Thank you very much.
Thank you, Professor Schwartz.
I'm going to carry on with some of the same questions that my other colleagues were asking on the one-person tribunal. I'm trying to see what the difference is.
Some of the opposition against, as you say, Bill C-6 was that the minister had unilateral decision-making on issues, and that's always the case every time we have legislation where the minister has too much power. So I'm trying to see what the difference is with a one-person tribunal making a decision, what makes that easier to swallow than one minister making a decision. But maybe that's a political question.
The more I hear about this—and I did attend the briefing and have read the material—I'm trying to see what the difference is from a core process, because it has a judge sitting there, but without the appeal process. I'm trying to see what the big difference would be in this being away from an adversarial court case. When you were doing those discussions, the confidential ones, were there any discussions on an alternative process?
When a person goes to court, I don't know much about the judicial system, but you have an option of being heard by a judge only, or a judge and jury. Would that be making it too close to a court process?
Just to go into your comments that working together makes for a better bill, I can't resist saying that's what we should have done in the process for repealing section 67. We probably wouldn't have spent so much time on it at committee.