Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
Thank you, Jacques, for starting us off on the best committee on Parliament Hill--and the hardest working. I know the members here have had an opportunity to work with each other in the past, and we do have some very interesting work.
I'm proposing that next Tuesday, since our routine motions as to the construct of the steering committee are in place, our steering committee would meet at our regular meeting time. We'll give notice of that meeting for the members: Madam Freeman, Mr. Siksay, Madam Davidson, and myself.
I'm suggesting that each of the members of the steering committee would circulate to the others any general suggestions for consideration at the steering committee, so we could come somewhat prepared to formulate a recommendation to the full committee when our first full committee will occur on that following Thursday.
There is only one other item, although it is not on our agenda. I have had some consultation with each of the parties. It has to do with the 10th and 11th reports of this committee from the last session. They were tabled in the House. We requested a response from the government within 120 days. We did receive a response from the Minister of Justice on both those reports. The committee considered the response of the minister and we have had correspondence requesting, and the minister has agreed to provide, a comprehensive response, which will be coming forward. We will continue to pursue that for the committee's consideration.
Prorogation, however, has taken those two reports that we referred to the House off the table. So in consultation with the parties, I would propose that those two reports be retabled in the House. I will specifically state that we are not requesting the government response within 120 days, simply because the government has already responded, but we have ongoing work there.
I'll propose a motion to that effect. With regard to the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “The Privacy Act: First Steps Towards Renewal”, I move that it be retabled in the House.
I'm sorry. I was premature. I think that seems reasonable, but I had a separate point on a separate report that related to the investigation on the Google mapping systems. I don't want to take us off subject.
What was your plan, Mr. Chair, regarding studies that we commenced and in fact completed, like the one on the Google mapping system, but whose reports are not yet authored? Do we have a plan to reopen the study just for the purpose of report drafting? Would you wrap them in a motion to that effect?
I believe our standard practice is that, first of all, at our first full meeting, there would be a motion to bring forward the evidence, minutes, and transcripts from the prior session and adopt that into the current session. Then we could proceed as you have suggested, in that we would take the necessary steps to complete that work and report it to the House. But because of the prorogation, we don't have that testimony and that information still.
There's a precedent for that. We had a case with the Afghan study in the prior session. We actually brought forward the whole study and the report was done in one session. It came forward, we adopted it, and actually produced that report.
Yes. I think we will possibly have some further discussion as to the content of that report because it hasn't been drafted, but certainly that's something I think we should do since we have invested some good time in it.
On that matter, we all sit on other committees, and certainly on the agriculture committee that I sit on we had a competitive study that went way back to last February, actually, and was lost to a great extent because of prorogation. All we did was put a motion that all the evidence received on the issue of the competitive study be brought forward to this session. Then you can get on and do the report, but you need the motion to be able to do it. So we'll do it at the next meeting.