Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My question is again for the Trudeau leader in the Senate.

Leader, yesterday, you indicated that my questions about the made-up rapporteur and his report were not based in fact or truth. You might not like what I’m saying, but I’m laying out facts. It is a fact that the rapporteur admitted he didn’t have the information that CSIS has provided to Erin O’Toole. It is a fact that the rapporteur’s report doesn’t mention the Trudeau Foundation at all. It is a fact that his report also doesn’t mention Beijing’s police stations in our country. Leader, it is also a fact that diaspora groups that have endured Beijing’s interference came here yesterday to plead for a public inquiry.

Which of those facts do you dispute, leader?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, two years ago, before the Trudeau government used a made-up rapporteur to cover up what it knew about Beijing’s interference in our elections, it was busy hiding the truth about a security breach at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.

First, the Prime Minister said that asking questions about this was racist. Then his government defied four House orders to produce uncensored documents. Next, he sued the Speaker of the House to keep the documents hidden. Now the Trudeau government has hired three former judges to oversee the work of an ad hoc group of four MPs viewing the documents.

Leader, a parliamentary committee should be doing this work. No respect for Parliament, no leadership, no common sense, no transparency and no accountability — why is it always the same story with the Trudeau government, leader?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message from the House of Commons regarding Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

As all of you are well aware and, I am sure, appreciate, my speaking time today is unlimited, so in order to ensure senators are under no illusions about precisely what we will be voting on, I thought I would begin my remarks by reading the entire message that the Speaker read to us the other day, unless somebody suggests I dispense. I might be convinced to do that.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I have one question for Senator Klyne if he would take it.

Thank you for your speech, Senator Klyne. I have just one question, and the reason I’m asking is you raised the particular issue of extending the maximum penalties from 10 years to 14 years. Would it surprise you, Senator Klyne, if I told you that yesterday at my critics briefing we asked the officials about how often the 10-year maximum had even applied? We were questioning what value there is to put 14 years, and they said that as far as they knew there was only one recorded incident ever where the 10-year maximum had been handed out.

Were you aware of that? In light of that, how do you feel about the value of a maximum when the maximum already isn’t being used now?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and I’m not ready to speak to it at this time. I’m kind of exhausted. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.