I'm not suggesting it is not being put forth in good faith. What I'm suggesting is that our amendments were being put forth in good faith too, but they added new things that weren't contemplated. I can't remember the exact wording of the ruling, but it was made several times, and the gist of it is that new matters that weren't contemplated at second reading then really ought to be, or need to be, the subject of another bill.
On November 23rd, 2011. See this statement in context.