Zuzak response to CIMM Report 12

Dear Andrew Telegdi and CIMM members:

You have asked for public response to CIMM Report 12 tabled Oct. 06, 2005, titled "Updating Canada's Citizenship Laws: It's Time" and archived at

I must commend the Committee for its vast effort in trying to father the new Citizenship of Canada Act. In general, I concur with its recommendations except in the two areas indicated below.

Citizenship Revocation

Recommendation 2 suggests that the preamble include the statement: "There must be equal treatment of Canadian-born and naturalized citizens." This would only be possible if the new Citizenship of Canada Act adopted the principle that the citizenship of naturalized Canadians is not revocable. This is the position promoted by the vast majority of witnesses, who testified before your Committee in 2003 and 2005 on this issue, and who decried the second-class status of naturalized Canadians that revocation of citizenship implies.

On Jun. 22, 2005, I responded to CIMM Report 10 "Citizenship Revocation" archived at
and will not repeat the views expressed therein and in previous submissions on Apr. 07, 2005; April 24, 2003 and Feb. 14, 2003:

Nevertheless, you will note that, despite your recommendation that an exclusively judicial process based on rigorous criminal rules of evidence be utilized for citizenship revocation, a Pre-Trial Conference on Oct. 18, 2005 indicates that the government intends to use the old discredited civil process to revoke the citizenship of Jura Skomatchuk and Josef Furman (Court File Nos: T-440-04 and T-560-04 respectively).

Obviously, the Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Joe Volpe, as well as the bureaucrats in the departments for which they are responsible, view the work of CIMM and the witnesses who testified at your hearings with contempt. This confirms that these people are responsive to the Holocaust Industry, rather than our elected representatives and the Canadian public.

Dual Citizenship

A glaring omission in your Report 12 is any consideration of the issue of dual citizenship. In my various submissions indicated above, I have consistently promoted my view that "There should be no stateless person; there should be no person with dual or multiple citizenships." In fact, during my verbal testimony on Apr. 07, 2005, I specifically stated:

"The issue of dual or multiple citizenship has been discussed peripherally at CIMM meetings several times. My understanding is that Canadian citizenship was defined in 1947 and dual citizenship was not allowed. Presumably sometimes after 1977, it was introduced surreptitiously by the CIC bureaucracy without any input from the public or Parliament.

In my opinion, the issue of dual citizenship is very important to the concept and definition of Canadian citizenship. It should be discussed at the public hearings and very clearly handled in the Citizenship Act.

I would urge CIMM to prepare a background study on dual citizenship -- its historical development (or lack thereof) and its status in Canada as of 2005. This study should include the number of Canadians, who possess dual citizenship -- complete with a breakdown according to age, gender, education, occupation, residency and the countries involved. There should be a similar breakdown of landed immigrants and visitors (both legal and illegal)."

Since that time there have been two relevant -- perhaps contradictory -- incidents which have confronted Canadians:
(1) Under public pressure, Governor General Michaelle Jean was forced to renounce her French citizenship.
(2) Alfonso Gagliano is encouraging Canadian citizens of Italian origin to vote in the forthcoming Italian elections.

Personally, I cannot see how one could draft a Citizenship of Canada Act without discussing and resolving this critical issue.

Respectfully submitted

William Zuzak, Ph.D.