Delay of CSIS Warrant on Ontario Politician a Flashpoint in Final Submissions to Hogue Commission

Commissioner Justice Marie-Josee Hogue makes her way on stage to deliver remarks on the interim report following its release at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions, in Ottawa on May 3, 2024. The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld

The federal government says in its final submission to the Foreign Interference Commission that no political interference led to the delay of a surveillance warrant on an Ontario politician, while other participants say there is no other possible explanation.

Final submissions from parties involved in the public inquiry were made on Nov. 18, and several of them spent time discussing a 2021 warrant application from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). The warrant, seeking intrusive surveillance powers, took 54 days to get approved by then-public safety minister Bill Blair. Normally, it takes between four and 10 days, the commission heard.

Lawyers for the Conservative Party in their final submission said warrants on two other subjects had been approved expeditiously during the same timeframe in 2021.

“The glaring discrepancy between the delay in authorizing the politically-damaging Chan warrant and two other contemporaneous warrants – taking 4 days and 8 days respectively – demonstrates how far from the ordinary course the Chan warrant process was,” they wrote.

The subject of the warrant was not discussed in the most recent phase of public hearings, but during the previous phase in the spring, Blair did not dispute that it related to Ontario politician Michael Chan.

The warrant application was delayed between Blair’s chief of staff at the time, Zita Astravas, and its landing on Blair’s desk in a timely fashion.

During her testimony, Astravas didn’t provide a direct answer why it took 54 days for the request to get from her desk to Blair’s, despite repeated questions from counsel. Blair, too, told the inquiry he didn’t know why it took so long for the warrant to get to him from Astravas and said he hadn’t known about it before reviewing it and signing it.

Lawyers for the Conservative Party said it is the commission’s duty to solve the “mystery,” while adding that the answer “should be obvious.”

“Upon receipt of the warrant application – including the Vanweenan list – Ms. Astravas realized that a number of high-ranking Liberals were going to be surveilled by CSIS, and realized that the information that would emerge from this surveillance was likely to be highly damaging to the Liberals,” they wrote.

The Vanweenan list refers to an annex to a warrant application that contains the names of individuals whose conversations might be intercepted incidentally due to a connection with the subject of investigation. The commission heard that Astravas had requested a meeting with CSIS to discuss the specific matter.

Chan was an Ontario cabinet minister in the Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne, and previous media coverage including by The Globe and Mail suggested he was a subject of CSIS interest because of his interactions with Chinese officials. In his final submission, Chan, who has denied any wrongdoing, thanked the commission for its attempts to prevent details of the person being investigated from being revealed.

Chan’s counsel said “leaked falsehoods” about him in the press caused him “considerable personal toll” and asked the commission to address the matter. He has not returned requests for comment by The Epoch Times.

‘No Evidence’

Lawyers for the Government of Canada said in their final submission that allegations of political obstruction in the warrant application don’t have “any basis in fact.”

“There is no evidence of political interference or any other misfeasance by anyone involved in the approval of the application by the then Minister of Public Safety,” they wrote, saying that the time for approving warrants differs for every application.

Lawyers for the attorney general noted testimony from Astravas about the complicated situation at the time due to COVID-19. Blair was working from Toronto and had to visit the local CSIS office to review warrant applications.

The government noted that the director of CSIS and the deputy minister of public safety had not expressed concerns about the timing of the warrant’s approval.

The lawyers said Blair had approved the warrant “immediately” after receiving it. “The explanation provided, that the Chief of Staff did not prioritize a warrant that the Director of CSIS did not flag as urgent, is entirely reasonable and consistent with the evidence,” they wrote.

‘Very Frustrated’

Other evidence before the commission suggested that the delay had raised a number of concerns within the security apparatus.

Former CSIS deputy director of operations Michelle Tessier told the inquiry the delay made CSIS operational staff “very frustrated.”

A report from within CSIS said that an official involved in the warrant process believed the application was “in danger of not being approved by the Minister” after a meeting was held with Astravas.

For his part, Rob Stewart, who was deputy public safety minister at the time and had approved the warrant in short order, said, “It would have taken CSIS some time to get the Minister and his staff comfortable with this particular warrant.”

Lawyers for Conservative MP Michael Chong noted in their final submission to the commission that the warrant was “highly sensitive,” given Chan is a “prominent Liberal fundraiser, particularly in the Chinese community.”

“This sensitivity is the most likely explanation for the extraordinary delay in authorizing the warrant,” they wrote, noting that Astravas had worked for the Wynne government when Chan was a cabinet minister.

The issue of the delayed warrant approval was also raised by lawyers representing NDP MP Jenny Kwan at the inquiry. One of their recommendations to the commission was to make findings of fact to clarify the concern around the issue.

“The Commission must answer why there were so many departures from standard procedure for this warrant,” the lawyers wrote in their final submission.

“Was it because 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?”

The commission will examine this issue, among many others, and is expected to file its final report by the end of January. The government said last week it was granting a one-month extension to the original deadline of Dec. 31.