It's important when we're in committee for points of order to reflect the Standing Orders. That point of order did not reference the Standing Orders, so it was out of order. I'll take the opportunity to identify that, because it was disruptive to the committee, which is also contrary to the Standing Orders.
To the matter at hand, though, this is important. This is an accountability committee. We have the opportunity to bring accountability to bear, and we've been successful in doing so with accountability committees over the last few years. Many times, we have heard from Liberal members that since there's nothing to see here, we don't need to discuss it, we don't need document production orders and we don't need to have witness testimony.
What did we get when we had fulsome investigations and when committees fulfilled their mandates? We uncovered corruption in government with the Liberal government. We uncovered matters that have led to criminal charges being laid against government contractors when Liberal members said there was nothing to see there.
We've seen ample instances where improvements to the rules and to the laws could be made. This is, of course, very relevant. Several members of the current Liberal government have been found to have broken the very ethics laws that we review when we are discussing the act.
We're looking to bring transparency and accountability forward for Canadians, and we have the opportunity to review the instances where a conflict of interest screen has been invoked or not so that Canadians can have an understanding of that when they see the decisions the Prime Minister is taking and the meetings that he is involved in, which brings us to why travel itineraries are important.
The refrain, often from Liberal members, is, “There's nothing to see here and therefore you don't need this information; don't look over there.” Certainly, I would say that if there's nothing to hide when we're looking at the head of government, then transparency is critical. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The same members of the government today are the government members, Liberal members, who were involved in more ethical breaches than any government and any party in Canadian history. It's pretty chilling that when the proposal to reconstitute committees was brought forward in the House, under the auspices of reflecting the number of seats that the government has in the House, they exceeded that percentage. Their rationale was that the percentage of seats they have in their standing on committees should mirror or reflect seats in the House, but they've exceeded that.
The amendment that we put forward was to preserve the accountability of committees, because we're not dealing with legislation. That's not where the issue has been. In fact, if the charge is that there's been a slowdown on the passage of legislation, in the review of subject matter or in dealing with agenda items at this committee, only one party has filibustered, and it's the Liberals.
Chair, you can seek unanimous consent. The last time I suggested that, we had a special guest in Mr. Turnbull, who, before I even got the words out of my mouth, said that the Liberals were intent on filibustering.
I think this would provide transparency. It would provide accountability. Again, sunlight certainly does prove to be the best disinfectant. If history is any indicator, if there's reluctance or a refusal to furnish us with the information, then we can infer from this that there is another cover-up at play.