Perhaps I'm mistaking which member was arguing that, but at least several members argued that and gave it as a specific reason. If I am incorrect in that, then I would like to see it, but that is absolutely what I was hearing as a reason given by my government colleagues prior to our having a debate as to whether we could talk about the scope of the bill.
Also, I don't think this has to do with the scope of the bill. Otherwise, they would be contradicting themselves in saying that this was part of what they believed to be a reason and then going back on that end—