Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments and certainly accept them but I wonder if you could clarify a couple of points for me.
I fully understand that it is the minister's prerogative to either answer or to refuse to answer a question but I am somewhat concerned about the point that was made. As you know, in this instance the government stated that it was unable to respond to my question because the matters were before the courts of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, if that rationale or that excuse, for want of a better word I guess, is to be used, I wonder if you could provide some guidance on that. In particular, I have four questions for you that I think would help to give some clarification and definition to this response.
First, are there occasions when it is inappropriate for the government to claim that it was unable to answer because a matter was before the courts?
Second, when would such occasions arise that it would be inappropriate to claim that a matter was before the courts?
Third, is it necessary for the actual subject matter of the question to be before the courts in a trial that is underway?
And fourth, is there a difference between a criminal and a civil trial on this issue?
Mr. Speaker, those questions are not meant to be a challenge but to be for clarification. I am obviously troubled by the government's response to these issues. Personally, I think when questions are asked we are entitled to complete answers. I understand full well that all members tell the truth, but I wonder if you could just clarify that issue for me, please.