There's a lot of debate on oversight versus review. I think that a committee such as this one does not want to be in the midst of ongoing investigations to the point where are guiding the investigation and guiding and influencing decisions. I think there's a general agreement that people who are in charge should be making decisions and let things unfold, but then there's a timing issue.
Review does not have to mean a year after the fact. For instance, let's take a case such as the one Michel Coulombe referred to. If the committee wants to understand what transpired in that particular case, there's an opportunity to do it fairly quickly, but I think the idea is that it shouldn't be in real time.