Mr. Speaker, the answer is going to remain the same.
As members may know, there is a legal rule and a rule of convention called the sub judice rule, which restrains parliamentarians on statements made about ongoing legal proceedings, especially criminal cases before the courts. This rule is part of a law relating to contempt of court and also a convention recognized by the House. Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals, which are courts of record.
The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
As the Supreme Court of Canada has stated, “It is a wise principle that the courts and Parliament strive to respect each other's role in the conduct of public affairs.” Parliament, for its part, refrains from commenting on matters before the courts, under the sub judice rule.
The sub judice rule may be breached by public statements that risk prejudging matters or issues that are before the courts. A breach of this rule can include, for instance, statements urging the court to reach a particular result in a matter, comments on the strength or weakness of a party's case or a particular issue or comments on witnesses or evidence in a case.
Respect for the work of our courts and the judiciary means that we do not attempt to prosecute a legal proceeding on the floor of the House of Commons.