Mr. Chair, I don't think we imagined when we were going to have people come before us that we were going to have reappointments coming. I think probably we want to pay more attention to who the new appointments are because obviously that's going to reflect government policy and that's what we want to get a handle on. I don't think anybody questions the competence of these particular individuals. But I think Omar is quite correct that when people come before us we can ask them questions as to how they can end up enhancing the system.
I note both of these people are lawyers, and as Mr. Komarnicki would know, lawyers are used to going to court and are very mindful that you have things like appeals. Many lawyers and judges I know and crown attorneys I know feel very good about having appeals, because if they make a mistake, they end up sleeping better at night knowing somebody could correct a mistake that might happen.
So I think it's quite relevant, just as questions on whether or not the shortage of members is building up the caseload.... Is that relevant? I think that's relevant.
Failing all that, and I think Omar is totally on the right track, we could perhaps ask the member from the board that particular question, because I think it has great relevance to what we as a committee are trying to do. So asking if you feel that the RAD would be beneficial for you is very much a relevant question to ask. I don't see any particular problems in asking that question.