From what little I know of them, the standing committees in both the US and GB seem workable, and perhaps born out of histories that have seen a steady diet of security threats. Ours seems rather toothless, or perhaps contemplative is the better word, and at the pleasure of the PMO. One would think that, if it was seen as dynamic and the in-House resource to consider all manners of national security, it would have been written into the Emergencies Act. If such a committee could report to Parliament and say 'we have seen the evidence and it is credible', and Parliament accepts it, we might have something. So long as parliamentarians expect to know, interpret and debate the evidence, there will be a problem. Parliament is ultimately accountable (actually, in the case of the Emergencies Act orders, it is Cabinet, the motion debates are just support), but they, and the parties, need to use and trust the institutions they have.
I can't imagine the likes of Cheryl Gallant or Randy Hillier (ok, provincial but still) given access to the launch codes.