Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yesterday in the House of Commons one of our parliamentary colleagues called on the Minister of Immigration to answer a question about an intervention he made on behalf of a person who was supposed to be deported by the Canada Border Services Agency, and he refused to answer in the House of Commons.
This intervention the minister made is an intervention on behalf of Parliament. His responsibilities are answerable to Parliament, and he would not answer in the House of Commons yesterday. It's a great affront to his role that he has to fulfill for Parliament. Therefore, I'm making a motion today:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee demand the appearance of the Minister of Immigration and the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, to explain their roles and the rational[e] of the Minister's intervention in the stay of deportation of Zain Haq. Media reports that this foreign activist, who has admitted to receiving $170,000 from a foreign entity for his illegal activities, had faced deportation due to violations of his study permit; has been arrested at least 10 times; and has been previously convicted of mischief charges. The 2023 court decision indicate[s] that Mr. Haq has “shown disdain for the rule of law and he has publicly encouraged others to break the law.” Court documents indicate that Mr. Haq helped organize a road closure that “interfered with emergency vehicles trying to access St. Paul's Hospital.”
There's further on this, Mr. Chair, that I want to go into as far as the severity of how Mr. Haq has breached the law goes. He knowingly and deliberately broke the law, and he did so fully aware of the consequences and the impact that his actions have on innocent parties.
This is the judgment against him by a court of law in Canada and subsequently upheld by a Court of Appeal:
...the rule of law must be obeyed unless legal jurisdiction permits otherwise.
Mr. Haq's conduct in knowingly blocking traffic, annoying the public and interfering with their lawful use and enjoyment of public roadways is aggravating. The significant number of police resources consumed by Mr. Haq's behaviour is aggravating. The fact that he persisted in his behaviour while knowing the consequences is aggravating as is his willingness to involve and encourage others...Mr. Haq's breach of his release order was a flagrant disregard of terms designed to prevent further offences and that he did so in the face of the authorities.
...Mr. Haq has shown disdain for the rule of law and he has publicly encouraged others to break the law while publicly celebrating his own arrest. His conduct speaks to an arrogance of ideals at the expense of the democratic process and pro-social dialogue.
...I have considered potential immigration consequences and in my view, to reduce the sentence would result in a sentence that would be disproportionate...Mr. Haq failed to disclose that he was denied a US visa, the sentence imposed may be of no moment to his immigration situation.
It goes on, but it is damning of Mr. Haq.
For some reason, at the last moment, the Minister of Immigration, along with the member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, intervened in CBSA's deportation of Mr. Haq. We need to know why. Parliament needs to know why. There is a process here that has to be followed, and there needs to be some rationale for intervening in a deportation order such as this.
That is the motion, Mr. Chair, and I put it on the floor for my colleagues to consider.