This submission is being written from the perspective of an individual who was born in Canada in 1941 to parents who had emigrated from Ukraine in 1927 and 1930. I was, thus, born in the middle of World War Two (WWII) during which some 9 million Ukrainians and 40, 000 Canadians perished. Except that Ukrainians were classified as either Polish or Soviet subjects; whereas I, and Canadians of that era, were classified as British subjects, since Canadian citizenship was not defined until 1947.
As a child, two incidents helped shape my perspective on the citizenship issue. One was a letter received by my mother, probably in 1945, indicating that several of her brothers had been killed by the Communists. The second was the arrival of my cousin (on my father's side) from a refugee camp in Germany in 1947. He had been arrested by the Germans for alleged Nationalist activity and spent the remainder of the war years in several German concentration camps.
I have been interested in Ukrainian issues, both in Canada and Ukraine, all my life. In Ukraine, there was the failed Ukrainian independence of 1918, the Famine of 1933, the Gulag Archipelago as described by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Ukrainian dissidents (such as Danylo Shumuk) from the sixties through the eighties. I was ecstatic when Ukraine gained its independence in 1991, and am deeply concerned with its regression towards totalitarianism since 1997.
Since 1891, Canada has benefited from four waves of immigration from Ukraine (pre-WWI, post-WWI, post-WWII and post-1991). Over the years over a million of these immigrants and their offspring have been woven into the fabric of Canadian society as typified by the late Supreme Court Judge John Sopinka (Nov. 24, 1997) and the late Governor General Ramon Hnatyshyn (Dec. 18, 2002).
Strangely, both these gentlemen were intimately involved with the two related issues to which I will be referring in my submission. The first issue, which shook my confidence in Canadian citizenship, was the Deschenes Commission of 1985 and the subsequent war crimes legislation, Bill C-71, of 1987. Around this time, my late wife, Lily (Sept. 15, 1997), became head of the Charitable Committee in Aid of John Demjanjuk's Family, Montreal Branch. I have archived a great deal of material on these two issues on my web sites listed on the covering page.
I introduce the generic term Holocaust Industry in an effort to describe the forces, organizations and individuals that appear to be the driving force behind the war crimes legislation and sections 16 to 18 of Bill C-18. This was not done lightly and does not imply malice or disrespect to the Canadian Jewish community or the Jewish people in general. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Holocaust Industry has not acted in the best interests of Canadians, in general, and Jews, in particular.
B. Concepts missing or inappropriate in Bill C-18
(1) Benefits of Canadian Citizenship
Although over eighty percent of Canadian citizens were born in Canada, Bill C-18 seems to be written specifically for immigrants. In fact, upon reading the measures proposed in Bill C-18, one wonders why anyone would want to acquire Canadian citizenship at all.
In my opinion, the new Citizenship of Canada Act should outline the rights, duties and benefits of Canadian citizenship. Furthermore, those who acquire Canadian citizenship by choice should not be subjected to higher standards of citizenship than those who were born in Canada.
(2) Dual Citizenship
The concept of dual or multiple citizenship is not even mentioned in Bill C-18. Personally, I do not favour the concept, since I do not see how conflicts of interest can be avoided. Perhaps, there are arguments in favour of dual citizenship of which I am not aware. At any rate, a clear statement on dual citizenship should be incorporated into Bill C-18.
(3) Balance of Probabilities
Although it is not explicitly stated in sections 16 and 18, in section 17 it is explicitly stated that a judge shall determine:
17.(5)(a) whether, on the balance of probabilities the person named in the certificate has acquired or resumed citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances;
In my opinion, it is simply unconscionable that a person's citizenship can be revoked by a subjective judgment on a balance of probabilities of a single solitary judge.
That revocation of citizenship is a civil process using lax rules of evidence and an on the balance of probabilities criterion, rather than the criminal courts with its rigorous rules of evidence and a beyond a reasonable doubt criterion, presumably dates back to WWII and earlier days, when the Old Boys' Club decided who was worthy of being allowed to come and stay in Canada and who should be incarcerated and deported.
(4) Delegation of Authority to Bureaucrats
Section 44.(1) and (2) allows the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to delegate authority to bureaucrats running the Ministry. There are no limitations or checks and balances imposed on the bureaucrats. Indeed, it is my perception that it is the bureaucrats, rather than our elected representatives, that develop policy, write legislation, set the regulations and then implement and execute them.
(5) British subject, citizen of Commonwealth and citizen of Ireland
Although these concepts are treated in sections 47 and 48 of Bill C-18, the terms Commonwealth and British subject are not defined. Frankly, I resent being referred to as a British subject, since it has connotations of British Empire, "white man's burden" and colonial status. I may have been born in Canada as a British subject, but I have lived and hope to die as a Canadian citizen.
C. Oath of Citizenship
The existing oath of citizenship in the Citizenship Act (1985) reads as follows:
"Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship - I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."
The new oath of citizenship as proposed in C-18, Sec. 34 (Schedule) reads as follows:
"From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen."
John Bryden has removed the reference to the Queen and proposes:
"In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by the solemn trust to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law."
In the three versions listed above, we note an evolution of the concepts of citizenship. In the first version, the ruler or dictator demands complete allegiance of his subjects, who are expected to observe his every dictate and fulfill their duties by dying in any war that the ruler may initiate.
The first sentence in the second version attempts to preserve the link to the British Empire by referring to Queen Elizabeth. I recognize that the monarchy is important to a large segment of Canadian society. It is part of our Canadian heritage. Indeed, my wife was a great fan of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Diana. Nevertheless, despite my personal fondness for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles, I do not feel any loyalty or allegiance towards them.
My loyalty is towards the people who inhabit this land - its citizens and the landed immigrants, who aspire to become citizens. I aspire to promote their wellbeing and happiness, and I hope that they are concerned with mine. Secondly, my loyalty is towards the land area comprising Canada - its air, lakes and rivers; its forests, prairies and mountains; its fish, birds, animals and insects. (Perhaps I should exclude mosquitoes and black flies!) This is my domain. I aspire for none beyond.
I would suggest that most immigrants accepting citizenship could better relate their loyalty to the citizens and land area of Canada than to the monarchy.
The second sentence expands on the original version to include "our country's rights and freedoms" (rather than citizens' rights and freedoms), "democratic values" and "obligations". Unfortunately, adding words of uncertain meaning does not make the oath more meaningful. Is this an indirect reference to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms? the Bill of Rights? or the International Charter of Human Rights? What are democratic values? Is it even possible to know all the laws and regulations passed by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, let alone faithfully observe them? I must confess that I don't know what my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen are. Should these not be defined somewhere?
If dual or multiple citizenship is allowed, then the whole scenario becomes even more complicated. Presumably, it would be necessary to add a proviso such as "when physically present within Canada". And finally, what are the penalties if the new citizen fails to live up to the provisions in the oath?
The version of John Bryden jettisons all links to the past and positions Canadians to participate in the New World Order. Unfortunately, it assumes that Canadians are, and will continue to be, united to uphold his five principles. Without being overly facetious, there are people who would describe Canada as typified by: inequality of opportunity, curtailment of free speech, dictatorship of the Prime Minister's Office, abuse of human rights, and rule of lawyers and bureaucrats. Of particular concern to me is the implication that the "rule of law" can replace the "rule of morality". Written legislation can never replace the good judgment of Canadian citizens.
Nevertheless, although the five principles may be unattainable, they are certainly worth striving for. With the proviso that these five principles be defined somewhere in Bill C-18 (or linked to external definitions), allow me to propose the following oath of citizenship:
"In accepting Canadian citizenship, I pledge my loyalty to the citizens and land area of Canada, and hereby renounce any other citizenship which I may hold. I join with other Canadians to promote and uphold the following five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law."
The Oaths of Allegiance Act presently in force, presumably reads as follows:
"I, ___ , do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."
It, and other similar relevant acts, must be amended to reflect the new Oath of Citizenship. Finally, it would be nice if all Canadians would be given an opportunity to periodically affirm their loyalty to the citizens and land area of Canada.
D. Revocation of Citizenship
The particularly offensive and dangerous portions of Bill C-18 appear in Part 2, LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP, sections 16, 17 and 18 dealing with revocation of citizenship. These sections attempt to sanction and prolong an existing unacceptable process, as well as introduce new provisions that are best described as precursors to a police state.
Clearly, even the concept of revocation of citizenship by the state indicates that naturalized Canadians are second class citizens in comparison with citizens born in Canada.
Sections 3(d) and 12 in Bill C-18 read as follows:
3. The purpose of this Act is
(d) to reaffirm that all citizens, no matter how they became citizens, have the same status;
12. All citizens have the same rights, powers, privileges, obligations, duties, responsibilities and status without regard to the manner in which their citizenship was acquired.
Clearly, these sections are contradicted by the provision of revocation in sections 16 to 18. There are three ways that the contradiction can be corrected:
(a) Sections 3(d) and 12 can be rewritten to recognize the reality of two-tiered citizenship, and that the citizenship of naturalized Canadians is not protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(b) The revocation provisions in sections 16 to 18 can be extended to include citizens born in Canada. This would allow the state to get rid of unsavoury characters who are "enemies of the people".
(c) The revocation provisions in sections 16 to 18 can be removed and replaced with appropriate judicial procedures utilizing legislation already in place in the criminal justice system to administer appropriate legal penalties.
For a variety of reasons, I prefer the last solution (c).
First of all, I believe that Canada, as well as all countries in the world, should adopt the principle that citizenship cannot be revoked by the state. There should be no stateless person; there should be no person with dual or multiple citizenships. On the other hand, a person should be able to give up his/her citizenship to become the citizen of another country, if that is his/her desire and he/she is accepted by the other country.
Secondly, if the person in question is truly a criminal and a danger to Canadian and world society, why dump him onto an unsuspecting world to continue with his criminal activities? Would it not be more logical to expose his criminality in a Canadian criminal court of law, convict him and administer the appropriate penalties according to Canadian legal standards?
My third reason requires a careful analysis of the existing denaturalization and deportation (d&d) process as administered by Canada's War Crimes Unit within the Department of Justice, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the RCMP, which I do in the three subsections below.
(1) Historical Background of d&d
It can be readily shown that the Holocaust Industry has been the driving force behind the d&d process both in the United States and Canada.
In the United States, the 1978 Holtzmann Amendment allowed for the creation of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). One of their first acts was to denaturalize John Demjanjuk in 1981 and to extradite him to Israel in 1986. Although he was initially convicted and sentenced to death during the infamous Jerusalem Show Trial of 1987-88 for allegedly being a sadistic guard, Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, he was exonerated by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1993. Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that the OSI had perpetrated fraud on the court to obtain the denaturalization and extradition of Mr. Demjanjuk.
Neal Sher was the head of the OSI at the time. We note that Anne McLellan contracted Neal Sher to act in an advisory capacity to Canada's War Crimes Unit despite protests by the Ukrainian community in December 1997. We also note that in June 2002 Neal Sher was forced to resign from the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims for misappropriating funds.
In Canada, there was an attempt to initiate the d&d process by Robert Kaplan in 1980. However, the main assault started shortly after Brian Mulroney came to power with the establishment of the Deschenes Commission in 1985. If you recall, there was a major confrontation between the Ukrainian and Jewish communities at that time concerning the d&d process as utilized by the OSI. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress was represented by John Sopinka, while the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada were represented by Irwin Cotler and David Matas. On March 12, 1987, Justice Minister Ray Hnatyshyn tabled the Deschenes Commission Report in Parliament and issued a press release that the government had opted for a made-in-Canada solution. There would be no denaturalizations and deportations as in the United States. The criminal code would be amended to allow retroactive criminal prosecutions of suspected war criminals in Canada. The enabling legislation, Bill C-71, was passed in September 1987.
For further detailed information, the reader is referred to the following archived articles:
Critique of Wiseman's Report, September 1993
Critique of Deschenes Commission Report, May 1987
Hnatyshyn Press Release, March 12, 1987
Letter to Mulroney, Turner and Broadbent, August 1987
Between 1987 and 1994, several cases were attempted under this legislation, the most famous being the Imre Finta case, whose acquittal was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. All cases failed to obtain a conviction. The jury simply couldn't be convinced of the guilt of the accused.
In January 1995, without any public or parliamentary consultation, Justice Minister Allan Rock unilaterally announced that the government would abandon criminal prosecutions and switch to the d&d process. This was exactly opposite to the government's decision in 1987 and contrary to the recommendation of Justice Jules Deschenes.
These so-called war crimes trials have now morphed into civil processes using lax rules of evidence, a single solitary judge rather than a jury, and an "on a balance of probabilities" rather than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion for conviction. Furthermore, war criminality is no longer the issue. The issue is whether or not an immigration infraction occurred.
Indeed, in the vast majority of cases, the judge has ruled that there is no evidence of war criminality on the part of the accused. For example, in the Helmut Oberlander and Wasyl Odynsky cases, Judge Andrew MacKay ruled that they were not war criminals, had perpetrated no atrocities and had been dragooned to work for the Germans at the point of a gun. Strangely however, he ruled "on a balance of probabilities" that, when immigrating to Canada, they must have misled a visa control officer about what they had done during the war. Both Mr. Oberlander and Mr. Odynsky insist that they were never interviewed by a visa control officer and their testimony is corroborated by thousands of other immigrants who immigrated to Canada at that time.
In light of these facts, I think that it would be fair to accuse Canada's War Crimes Program of justifying their existence and budget by fraudulently claiming that immigration infractions are somehow equivalent to war criminality. Spending over one million dollars of taxpayers money per case, they are building their careers on the backs of old people like Wasyl Odynsky, who have to spend their life's savings and mortgage their homes to try to defend themselves.
In a letter to the Privy Council dated May 01, 2002, Denis Coderre recommended that the citizenship of Wasyl Odynsky be revoked by a Cabinet Special Committee of Council. When the Ukrainian community became aware of this in late May, a letter writing campaign was started, such that when the Committee met on June 12, 2002, the item was tabled until the next meeting on June 19, 2002. By that time, the Committee had received thousands of letters of protest, such that Denis Coderre decided to review the whole d&d issue in detail before reconsidering the revocation of Mr. Odynsky's citizenship.
Tens of thousands of postcards titled Enough is Enough protesting the d&d process were signed by Canadians and sent to Denis Coderre, Jean Chretien and their local MP. In addition, thousands of letters, faxes and emails have been sent to politicians and newspapers. I would say that every politician and newspaper editor in Canada is aware of the Ukrainian community's concern about the d&d process.
Here in Alberta, a delegation of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress - Alberta Provincial Council (UCC-APC) has met with Don Boudria and separately with David Kilgour. Both were very sympathetic and appeared to agree with our position. Individuals have approached and talked to Joe Clark and the various Canadian Alliance politicians in Alberta, including Deborah Grey, Peter Goldring, Rahim Jaffer, James Rajotte and Ken Epp. Peter Goldring even distributed a brochure to his constituents on the case of Wasyl Odynsky, highlighting the unfairness of losing one's citizenship on a balance of probabilities. Diane Ablonczy has been quoted as saying that beyond a reasonable doubt must be the legal standard for revocation of citizenship. Everyone was supportive of our position on d&d.
The revocation provisions in Secs. 16 to 18 do not reflect the views and pronouncements of our elected representatives.
(2) Canada's War Crimes Program, 2002 annual report
Evaluation of Canada's War Crimes Program, September 2001
(Goss Gilroy Report)
As ascertained from the above two reports, Canada's War Crimes Program consists of two sections - - World War II and Modern War Crimes. The WWII section dates back to the work of the Deschenes Commission in 1985; whereas the Modern War Crimes section appears to have been triggered by the breakup of Yugoslavia and other conflicts in the 1990s. Since there are no cases involving revocation of citizenship under Modern War Crimes, we will concentrate exclusively on the WWII cases.
As of March 31, 2002, there were 1673 files in the WWII category of which 140 are pending, 72 are under active investigation and 7 are ongoing in the courts. Closed or inactive files total 1454. Since 1995, 18 d&d cases have been initiated of which 7 are ongoing, 6 died, 3 won their case and 2 left voluntarily. (Strangely, this contrasts with the testimony by the bureaucrats before the Standing Committee, that only six revocation cases from the WWII era have been handled.)
I suspect that the 939 files examined by Justice Jules Deschenes comprise a large fraction of the 1673 files now present. On page 827 of the Deschenes Commission Report it is stated:
"In 96 percent of the cases which the Commission has investigated it has not communicated with the suspects. The latter have not been made aware of the Commission's interest. There is no reason to alert now, especially, the 606 people, or their successors, whose files the Commission recommends should be closed."
I further suspect that the bureaucrats running Canada's War Crimes Program are following the same policy. In my Critique of the Deschenes Commission Report, I strongly protested this policy and I once again urge the authorities to inform the people, or their successors, whose names comprise these 1673 files. Failure to do so would confirm that we are already living in a police state, complete with secret lists and secret denunciations supplied by the Holocaust Industry.
The following quote appears in the Introduction to the 2002 Annual Report of Canada's War Crimes Program:
"In its 2002 Annual Report, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre spoke favourably of Canada's efforts and encouraged other states to follow the example of Canada and the United States which use denaturalization and deportation proceedings rather than prosecution to bring these perpetrators to justice."
As charter members of the Holocaust Industry, Mr. Wiesenthal and the Centre named in his honour have been at the forefront in subverting the justice systems of the United States and Canada. Denaturalization and deportation has nothing to do with justice. This reference to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre confirms that the bureaucrats in Canada's War Crimes Program are working on behalf of the Holocaust Industry rather than in the interests of Canadians.
One of the four Key Methodologies utilized by the people compiling the Goss Gilroy Report was:
2.1.d. "Structured interviews with over 110 key informants from inside and outside the program's delivery agencies. For a comprehensive list of key informant interviews see Annex 1 below."
It would be very interesting to examine the list and transcripts of the interviews of these "key stakeholders". I would urge the Standing Committee to obtain a full original copy and study it in some detail, since this is presumably the source for sections 16 to 18 in Bill C-18.
(3) Consolidation of the d&d Process
Secs. 16(2) and (5), as well as 17(6) and (8), state that if a judge rules that an immigrant has obtained his citizenship by "fraud", then revocation of citizenship and deportation are automatic. This is far worse than the present situation, where, at least, there are some checks and balances imposed by the separate revocation and deportation processes. In the past, judges in these d&d cases have stated that they are just ruling on the probability of fraud having occurred, they have not considered the questions of revocation of citizenship or deportation. (In other words, they were passing the buck.) The proposed "consolidation" is a major extra burden being placed on the judge and a further removal of checks and balances in our justice system.
This "consolidation" was originally proposed on page 172 of the Deschenes Commission Report and can be traced to a 1985 report by William Mandell to the Office of Special Investigations in the United States. The OSI, of course, is the penultimate creation of the Holocaust Industry.
---- ---- ---- ----
From the above analysis, we conclude that it is the Holocaust Industry, rather than our elected representatives, who are running Canada's War Crimes Program. The bureaucrats, who drafted sections 16 to 18 of Bill C-18 are responsive to the Holocaust Industry and not the Canadian people via their elected representatives.
I must further add, that I do not appreciate David Matas, a charter member of the Holocaust Industry, demonizing and libeling people like Wasyl Odynsky and Helmut Oberlander in the news media as war criminals and mass murderers, when Judge Andrew MacKay had specifically ruled that they were not. In their testimony before the Standing Committee, Mr. Matas for B'nai Brith Canada and Jack Silverstone and Eric Vernon for the Canadian Jewish Congress maintain the façade that Canada's War Crimes Program is legitimately prosecuting Nazi war criminals, when nothing could be further from the truth.
For these three reasons, I fervently hope that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommends that the concept of revocation of citizenship be removed from Bill C-18.
… [END] …
Summary of Submission by Dr. William W. Zuzak, Ph.D., to the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Edmonton, Alberta, Feb. 14, 2003
The author was born in 1941 of Ukrainian immigrant parents. He has retained and developed an interest in Ukrainian affairs both in Canada and Ukraine. Over the years, he has written extensively on the John Demjanjuk case, the Deschenes Commission, Bill C-71 of 1987, the denaturalization and deportation (d&d) process initiated in 1995 and the subsequent cases of Vladimir Katriuk, Helmut Oberlander and Wasyl Odynsky. Much of this material is archived on his two web sites at
B. Concepts missing or inappropriate in Bill C-18
(1) Benefits of Canadian citizenship, as well as rights and duties, should be stated explicitly.
(2) Dual or multiple citizenship is not mentioned, but should not be allowed.
(3) Balance of probabilities criterion, as in Sec. 17(5)(a), for revoking citizenship in civil proceedings is inappropriate and dates back to when the Old Boys' Club decided who was worthy of being allowed to come and stay in Canada and who should be incarcerated and deported.
(4) Delegation of authority to bureaucrats, as in Sec. 44(1) and (2), leads to the perception that it is the bureaucrats, rather than our elected representatives, that develop policy, write legislation, set the regulations and then implement and execute them. External checks and balances on these bureaucrats must be implemented.
(5) References to British subject, citizen of Commonwealth and citizen of Ireland, as in Sec. 47 and 48, are inappropriate and should be removed.
C. Oath of Citizenship, as in Sec. 34 (Schedule), should be replaced by the version proposed by John Bryden modified to read as follows:
"In accepting Canadian citizenship, I pledge my loyalty to the citizens and land area of Canada, and hereby renounce any other citizenship which I may hold. I join with other Canadians to promote and uphold the following five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law."The Oaths of Allegiance Act should be modified accordingly.
D. Revocation of Citizenship provisions in Secs. 16 to 18 clearly contradict Secs. 3(d) and 12, which affirm that all citizens, whether naturalized or born in Canada, have the same rights and status.
Although this contradiction can be alleviated by modifying Secs. 3(d) and 12 to explicitly state that naturalized Canadians are second class citizens, whose citizenship is not protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or, alternatively, by extending revocation to include citizens born in Canada, I submit that it is far more logical to remove the concept of revocation from Bill C-18 altogether.
Secs. 16 to 18 attempt to sanction and prolong the existing d&d process initiated by Allan Rock in 1995 to replace the criminal trials that had previously been used. These so-called war crimes trials have now morphed into civil processes using lax rules of evidence, a single solitary judge rather than a jury, and an "on a balance of probabilities" rather than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion for conviction. Furthermore, war criminality is no longer the issue. The issue is whether or not an immigration infraction occurred. Canada's War Crimes Unit justifies its existence and budget by fraudulently claiming that immigration infractions are somehow equivalent to war criminality. Spending over one million dollars of taxpayers money per case, they are building their careers on the backs of old people like Wasyl Odynsky, who have to spend their life's savings and mortgage their homes to try to defend themselves.
I, personally, have talked to seven Members of Parliament on the d&d issue. They all appeared to agree with the Ukrainian position on d&d. The revocation provisions in Secs. 16 to 18 do not reflect the views and pronouncements of our elected representatives.