加通社：大使先生，很多加民众都在谈论加中两国司法体制的不同，您能否向加民众解释中方的司法体制？您认为中方需要多长时间才会就康明凯和斯帕沃尔是否违反中国法律进行裁定以及审判？此外，孟晚舟案在加得到公开庭审，目前她被保释并居住在家。但自从上述两名加公民在华被拘后，加方对二人的领事探视次数十分有限，二人也未再公开露面。对于这种不同，您有什么评论？

　　卢大使：中加两国社会制度不同，司法体制当然也有不同之处。但双方都表明各自国家是法治国家。中加司法体制有不同之处，也有相同之处。比如，加拿大坚持司法独立，中国也是，中国司法机关独立行使权力。加政府不能干预司法，中国行政机关也不能干预司法机关办案。加拿大讲究程序合法，中国同样也讲究程序合法。但孟晚舟案和两名加公民被拘是两个性质不同的案子，因此处理起来两国就有所不同。对于两名被采取强制措施的加公民，中方指控他们涉嫌危害中国国家安全，这不同于一般的刑事案件，中方需要进一步深入调查。所以，不能因中方对两名加公民采取的司法措施不同于加方对孟晚舟采取的司法措施就指责中方做法不对。中方是按照国际惯例和通行作法对待两名加公民。事实上，中方现在对两名加公民采取的、你们认为所谓不正常的司法措施，在美国等西方国家处理类似案件时，都有类似做法。

Canadian Press: Could you explain to Canadians about the justice system of China as many Canadian people are talking about the differences? How long do you think Chinese officials will decide and charge Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig whether they violate Chinese law? Ms. Meng had an open public hearing in Canada and is on bail to stay at home. But there is few consular visits for these two Canadians and they have not appeared again in the public since their arrest. How do you explain these differences?

Ambassador Lu: Canada and China have two different social systems and of course, there are differences in our judicial systems. But both countries make it clear that they enjoy the rule of law. While there are differences in our judicial systems, there are also similarities. For example, Canada pursuits the judicial independence, and it is the same in China that the judicial courts are also independent. The Canadian government can not interfere with the courts, the same is true with China. Canada puts a lot of emphasis on due process, the same can be also said in China.

But the two cases you mentioned are different in nature, so the handling of these two cases are different. As for the two Canadian citizens, they were taken compulsory measures in China in accordance with law for involvement in activities that endanger China's national security, which is different from regular criminal cases and requires further investigation. You can not criticize China of any wrongdoing simply based on how these two very different cases are handled differently in Canada and China. China acts in accordance with the international common practices. Although you regard the measures taken by China to the two Canadian citizens as irregular, actually there are similar practices in many other countries. I mean western countries such as the U.S..

　《华尔街日报》：在当前形势下，您是否担心加拿大加入美国、澳大利亚、新西兰禁止华为参与5G项目？如果加方禁止华为设备会有什么后果？对加中关系会有什么影响？

　　卢大使：我一直担心加拿大会作出与美国、澳大利亚、新西兰相同的决定，我认为这种决定肯定是不公正的，因为他们的指控没有依据。我长时间跟踪这方面的报道，“五眼联盟”国家指控华为设备对他们的国家安全造成威胁，但从没有拿出证据。上个月，华为轮值董事长在对记者发表谈话时也感到很冤枉，他说美国都没用过华为设备，怎么知道华为对美国国家安全造成威胁？他说，如果美国有证据，哪怕不愿给华为看，也可以给有关国家及电信运营商看。西方国家的法律最讲究证据，为什么在这个问题上却不那么讲究证据。这让我怀疑有关指控是别有用心的。事实上，有的国家并非出于国家安全、而是出于其他考虑才提出禁止使用华为设备。仅仅建立在猜测基础上的指控是站不住脚的，也是不能长久的。我们希望加政府和有关部门能够做出明智的选择。至于如果加政府禁止华为参与5G项目会有什么后果，我不知道，但我相信肯定会有后果。

The Wall Street Journal: Ambassador, Canada is conducting security review to the telecommunication networks, do you not have any concern that this diplomatic row between China and Canada could sway Canada to the side of the U.S., Australia and New Zealand, and decide to not allow equipment from Huawei Technologies to be used in 5G networks. And as a follow up, if Canada decides to go this route and not allow Huawei's equipment in Canada, will there be any repercussion or how would that affect China-Canada relationship?

Ambassador Lu: I always have concerns that Canada may make the same decision as the U.S., Australia and New Zealand did. And I believe such decisions are not fair because their accusations are groundless. I have been following reports about it for a long time. The Five Eyes alliance countries have accused Huawei of national security threat, but they have never shown any evidence. Last month in an interview the Huawei rotating CEO complained about being treated unjustly, and he said the U.S. has not even used Huawei's equipment, how do they know that it poses a threat to American's national security? He also said that if the U.S. has any evidence, they can show the evidence to other countries and telecommunication companies, even if they will not show the evidence to Huawei. The culture of western countries' legal system puts a lot of emphasis on evidence, why don't you put emphasis on evidence in this case? That is why I suspect the relevant accusations have ulterior motives. Actually some countries propose the idea of banning Huawei equipment not out of concerns for national security, but rather out of other motives. The accusation simply based on surmises can not be sustained. We hope that the Canadian government and the relevant authorities could make wise decision on this issue. As for the consequences of banning Huawei from 5G network, I am not sure yet what kind of consequences will be, but I surely believe there will be consequences.