In a riveting session of the public inquiry into foreign interference, it emerged that former Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and his team took an astonishing 54 days to sign a warrant for eavesdropping on Liberal powerbroker Michael Chan in 2021.

Testimonies revealed that this lengthy deliberation was grounded in the need for Blair and his staff to feel "comfortable" with the monitoring request, especially considering the politically sensitive nature of the target, who is a former Ontario cabinet minister and a significant figure within the Chinese-Canadian community.

The inquiry highlighted a tense atmosphere surrounding the warrant's authorization, with Blair reportedly attributing the delay to his then-chief of staff, Zita Astravas, a figure with deep ties to the Prime Minister's Office. Astravas is set to testify to shed light on this controversial period, as the public is eager to understand why the warrant wasn't signed promptly, especially in the context of the imminent federal election campaign.

Rob Stewart, the deputy minister at that time, indicated there were numerous questions about the execution of the warrant that needed answers. "It would have taken CSIS some time to ensure that the minister and his staff were comfortable with the specifics of the warrant," Stewart explained. His comments raised eyebrows, especially given the inclusion of a "Vanweenan list," comprising individuals who might also be surveilled during the operation, potentially implicating other Liberals in the investigation.

Despite Blair's assertions that he was not initially privy to the warrant's request until it was presented for his signature, the inquiry revealed that CSIS had sought expedited approval, with typical processing times being between four to ten days. The extraordinary duration of the delay not only frustrated CSIS operatives but also raised serious concerns about national security and the efficacy of government oversight in such critical operations.

As the inquiry continues, the focus will remain on how political affiliations influenced the decision-making process. With the inquiry led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, all eyes are on the testimonies that will continue to unfurl the intricate web of politics and security that defines foreign interference in Canadian elections.

Interestingly, the narrative around the warrant has also sparked questions about the sharing of intelligence. Contrary to Astravas’ claims, Stewart insisted that the minister's office routinely received classified intelligence briefings, casting doubt on the efficiency of information flow between the Public Safety Minister and CSIS during a crucial time.

With the stakes high, this inquiry could redefine the landscape of accountability within the Canadian government, emphasizing the delicate balance between national security and political maneuvering. As we wait for further testimonies, one thing remains clear: trust in those at the helm during such critical operations is now under intense scrutiny.

Will the truth behind these delays finally come to light? Only time will tell.