Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve a hypothesis that is entailed by the premise.
Query: For example, by suggesting that the Minister of Labour uses parliamentary immunity to take an unfair action against a person, he is implying that if he spoke outside the House of Commons the Minister of Labour would be subject to some kind of civil suit, so he is imputing motives to the Minister of Labour.
The Minister of Labour can be sued.
Leader of the Government may take the occasion of a debate.
The questioner believes that minister is guilty of cronyism
Ms Copps was attacked in the House of Commons.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has a dislike for the local cafeteria food.
The Liberal hacks will be protected by clauses which will make them exempt from accountability.
The author wants to make sure employers can break the law.
the minister is boastful. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has been known to fart without warning.
There are members of the Parliament that are anti-democracy.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons dislikes ontario.
The question of privilege relates to the members of parliament.
Some members of the House used the attack against the democratic rights of Quebecers to distract other members of the House from seeing the report.
Men are oppressing women in parliament.
A political staffer making this kind of claim is normal
THe person does not agree with the Prime Minister's actions
The power of the Prime Minister was widely unchecked.
the minister of justice is a man
The Liberal majority disclosed information about the Minister of finance and his personal life.
The person whose perspective we're getting in this context has a grievance with the Canadian federal government system.
The government wants to make the Parliament a judge on the results of the referendum.
The speaker can count on the members of the Liberal caucus to defend the referendum act.
He is not implying that if he spoke outside the House of Commons the Minister of Labour would be subject to some kind of civil suit.
He is implying that if he spoke outside the House of Commons the Minister of Labour wouldn't be subject to some kind of civil suit.
The Minister of Labor is suggesting that they all don't not go out for pizza later.