I appreciate it.
I understand, I think, the argument you're making, that at the time Parliament enacted the law initially, there was a bit of a compromise between one to two commissioners and the RAD. But I also think it's important to note that when the system went from two commissioners to one, the acceptance rate did not go down.
I think we have to also consider that just about every quasi-judicial or judicial body in Canada and Quebec, at the first level, is with a single person. Appeal divisions have two or more; UI umpires, one; reviews in Quebec on the health side, one person. I don't think there is anything intrinsically valuable to having two people.
In response to your direct point, though, the acceptance rate did not go down. Both the previous government and the current government considered that given the totality of the system, it didn't merit the RAD.
Mr. St-Cyr is arguing that nobody is going to go out and recommend the abolition of the court of appeal or the Supreme Court. That's not what he's suggesting. He's suggesting the addition of another layer. Nobody is suggesting the elimination of a layer. He is suggesting the addition of another one. So I think it's a rather different argument.