CSIS May Have Revised Michael Chan Warrant After Bill Blair's Office Questioned Approval: Document Analysis

"Imperative is upon the Commission to provide a conclusion to this mystery, and the answer should be obvious": Conservative Lawyer points to Vanweenan List

OTTAWA, Canada — In the unfolding examination of the delayed approval of a national security warrant targeting Liberal Party fundraiser Michael Chan, new insights have emerged from The Bureau’s detailed analysis of final submissions to the Hogue Commission and newly available documents.

These developments raise questions about whether former CSIS Director David Vigneault "may have pulled back the warrant to make an edit" after initial concerns were raised by then-Public Safety Minister Bill Blair's office regarding the warrant's explosive content. The potential involvement of a list of senior Liberals who could be impacted by CSIS’s surveillance of Chan adds a layer of mystery to the case, which, according to a former CSIS senior officer previously cited by The Bureau, should be investigated by the RCMP for potential obstruction of justice concerns.

Submissions from several lawyers participating in the Hogue Commission have reiterated the unprecedented nature of a delay of at least 54 days within Minister Blair’s office. They suggest that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration may have stalled the warrant concerning Chan for partisan reasons and potentially even to protect a Trudeau cabinet minister.

Michael Chan has strongly denied any wrongdoing and submitted to Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue his concern that CSIS will not "confirm that nothing of concern was found in its electronic surveillance of Mr. Chan."

Prominent lawyer Sujit Choudhry, representing NDP MP Jenny Kwan, underscored the gravity of these deviations in his November 18 final submission to Commissioner Hogue, focusing on the so-called Vanweenan list of individuals that could have been in communication with Chan.

"The Commission must answer why there were so many departures from standard procedure for this warrant. Was it because [Zita] Astravas sought to protect the target? Did she seek to protect the names on the Vanweenan list? Were these individuals prominent members of the Liberal Party? Did they include Cabinet ministers?"

For the first time, The Bureau's comparative review of documents available this week suggests that Minister Blair could potentially have been briefed on the CSIS warrant about a week after his chief of staff, Zita Astravas, questioned CSIS Director Vigneault about the Vanweenan list, according to an unidentified CSIS witness.

This implies that Astravas was briefed on the list two weeks after she first received the warrant, and that Blair may have been first briefed on the matter about 20 days after it arrived in his office—rather than on the 54th day, as both Blair and Astravas have claimed in testimony.

Due to the sanitized nature of Astravas’ witness summary and the statements from the secret interview—which lack details, dates, and clarity—these timeline specifics cannot be confirmed. However, based on conflicting testimony from a CSIS officer, questions arise about how many times Minister Blair was briefed on the warrant before he finally signed it.

Regarding the “initial briefing” that Astravas received on the Chan warrant before she asked for the Vanweenan list briefing on “Day 13,” documents say: “Commission Counsel referred to an internal CSIS email listing questions asked at the Initial Briefing. This included questions about how the activities described met the threshold to obtain a warrant.”

According to the document, Astravas recalled in her secret witness interview that CSIS “may have” edited the warrant after the “initial briefing.”

Another internal CSIS email, which Astravas had not seen before, was sent the day after the initial briefing. In it, a CSIS officer expressed concern that the warrant application package was "in danger of not being approved by the Minister."

Approximately two weeks after Astravas and Minister Blair’s office first received the warrant—referred to as "Day 13" in Commission filings—Astravas testified that she requested and received a second briefing on the Vanweenan list. She did not recall the exact date of the briefing or when she requested it, but filings from a Commission lawyer indicate it was around "Day 13." The Vanweenan list is a compilation of individuals who might be in contact with the warrant's target and could be affected by surveillance.

“Commission Counsel referred to an email sent about a week before the Minister Briefing that refers to a conversation that occurred between the Director and the Minister’s office about the warrant that same day,” a summary of her secret interview with Commission Counsel says.

It adds Astravas agreed that this could pertain to the briefing on the Vanweenan list. She stated that the briefing was to help her understand what the Vanweenan list was, how it was compiled, and the impact the warrant would have on the individuals listed.

“At no point in any warrant application would Ms. Astravas seek changes to the warrant application, including the Vanweenan list,” the summary says.

Notably, evidence from former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole's lawyer highlighted questions about Astravas's familiarity with the Vanweenan list. The lawyer stated:

"Astravas testified that the reason she required the Day 13 briefing was that, despite having worked as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Public Safety for eighteen months, she required '...an explanation of what a Vanweenan list is...'"

Astravas provided detailed testimony about the procedural steps and concerns during the warrant's approval process. In her interview with the Commission, she stated that a warrant application would be presented to the Minister when she and CSIS agreed it was "ready," emphasizing logistical readiness—such as paperwork being in order—over substantive content.

She recalled that CSIS may have pulled back the warrant to make an edit, which she described as normal practice. The Commission has not provided information to balance that claim; however, in its first phase, it heard from two CSIS witnesses who alleged that sensitive intelligence on a related investigation was recalled by CSIS twice, and these witnesses stated that such recalls were unusual.

As The Bureau previously reported, "CSIS Director David Vigneault took the rare step of changing a sensitive intelligence report on [the 2019 federal election] a second time in 2023, following a meeting between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Vigneault regarding media leaks about CSIS investigations into suspected Chinese interference."

Suggesting the possible Michael Chan warrant "edit" was inconsequential, the summary of Astravas' testimony adds:

"In the interval between the two aforementioned briefings, Ms. Astravas had spoken by phone with the Director of CSIS on a number of matters. She believed that she may have been waiting for answers from CSIS on matters that she had asked about during the Initial Briefing. She also indicated that CSIS may have pulled back the warrant application in order to update information or make grammatical changes, which she described as not unusual."

Without commenting on the credibility of her testimony—which will be up to Commissioner Hogue to determine—the summary says: “Ms. Astravas did not raise any concerns about the warrant with the Director. She explained that a warrant application is a CSIS document, over which CSIS holds the pen. It was not her responsibility to provide substantive feedback or direction. At no point in any warrant application would Ms. Astravas prescribe changes to a warrant application.”

Also, the summary says Astravas did not recall receiving any further information about something listed in the affidavit supporting the warrant application; the sanitized record does not specify what that "something" could be.

In other cryptic and minimal statements that appear to raise questions about Blair’s testimony, Commission Counsel referred to an internal CSIS email from the affiant expressing concern about the perceived delay in obtaining the Minister's approval. The affiant highlighted worries that prolonging the process could render the information in the application outdated. According to Astravas’ testimony, these concerns were not communicated to her or to Minister Blair.

She did not recall whether the Minister had any questions about the warrant application during the briefing on "Day 54." She confirmed that the Minister signed the warrant package that day without requesting any changes but did ask for an update within six months. According to both Blair's and Astravas's versions of the timeline, Blair was briefed and signed the warrant on "Day 54."

However, The Bureau's analysis found that CSIS witness testimony appears to conflict with this timeline. Commission Counsel referred to an internal CSIS email from the affiant dated after the Minister's briefing on the warrant, and it refers to multiple briefings with Blair—evidence that at least seems to directly conflict with that of Blair and Astravas.

In the email, the CSIS affiant—whose duty is to present the affidavit evidence to a secret court for national security matters and take questions from a federal judge on the matter—said that if questioned by the Federal Court about the delay in the Minister's approval of the warrant application, he would describe the delay as unusual. "He noted that while he was a part of discussions and briefings with the Minister, none of those briefings indicated what the Minister was thinking or why there was a delay," the document reveals.

Taking the side of the CSIS affiant’s evidence rather than that of Blair and Astravas and other Trudeau government witnesses, a number of lawyers asserted their belief that Blair’s office stalled the Chan warrant to protect Trudeau’s party.