Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted, because I am sure it was absolutely the worst interview that any minister's communications assistant has ever seen their minister give.
The next question was, “And when will that be?”
The answer was, “Well, first of all this bill has to be passed, so to engage in speculation when a bill is still before Parliament I don't think is appropriate.”
The CBC asked, “Well, will you make that clarification, though? Will you make it from the outset, or will you make it in the middle of a labour dispute and suddenly deem a group of people essential so that they are not allowed to strike?”
The minister responded, “Let me answer the question this way. I think that whatever we do still has to be fair and reasonable, still subject to judicial review and the rules of natural justice, so I think the answer to your question is the government still has to act reasonably when it acts, and that hasn't changed.”
The reporter asked, “Except for that doesn't answer my question, because what I wanted to know is, are you going to deem essential a certain group of public servants from the outset, or do you have this rolling power to change who you deem essential at any time you want?”
The minister responded, “I've already given you a fair and reasonable answer to that question.”
The CBC asked, “I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood it, but can you just clarify?”
The minister responded, “No. Next question.”
The reporter asked, “Sorry? You can't clarify your answer to that?”
The minister responded, “I've already given you a good answer. Thank you."
The reporter asked, “I'm sorry. I wasn't satisfied with that answer. I'm just—”
The minister broke in, “I'm sorry about that, but I'm giving you the answer that is the fair and reasonable answer.”
Finally, the last question was, “Okay. Well, let's just try a yes or no, then. Will you set the group of people who will be deemed essential from the outset?”
The minister responded, “I am waiting for this legislation to pass, and then details will come forward.”