Colluding MPs, Delayed Warrant, Internal Tensions: Key Takeaways of the Foreign Interference Inquiry

The latest phase of public hearings at the Foreign Interference Commission concluded this week, leaving several stones unturned about specific issues such as a delayed surveillance warrant and around broader issues such as what actually constitutes foreign interference.
Top officials also questioned the conclusions of lawmakers serving as national security watchdogs, who previously raised the alarm about some of their colleagues’ collusion with foreign states.
The clash of views was topped off by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testifying on the last hearing day, Oct. 16, as the commission wrapped up this phase, which focused on Ottawa’s capacity to counter foreign interference.
Trudeau commented on the tensions and controversies and on a wide range of national security matters.
“I am fully aware and indeed regularly apprised of tension between—of constructive, creative tension, of disagreements of perspective—between diplomats and spies, or between our Global Affairs Canada and CSIS,” Trudeau said when being questioned by Gib van Ert, counsel for Tory MP Michael Chong.
Van Ert sought to find out during the hearings why senior decision-makers were never apprised of Beijing’s efforts to collect information on Chong and his family in China, even though the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had sent a note and reports to relevant departments and officials.
Top security officials told the inquiry they disagreed with aspects of the report, including its conclusion about some lawmakers being wittingly involved in foreign interference.
“I’ve seen inappropriate behaviours, I saw lack of judgment, I saw individuals I would maybe trust less,” said Drouin. “But I haven’t seen any MP in our Parliament who did espionage, sabotage, or really put Canada’s security at risk.”
Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who has pushed back on calls to release the names of lawmakers allegedly involved in foreign collusion after NSICOP released its report, echoed Drouin’s perspective when he testified on Oct. 15.
“I share the view shared by other senior public servants here, that people serve in Parliament honourably,” he said. “Some may have lacked judgment in certain contexts, but I think we need to be careful not to also continue to fuel an impression that has been grossly exaggerated since this report of NSICOP was made public.”
“I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians, and/or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference,” he said.
The prime minister made the remark while being asked by a commission counsel to discuss how he reacts when provided information about foreign interference involving opposition parties.
During subsequent cross-examination, Trudeau was asked by the Conservative Party’s lawyer whether he also knew the names of any Liberal parliamentarians or candidates “at risk of being compromised” by foreign interference.
Trudeau confirmed that three memos from 2019, 2020, and 2022 suggesting unclassified briefings be provided to parliamentarians on the threat of foreign interference had never reached him. The initiative to provide briefings eventually happened in June 2024, after a string of intelligence leaks in the media and the launch of the public inquiry.
“Should this have happened earlier? And are you troubled that it didn’t?” asked commission counsel Shantona Chaudhury.
“These decision points didn’t get to me, but I made it very clear throughout conversations that I would have approved of or encouraged briefings of parliamentarians,” said Trudeau.
“Nobody—neither CSIS through their minister to me, or directly to the Clerk [of the Privy Council], or to the NSIA—flagged that this was something that was of importance to them that was stalled, and therefore, as you pointed out, they were not acted on in my office.”
The prime minister was also asked about comprehensive reports on Beijing interference produced by CSIS and the Privy Council Office (PCO) that never reached him, with the NSIA at the time deciding the prime minister didn’t need to see them.
Trudeau said he trusted the NSIA’s judgment on the matter and that he had not learned anything new from the reports after subsequently reading them.
The warrant filed by CSIS has been discussed at length during the proceedings as the commission sought to understand why it took 54 days for then-Public Safety Minister Bill Blair to approve it.
CSIS sent the warrant application to public safety sometime in March 2021. Four days later it was approved by then-deputy minister Rob Stewart, who subsequently sent it to the minister’s office. Blair’s then-chief of staff Zita Astravas did not present the warrant to Blair for signature for 50 days.
Previous media coverage based on intelligence leaks suggested Chan was a subject of CSIS interest because of his links to Chinese officials. He has not returned requests for comment.
The Foreign Interference Commission is required to submit its final report before the end of the year.