“The warrant involved high-ranking members of your party. Isn’t that why you delayed it?”: Commission Lawyer to Bill Blair’s Former Aide

OTTAWA, Canada — In extraordinary testimony Wednesday, Zita Astravas, former chief of staff to Minister Bill Blair, denied allegations of delaying a warrant approval for Liberal Party powerbroker Michael Chan in 2021. Yet, under cross-examination, she acknowledged an explosive irregularity: seeking a briefing from CSIS on how the "individuals listed" in the warrant might be impacted before Blair approved CSIS’s intrusive surveillance request.

The 54-day delay of the warrant, a key issue in the Hogue Commission's hearings, has led lawyers representing Conservative MP Michael Chong and NDP MP Jenny Kwan to suggest that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party may have gained access to sensitive details from Astravas inappropriately.

This week, it emerged that Astravas sought an unprecedented briefing from CSIS about a list of individuals potentially impacted by the warrant targeting Chan, a former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister. CSIS investigators suspected that Chan had attempted to influence Trudeau’s office regarding a 2019 election candidate, according to confidential sources cited by The Bureau.

While the government has refused to confirm whether Chan was the warrant’s target, citing national security, the Commission’s proceedings have exposed allegations, initially reported by The Globe and Mail in 2023, that Blair’s office delayed the Chan warrant approval for up to four months.

During her testimony, Astravas faced questions about the so-called Vanweenan list, which named individuals potentially caught up in the warrant.

“You testified in camera about asking for and receiving a briefing on the Vanweenan list. What was the purpose of that request?” Commission counsel inquired.

“As with various files moving through departments, I sought an information brief on what the list is and how it would be treated—focusing on the nature of the document, not specifics,” she replied.

“Did you share the names on the Vanweenan list with anyone outside the Minister's Office, Public Safety, or CSIS?”

“No,” Astravas responded.

“Did you share any of those names with the Prime Minister's Office?”

“No,” she maintained, also responding that she couldn’t recall when this briefing occurred.

“It came after the initial briefing, between Day 13 and Day 54,” she said. “I don't have a specific recollection.”

But Sujit Choudhry, representing NDP MP Jenny Kwan, pressed Astravas on her unusual interest in the list.

“You saw other warrants before that included lists like this. You never asked about those. But for this warrant, you did. You said you were concerned about the impact on the individuals. Is that not correct?”

“I was interested in understanding what the list was and how it was treated, not in any specific individual,” she answered, referencing a sanitized summary of her classified interview with Commission Counsel.

Choudhry pressed further, asking if Astravas recognized any names on the list.

“I cannot discuss that,” she replied.

Counsel for Conservative MP Michael Chong, Gib van Ert, directly accused Astravas of political motives behind the delay.

“I put it to you: the delay was because you saw the warrant’s focus on your party’s operations. You didn't want it to proceed, and if it had to, you intended to slow-walk it. What do you say to that?”

“I cannot discuss specifics of warrants,” Astravas said, “but your assumptions are categorically false.”

“The warrant involved high-ranking members of your party and people you had known for years. Isn't that why you wanted to delay it?” van Ert pressed.

“That is false. Minister Blair has approved every warrant put before him.”

“Yes, he approved it—three hours after receiving it. But he didn't get it for 54 days, because of you.”

“I maintain that your accusation is false.”

Van Ert concluded by casting doubt on Astravas’ entire testimony.

“I think other people may find it surprising to hear you say that this wasn't something that you informed the Prime Minister's Office about. It was clearly a warrant involving PRC foreign interference, which is remarkable enough,” Chong’s lawyer prodded. “Meanwhile, CSIS is trying to get the attention of the Privy Council Office, the National Security Advisor, and deputy ministers about [China’s targeting MPs].”

Testimony also suggested that Blair and Astravas had discussed the warrant—or at least acknowledged talking about the general subject—months before Blair formally received the application.

“We expect to hear evidence from Minister Blair that several months prior to receiving the warrant application — or prior to CSIS sending the warrant application — that Minister Blair received a briefing from the CSIS director and deputy director, regarding intelligence relevant to this eventual warrant,” Commission Counsel stated. “Were you aware of that briefing?”

“It was customary for me to attend such briefings with the Minister,” she replied. “I don't recall this specific one.”

Astravas insisted that despite knowing the broader context, neither she nor Blair had known the specifics until Blair officially received the warrant in May 2021.

“Did you inform anyone within the Prime Minister’s Office or the Privy Council Office about the warrant’s subject matter?”

Astravas: “No.”

Further questions arose about an internal CSIS email indicating concerns from a CSIS official about delays in ministerial approval. There were suggestions that Astravas or others in Trudeau’s government implied the warrant might be denied and that Astravas had pressed CSIS with questions. However, this remained unclarified in Wednesday’s testimony.

“You were referred to an internal CSIS email expressing concern about the delay. The affiant noted that the longer the delay, the more dated the information becomes, and that, if asked, they would describe the delay as unusual.”

“At no point did I indicate the warrant would be halted. My role was not to question the merits of CSIS’s arguments,” she said. “I never suggested that the Minister might not approve it.”

The Commission now awaits Minister Blair’s testimony on Friday.