OTTAWA, Canada — Duff Conacher, an ethics and transparency activist, is filing a conflict of interest complaint against former Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and his chief of staff, Zita Astravas, over a delayed national security warrant targeting Liberal powerbroker Michael Chan, who has fundraised for numerous party leaders including Justin Trudeau.

Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch and a longtime advocate for political accountability, calls the case perhaps the clearest and most consequential conflict of interest matter he has ever seen in Ottawa.

“Both Blair and Astravas should have recused themselves,” Conacher said in an interview. “It’s absurd that warrant approval is in the hands of a politician. What does this show systemically? If a warrant targets someone affiliated with the politician’s party, there’s a clear risk of a cover-up, delay, or actions that protect the warrant’s subject.”

The case, now under scrutiny by the Hogue Commission—which is examining foreign interference in Canadian politics—has ignited debate over ministers' roles in politically sensitive security decisions. Conacher sees this as highlighting a critical need for reform.

“I don’t see how the ethics commissioner could find that Blair and Astravas did not violate the Conflict of Interest Act by failing to recuse themselves from the warrant approval process,” he said. “Liberals participating in a decision that affects another Liberal—it smells improper because they’re both from the same party.”

As The Bureau reported exclusively before Blair’s recent testimony, citing two sources with direct knowledge of the underlying CSIS investigation, the warrant’s chief argument was that CSIS believed Chan could have influenced the Prime Minister’s Office to replace a sitting Liberal MP with a new candidate before the 2019 election. Some CSIS investigators believed it was perhaps “the biggest counterintelligence threat we have come across,” a source said.

Chan has acknowledged fundraising for numerous Liberal leaders including Justin Trudeau but denied any involvement in Chinese election interference and has publicly called himself a victim of CSIS investigations and media leaks.

A summary of his Hogue Commission evidence states: “Mr. Chan said he has helped with campaigning—including fundraising and knocking on doors—for over 40 MPs and MPPs. He named a number of Liberal politicians he had helped, including Sheila Copps, Paul Martin, Michael Ignatieff, Justin Trudeau, David Peterson, Jim Peterson, Bryon Wilfert, Bill Graham, and John McCallum.”

In his sworn testimony this spring, Blair claimed that he signed the Michael Chan warrant within hours of receiving it. He was asked to comment on these sentences from a 2023 Globe and Mail report:

“This paragraph is false,” Blair said.

Conflicting Testimony

However, the Commission later heard conflicting testimony between Blair and Astravas. It emerged that the warrant had remained in Blair’s office for at least 54 days, and both were aware of the incoming application months before Blair signed off.

Additionally, Astravas had posed questions seeking information about a sensitive list of individuals potentially impacted by the Michael Chan wiretap application, which raised concerns for a CSIS officer. When pressed by lawyer Gib van Ert, who asked, “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?” Astravas sharply denied any impropriety.

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

Van Ert countered, “But he didn’t get it for 54 days, because of you.”

“Your accusation is false,” Astravas retorted.

Two weeks ago, during Blair’s second examination, a Conservative Party lawyer asked if he knew anyone personally or professionally on the so-called Vanweenen list—which Astravas had also inquired about. Blair insisted, “I cannot comment on that, and frankly, for me, it was irrelevant.”

Another lawyer asked him, “When your staff were reviewing the affidavit documents, if it came to their attention that they had a personal relationship with either the target or someone identified on the Vanweenen list, was it appropriate for them to continue giving you advice?”

“My expectation is if any of my staff—we have standards of conduct, and my expectation is everyone would understand the rules with respect to declaring a conflict of interest,” Blair said. “That did not take place in any of these matters.”

Astravas’s and Blair’s testimony clashed with that of several of Blair’s former deputies.

Commission Counsel asked Blair, “We heard evidence from Deputy Minister Stewart that it would have taken CSIS some time to get the minister and his staff comfortable with this particular warrant. From your perspective, did you require time to get comfortable with the warrant?”

“Frankly, I do not know what the Deputy Minister is talking about,” Blair said. “I was, because of a previous briefing that I'd received several months before, familiar with the subject.”

Blair’s successor, former Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, was asked by a Commission lawyer if he would expect a staff member with a personal relationship with a warrant target to recuse themselves. “Yes,” Mendicino said.

Prime Minister Trudeau was also asked about the controversial Vanweenen list by a lawyer representing his government.

“A Vanweenen list, we've heard, can be a part of a CSIS warrant application. Have you ever seen a Vanweenen list?”

“I have not,” the Prime Minister answered.

For Conacher, questions about whether Blair delayed the Michael Chan warrant—or if Trudeau was aware of critical intelligence reports his senior aides claim he never received—point to a longstanding concern in Ottawa. “When you have a former Cabinet staffer and a deputy minister testifying, their responses create plausible deniability for the minister. It’s a well-known function for deputy ministers and Cabinet staff to protect their ministers,” he said.

Conacher believes evidence in the Commission suggests the 54-day delay was designed to protect Trudeau’s Liberals during an election cycle.

“The thing with Michael Chan is that it just shows how people who do a lot of favors for the party, whether through fundraising or campaign organizing, could have undue and unethical influence over decisions,” he explained. “Did this lead to what we saw happen with the warrant, which was delayed through an election cycle? And why the delay? Well, if it had been approved earlier, something might have come out during the election.”

Conacher expressed disappointment with the Hogue Commission’s proceedings, noting that neither Commission Counsel nor cross-examining parties questioned Blair, Astravas, or others on the existence of internal communications to support their testimony.

“It’s hard to believe there are no written records, no emails exchanged between them,” he observed. “I was amazed no one asked if any records existed to corroborate their statements, especially when we know that Cabinet confidence documents are being withheld.”

Based on this concern, Conacher said he believes Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue’s final report should include a caveat to Canadians, acknowledging that her inquiry could not provide comprehensive findings on key questions, such as the Michael Chan warrant delay.

A lack of confidence in the Trudeau government’s current ethics commissioner further complicates the issue, but Conacher says Democracy Watch will push their complaint forward and is prepared for legal appeal procedures if it fails.

“The new ethics commissioner was handpicked by the Liberals through a secretive, partisan process,” Conacher asserted. “He’s buried cases, including those involving prominent Liberals, and essentially allowed Trudeau to appoint [Special Rapporteur] David Johnston to investigate his own activities. That’s how far this has gone.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated to clarify that Duff Conacher is a legal expert.