If I may, Mr. Fadden, what I'm taking exception to is precisely the fact that we went from two commissioners to one commissioner. When we did that you said it was because there were only 1% of cases where they weren't in agreement. If you have two people in the same room, with back and forth and discussion or whatever, they may come to a consensus. One person alone can decide, on a whim, what decision that person will come to without ever having actually put his arguments or his reasons to test with another person. So when we took that second commissioner out of the process, we didn't provide anything else for the case to be actually debated on. That is my problem, and I keep returning to it, because it remains my problem.
If you don't have an appeals division, then get the second commissioner back into that room. It's either/or, but one needs some kind of security for the applicant that his or her case is going to be fairly treated. That is my point in this.