Seriously, the case for APS-C is weaker today than it was when the 7D came out. Back then, the rate of rejection for a wafer of many sensors was very, very high, and the larger the sensor, the more had to be rejected. Making a smaller sensor was much cheaper, proportionately, than it is today relative to a full frame sensor.
Imagine taking a circular piece of paper about 14 inches in diameter and flicking a fingertip of dye at it. The dots that appear represent parts of that chip wafer that need to be rejected. Now draw 35mm sensor rectangles across it and count up the proportion of the sensors you'd have to reject. Then do that with APS-C-sized sensors and count up the proportion. That is the geometry that caused APS-C sensors to be hundreds of dollars cheaper than the full frame ones.
Anyway, today it's a new world with better manufacturing techniques, and the rejection rate of full frame sensors is quite low. Why does this matter? There isn't any longer a cost-borne price differentiation of any great amount between a full frame and a crop sensor. In other words, no great benefit. The cost of the sensor might be $50 more for full frame, and it might imply a need for three times the cache memory and a bunch of other scaling costs, but when you tally it up it's going to be less than $100, especially if you're just recycling your old CPU chips.
But then there's the form factor. Yes, you can make a smaller camera, and one with smaller lenses. In fact the only way you're going to see the benefit of the size difference is if you have a set of new lenses. Which means you'd have to divide your economies of scale to start new lines of smaller lenses. To win Fuji's market?
Canon is a mysterious creature, but this is a decision that does not make sense for a company preparing for a shrinking market.