What I believe is that the system provided for under the IRPA is better. However, I quite agree with you that it's one or the other: either we keep the system of two commissioners, who can discuss, reflect and exchange views and radically reduce the possibility of error, or we choose the more effective system which is provided for under the IRPA.
I won't back down: we can't go by half measures. We go from two commissioners to one, but we don't implement the Refugee Appeal Division. That's not acceptable, particularly since it's frankly contemptuous of Parliament, which voted based on the submissions of the deputy minister and minister of the time. If you look at the parliamentary debates of the time, you'll see that it was clear in everyone's mind that the compromise in order to move from two commissioners to one was the introduction of the Refugee Appeal Division, and that the IRPA makes no sense if that division is not in place.
We have to maintain a historical perspective and refrain from establishing a different justice system for refugees. I'm convinced that Canadians and Quebeckers would never agree to abolish the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on the ground that they are too costly, that criminals remain at liberty longer or that some people would institute more proceedings.