Mr. Brown is going to be before you tomorrow, and I think it's probably better to ask him, since this is his report and his conclusion and only he can really explain why he thinks the OPP is an appropriate vehicle to review the work--not to, as you quite rightly pointed out, undertake a new investigation, but to review the work of the Ottawa Police Service. I think if you look on page 21 of his report, you get a sense of why he took the approach he did, because he asks the question, “Does the fact that the OPS investigation was not independent”--in Mr. Brown's opinion of the RCMP--“mean that it was inadequate or otherwise flawed?” That's the key question. And what he says is, “Possibly, but not necessarily.”
Independence is part of a good process--we would all agree with that--but lack of independence does not necessarily mean that people acted inappropriately. I think that gives you a flavour of the reasoning that Mr. Brown used to conclude that rather than redo an investigation, let's have the OPP take a look at how the investigation was conducted, and if they concluded that in spite of the lack of perception of independence there were no flaws in the conduct of the investigation, the result should stand.
I would suggest, in all humility, that you should probably ask Mr. Brown tomorrow, because he would be much better equipped to explain his reasoning in relation to why he chose that approach as opposed to some other.