政府任命魁北克女法官领导Foreign Interference Public Inquiry

metropolis

本站元老
注册
2010-12-10
消息
8,081
荣誉分数
1,453
声望点数
323

No public inquiry into foreign interference: Special rapporteur Johnston to undertake 'public hearings'​

Updated May 23, 2023 12:44 p.m. EDT
Published May 23, 2023 6:03 a.m. EDT
OTTAWA -A public process is required on the issue of foreign interference, special rapporteur David Johnston says, but not in the form of a public inquiry.
Instead, Johnston announced Tuesday that he plans to hold "a series of public hearings with Canadians" to shine more light on the "problem of foreign interference" and inform the public and policymakers on the threat it poses, and ways to address it with urgency.

"Foreign governments are undoubtedly attempting to influence candidates and voters in Canada," Johnston writes in his first report in the role of special rapporteur. "Much has been done already, but considerably more remains to be done to strengthen our capacity to resist foreign interference."


Rather than advise striking a public inquiry and someone else be appointed to lead it, the former governor general intends to do the work himself in the five remaining months of his mandate.

During these hearings Johnston says he plans to speak to and hear from Canadians — particularly those in diaspora communities — as well as current and former government officials, knowledgeable experts, and "other interested parties" about foreign interference and ways to improve Canada's response to it.

"This will be a public process, but not a public inquiry, as I do not need the subpoena powers provided by the Inquiries Act to gather this information and encourage public attention on these matters," Johnston writes.

Johnston was tapped in March by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to examine whether a public inquiry or other "mechanisms or transparent processes" such as a judicial review were necessary.

This move stemmed from heightened public concerns over alleged election meddling by China during the last two federal campaigns, prompted by reporting largely based on intelligence leaks.

Johnston said his conclusion that a public inquiry is unnecessary was informed by speaking to dozens of high-level federal officials, cabinet ministers and MPs, as well as examining first-hand a "large collection" of documents.

He said a public inquiry at this stage would "not advance the goals of transparency or trust any further than I have taken them, and raise expectations that will ultimately be disappointed."

Johnston's intention with the hearings is not to focus on "who knew what and what did they do about it" because he feels the questions were covered in his initial public report as well as a confidential annex provided to the prime minister, cabinet, and security-cleared opposition party officials.

WHAT CONCLUSIONS DID JOHNSTON REACH?​

In addition to the question of an inquiry, Johnston's 55-page interim report goes over the issue broadly, including what has been alleged, what he learned from speaking to those involved, the roles Canada's intelligence agencies played, and steps taken to counter and communicate about foreign interference.

In Tuesday's report, Johnston includes four additional initial conclusions:

  • More needs to be done to counter the unquestioned attempts by foreign governments to interfere in Canadian affairs;
  • When viewed in full context with all relevant intelligence "several leaked materials that raised legitimate questions turn out to have been misconstrued in some media reports";
  • There are "serious shortcomings in the way intelligence is communicated and processed from security agencies through to government," but no examples of ministers or the prime minister "knowingly or negligently failing to act" have been identified; and
  • His findings should be referred to and reviewed by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) and the National Security and Intelligence Review Committee (NSIRA), and both oversight bodies should report publicly if they disagree.

WHY NOT A PUBLIC INQUIRY?​

Johnston said, when Trudeau appointed him, his "preliminary view" was that he was "very likely" to recommend a public inquiry.

After considering whether a public inquiry would enhance public trust in Canada' electoral process, Johnston said the sensitive material and information that would "lie at the heart" of whether the federal government did enough to confront the claims of interference, cannot be aired publicly.

While noting the value public inquiries can and have had — pointing to the most recent Public Order Emergency Commission focused on the "Freedom Convoy" — Johnston said, in this case, it would not be able to provide the benefits of a full airing of the facts as others have.

"Instead, I would be handing off a problem to someone else, without solving it, or even providing a process by which the problem could be solved. This would prolong, but not enhance, the process," Johnston said.

Over the last six months, a series of senior federal security officials have testified publicly before parliamentary committees that while attempts were made to meddle, the integrity of Canada's elections were upheld, while expressing the limitations of what they'd be able to say in an open forum.

Noting the mixed views among Canadians and experts around a public inquiry, Trudeau had vowed that the Liberals would "abide by" Johnston's guidance around whether an inquiry was needed, and respond to any other recommendations.

Deciding against recommending a public inquiry, and further, deciding to take on the public hearings himself — given the heightened politicization surrounding his appointment — is likely to be met with considerable ire from the opposition parties who have ardently been pushing for an independent airing of the facts.

Tuesday's report from Johnston was not meant to be the end of his work on the file. He was already mandated to spend the months ahead continuing to take a more all-encompassing look at the issue of foreign interference and the integrity of Canada's democracy and report on his further findings.

Johnston said he plans to issue a second report based on what he hears during the hearings and will remain available to "examine any additional allegations raised that fall within my terms of reference" up until Oct. 31, 2023.

 
最后编辑:
google translation:

渥太华——特别报告员戴维·约翰斯顿 (David Johnston) 说,外国干涉问题需要一个公共程序,但不是以公共调查的形式。

相反,约翰斯顿周二宣布,他计划与加拿大人举行“一系列公开听证会”,以更多地阐明“外国干涉问题”,并告知公众和政策制定者其构成的威胁以及紧急解决问题的方法 .

“毫无疑问,外国政府正试图影响加拿大的候选人和选民,”约翰斯顿以特别报告员的身份在他的第一份报告中写道。 “已经做了很多工作,但要加强我们抵御外国干涉的能力,还有很多工作要做。”

这位前总督并没有建议发起公开调查并任命其他人来领导调查,而是打算在他任期的剩余五个月内亲自完成这项工作。

在这些听证会上,约翰斯顿表示,他计划与加拿大人——尤其是侨民社区的加拿大人——以及现任和前任政府官员、知识渊博的专家和“其他有关方面”就外国干涉以及改善加拿大应对措施的方式进行交谈并听取他们的意见 . “这将是一个公开程序,但不是公开调查,因为我不需要调查法提供的传票权力来收集这些信息并鼓励公众关注这些问题,”约翰斯顿写道。

今年 3 月,总理贾斯汀·特鲁多 (Justin Trudeau) 任命约翰斯顿 (Johnston) 审查是否有必要进行公开调查或其他“机制或透明程序”,例如司法审查。

此举源于公众对中国在过去两次联邦竞选中涉嫌干预选举的担忧加剧,而这些报道主要基于情报泄露。

约翰斯顿说,他通过与数十名高级联邦官员、内阁部长和国会议员交谈,以及亲手检查了“大量”文件,得出了不必进行公开调查的结论。

他说,现阶段的公开调查“不会比我所做的更进一步推进透明度或信任的目标,并提高最终会令人失望的期望。”

约翰斯顿听证会的目的不是关注“谁知道什么,他们做了什么”,因为他觉得这些问题在他的初始公开报告以及提供给总理、内阁和安全部门的机密附件中已经涵盖 -清除反对党官员。

约翰斯顿得出了什么结论?

除了调查问题之外,约翰斯顿长达 55 页的临时报告广泛地讨论了这个问题,包括所指控的内容、他从与相关人员交谈中了解到的内容、加拿大情报机构所扮演的角色,以及采取的反击和沟通措施 关于外国干涉。

在周二的报告中,约翰斯顿包括四个额外的初步结论:

需要做更多的工作来反击外国政府毫无疑问地干涉加拿大事务的企图;

当在所有相关情报的完整背景下查看时,“一些提出合法问题的泄露材料在一些媒体报道中被曲解了”;

“从安全机构到政府的情报传递和处理方式存在严重缺陷”,但没有发现部长或总理“故意或疏忽地不采取行动”的例子; 和 他的调查结果应提交给国会议员国家安全与情报委员会

(NSICOP) 和国家安全与情报审查委员会 (NSIRA) 并进行审查,如果两个监督机构意见不一致,则应公开报告。

为什么不进行公开调查?

约翰斯顿说,当特鲁多任命他时,他的“初步看法”是他“很可能”建议进行公开调查。

在考虑过公开调查是否会增强公众对加拿大选举过程的信任后,约翰斯顿表示,联邦政府是否采取足够措施应对干预指控的“核心”敏感材料和信息不能公开发布。

虽然注意到公众调查可以而且已经产生的价值——指出最近的公共秩序紧急委员会专注于“自由护航”——约翰斯顿说,在这种情况下,它无法提供全面播出的好处 和其他人一样的事实。

“相反,我会把问题交给其他人,而不是解决它,甚至提供解决问题的过程。这会延长,但不会加强过程,”约翰斯顿说。

在过去的六个月里,一系列高级联邦安全官员在议会委员会面前公开作证说,虽然有人试图干预,但加拿大选举的完整性得到了维护,同时表达了他们能够在议会中发表言论的局限性。 打开论坛。

注意到加拿大人和专家对公开调查的不同看法,特鲁多发誓自由党将“遵守”约翰斯顿关于是否需要进行调查的指导,并对任何其他建议做出回应。

决定不建议进行公开调查,并进一步决定亲自参加公开听证会——鉴于围绕他的任命的政治化程度更高——可能会遭到反对党的相当大的愤怒,他们一直热切地推动独立播出 事实。

约翰斯顿周二的报告并不意味着他在文件上的工作就此结束。 他已经受命在接下来的几个月里继续更全面地审视外国干涉问题和加拿大民主的完整性,并报告他的进一步调查结果。

约翰斯顿说,他计划根据他在听证会上听到的内容发布第二份报告,并将在 2023 年 10 月 31 日之前继续“审查在我的职权范围内提出的任何其他指控”。
 
如果我说,几乎所有的顺序都该倒过来,CSIS 发现问题该及时通知有关部门,和个人,而不是等了几年后泄露给媒体,媒体胡炒,反对党找茬是他们的本事本能,起码应当调查清楚,然后驱除外交官。

现在事情已经搞砸了,那只有重新理顺,以事实为依据,以法律为准绳,该找公关,public inquiry, 上法庭,推翻政府,提前大选。。。。。。都有可能。冤有头,债有主,慢慢来吧,反正闲着也是闲着。
 
所以要 public inquiry,搞清楚到底怎么回事。 CSIS 2020年就分享监视中国外交官的情报给外交部了,但是外交部没有任何行动,2023年才有情报人员泄露给媒体,最终导致中国外交官被驱逐。


反对党不信任 Johnston,说他是特鲁多的 family friend, ski buddy, 他的3个女儿留学中国等等,所以要求他下台。
说这些关系都不着调,一不犯法,二不违规,只是捕风捉影,如果他因为这些关系不合格,他的报告出来之前,为什么直接另请高明?

你这么支持public inquiry 能不能举出一两个中国如何干预选举,威胁议员等干涉加拿大内政的事例,让我们见识一下。

要不要进行public inquiry,我们无所谓,需要花费很多钱是一定的。哪个党执政也无所谓,真有问题,下台换人也可以。
 
自己玩,还得花大价钱 :confused:
 
哈哈,想起胡锦涛的基本国策:不折腾。
 
Han Dong 在3月份也投票支持 public inquiry 因为他认为只有通过 public inquiry 才能还他清白 (clear his name)

MP who quit Liberals over China allegations votes with Tories for public inquiry

如果董议员被诬陷,当然会支持,反正又不是他掏钱。

没有人说不想知道真相,所以才按照常规派人调查,我所看到的,现在的所有指控是针对前总督的,而不是他的报告哪里不对。

你说他雇佣关公公司,说明有压力,有危机,这不能证明他的报告有问题,压力当然是明摆着的,所以反对党投票反对他。现在很多不需要保密的指控完全可以拿出来,被target 算什么?难道加拿大人被别人看也有罪名?干预和威胁的事实是什么?

如果随便什么人散布点谣言,rumor,被受害人都以公平,公正,开放等等高大上的名义要求public inquiry,加拿大人就别活了。

渥太华的阿蹄出了无数事故,很多人要求public inquiry,市长以预算为由,脱了很多年,最后在无限的压力之下还是进行了,现在有真相了吗?解决任何问题了吗?
 
最后编辑:
国会听证中有哪些什么实质性证据说明Johnston报告biased的?比如庄议员的亲属受到了中国政府的威胁,有什么具体事例,这个是非黑白应当不难找到。比如中国干预加拿大选举的证据。

能不能给列出几条对报告,而不是对Johnston本人的质疑。
 
这是不是阻扰 public inquiry 的障碍去除了?可以顺利进行了。

前几天,才注意到他是由保守党的哈珀任命为总督的。
 

政府没有关闭 public inquiry 大门,但是反对党需要提供必要建设性证据和建议,而不仅仅是简单地提出要求,包括Johnston 辞职后,需要选出接替者,领导调查。​

Opposition must do more than ‘simply demand’ interference inquiry: LeBlanc​


By Naomi Barghiel

Posted June 11, 2023 11:18 am

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc says a public inquiry is not off the table following former governor general David Johnston’sresignation as foreign interference rapporteur.
70c8fc80

But LeBlanc says opposition leaders cannot request such an inquiry without providing constructive suggestions, such as terms of reference and an individual to best lead the process.

LeBlanc told The West Block‘s Mercedes Stephenson that he will be consulting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, opposition parties, experts and retired jurists in the coming days, but said “simply demanding” a public inquiry does not serve in protecting democracy from foreign interference.

 
哈哈,忘了那句话哪来的了。乱了敌人,也乱了我们自己。这个好像敌人没乱。
 
哈哈,忘了那句话哪来的了。乱了敌人,也乱了我们自己。这个好像敌人没乱。


老毛说的:乱是乱了敌人,锻炼了群众。

这次乱了加拿大,锻炼了中国人民。
 
后退
顶部