Addendum to Submission

to the

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

William Farrell, Clerk
April 27, 2003

with specific reference to

Revocation of Citizenship; Secs. 16, 17, 18 of Bill C-18


Dr. William W. Zuzak, Ph.D.

[... Address ...]
Edmonton, AB

[... Telephone ...]
Email: [email protected]

A. Introduction

This is an addendum to my submission to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration at meeting #33 in Edmonton on Feb. 14, 2003. It shall be archived at

In Section D of my original submission, I recommended that the provisions for the revocation of citizenship in Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bill C-18 be rescinded. In this addendum, I expand on my argumentation by referring to presentations of other people and organizations to the Committee.

B. Summary of original submission

I first state my position 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."

I next argue that, if the person in question is truly a criminal, it is more logical to convict him in a Canadian criminal court, rather than dumping him onto an unsuspecting world to continue with his criminal activities.

I conclude with a 3-part analysis of the existing denaturalization and deportation (d&d) process and demonstrate that the Holocaust Industry is the driving force behind it.

(1) What were once criminal trials attempting to prove war criminality beyond a reasonable doubt have now morphed into civil processes attempting to prove an immigration infraction on a balance of probabilities. I accuse the bureaucrats running Canada's War Crimes Program of justifying their existence and budget by fraudulently claiming that immigration infractions are somehow equivalent to war criminality. I describe the efforts of the Ukrainian community to explain its position to their Members of Parliament and conclude that the revocation provisions in Bill C-18 do not reflect the views and pronouncements of our elected representatives.

(2) An examination of the 2002 Annual Report and a September 2001 Evaluation of Canada's War Crimes Program (consisting of World War II and Modern War Crimes sections) indicates that revocation of citizenship applies only to World War II cases, of which 18 have been initiated since 1995. Obviously huge secret lists based on secret denunciations by the Holocaust Industry are being kept. The 2002 Annual Report refers to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre praising Canada for using denaturalization and deportation rather than criminal prosecution.

(3) The "consolidation of the d&d process" proposed in Bill C-18 (removing the checks and balances imposed by separate revocation and deportation processes) was proposed by the Holocaust Industry to the Deschenes Commission in 1985.

From this 3-part analysis, I 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."

C. Analysis of submissions by the public

The verbal presentations of the various Canadian organizations and individuals before the Committee at over 50 meetings are archived on the parliamentary website at

Excerpts relevant to revocation of citizenship and/or the denaturalization and deportation process are archived on my website at

It is noteworthy that the vast majority of the people making submissions have grave concerns about the revocation and annulment provisions in Bill C-18. Furthermore, most of them decry the two-tier or second-class citizenship accorded to naturalized Canadians. I would suggest that most Canadians would support the concept that the citizenship of Canadians, whether born-in-Canada or naturalized, should not be revocable.

D. Analysis of submissions by the Holocaust Industry

In outlining the historical background of d&d in my submission, I point out that:

"…, 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."

And near the end of my submission, I state:

"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 fa´┐Żade that Canada's War Crimes Program is legitimately prosecuting Nazi war criminals, when nothing could be further from the truth."

As far as I can ascertain, there are only three submissions to the Committee that speak favourably of the revocation provisions in Bill C-18 and these are all related to the Holocaust Industry. Allow me to briefly comment on their verbal presentations.

(1) David Matas for B'nai Brith Canada, Mtg. 10, Nov. 28, 2002

Mr. Matas emphasizes that B'nai Brith is interested only in the revocation provisions in Bill C-18 and only with respect to "Nazi war criminals" from World War II. He complains that "six people have died during the course of proceedings" and about undue delay during all phases of the d&d process. He is pleased that the demand of the Holocaust Industry to consolidate the d&d process has been incorporated in Bill C-18, but proposes 7 additional amendments.

Presumably because so many people associated with the Holocaust Industry immigrated to Canada using a false identity, he opposes Section 18 dealing with annulment of citizenship. He also has reservations about Section 21, "the provision to deny citizenship to people who have demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles underlying a free and democratic society", as being too broad and makes the following curious statement: "As we understand it, it was generated by the problem caused by the pending application of Ernst Zundel, …"

It is my understanding that Mr. Zundel had left Canada some three years earlier to live in the United States and had vowed never to return to Canada. On Nov. 28, 2002, I would suspect that he was at his home in Tennessee with no inkling of Bill C-18 and Mr. Matas' prophecy. It was only in February 2003 that he was arrested by US immigration officials and later deported to Canada, where he made a refugee claim so as to avoid being further deported to Germany.

It is difficult not to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the Holocaust Industry had something to do with Mr. Zundel being arrested and deported from the United States to Canada just in time to support the Section 21 provisions in Bill C-18.

All the witnesses testified that they had not been consulted about the provisions in Bill C-18 and only Mr. Matas appeared satisfied: "So I feel that even though we haven't been consulted, we've been heard in this bill, although we have not been heard clearly and completely."

In his submission, while complaining of delays in the deportation of Helmut Oberlander, Mr. Matas misleadingly refers to a 1997 Supreme Court judgment archived at

This is associated with a stay of proceedings in the Tobiass, Dueck and Oberlander cases due to an improper meeting between Ted Thompson of the Justice Department and Chief Justice Julius Isaac of the Federal Court complaining about undue delays by Justice James Jerome, which the Supreme Court overturned. It makes for enlightening reading, especially paragraphs 109 and 111:

"109 On the other side of the balance, society's interest in having a final decision on the merits is obvious. It is imperative that the truth should come to light. If it is not proven that the appellants did the things they are said to have done, then they will retain their citizenship. But if some or all of the alleged acts are proven then the appropriate action must be taken. What is at stake here, in however small a measure, is Canada's reputation as a responsible member of the community of nations. In our view, this concern is of the highest importance."

"111 Therefore, the only just decision under the circumstances is that the cases should be allowed to proceed. To paraphrase the remarks of our colleague La Forest J. in Vermette, supra, at p. 994, "judicial abdication is not the remedy". It is in the public interest that allegations of the most wicked kinds of criminal activity should be scrutinized by the judiciary. In all the circumstances, the imprudent actions of Mr. Thompson, the Chief Justice, and the Associate Chief Justice should not be permitted to frustrate the judicial process."

These two paragraphs clearly indicate that the Supreme Court expected that the "appellants will retain their citizenship", if it is not proven that the participants willingly participated in the "most wicked kinds of criminal activity". In the cases of Wasyl Odynsky, Helmut Oberlander and Vladimir Katriuk, the Federal Court judges Andrew MacKay and Marc Nadon specifically ruled that they were not war criminals and did not perpetrate any atrocities. The Supreme Court judges were certainly not proposing that the citizenship of Canadians be revoked for alleged immigration infractions.

(2) Jack Silverstone and Eric Vernon for the Canadian Jewish Congress, Mtg. 14, Jan. 28, 2002

Mr. Silverstone openly admits that the issue of "Nazi war criminals" has been high on the agenda of the CJC since the 1950s. He refers positively to the Deschenes Commission and its report, but does not refer to the role of the Holocaust Industry in orchestrating its creation. Nor does he note the undue influence that the Office of Special Investigations (of John Demjanjuk infamy) had on the Commission as outlined at /tp/wllzzk/deschene005.html He decries that the OSI proposal to the Commission in 1985 that the d&d process be consolidated and utilized was not implemented by the government in 1987. He blames the failure of the CJC agenda on this fact, but feels that Bill C-18 will solve the problem.

To a question by Diane Ablonczy, he repeats ad nausium his religious belief that there are thousands of Nazi war criminals in Canada despite all the evidence to the contrary and lauds the 1995 switch from criminal prosecution to the d&d process. He admits that over the past two years the CJC has changed its mind and now supports judicializing the whole d&d process. He does not want the new rules to apply to existing cases.

(3) Kenneth Narvey for 5 Montreal Synagogues, Mtg. 40, Feb. 18, 2003

Mr. Narvey has submitted amendments to the Committee two years previously, thinks Bill C-18 is excellent, but still has proposals on 29 topics. He supports the positions of David Matas and Eric Vernon on Section 21 that "the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society" be replaced with anti-hate verbiage. He suggests that appropriate amendments to Section 28 "would allow us to better achieve what clause 21 is intended to achieve, and to prevent Mr. Ernst Zundel from acquiring citizenship."

It is obvious that the Holocaust Industry is obsessed with Mr. Zundel.

Upon a request by the Acting Chair that he finish his submission quickly, Mr. Narvey proposes amendments to Section 16 to allow the courts to consider "humanitarian and compassionate grounds".

In two separate locations in the text, Mr. Narvey indicates that he has direct access to the CIC bureaucrats with statements such as "We've spoken with some bureaucrats about this …" and "A member of the Minister's staff said to me …". It is small wonder that the agenda of the Holocaust Industry is so fully reflected in Bill C-18.

Some background information on Mr. Narvey is available on the Internet and other sources:

(a) David Matas credits his acquaintance with Mr. Narvey as undergraduates at the University of Manitoba with becoming involved with the Holocaust Industry.

(b) Mr. Narvey is mentioned prominently in the Deschenes Commission Report of 1986 as supporting the OSI tactics of d&d.

(c) Mr. Narvey and Irwin Cotler attended lectures by Yoram Sheftel in Montreal on the John Demjanjuk case and left the impression that they were convinced of his innocence. Yet, when Mr. Demjanjuk was exonerated by the Israeli Supreme Court in late July 1993, Mssrs. Narvey and Cotler were at the forefront of the campaign to have Mr. Demjanjuk charged with some lesser crimes by the Israeli courts. When the Israeli courts ruled that Mr. Demjanjuk must be returned to the United States, CBC TV carried a news item live from Jerusalem in which Mr. Cotler vowed to pursue Mr. Demjanjuk to the ends of the earth.

(d) Mr. Narvey attempted to get intervenor status in the Wasyl Odynsky case, necessitating an expense of about $5000.00 to the defense to argue against the request.

(e) A 24 June 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision by Judge McLachlin dismissed a "motion for leave to intervene" by Kenneth Narvey in the Erich Tobiass case.

(f) Federal Court of Canada dossier T-2408-96, Sept. 17, 1998, wherein the demand of intervenor status in the Vladimir Katriuk case by Kenneth Narvey is rejected by Judge Marc Nadon.

(g) Two articles by David Lazarus in the Canadian Jewish News dated Nov. 12, 1998 and Feb. 11, 1999 detail how Kenneth Narvey demanded that Judge Marc Nadon recuse himself from the Vladimir Katriuk case for alleged anti-semitism. In my view this was a (successful) attempt by Kenneth Narvey to intimidate the judiciary to provide a judgment favourable to the Holocaust Industry.

(h) A Globe and Mail, 20 Feb. 1999, Kirk Makin article refers to a challenge by Jewish activist Kenneth Narvey to Judge Noel's favourable ruling on the Dueck case.

(i) In Federal Court of Canada dossier A-522-98, May 30, 2000, Judge Karen Sharlowe dismisses an appeal by Kenneth Narvey re the Vladimir Katriuk case.

I submit that the above information indicates clearly that Kenneth Narvey has over many years been deliberately intimidating and influencing the Canadian judiciary on behalf of the Holocaust Industry.

E. Analysis of testimony by government officials

During meetings #6, 12 and 13, several bureaucrats from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration appeared before the Committee to explain the sections relevant to revocation and denial of citizenship. These were:
Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program);
Mrs. Patricia Birkett (Registrar, Citizenship);
Ms. Rosaline Frith (Director General, Integration);
Mr. Daniel Poulin (Counsel, War Crime Section); and
Mr. Paul Yurack (Counsel, Legal Services).

Although there was no direct reference to Ernst Zundel, Ms. Frith refers to hate and/or hate-mongering 8 times and Ms. Atkinson 2 times during their testimony. Obviously, the bureaucrats at CIC are fully sensitized to the concerns of the Holocaust Industry. One would wish that the CIC bureaucrats would be as concerned by the hate-mongering of the Holocaust Industry against people like Wasyl Odynsky, Helmut Oberlander and Vladimir Katriuk as they are about the hate-mongering attributed to Mr. Zundel.

Personally, I find the attitude of these bureaucrats toward citizenship and its revocation deeply disturbing. To them citizenship is a privilege or a qualified right. To me who was born in Canada, my Canadian citizenship is a status. It is the very essence of my being; a feeling shared, I am sure, by the vast majority of naturalized Canadians. An attack on their citizenship, is an attack on my citizenship. Far from "enhancing the value of Canadian citizenship" by revoking that of some hapless immigrant, such an act undermines my citizenship.

Ms. Rosaline Frith claims that "the grant of citizenship is not a judicial procedure"; whereas the millions of Canadians who accepted their citizenship from a Citizenship Judge felt that it was, indeed, a judicial procedure. Certainly, that was what Vladimir and Maria Katriuk thought, when they accepted their citizenship on Nov. 10, 1958, in a citizenship ceremony before Judge Robitaille, who was fully aware of the details of their case. Perhaps that is why the CIC bureaucrats want to replace Citizenship Judges with Citizenship Commissioners, so as to bring citizenship fully under bureaucratic control.

Mr.Yurack speaks of "balancing the fairness in the process against the rights of the state" and "the government has an absolute right" to take away citizenship. What he means, of course, is the right of bureaucrats. I would submit that the state and/or government has no rights. These are created by Canadian citizens to serve Canadian citizens and bureaucrats are hired to serve Canadian citizens.

The CIC bureaucrats repeat their mantra of "fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly concealing material circumstances" like robots, but they fail to recognize their own fraud of equating immigration infractions with war criminality.

Daniel Poulin claims that there were only 6 revocation cases -- 3 won and 3 lost by the Minister and total costs of $3-4 million; whereas the 2002 Annual Report of Canada's War Crimes Program (incorporating CIC, DOJ and RCMP/CSIS) refers to 18 cases since 1995 and far higher costs. Furthermore, to my knowledge, this does not include judicial costs. These are all associated with allegations of World War II war criminality. The financial costs to these octogenarians is far beyond their means and the emotional costs to them, their families and their communities is incalculable.

F. Conclusion

In this addendum to my original submission, I have noted that a large number of Canadian organizations and individuals have deep reservations about the revocation of citizenship provisions in Bill C-18 and the second-class citizenship this imposes on naturalized Canadians.

The submissions of David Matas, Jack Silverstone and Kenneth Narvey, all charter members of the Holocaust Industry, demonstrate conclusively that the Holocaust Industry is the driving force behind Sections 16, 17, 18 and 21 of Bill C-18.

The testimony of CIC government officials before the Committee illustrate that they are responsive to the agenda of the Holocaust Industry and not to the concerns of the vast majority of Canadian organizations and individuals who made submissions to the Committee.

The material herein reinforces my contention that Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bill C-18 should be rescinded in total and that Bill C-18 should reflect the position that Canadian citizenship is not revocable.