Liberal Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino is struggling to escape his web of disinformation about the invocation of the Emergencies Act against the peaceful freedom convoy protests in February.

After insisting for months that law enforcement requested that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoke the law, statements by the RCMP and Ottawa police say otherwise.

So far, former Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly, interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell, and RCMP Commissioner have proven that claim to be false. 

To cover up his tracks, Mendicino’s office had his underling Deputy Minister Rob Stewart say that Mendicino was “misunderstood” when he said about two dozen times that police requested the emergency powers.

Things are so heated for Trudeau’s top minister now that Conservative Party leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre is calling for him to resign.

As much as Mendicino might insist that Canadians misunderstood what he said, it’s all on the record and provided in length below: 

February 21: Question Period

“That is why we continue to listen very carefully to the advice we are getting from our police services, which say that the Emergencies Act was instrumental in addressing the blockades at ports of entry and continues to be instrumental in preventing them.”

“The Emergencies Act will continue to play a critical role in ending the illegal blockades. We will follow the advice of the police and of other experts, who are telling us that the act is still necessary.”

February 25: Public Safety Committee

“Making the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was very difficult, but we did so with a lot of care, and we listened closely to the advice from the police forces.”

“That was the advice that we were receiving from law enforcement and one of the main reasons we invoked the Emergencies Act.”

“We were talking about the ability of law enforcement to utilize existing authorities, but they then came to their judgment, as you say, and thereafter we came to ours on the basis of the advice that we were getting from law enforcement.”

“We got the advice from our law enforcement that we met the threshold. That advice and the decision to invoke it were informed by non-partisan professionals.”

February 28: Question Period

“As we have said since the beginning, we are acting on the advice of law enforcement members and giving them the tools they need.”

“That is the reason why we had to invoke the Emergencies Act, and we did so on the basis of non-partisan, professional advice from law enforcement.”

March 1: Question Period

“We added resources and, yes, we did invoke the Emergencies Act, but we did so as a last resort and on the advice of the police.”

April 26: Declaration of Emergency Committee

“My concerns are ongoing, but we invoked the act because it was the advice of non-partisan professional law enforcement that existing authorities were ineffective at the time to restore public safety at all of the ports of entry.”

“The advice we were getting was that law enforcement needed the Emergencies Act to be sure that they could resolve, for example, ambiguities around those who were staying close to ports of entry, which are obviously very critical infrastructure, and to be able to communicate very clearly that they should leave.”

“However, when efforts using existing authorities proved ineffective, the advice we received was to invoke the Emergencies Act. At all times, we were guided by a simple principle of limited use.”

April 26: Question Period

“It was only after we got advice from law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act. It was necessary, and it worked.”

April 28: Question Period

“It was only after we received advice from police that we invoked the act. It worked, and now we are going to make sure we co-operate with these inquiries.” 

“It was on the advice of law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act. It was necessary, and it worked.”

“It was the police who laid charges independently because of those interruptions, and it was only after we received their advice that we invoked the Emergencies Act.”

May 3: Question Period

“We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement.”

“This protest played out very differently from the events in January and February when we invoked the Emergencies Act on advice from the police.”

May 17: Procedure and House Affair Committee

“The government, in good faith, sought the advice of law enforcement prior to its invocation on very specific powers, which were then subsequently used by law enforcement to restore public safety at a time of unprecedented civil disobedience, in the opinion of professional, non-partisan police.”

June 8: Question Period

“We were in the midst and in the throes of an unprecedented public order emergency in the opinion of non-partisan, professional law enforcement. When we sought their advice about which powers were needed to restore public safety, we listened to them, and we invoked to restore public safety.”