Bill Blair’s former chief of staff rejects claims of political motive behind 54-day warrant delay

Former Public Safety Minister Bill Blair’s chief of staff denied Wednesday that she delayed the signing of a Canadian Security and Intelligence Service warrant application because it could have resulted in communications by top members of the Liberal party being captured by the security service. 

Under cross examination by Gib van Ert at the foreign interference inquiry in Ottawa, lawyer for Conservative MP Michael Chong, Zita Astravas was asked why it took 54 days in 2021 for Blair to sign the authorization for a warrant being sought by CSIS for an investigation into foreign interference — far longer than the usual timeline.

“I put it to you madame, that the reason for the delay was simply this. Looking at the warrant, looking at the … list you saw in it that it was deeply concerned with the operations of your party and your government,” said Van Ert.

“And having seen how deeply involved this warrant would bring CSIS with the affairs of your party and your government, you didn’t want it to go ahead and if it had to go ahead, you wanted to slow walk it.” 

“I can tell you that your assumptions are categorically false,” Astravas shot back.

Astravas said Blair signed every warrant authorization request he received, including that one.  

Although the inquiry has not heard during its public hearings who was targeted by the warrant, news reports have identified the target as former Ontario MPP Michael Chan. A list that accompanied the warrant named a series of people whose communications risked also being  intercepted when they communicated with the target of the warrant.

Wednesday, Van Ert revealed during the hearing that the Canadian government has sent the inquiry a letter, warning it could jeopardize national security if the name of the person targeted by the warrant were to become public.

Astravas also denied that she had ever shared the names of those whose communications could be intercepted with the prime minister’s office.  

Reason for delay still unclear

The inquiry has heard that Astravas was briefed about the warrant before it was sent to Blair’s office and was briefed about it 13 days after CSIS had submitted the application for the warrant. She was also briefed on the list that accompanied the warrant, also referred to as a Vanweenan list.

Sujit Choudhry, lawyer for NDP MP Jenny Kwan, asked why Astravas had asked for a briefing on Vanweenan lists in connection with that warrant when she would have seen similar lists attached to previous warrant applications handled by Blair’s office. 

“Did you recognize any of the names on that list,” asked Choudhry. “As you can appreciate, I can’t discuss the contents of a Vanweenan list or a specific warrant in this forum and I have spoken with the commission about this,” responded Astravas.

Despite Astravas being peppered with questions about the delay in arranging for Blair to be briefed and to sign the warrant, by the end of Astravas’s testimony it still wasn’t clear why it took so long. Two other warrants that were applied for during that time period were signed with delays of only a few days and Blair had a number of secure conversations with the director of CSIS during that period.

Astravas revealed that Blair was aware of the foreign interference investigation that triggered the warrant before CSIS submitted the application.

Astravas was also questioned on intelligence that revealed that Chong had been targeted by the Chinese government. 

Astravas said she never received the intelligence and has since learned that it was one of a number of pieces of intelligence that was not delivered to herself or Blair.

Earlier, the prime minister’s national security advisor told the inquiry that while some MPs may have lacked judgment or acted unwisely, none of them have betrayed Canada. 

Nathalie Drouin told the inquiry that the special report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians in Canada (NSICOP) on foreign interference, made public in June, left her uncomfortable. The committee’s report found that some parliamentarians (it didn’t name them) had wittingly or unwittingly participated in foreign interference.

“That is not what I see,” she told the inquiry Wednesday. “As I said earlier, I have seen inappropriate conduct, I have seen lack of judgment, I have seen individuals who I would perhaps have less confidence in, but I have not seen any MP in our Parliament who spied, sabotaged, who really put the security of Canada at risk.

“I remain extremely confident in the current members of Parliament and to give another impression is to equip foreign countries in their quest to reduce the confidence Canadians have in our democratic system.”

Drouin said the intelligence indicates complacency on the part of some people who had connections they shouldn’t have had, and suggests some people boasted that they could share information they didn’t have.

“The information that NSICOP used does not allow me to arrive at the conclusion that there are traitors in Parliament,” she said.

In response to a question from Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, who is leading the inquiry, Drouin said she has access to the same information that the committee had, as well as subsequent updates.

Drouin praised the work of NSICOP but said its report focused on parliamentarians, while the focus should be on foreign actors.

The inquiry was set up following media reports which accused China of interfering in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

In her initial report, made public in May, Hogue found that while it was possible that foreign interference occurred in a small number of ridings, she concluded it did not affect the overall election results.