Now we go to clause 4, for which we have received three amendments. The first was from the NDP and it reads as follows:
That Bill C-461, in Clause 4, be amended (a) by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 1 with the following: "4. (1) The portion of paragraph (j) of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Privacy Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following: (j) information about an individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution or an employee of the office of a minister of the Crown that relates to the position or functions of the individual including, (2) Subparagraph (j)(i) of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Act is replaced by the following: (i) the fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government institution or minister's office, (3) Subparagraph (j)(iii) of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Act is replaced by the following: (b) by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following: "the government institution or minister's office an annual salary" (c) by replacing line 9 on page 2 with the following: "the government institution or minister's office an annual salary" (d) by replacing line 19 on page 2 with the following: "reimbursed by the government institution or minister's office,"
I will render a decision on the admissibility of that amendment.
Bill C-461 amends the Privacy Act by amending the definition of "personal information" as it pertains to the executives and employees of a federal institution. The purpose of the amendment in question is to extend the scope of the bill by subjecting the employees of a minister's office to the definition of "personal information".
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
The Chair is of the view that adding the employees of a minister's office would extend the application of the provisions of Bill C-461 to a new group of employees, which constitutes a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Consequently, in my view, the amendment motion is out of order.
Mr. Angus, do you have a point of order?