I want to echo what the two previous speakers have said, but it's even a little more serious than.... I think Yvon said he didn't want to be mean or anything; I might want to be mean, because I think the split message is deliberate. I'll go so far as to say that Service Canada, in their releases printed in Atlantic Canadian newspapers--and I'll remind Mr. Nadeau that it's not just the Maritimes, but the region of the Atlantic provinces, which are four; I know that the Bloc would be sensitive to geography, as we are--Service Canada said that nothing has changed, yet they admit that there is a designation for administrative purposes in one region, which is, in fact, a change. They also say that the place of work and the services offered are both unaffected; that is not what we heard from the witness, so either it's the “right hand, left hand” situation, meaning that either the person we heard hadn't relayed the message to the people in the press office or that there's some sort of deliberate confusion being attempted here between what we all understand as services delivered in both languages and what I call the “back office” place of work where parts IV and V of the act have to be complied with.
I think the agency should be called here, but I also think it should be stated in the strongest words from you, Mr. Chair, or from those inviting the witness, that they be prepared to answer what I would say is a deliberate contradiction among the public.
If it's easily solved, great; somebody, however, has to be rebuked, because there is a contradiction now among the public, let alone in the evidence, so I fully support the motion, obviously.