Re: Bill C-18, Citizenship Act of Canada

Dear Members of the Committee,

My name is Olya Odynsky. I have been actively involved with the Citizenship process for the past five years.

I have read, very carefully, the new proposed legislation C-18. My comments today will be specific to section 16 - the section dealing with Revocation of Citizenship.

Revocation of citizenship is one of the most severe punishments that a state may impose upon a citizen. It is particularly harsh when invoked against an individual who has been naturalized and a citizen of Canada for over 50 years and who has contributed to our society. When does an immigrant finally become a permanent citizen? Are we creating two classes of citizens: those born here, like me, and those who immigrated here, like my parents? Are all immigrants, even those who think they are citizens by virtue of naturalization and their desire to become Canadians actually not 100% Canadian ?

I recommend that there be a statute of limitations of 5 years. The government has an opportunity to screen individuals upon their application and during the immigration and naturalization process. Once a person is granted citizenship it should be irrevocable after a period of 5 years. Surely that period of time gives the government ample opportunity to investigate an individual.

Section 16, subsection 1, is basically the same as the former legislation with respect to obtaining citizenship by fraud and misrepresentation. I believe that this section needs greater clarification. We have a situation in Canada where many of our immigrants came to Canada in the post WWII era, 1945-55. The immigration documents of this era were destroyed by the government and no longer exist. We also have a modern day situation where we must protect our borders from terrorists and other undesirables. We MUST not confuse these two situations.

As you may know, it is this section of the Citizenship Act that is currently used by the government in their quest to rid Canada of alleged war criminals. I might add, that I support ridding Canada of war criminals no matter when or where the crimes were committed and irrespective of the ethnicity, race or creed of the alleged war criminal. However, I believe that this should be done through the criminal courts where the burden of proof is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and not the "balance of probabilities standard". To illustrate this point, please note that the government of Canada announced in 1995 that we would not proceed with the revocation of the citizenship of any person unless there was evidence of some personal criminality.

And yet, cases commenced, in which the government admitted that there was no evidence of personal participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity and yet proceeded to initiate hearings aimed at the revocation of the citizenship of many persons whom I call Canadians by choice. These are men who came to Canada to build a better life for themselves and their families and who have done just that, for over a half century. In fact today, Wasyl Odynsky who was never charged with war crimes, but was nevertheless found to have misrepresented himself on a balance of probabilities over half a century ago without a shred of documentary evidence - today might still have his citizenship revoked and then be deported from Canada. Odynsky has been totally exonerated of collaborating with the Germans, and of committing any acts of persecution against anybody, anywhere and at anytime. And yet, after 5 years of litigation, his case remains unresolved. The financial cost to him, (the loss of his life savings and home) and the loss to his family, and I might add to his community - has been overwhelming.

During the Commission Of Inquiry On War Criminals In Canada, the so-called Desch�nes Commission, the late John Sopinka argued that "It is my submission, cruel and inhuman to uproot an individual from his family and whatever life he has built in 35 or more years as a productive Canadian on the suspicion that he might have been a war criminal. It is precisely because of the "evidentiary advantage" in deportation and denaturalization proceedings that I would submit that the Commission should reject such proceedings as a means of bringing war criminals to justice. No punishment should be inflicted�unless his or her guilt is fairly established by Canadian standards of justice". We must be vigilant to ensure that we do not live in a society where we allow one individual or group to point a finger at someone else and suddenly that becomes enough evidence for revocation proceedings.

I wonder whether 5 years from now (if we do not impose a statute of limitations) whether there will be investigations of the Polish people who left Poland during the Solidarnist movement. What about the members of the Tamil Sri Lankan community who fled Sri Lanka's political upheaval? What if someone points a finger at some of those refugees and claims that they are actually war criminals? What about the hundreds of refugee claimants coming into Canada each year who have no identity documents, or false ones? Issues of war criminality belong in the Canadian criminal courts. Using the Citizenship Act to win a case by lowering the standard to an administrative tribunal versus a fair trial at a higher standard in a criminal court is a perversion of Canadian justice.

Section 16 (2) appears to speed up the revocation process such that a finding of misrepresentation immediately revokes the citizenship of an individual. I must say that I was very pleased initially to hear that there would be an opportunity for appeal in the new bill. Upon review, it occurs to me that one must have leave for appeal, and that the appeal is limited to only factual and legal findings of misrepresentation. There is no consideration for any humanitarian or compassionate grounds. It seems sensible to me to allow the presiding judge discretion in his final ruling.

I am pleased to see the current process of revocation of citizenship has been taken out of the hands of the politicians since it appears likely that the investigations into the supposed presence of Nazi War criminals in Canada, and the investigations and hearings that have resulted have been motivated less by a concern for bringing the guilty to justice - assuming any such persons ever were in Canada - than by a desire to appear to be doing something about a problem that I humbly submit is minor, perhaps non-existent. I repeat that no one has yet been able to demonstrate, in a Canadian criminal court of law, that any of the Canadians said to have been Nazi war criminals or collaborators were anything of the kind. Yet that has not prevented these cases from going forward, perverting our judicial system by, in effect, making the accused prove his innocence instead of being considered innocent until found guilty in a court of law, and pitting the citizen alone against all of the resources of the state.

For people like Odynsky, whom a Canadian Federal Court judge, Justice Andrew MacKay, found had been a solid contributing citizen of Canada for over 50 years, there must be the option of judicial discretion. I strongly recommend that this be included in the new Act.

It has been my intention today to put a human face on the results of the revocation of someone's citizenship. To conclude let me place into evidence an opinion editorial I wrote in the January 5, 1998 edition of the Globe and mail, titled "Canada plans to deport my father without a fair trial" and an editorial published in the same newspaper the following week. Both will, I trust further inform you about the undermining of the very principles of our judicial system that has been taking place over the past decade, of the destructive impact this has had on individual Canadians, their families and communities, about the divisiveness this unfair process has engendered and about how a simple remedy is available: No revocation of any Canadian citizen's citizenship after the expiry of a five year statute of limitations unless compelling and credible evidence is brought forward of criminality, sufficient to warrant criminal court proceedings.

Canada should not become a haven for war criminals, we all agree. But Canada's citizens by choice should also not become forever hostage to the prejudices of the places and pasts they left to come here, or to the disinformation spread by others, whether out of ignorance or malice. Once anyone becomes a Canadian, following their application, screening and naturalization they should have the same privileges and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship as those born here. As well, they should have the right to face anyone who might accuse them of past wrongdoings in a Canadian criminal court of law and nowhere else. Canadian citizenship should not be so easily undone without just cause.

Thank you.