Continuing conversations with Canadians VI

Jim Travers has an article in today's Toronto Star arguing that Canadian government cannot respond to the challenges of our time because Members of Parliament and civil servants lack space to do their jobs well. As a result, we've had no significant debate over the government's response to the economic crisis and no accountability on government spending.

"Such pressing matters, such big-ticket items, were once the business of the House of Commons. A brightest-and-best bureaucracy provided policy options and parliamentarians knew enough about the problem's component parts – as well as the solution's costs – to offer a reasoned opinion on the decision reached by cabinet and a first-among-equals prime minister."

The tightly controlled system also constrains the prime minister - who has more power than ever before - from truly creating policy responses to today's biggest challenges, according to Travers.

It is a sentiment that is shared by rookie Members of Parliament, apparently. Yesterday, an article in the Star interviewed three rookies - Liberal Justin Trudeau, Conservative Shelly Glover, and New Democrat Megan Leslie - and all three expressed disappointment with the House of Commons.

All three of them described the House of Commons as unnecessarily partisan, to the point of being unproductive. Glover described parliamentary debate as theatre: "And I call it theatre because much of it is orchestrated – and that's unfortunate because I could be doing much better work for my constituents on the ground . . . and unfortunately I'm here playing the game of politics."

Veteran MP Bob Rae agreed with his colleagues. He believes that more free votes in the House of Commons, more power to House of Commons committees to actually change legislation they are studying, and electronic voting would help to change the atmosphere of Parliament.