I appreciate Mr. Bagnell's request to the chair to clarify the basis for his ruling. The chair's reasoning here is still not clear to me.
He uses the phrase “the principle of the bill”. I am not familiar with that concept. I understand the concept scope of the bill but not the principle of the bill. If the chair is of the view that this or other amendments are outside the scope of the bill, then he may wish to take that point.
But I'm looking at the briefing book that we've received from staff, with or without the assistance of the government. In looking at clause 7, in effect the subject of the bill explicitly described says section 95 deals with the illegal possession of restricted or prohibited firearms, either loaded or with ammunition that is available.
It is precisely what we're dealing with. This removes the reference to section 95. It's precisely what we're dealing with on this page. It's the same scope in which we're dealing with the prescribed penalities, which is what the government amendment deals with. We're dealing with the penalties for those offences. I don't understand why the penalties for those offences are outside the scope of the bill.
The chair said the amendment deviates—