There is a discussion quite often about review versus oversight. There is some confusion about the terms, but in Canadian practice, oversight means command, control, and coordination. The oversight entity authorizes or has a role in authorizing activities.
Review is looking at the performance of the agency against standards. Typically it examines whether the conduct of the agency was legal and was in accordance with ministerial directives.
Review is after the fact, in the sense that you need agency action before you can review it, but review can be close to actual in the sense that the review doesn't necessarily have to be 20 years after the fact or a year after the fact or a month after the fact. My understanding from SIRC is that increasingly their review is more approximate in time to the actual operation, so it's still after the fact, but it's not that much after the fact.
The same thing should probably be true for the parliamentary committee under Bill C-22; that is, it is competent to do review. It does not do command and control oversight, and I think it would not be proper for that body to do command and control oversight. It does review, but I don't think it should fear doing review that's approximate in time to the actual operations, as long as it doesn't impede those operations.
Where this might become controversial is the extent to which the executive branch can deny the committee the information it requires to do this more timely review.