Yet most MPs recalled feeling frustrated with the work they were made to perform in the House. Question Period, in particular, bore a great deal of the MPs’ criticisms. They viewed it as a partisan game, and said they were embarrassed by how it misrepresented Parliament and MPs to Canadians. Furthermore, as we will discuss in greater detail in Chapter 2, it was often the demands placed on them by their own political parties that had much to do with the frustration they described.
When the MPs discussed their work in Ottawa,
they said it was only as they moved away from public
scrutiny—and the dictates of their party—that
they were able to pursue constructive politics.
It was in the less publicized venue
of committees
and the private space of caucus that they said
they were able to transcend the partisanship on display on
TV, engage in vigorous debates, advance policy issues, work within and across parties to improve legislation, and
influence their party leadership.
While it is encouraging to hear of such constructive and collaborative work taking place in Ottawa, it is also troubling that such work appears confined to private and semi-private spaces. While public demands for openness and transparency in decision-making processes are on the rise, our elected representatives appear to carry out their duties in spaces that don’t invite public scrutiny.
And it is disturbing that, even while the MPs recognized that their own collective behaviour in public was problematic, they persisted in it.