protect the interests of Canada's Far East PoWs, going back as far as 1941, was the major charge made today before a Parliamentary Committee in Ottawa.

A submission by Cliff Chadderton, Patron of the Hong Kong Veterans Association, claimed that Canada had been negligent in not following up on a demand that Japan obey the rules of the Geneva Convention.

"Japan had signed the Geneva Convention of 1929, but had failed to ratify the agreement," Chadderton told the Committee. "Japan advised the Argentine government at the end of 1941 that it would honour the agreement, if and when it suited them to do so."

By that time there were more than 2000 Canadian military personnel in Japanese prison camps, but Canada failed to insist that they be protected under the customary laws of war.

Chadderton suggested that Canada had a further opportunity to impose a penalty against Japan for its failure to abide by the 1929 declaration when discussions were held between the Allied powers in Japan leading to the peace treaty in San Francisco in 1951.

Instead, Canada and Japan signed the treaty without making provisions for compensation due, under the Geneva Convention, for work performed by Canadian prisoners in Japan's war industries.

The failure of the Canadian government to press Japan has continued throughout the years of the Mulroney administration, according to the documents filed with the Committee.

Chadderton, CEO of The War Amps, produced evidence that it had launched a claim against Japan in 1987, through the United Nations procedures which permit an individual organization to appeal to the Human Rights Committee. This was done under the NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) status held by The War Amps with the United Nations.

Commencing in 1987, the Association filed 19 submissions with the Geneva-based human rights bodies. The Mulroney government had, however, refused to support the claim during this critical period.

Chadderton suggested that the lack of Canadian government support worked to the detriment of the veterans' claim.

"Our government simply gave aid and comfort to a former enemy by sitting on its collective hands while the Geneva agencies considered our submissions. Presumably the lack of response from the Canadian government was based on a policy of not wanting to disrupt trade relations between our nations," Chadderton said.

"The Committee was told that representatives of other countries concluded that if the Canadian government would not support the claim, it had little chance of success," The War Amps official stated.

Citing international law, Chadderton's submission attacked the position of the Canadian government on the issues set out in a letter to him from Justice Minister Allan Rock on March 25, 1996.

The Minister's letter stated that the Far East PoWs had received generous benefits under the Veterans Pension Act. In rebuttal, Chadderton quoted a section of the Canadian War Claims Regulations dated October 9, 1952, which stated:

The receipt of or the eligibility for a pension under the Pension Act for disability consequent upon maltreatment shall not be taken into account in determining eligibility for or the amount of per diem award or a lump sum award for maltreatment.

The charge that the Canadian government had failed to protect the interests of the Hong Kong and other Pacific theatre PoWs was based on two canons of international law, according to the veteran's submissions.

The first concerned a clause in the Geneva Convention which prohibits any government from signing away the rights of its own citizens.

Further, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states unequivocally that a government that signs the Covenant must provide an effective remedy under which a wronged party may pursue a claim. Chadderton claimed that, by withholding its support in the matter before the human rights agencies in Geneva, the Canadian government was in violation of its responsibility under a covenant to which it was a signatory.