It was his argument in response, and I just wanted to clarify that we should also not be impugning witnesses or suggesting things that they didn't have the chance to clarify or they have clarified and it's contrary.
The thing I also want to clarify is that it's my understanding that it's the custom of the place where we practise our art of law-making that when the bills go to committee, and even are even passed at second reading, in many cases they're passed in principle, and many of the members who allow the bill to go to committee may have suggestions for changes they want to make.
So I think it's improper to impugn that there is complete support or to have no anticipation that they may want to improve the bill.