Debates of May 26th, 2021

National Framework for Diabetes Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 2 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

International Trade

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern with the Liberal government's failure to support the request by South Africa and India to temporarily waive intellectual property rights through the TRIPS waiver. By failing to support the TRIPS waiver, and by failing to ensure that all people and all countries can get vaccines to their populations as quickly and efficiently as possible, the government is putting Canada on the wrong side of history. This is not where Canadians want or deserve to be.

The decision to not support the waiver is ethically bankrupt. It will potentially cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions, more people. It is indefensible, but more importantly it is also not very smart. We have heard so many times before, and I cannot reiterate with enough emphasis, that none of us is safe until all of us are safe. Until people around the world are vaccinated, until this virus is contained and eradicated and until variants stop evolving, we will not recover from this pandemic. We may believe that it is over, but if we fail to act globally, this virus will evolve and we will find ourselves in a second pandemic in which vaccinated Canadians are not protected. It would be a second pandemic that could have been prevented.

Why is the government willing to watch more people die? Why is the government willing to see our global economy crumble once again? Is this the price we are being asked to pay to protect big pharmaceutical companies? We should keep in mind that these companies, which use massive amounts of public dollars to develop, test and produce vaccines, are making billions of dollars in profit this year. These companies using public dollars, our money, are profiting off of the pandemic. They are looking for more and the government is obliging. Why choose big pharma over lives? Why choose big pharma over our future? This is not what Canadians want from their government.

The United States has said that it will support the waiver. Over 100 countries around the world have supported the waiver. There are 280 European parliamentarians who support the waiver. Members of the minister's own party, Liberal members of Parliament, have called upon the government to support the waiver. Even Pope Francis is urging Canada and all countries to support the waiver. Pope Francis recognizes that selfish politics, such as those shown by the Liberal government, are another variant of the COVID-19 virus. He said, “Another variant is when we put the laws of the market or of intellectual property over the...health of humanity.”

The TRIPS waiver is not the only step we need to take to ensure vaccines are available as quickly and as widely as possible, but it is a vital step. It is a tool in the very limited tool box that humanity has right now to fight this virus, and frankly we need to use every single tool that we have at our disposal. The situation is urgent and the repercussions are catastrophic if we fail to act.

I am speaking from the heart. I am using every means I have to convince the government that it is not too late to do the right thing. It should stop dithering, stop deflecting and stop avoiding the issue by saying it is studying it and thinking about options. It should stop the ridiculous wait-and-see approach that insults the intelligence of Canadians and fails to recognize the urgency of the pandemic. It should do the right thing, support the TRIPS waiver and help the world combat COVID-19 before it claims even more victims.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question. I am also concerned about that issue.

Our government has been committed to those efforts since the beginning of the pandemic. As a country and as a government, we are a strong supporter of equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines around the world. We are working with our international partners right now. As my colleague is well aware, this is not a decision that can be made by Canada alone. We are working with other countries to eliminate all of the potential barriers to vaccine access, including intellectual property, supply chain constraints and the export restrictions we are seeing around the world.

Through the leadership of our Ottawa Group, we are promoting the trade and health initiative to the WTO to eliminate barriers, and we are determined to find solutions that will expedite the production and equitable distribution of vaccines.

I would like to state very clearly for the record that the member opposite is absolutely right that none of us are safe until everyone is safe. However, she is wrong to characterize our government's position in the way that she has.

Canada has been working since the very beginning with all of the players around the table at the WTO to find a solution to this issue. Canada is not in a position by itself to grant a waiver. We need to find consensus. In fact, the WTO is a consensus-based organization, so coming out one way or another without having all member states in agreement does not serve any purpose.

What we need to do is look at a text, which is the process we are engaging in now. I am sure the member is following the situation closely and understands that so far the waiver proponents have not proposed anything in writing. We are working toward this and are pushing all of the players around the table to come up with texts so that we can negotiate and move this forward.

Our government certainly recognizes, just as the member opposite does, that the pandemic is not over anywhere until it is over everywhere. We are committed to finding solutions. We are also committed to finding an agreement that accelerates global vaccine production, but one that does not negatively impact public health here in Canada or anywhere around the world.

We need to discuss IP protection proposals for a waiver that will allow particular COVID-19 vaccines to be available to developing countries. However, we also need to work with all members on some of the other barriers to accessing COVID-19 vaccines. We know what those are, and many of them are related to supply chain constraints.

Canada is actively engaged in the work of the trade and health initiative at the WTO. It aims to strengthen global supply chains and support the delivery of essential medicines and medical supplies, including vaccines, all over the world. Canada has also encouraged the director general of the WTO to enhance its efforts to ensure that the WTO plays a role in finding a global solution to this issue and in accelerating the production and distribution of affordable, safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines.

I will end by saying that Canada remains a strong advocate for equitable access to vaccines. We remain one of the very important players around the table, encouraging us all to find a text that we can agree. We want to make sure that vaccines are available right across the world.

I will point to our leadership as a country. For example, consider our contributions to the access to COVID-19 tools, or ACT, accelerator, and of course our contributions financially to the COVAX facility. To date—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there for the moment. The hon. parliamentary secretary will have an extra minute at the end, but we will go back to the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her rebuttal.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, experts tell us that 30% more people will die if we do not act. Experts tell us that the cost of the extended pandemic could top $4 trillion if we do not act. The government will have to bear the burden of history remembering what its decision was. For the Liberals to say that they have not been able to make a decision, that they cannot make a decision, is irresponsible and incorrect.

I am going to ask the member one more time. Will Canada add its name to the hundreds of countries that have already supported the TRIPS waiver, yes or no? Will the minister and will the member support the TRIPS waiver? It is really easy; it is yes or no.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of complicating something the member opposite feels is very easy, I invite her to consider that we do not decide things unilaterally at the WTO and we need to agree upon a text as a member of the WTO, and as a leader at the WTO, in order to move forward.

I am not exactly sure what text the member opposite is asking Canada to agree to. I would like to see it, I would like to read it as a lawyer and I would like to understand it before putting our country's name to it.

I think it is important that we move forward. I absolutely agree with the member opposite that we need to be a constructive player in this discussion. However, I would encourage her not to minimize the importance of the debate and the complexity of the matter that is before the government and all governments at the moment.

We will absolutely continue to support a robust, multi-faceted and global effort to ensure equitable access to vaccines right across the world, but we will do so responsibly.

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve good governance, an ethical and transparent government that works on building public confidence in government institutions instead of undermining them through scandals and constant ethical violations.

Scandals have been erupting in Ottawa since the day the Liberals formed government. The Liberals have spent all of their efforts on covering up their corruption instead of working to protect the future of Canadians. During this pandemic, when Canadians were relying on their government to put their needs first, the government shut down Parliament to line the pockets of Liberal elites.

In order to ensure that Ottawa assumes its responsibilities, the Conservatives will propose new anti-corruption legislation to restore Canadians' trust in their public institutions. The Conservatives will give Canadians the transparent and ethical government they deserve.

What we have seen with the Liberals over the past six years is an absence of accountability and an unwillingness to stop the insider dealings. We have seen the government block accountability measures that the House has called on it to take, including when witnesses were ordered to appear at committee. Instead, ministers told committees that they instructed the witnesses not to appear and that they believe in ministerial accountability. The House gave a provision in its order to the government that it could produce the staff witnesses or the Prime Minister could appear. He could have done so to exercise ministerial accountability, if in fact the government was genuine in its assertion about the reason staff could not appear at committee.

As we have seen in the last several months, and even since the pandemic began, any time tough questions are asked, committees devolve into filibusters put on by the Liberals. It happened not just at the ethics committee, but at the finance committee, the national defence committee and the procedure and House affairs committee, to name a few. When the House issues an order for witnesses to appear at committee and the government instructs staff members to defy an order of this place, it speaks to the trickle-down lack of accountability and ethics that we have seen with the government. That is why we have, in the Prime Minister, someone who has been twice found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act and found himself under investigation one additional time, and why multiple ministers have been found guilty of breaking the ethics laws of this place.

Canadians deserve better, and here is my question for the parliamentary secretary: Why does the government believe that the rules do not apply to it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. My friend and I have had this discussion on several occasions, and sometimes one has to agree to disagree. Ever since the 2015 federal election, and even before, the Conservative Party has been personally attacking the Prime Minister, and nothing has changed. I think our Prime Minister has done an admirable job in resisting the personal attacks, and he continues to remain focused on Canadians and the pandemic.

This government, day in and day out, seven days a week, has been there to support Canadians during the pandemic. We have seen that in the establishment of programs. We went from nothing to programs that have directly helped more than nine million Canadians. The member talked about how we prorogued a session. When was the last time the House actually sat during the summertime? The answer is more than 30 years ago.

For the first time in the House of Commons, opposition members were provided the opportunity to ask thousands of questions over the summer. Many of their questions were about issues of ethics. Accusations were flowing. Every rock had to be turned over. The member said that we have been putting money in the pockets of Liberals, but let me remind my friend that billions of dollars were spent and many pockets of Conservative business owners received that money. I suspect that even some Bloc and New Democratic people who owned businesses received money. Seriously, there is no credibility in trying to make it look as if the government is corrupt, none whatsoever.

The Conservative Party, a number of months ago, lost its focus. Ever since the new leader has taken over the reins of power within the Conservative Party, along with his leadership team, the Conservatives are more focused on being a disruptive force inside the legislative chamber than they are on serving the best interests of Canadians. We see that when the Conservative Party chooses to amplify the issue of corruption when corruption is not there. A good example of that is the recent announcement from the Ethics Commissioner that the Prime Minister was not in a conflict with regard to the WE Charity.

As an opposition party, the Conservatives can do whatever they like. However, I will tell Canadians that every member of the Liberal caucus, with the leadership of the Prime Minister, will continue to be focused on Canadians in every region of this country. We are committed to building back better, and the budget we just presented is an excellent illustration of that. I am very proud of the way this government has been accountable—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there. I think the hon. parliamentary secretary was coming to the end of his thoughts anyway.

Let us go to the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will stop talking about Liberals who break elections laws and break ethics laws when the Liberals stop breaking the law. We do not need to turn over any rocks. We just need to read the reports: the “Morneau II Report”, reports from the Commissioner of Canada Elections, the “Trudeau II Report” or “The Trudeau Report”. Let us hearken back to “clamscam” or any of a number of issues that have happened with ministers and parliamentary secretaries of the government. The opposition can walk and chew gum at the same time. The government can only do one thing, and that is filibuster, prorogue and try to hide from its scandals.

We have been able to support Canadians during the pandemic. That is why Parliament sat during the summer. However, the government still prorogued it.

Canadians deserve accountable, ethical governance, and they are not getting it from the Prime Minister. However, it is never too late to do the right thing and turn over a new leaf. Is the parliamentary secretary ready to do the right thing and turn over a new leaf for Canadians today?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me give a very personal example. In the last federal election, and I have been a candidate now for 10 elections or more, I made a mistake for the very first time when I boosted a post from Facebook. I was not the only candidate to do this. A number of candidates also did it, but I have to take responsibility.

Technically we are not supposed to advertise on election day, and when I boosted it, I never thought of it was advertising, but I should have known better, especially having been a candidate in 10 elections. I am very sorry that I made that innocent mistake. We were car waving, I stood up and made a post, and I should not have done that.

I paid the penalty. I am very sorry it happened and I can guarantee it will not happen in the future.

Listening to what the member says, I am really not that bad of a person. It was not intentional. I am hoping the member will understand that.

Human Rights

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question today is about the Uighur genocide.

Before I get to the specifics of that, I would like to acknowledge the importance of this week as it pertains to concerns about the situation in China. This week has been designated as a week of prayer for the church in China and the peoples of China by Cardinal Bo, who is the Catholic cardinal in Burma and serves as the president to the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences.

Following his call for this week to be a week of prayer for the situation of Christians and other communities in China, churches and others from around the world have taken up this call. Christians from various backgrounds and denominations are using this week as an opportunity to speak, advocate and pray about the escalating persecution of China's Christian community as well as the human rights abuses and other challenges facing all the communities in the People's Republic of China.

Sadly, criticism of China's human rights record is often portrayed as somehow being anti-China, but this call to prayer for China taken up by so many from around the world demonstrates goodwill toward China and good wishes for its people, and the hope China's leaders will one day be a force for the advancement of justice and human freedom.

I am pleased to join my voice to that of Cardinal Bo, Pope Francis and many others in Canada and around the world who are marking this important week to express my concern about the persecution of Christians in China and in particular as well to note the cases of Bishop Vincent Guo Xijin, Bishop James Su Zhimin, Bishop Augustine Cui Tai, Father Lu Genjun, Pastor Wang Yi and Pastor John Cao.

We have seen the horrific persecution of all faith communities in China, and tonight I am following up on a question asked about the genocide of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China. As best I can understand, the government's position on this is that further investigation is required to determine whether these crimes constitute genocide and if the government of China should allow a fact-finding mission on the ground.

I would put it to the government that there has never been in human history a case where a government, in the act of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, has willingly permitted international monitoring or investigation while those crimes were going on.

In the case of the Rohingya genocide, the government was willing, eventually, to recognize the reality of that genocide even without an on-the-ground fact-finding mission being permitted. The recognition in that case was made as a result of testimony of survivors and satellite footage, and that is the kind of evidence we also have in this case.

In fact, the evidence in the case of the Uighur genocide is, if anything, clearer and more conclusive than the evidence that existed in the case of the Rohingya genocide. Of course, the Chinese state is more powerful than the Burmese state, but the government should not choose to invent new higher evidentiary thresholds simply because it is afraid to hold powerful states to account.

If we are to take at face value the government's claim to not have yet rendered a decision based on the evidence, then we also have to recognize a majority of the government's caucus has disagreed with the Prime Minister and his cabinet in their conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence here. In any event, the government should explain the nature of the investigation it is pursuing with respect to the Uighur genocide and when it expects this investigation to be concluded.

In the meantime, one concrete thing we can do short of recognizing this genocide is to fix Canada's failing supply chain legislation. Canadians from across the political spectrum want to see meaningful reforms to prevent slave labour from feeding our supply chains. Emancipation is sadly still a distant dream in certain parts of the world, including in Xinjiang, and we need to do our part to bring that dream closer.

Despite announcing a new policy in this area, no imports have been blocked or apprehended. This new policy therefore is clearly not working. We need to pass legislation modelled on the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act of the U.S., which introduces a presumption that slave labour is involved in products imported from places where high levels of slave labour exist.

Again, back to the main question, could the government explain the nature of the investigation it is pursuing with respect to the Uighur genocide and when it expects that investigation to be concluded? When will the government finally render a decision on whether it believes events in Xinjiang or East Turkestan constitute genocide and trigger Canada's obligations under the genocide convention?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for bringing up the week of prayer that Cardinal Bo has instituted with respect to China. I think it is very important for Canadians to be aware of that.

I would also note that in March we had a day of prayer across Canada for Hong Kong, to which parliamentarians were invited. I believe I was alone in that prayer evening. I was really touched by Canadians across the country who raised their prayers for the people of Hong Kong. Other issues were raised as well with respect to human rights in China. These are important human rights cases.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights on this issue and others as well as the testimonials that have been received from civil society, which have been considered by parliamentarians. I also acknowledge, as the member did, the recent motion carried by hon. members of the House. The government welcomes parliamentarians working together and debating this critical issue.

We all agree that the actions by Chinese authorities in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region cannot be ignored and must be attended to. There is evidence of a sustained and systemic campaign of repression in Xinjiang by the Chinese government. We have testimonials from survivors and we have leaked government documents from credible reports of mass arbitrary detention, repressive surveillance, forced labour, forced sterilization, sexual violence, torture and other mistreatment affecting Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. This is not an exhaustive list of the violations which continue to come to light.

As we have repeatedly said, we remain deeply disturbed by troubling reports of these human rights violations in Xinjiang. Canada also takes allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity very seriously. We take them seriously enough to do due diligence and work with international partners, and work to ensure that we call things as they are in ways that will be helpful and in ways which will engage our partners and not stand alone.

The Chinese government continues to deny any possibility of human rights violations against the Uighur people. It rejects any accountability for wrongdoing and actively seeks to discredit victims and those who speak out, and we address that regularly. It is the utmost priority for this government to safeguard and protect the rules-based international order, which includes the protection and promotion of human rights around the world.

Canada has repeatedly called for an investigation so that impartial experts can observe and report on the situation first-hand. We have a responsibility to work with others in the international community. We do not stand alone. We are stronger and better when we work with the international community.

Whether a first-hand visit by experts is possible or not, as the member argues, we must ensure that such allegations are investigated by independent experts who can review available information, including first-hand accounts whenever possible. We have been clear in our view that human rights violations are occurring against Uighurs and more rigorous and comprehensive investigation evaluation should occur in co-operation with allies, and we continue in that vein.

I want to underscore what the Government of Canada has already done.

On January 12, we adopted a comprehensive approach to the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including measures against forced labour.

On March 22, through coordination with the U.K. and the U.S. and solidarity with the UN, there were new sanctions against four officials and one entity for participation in human rights violations in Xinjiang. We raise concerns regularly alongside our partners at the UN, including at the UN Human Rights Council at the UN General Assembly.

On May 12, Canada co-sponsored a virtual event at the UN in New York alongside 15 countries to raise awareness about the human rights situation in Xinjiang.

It seems to have escaped the minds of the opposition that Canada continues to provide leadership in this, and we will continue to do it. We will continue to work with others to defend fundamental human rights and freedoms and call upon China to uphold its international obligations, and we will do it well.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that I did not hear, in the midst of what the parliamentary secretary said, a response to my question about the nature of this investigation that the government is pursuing and when it expects it to be concluded.

I would appreciate hearing from the parliamentary secretary if the government is pushing for an investigation or is undertaking an investigation with respect to the use of the term “genocide”, and the government's obligations under the genocide convention. When can we expect the government to come back to Parliament and say that it has done the investigation and here are the conclusions?

I will note as well that the parliamentary secretary spoke about multilaterally and not going it alone. We have consecutive U.S. administrations as well as various Parliaments that have recognized this as a genocide. In addition to the Canadian Parliament, now the Dutch Parliament, the British Parliament and the Lithuania Parliament and others are taking steps as well. We have numerous human rights experts, such as his former Liberal colleague, the human rights hero, Irwin Cotler. Many legal briefs have been submitted. Independent experts have spoken, and many of our allies and partners have spoken as well.

The parliamentary secretary's government may not yet be satisfied with the conclusions. I just ask this again. When will the government's investigation of this matter be concluded? When can we expect it to report back with whatever—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct in saying that there are Parliaments, close to half a dozen of them, including this one, that have recognized this genocide. However, he is asking what the government response is. He is not asking what the parliamentary response is.

I believe the member does know the difference between a government and a Parliament. He knows the difference in the responsibilities of a government and the rights and authorities of a Parliament. They are different. They are different in kind. They are different in quality. They are different in the bar that is necessary for action. That is clear. In the member's statements, he recognizes this. It is fundamentally different.

Our government takes allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity very seriously. It takes the wisdom of this Parliament very seriously. It takes the wisdom of other Parliaments very seriously as well as the evidence from survivors, human rights experts, including Mr. Cotler and others. We take it very seriously and then we act responsibly as a government, as the people of Canada would expect a government to act. I am proud of that. We will continue to do it. We will continue to uphold our international obligations and stand for human rights.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Finance in the main estimates, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair)

Finance—Main Estimates, 2021-22

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Tonight's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Finance. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 25, within each 15-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers.

In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other, but the time allocated for speeches must not exceed 10 minutes. The Chair requests that each member who speaks indicate how that time will be used.

The order also specifies that when the time is used for questions and answers, the length of the minister's response should approximately reflect the time taken by the question. In addition, the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair as they are customarily in the House. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all the established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

The House in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I welcome the Minister of Finance to this committee of the whole. I will get right into it just by saying this, I will not be giving a speech. I will be asking questions of the minister.

The minister has just tabled the biggest spending budget in Canadian history. Many have questioned the sustainability of the massive financial burden that future generations will be burdened with.

Minister, when will Canada's budget return to balance?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, let me start by quoting someone I respect very much, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, who was appointed by the member's own prime minister, Mr. Stephen Poloz. He pointed out, in testimony to the finance committee last week, that:

A credible fiscal plan in which the level of government debt relative to national income stops rising and debt service costs are manageable meets the....technical—standard of sustainability. I draw your attention to the table on page 328 of the budget, which shows that these criteria are met—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will go back to the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, when will Canada's budget return to balance?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me point to another very credible assessor of Canada's finances, and that is S and P, the rating agency, which recently reaffirmed our AAA rating.