The process is that when we receive a request for a review by us, we notify the RCMP that we have gotten a request, and we ask them then to forward to us any of what's called the relevant material that would have been considered by the RCMP in the first instance when they were adjudicating on the appeal. We ask them, and then they will forward it to us in due course.
As I said, the nature and the scope of it could be fairly extensive. We have the authority by law to conduct our own investigations or to order further investigations if we're not satisfied. Our concern traditionally is clearly about the adequacy of the investigation in the first instance and whether the material is sufficient.
One of the concerns I have is the ambiguity of the current legislation as to who decides what is relevant. There have been discussions in the past in which the RCMP has taken the point of view that they decide what is relevant and provide to us that which is relevant.
I have a different point of view. I think for credible civilian oversight, the civilian oversight agency decides what is credible and what is relevant to our determination. That is still an ongoing issue in troublesome cases.