Okay. I have a ruling. I will just remind members that rulings of the chair are not debatable. If there is a challenge.... The committee can challenge the chair, but I will inform you of this beforehand.
The ruling is as follows.
Bill C-25 creates a legal framework for the establishment and administration of pooled registered pension plans for employees and self-employed persons. A position of superintendent is created to be responsible for the control and supervision of the administration of this act. The superintendent issues licences to corporations to act as administrators of pooled registered pension plans.
Bill C-25 also contains provisions for the superintendent to oversee the actions of the administrators, with the power to transfer a plan's assets to another entity or even to revoke the registration and cancel the certificate of registration of the plan in question. These remedies are clearly defined, as is the system of objection and appeals.
This amendment attempts to transfer the administrative responsibilities and duties associated with the role of the administrator of a registered plan directly to the superintendent through means of trusteeship. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this scheme is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-25, and the amendment is therefore inadmissible.
That is my ruling. It applies to NDP-1 as well as to NDP-4. NDP 4 is on page 6 of the documents I have. It relates to clause 34.