to the

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Public Hearings in
Edmonton, Alberta
April 07, 2005

with specific reference to

A New Citizenship Act


William W. Zuzak, Ph.D.

Edmonton, AB

Email: [email protected]


Dr. William Zuzak is a retired physicist in the fields of nuclear fission and controlled thermonuclear fusion. For many years, his late wife, Lily, was head of the Charitable Committee in Aid of John Demjanjuk's Family, Montreal branch. He has also followed and written extensively on the evolution of Canada's war crimes program starting with the Deschenes Commission in 1985; the subsequent legislation, Bill C-71, in 1987; the switch to the denaturalization and deportation policy in 1995; and the subsequent cases involving Vladimir Katriuk, Helmut Oberlander and Wasyl Odynsky.

Previous submissions to CIMM and relevant material are archived at the three web sites listed above. This presentation shall be archived as


A. Introduction

My views on the appropriate content of a new Citizenship Act are recorded in my previous submissions on Bill C-18 at CIMM public hearings in Edmonton on Feb. 14, 2003 and my Addendum thereto dated Apr. 27, 2003. Members of CIMM, who are not familiar with my submissions, can find archived copies at

Testimony at CIMM meetings relevant to revocation of citizenship are archived at

Rather than repeat my argumentation, I only summarize the salient points in sections B, C and add new information in D. Sections E and F contain new material.

B. 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."

This formulation of the oath of citizenship removes reference to the Queen, disallows dual citizenship, and incorporates some of the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship (as originally proposed by John Bryden). These (or similar) responsibilities should be defined and incorporated in the new Citizenship Act.

C. Revocation of Citizenship

"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 a citizen of another country, if that is his/her desire and he/she is accepted by the other country."

Although not stated explicitly, these concepts also imply that no person on the planet should possess more than one passport. I further maintain that entering or leaving a country on a false passport should result in immediate incarceration for a period of one year, during which the circumstances of the fraud could be established and appropriate legal penalties imposed.

A prime example of passport abuse is the so-called New Zealand - Israel spy scandal in which several Mossad agents were involved in attempting to acquire a false New Zealand passport. One of the convicted felons, Uriel Kelman, presumably has Canadian citizenship, since he traveled from Israel to New Zealand in 1999 on a Canadian passport. [New Zealand Herald, July 31, 2004 by Fran O'Sullivan and Oct. 02, 2004 by Amir Hallel] It is not clear if the Canadian government is in the process of revoking his citizenship or is attempting to extradite him to face charges in Canada.

We live in an increasingly complicated and interdependent world with mass migrations of human beings (and finances) around the planet. Unfortunately, organized crime, orchestrated by the International Money Mafia, has taken advantage of the situation and is spreading its tentacles into the highest level of political, financial, business and even academic institutions around the world. Canada is not immune. Accurate identification of people entering and leaving Canada is crucial.

Responsible citizenship requires that Canadian citizens involved in criminal acts abroad -- such as drug dealing, money laundering, torture, child pornography or exploiting sex slaves -- be brought to justice in Canadian criminal courts according to Canadian standards.

D. Canada's War Crimes Program

In my previous submissions to CIMM, I carried out an analysis of the evolution of the denaturalization and deportation (d&d) process, as well as the submissions of the general public, the Holocaust Industry and government officials, and concluded 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."

Developments since April 2003 reinforce this conclusion and even indicate that the situation has further deteriorated. These developments are summarized in point form below.

(1) Nov. 13, 2003 - Denis Coderre, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (before being replaced by Judy Sgro on Dec. 12, 2003) signs notice to revoke the citizenship of Josef Furman (Edmonton).

(2) Dec. 12, 2003 - Irwin Cotler is appointed Minister of Justice in Paul Martin's new Cabinet. As a charter member of the Holocaust Industry obsessed with Nazi war criminals, Mr. Cotler has stated: "Each time we bring a war criminal to justice we strike a blow against the Holocaust denial movement."
[Toronto Star, Jan. 21, 1992 by Peter Small]

John Bryden has stated:
"The Justice Department has a total monopoly over legislation in Canada. It proposes policy, writes legislation and interprets legislation for all cabinet ministers. The whole process is dominated by one single group of bureaucrats and what makes it worse is that it is a badly abused, secret monopoly."
[Edmonton Journal, July 16, 2001 by Chris Cobb]

(3) Dec. 12, 2003 - Anne McLellan is appointed Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which has a division called the Canada Border Services Agency responsible for Canada's War Crimes Unit.

(4) Jan. 06, 2004 - Justice Robert Reilly rules that he has jurisdiction to consider motions filed on behalf of Helmut Oberlander. Deportation proceedings against Mr. Oberlander are put on hold.

(5) Mar. 01 and 16, 2004 - Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Minister of Justice files Statements of Claim in civil court to revoke the citizenship of Jura Skomatchuk (St. Catherines) and Josef Furman (Edmonton).

(6) May 31, 2004 - Federal Court of Appeal restores citizenship of Helmut Oberlander.

(7) Dec. 14, 2004 - Judy Sgro signs a directive to Eileen Boyd, assistant Clerk of the Privy Council to proceed with the revocation of the citizenship of Wasyl Odynsky and on Dec. 22, 2004 Max Wolpert, counsel for the Justice Department, sends a letter to Barbara Jackman (Odynsky's lawyer) which her office receives at 3:00 p.m., Dec. 24, 2004 and which is transmitted to Olya Odynsky on Jan. 04, 2005.

(8) Jan. 13, 2005 - Judy Sgro resigns as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and is immediately replaced by Joe Volpe the next morning. The 56-year-old Italian-born Joe Volpe "is also a founding member of the Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel and a member of the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group".

It is incomprehensible that Denis Coderre would initiate new d&d actions against Mssrs. Skomatchuk and Furman, when he had earlier stated that he would not act on d&d cases until the process had been re-assessed, when he was aware that the vast majority of Canadians and CIMM members had grave reservations about the d&d process, and when he knew that within one month's time he would no longer be Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is even more incomprehensible, that Ms. Sgro and Mr. Wolpert would proceed with the d&d action, when the Federal Court of Appeal had ruled against the validity of the d&d process and when they were fully aware that CIMM would be considering this issue in the new Citizenship Act that Ms. Sgro herself intended to submit to Parliament. These actions are a "slap in the face" of CIMM, an insult to Canadians and the judiciary, and a gross breach of the democratic process.

E. Myth of Judicial Independence

Critics of the d&d process rightly claim that it is inappropriate for a Cabinet committee (presumably including Ministers responsible for promoting the d&d process) to be involved in making the final decision to revoke the citizenship of a Canadian. They feel that revocation of citizenship should be exclusively a judicial process. Politicians should not mix into judicial matters. Judges should be independent of outside pressure and not mix in politics.

But is the judiciary in Canada truly independent of outside pressure or political interference?

In my Addendum, I demonstrate that Kenneth Narvey has over many years been deliberately intimidating and influencing the Canadian judiciary on behalf of the Holocaust Industry. Let us consider the four people below:

(1) Antonio Lamer:
In a speech at a Jewish student lawyers conference on Jan. 26, 2001, Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, notes the very close relationship between the Canadian and Israeli Supreme Court judiciary. Mr. Lamer and his wife are good friends with Past-President M. Shamgar and the incumbent President Aharon Barak. These two Israeli judges were intimately involved in the initial John Demjanjuk appeal in 1990, transcripts of which reveal ridiculous comments such as: "All the Aktions in Warsaw were carried out by Ukrainians, weren't they?"

One wonders if this cosy relationship had a bearing on the Sep. 25, 1997 Supreme Court ruling allowing further prosecution of the Tobiass, Dueck and Oberlander cases despite egregious misconduct of Ted Thompson of the Justice Department and Chief Justice Julius Isaac of the Federal Court. Their quote reproduced in my Addendum, "What is at stake here, ... , is Canada's reputation as a responsible member of the community of nations. In our view, this concern is of the highest importance.", seems to indicate that they are more interested in Canada's reputation abroad than in the reputable administration of justice.

(2) Louise Arbour:
Before being appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada (Sep. 15, 1999 to June 30, 2004), Ms. Arbour was a prosecutor for the highly politicized International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague attempting to convict Slobodan Milosevic of war crimes. On Feb. 25, 2004, she was appointed to another highly politicized position as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

(3) Rosalie Abella:
In August 2004, Irwin Cotler nominated Ms. Abella to the Supreme Court of Canada -- an appointment opposed by the majority of the legal profession in Canada. Ms. Abella is on record in favouring "group" rights over "individual" rights; while her husband, Irving Abella, is at the forefront in promoting Canada's d&d program to target imaginary Nazi war criminals.

(4) Pierre Blais:
Mr. Blais was first elected to parliament in 1984, but lost his seat in the Nov. 04, 1993 election. In 1989, he was Solicitor General responsible for the operation of CSIS and the RCMP. He replaced Kim Campbell as Minister of Justice and Attorney General in January 1993 and in this capacity responded to a critical letter I had written Ms. Campbell concerning the war crimes issue. His response dated Apr. 05, 1993 was completely unsatisfactory, but included the following sentence: "Denaturalization, deportation or extradition are still alternative remedies if criminal prosecution is not possible."
This confirms that Mr. Blais and the bureaucrats within the Department of Justice were already planning to implement the d&d process even under the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.

Surprisingly, even though he was a former politician, Pierre Blais was appointed a Judge of the Federal Court of Canada in June 1998. Even more surprisingly, even though he was in an obvious conflict of interest, having previously been Solicitor General, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, he was assigned to the Zundel case on May 01, 2003 to determine whether there were "reasonable grounds" to declare Mr. Zundel a security risk to Canada.

(Mr. Zundel was deported from the United States on Feb. 18, 2003 and placed in solitary confinement in a Toronto jail. A "security certificate" was signed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Denis Coderre, and the Solicitor General, Wayne Easter, on either April 30 or May 01, 2003. After 43 days of hearings over 2 years during which sensitive material was withheld from the Zundel defence, Mr. Blais submitted his judgment against Mr. Zundel on Feb. 24, 2005. Mr. Zundel was deported to Germany and incarcerated on Mar. 01, 2005.)

This case is relevant to my submission, because according to Pierre Blais, "reasonable grounds" falls short of "balance of probabilities", which falls short of the usual judicial criterion of "beyond a reasonable doubt". He also claims that, although "Holocaust denial" was not relevant in his judgment, "incitement to hatred and potential political violence" was relevant. We note that the majority of witnesses on Bill C-18 were very critical of the concept of security certificate and "secret trials". Also, as outlined in my Addendum, David Matas, Jack Silverstone and Kenneth Narvey all refer negatively to Ernst Zundel and the CIC bureaucrats refer repeatedly to "hate-mongering" in their testimony before CIMM.

From these four cases, I conclude that judicial independence in Canada is a myth.

F. Potential for Blackmail

Recent immigrants and refugees to Canada often come from very troubled regions of the world. Their environment often consists of dictatorships, corrupt officials and police, spy agencies, organized crime, ethnic hatreds, insurrections, wars, drug addiction and drunkenness. To survive, every human being must learn how to successfully survive in his environment.

Once they arrive in Canada, they can never be sure if some incident from the past -- either real, imagined or concocted -- will come back to haunt them. A spiteful individual, organized crime or spy agency can wreak havoc with the life of a person afraid of losing his citizenship. Thus, a naturalized Canadian is far more prone to be subject to and succumb to blackmail, than someone who is secure in his citizenship.

G. Conclusion

In both my Oath of Citizenship and my view on Revocation of Citizenship, I propose that dual or multiple citizenships not be allowed, since this makes it very difficult to control organized crime and the efficient operation of the economies of the planet. No one should be allowed to have more than one passport.

Despite two judicial rulings that the d&d process is invalid, and despite all previous cases having proved beyond all reasonable doubt that there are no Nazi war criminals in Canada, the Holocaust Industry continues to promote the prosecution of WWII immigrants for alleged immigration infractions.

Although making d&d a fully judicial process may be an improvement, one must realize that the Holocaust Industry has been inordinately successful in influencing the Canadian judiciary.

Fear of loss of citizenship makes naturalized Canadians especially prone to blackmail by organized crime and foreign spy agencies.

For all these reasons, I maintain that any new Citizenship Act should adopt the principle that citizenship cannot be revoked by the state.