Mr. Speaker, clearly the answer to that question is yes.
The situation is even more confused than what the hon. member has outlined. It is confused because of this face-saving attempt the Liberals made last night.
It is unclear what this redundant clause will actually mean in enforcement. The legislation was originally set up to come under the Official Languages Act which means that the delivery of services to individuals must be in both official languages. That is the way this bill was created. It is the intention of this bill. That is what the members of my caucus are in favour of which is fine.
The problem came when the members went overboard and brought in this piece of puffery. The problem is that it then appeared as though the painters, the garbage collectors, the people working on park benches, the people who are not actually verbally delivering services to the visitors to the parks were going to have to take French or English lessons depending on what their mother tongue was. If they were recent immigrants to the country and were still working on mastering either of the official languages, they might even have to take time out of their contract to become fluently bilingual, which of course is the height of idiocy.
What we have now as a result of the face-saving exercise the Liberals went through last night, is that we simply do not know the answer to the member's question. It is a perfectly valid question. We do not know what impact this is going to have. It just shows that there are times when it is good to bring forward amendments and there are other times like this when those amendments are problematic, troublesome and just create confusion.