Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I expect to summarize my 10-page presentation in about 8 minutes. After that I will try to answer any questions that you may have.

A. Introduction

I was born in Canada in 1941 of Ukrainian immigrant parents. I have retained and developed an abiding interest in Ukrainian affairs both in Canada and Ukraine. In the 80s and 90s my late wife, Lily, was head of the Charitable Committee in Aid of John Demjanjuk's Family in Montreal. Over the years, I have written extensively on the John Demjanjuk case, the Deschenes Commission, Bill C-71 enabling criminal prosecution of alleged war criminals in 1987, the denaturalization and deportation (d&d) process initiated in 1995 by Allan Rock and the subsequent cases of Vladimir Katriuk, Helmut Oberlander and Wasyl Odynsky. Much of this material is archived on my two web sites listed in my brief.
/tp/
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/pakistan/83/

In Section B, I identify five
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) The terms British subject and Commonwealth, as in Sec. 47 and 48, are not defined. Frankly, I resent being referred to as a British subject.

In section C, my
C. Oath of Citizenship,
which is actually very similar to that proposed by John Bryden, reads 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."

I recognize that the monarchy is important to a large segment of Canadian society. It is part of our Canadian heritage. Nevertheless, my loyalty is to the land area of Canada and its inhabitants, not to the Queen.

I also note that the 5 principles to which we aspire in the Oath have been facetiously categorized as inequality of opportunity, curtailment of free speech, dictatorship of the PMO, abuse of human rights, and rule of lawyers and bureaucrats.

In my Section D
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 these sections 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.

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?

In my brief, I go into quite a bit of detail in 3 subsections to examine: (1) The Historical Background of d&d,
(2) The 2002 Annual Report of Canada's War Crimes Program and the Goss Gilroy Report, which is an evaluation thereof, and
(3)Consolidation of the d&d process.

Under Historical Background, I note that in 1987 Ray Hnatyshyn stated that Canada had opted for a made-in-Canada solution. There would be no denaturalizations and deportations.

Since 1995 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 determination of fraud. Furthermore, war criminality is no longer the issue. The issue is whether or not an immigration infraction occurred. Canada's War Crimes Program 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.

Since May 01, 2002, when Denis Coderre indicated that he would seek the revocation of Wasyl Odynsky's citizenship, the Ukrainian community made a concerted effort to talk to their various Members of Parliament. The MPs 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.

In examining the 2002 Annual Report, I surmise that the bureaucrats running Canada's War Crimes Program are maintaining huge secret lists and secret denunciations supplied by the Holocaust Industry. The people on these lists have not been informed that they are being or have been investigated.

I am not particularly surprised that the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is pleased that Canada is using d&d rather than prosecution. Mr. Wiesenthal, an icon within the Holocaust Industry, was chastised by Justice Jules Deschenes for making claims he could not support before the Commission.

I would urge the Standing Committee to obtain and read the "structured interviews with 110 key informants from inside and outside the program's delivery agencies" carried out by Goss Gilroy personnel.

Consolidation of the d&d process proposed in Section 16(2) and (5) and Section 17(6) and (8) to make revocation and deportation automatic if fraud is determined, further reduces the checks and balances on the process and places a major extra burden on the judge. The original proposal can be traced to a 1985 report to the OSI, 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.

For these three reasons, I fervently hope that the Standing Committee recommends that the concept of revocation of citizenship be removed from Bill C-18.

Thank you.