Mr. Chair, I want to take this opportunity to move another motion, for which notice was given on Friday. The clerk is about to distribute it. This also has to deal with the subject of conflicting testimony that was given at this committee in March of this year versus what was given at the commission.
The motion is as follows:
That the Chair, on behalf of the Committee, contact the Ontario Provincial Police demanding an immediate response regarding their testimony before the Committee on March 24, 2022, where they identified possible security threats in relation to the Freedom Convoy, which runs in apparent contradiction to their testimony before the Public Order Emergency Commission on October 19, 2022.
I won't take much time, Mr. Chair.
On March 24, during my final two and a half minutes, I asked Ottawa Interim Chief of Police Bell, “at the time...did you feel that it was a national security threat? When you received those assessments, did your police officers feel that was a viable national security threat?”
Chief Bell referenced intelligence experts, and then he said he was going to defer the question to OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique. OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique answered, “Thank you, Chief Bell. Through you, Mr. Chair, we did identify it as a threat to national security, through the provincial operations intelligence bureau, on or about February 7.” He repeated that same answer in a reply to Mr. Sameer Zuberi, who was a member of our committee at that time, and he did, again, reiterate that they identified it collectively as a risk to national security.
Mr. Chair, if you contrast that with one of the commissioner's deputies who, on October 19, asserted that it was not a direct threat to national security.... I'm quite troubled that the very same police force is giving one answer to the public order commission but a completely different answer earlier in the year to a committee of the House of Commons.
I think, Mr. Chair, that this committee has to empower you to seek clarification on why those two wildly different testimonies were given.
I will end there, and I hope I can gain support from my colleagues for this motion.