I'm kind of torn, because if big investigations must produce big results, well that is open to all kinds of abuse. If you have to justify the time & resources spent on it, there will be the temptation to do things like plant evidence in order to come up with the big arrest. Conversely, some investigations will simply not be undertaken in the first place because the chances of them producing a big arrest are low. Is that what we want -- for the police to ignore certain things? For it to become a game of playing the percentages and only pursuing things that are likely to result in an arrest?
It's possible for "no major arrests" to be the legitimate and correct outcome of an investigation. (I'm speaking generally here; not of Brazen 2.) If the RCMP/CSIS get tips about possible terrorist activity at a mosque, and they do an undercover investigation, and after 12 months they don't find anyone there has ties to al-qaeda, Isis, or any other group -- should they arrest someone just to justify the millions spent? Pick the member with some controversial views (but far from any links to terrorism) and just scapegoat
them and have a scalp to parade in front of the public? I would hope not. On the other hand, aren't we glad they did the investigation -- just in case? Or should they ignore such tips because not finding a guilty party makes the public mad about "waste"?