Lawyers at the China Inquiry suggested on Wednesday a cabinet aide tried to obstruct an investigation of Liberal party contacts with the Chinese Consulate in Toronto, per Blacklock’s Reporter.Defence Minister Bill Blair’s former chief of staff Zita Astravas could not explain why she shelved a warrant application for weeks despite requests by the Department of Public Safety and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).Astravas in a sworn statement to the Commission on Foreign Interference acknowledged questioning “what impact the warrant would have on the individuals listed” including Liberal party organizers. She could not explain why it took 54 days for her office to approve it.“Did you share any of those names with the prime minister’s office?” asked Erin Dann, Commission counsel. “No,” replied Astravas.“Did you tell anyone outside of the minister’s office, CSIS or Department of Public Safety officials about the subject matter of the warrant?” asked Dann.“No,” replied Astravas.“Did you tell anyone within the prime minister’s office?” asked commission counsel. “No,” replied Astravas.Blair as public safety minister on May 11, 2021 approved the pre-election warrant to monitor Toronto area Liberals suspected of unusual contacts with the Chinese Consulate. Blair denied knowing anything about the warrant though it spent 54 days in his office.Gib van Ert, counsel for Conservative MP Michael Chong, called the warrant a remarkable document. “This warrant was remarkable,” he said.“It was really involving People’s Republic of China foreign interference which is remarkable enough.”“Did you tell the minister before Day 54 there was a warrant concerning this particular subject?” asked van Ert. “I have testified in camera on this matter,” replied Astravas.“Yes, I know, but you need to answer me now,” said van Ert.“What is your question?” replied Astravas.“The question is, before Day 54 did you ever tell the minister who the subject matter of the warrant was?” asked van Ert.“We were constrained by an unclassified situation,” replied Astravas.“Did you or didn’t you?” asked van Ert. “I was not able to discuss the subject matter of a warrant in an unclassified situation,” replied Astravas.“So did you or didn’t you?” asked van Ert. “There was an awareness,” replied Astravas.“This question matters because it goes to the credibility of Mr. Blair,” said van Ert. “He was quite emphatic that he hadn’t seen the warrant.”“There would have been an awareness of a warrant within our office at some point,” testified Astravas.“When you say there ‘would have been an awareness’ within your office, do you include the minister as being within your office?” asked van Ert. “Yes,” replied Astravas.“So I think what you’re telling the commission is the minister in fact did know before Day 54 that there was a warrant coming,” said van Ert. “He was aware of a warrant,” replied Astravas.Van Ert said the lengthy delay in approving the warrant application appeared peculiar and self-serving. “I cannot see in the witness statements you provided any concrete explanation for why it took 54 days,” said van Ert. “I just don’t see any explanation.”“I put it to you, madam, the reason for the delay was simply this: Looking at the warrant, looking at the (names), you saw it was deeply concerned with the operations of your party and your government, and having seen how deeply involved this warrant would bring CSIS to 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,” said van Ert.“What do you say to that?” asked van Ert. “Your assumptions are categorically false,” replied Astravas.“Madam, the warrant concerned high ranking members of your party and people you had known for years and that’s why you didn’t want to see it go ahead,” said van Ert. “That is false,” replied Astravas.“Let me remind you Minister Blair has approved every warrant that has been put in front of him,” said Astravas. “Yes, he did approve it,” replied van Ert. “There’s no question he approved it. He approved it three hours after he got it. But he didn’t get it for 54 days and that was down to you.”“The accusation you are making is false,” said Astravas. “So what is the explanation for the delay, madam?” replied van Ert. “This is your chance.”“I have answered this in previous testimony,” said Astravas. She did not elaborate.Sujit Choudhry, counsel for NDP MP Jenny Kwan, noted Astravas in a sworn statement to the Commission admitted asking questions about the impact of security surveillance on Liberal party organizers listed in the warrant. Choudhry pressed for an explanation.“For some reason for this warrant you asked about that list?” asked Choudhry. “I had asked questions around this, like, around a list in this time period,” replied Astravas.“For this warrant?” asked Choudhry. “I had asked for a briefing on the list in this time period,” replied Astravas.“For this warrant?” asked Choudhry. “Yes,” replied Astravas.“Did you recognize any of the names on that list?” asked Choudhry. “As you can appreciate I cannot discuss the contents,” replied Astravas.“In your evidence to the commission you said you were interested in the impact on the individuals on that list, of being caught up in a warrant, is that not correct?” asked Choudhry. “I had questions,” replied Astravas.Minister Blair has been recalled Friday for questioning.
