“Elbowgate,” the pundits tell us, is part of a larger story of an out-of-control government intent on subverting Parliament. As Toronto Star columnist Tim Harper put it, “Trudeau's elbows-up intervention was the perfect metaphor for the elbows-up Liberal approach in the Commons,” including the stacking of committees and limiting debate on important pieces of legislation. Others spoke of the Liberals' “assault on Parliament.”Give me a break! As someone who served as a government house leader at the provincial level during tumultuous times, I may actually be one of the few people with some sympathy for the federal Liberals.Promising Parliamentary reform is always easy when you are in opposition. It's not, however, the smartest promise. As soon you get into government the nature of politics itself undermines your efforts. The government's objective is to implement its agenda. The opposition's objective, meanwhile, is to try to thwart those efforts and make the government look bad — not exactly fertile ground for co-operation.I had the pleasure of being the government house leader during Ontario's recent minority government where all sides were theoretically forced to co-operate. I grew to like and respect my opposition counterparts and I believe that we all came to the table wanting to work in the best interests of Ontarians. The problem was that our definition of what was in the best interests of Ontarians was implementing our agenda. The opposition's definition was undermining what they felt was an incompetent government in an effort to replace us.And before you call my description cynical, ask yourself: When was the last time you voted for an opposition party because it co-operated so nicely with the government of the day?Which brings us back to Ottawa and an activist government anxious to pass bills. Although parliamentary procedure is ultimately stacked in favour of a majority government, the opposition has one advantage: The capacity to delay and delay and delay under the guise of wanting further debate and discussion — tactics that can usually be overcome only by the government using its majority to limit parliamentary debate.Bill C-14 on assisted dying is a case in point. Yes, it is a crucial piece of legislation that deserves significant parliamentary debate. It's also a bill that the Supreme Court of Canada said must be passed by June 6.  An incredibly tight time limit, we should remind ourselves, because no political party wanted to deal with the matter heading into last year's federal election.So the government is caught between a rock and a hard place, needing to allow debate while ensuring that the bill proceeds. What have been the results? At last count there have been around 100 members of Parliament who have spoken to the issue in the House. Although a hefty number, I admit that it only represents roughly a third of the members.Has the government tried to accommodate more MPs speaking? According to government representatives there have been ongoing discussions between the government and the opposition parties to find a way forward.Although I doubt that the government has always brought its most generous offers to the table during these talks, I also doubt that the Opposition has been playing fairly. Take the government's recent offer to allow the House of Commons to sit into the early hours of the morning to allow MPs to speak virtually around the clock on the bill.According to media reports, the Conservatives rejected the offer because they wanted debate to take place when their constituents were awake and could watch their MP speak. The New Democrats meanwhile were hurt that they had not been properly consulted in advance.I understand how important it is for an MP to be on the record on such an important bill, and to be able to share their comments with constituents. But come on, do Conservatives really believe that Canadians would be disappointed if they couldn't watch their local MP live on the House of Commons channel during prime time? What about shift workers? What about the people with a PVR?And as for the NDP, is this about advance consultation or having more debate?Do you think it might be possible that the Opposition determined it was more politically advantageous to make dramatic claims about being denied the right to speak and force the government to cut off debate, than to engage in long hours of debate?I am not trying to be an apologist for the federal Liberals. Their election promise about doing things differently when it came to Parliament was ill-advised, and it does seem that things got out of control last week. But trying to portray the current political realities of Parliament as being about a bullying government facing down an innocent opposition is nothing short of ridiculous.John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario cabinet minister currently serving as the co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program. Milloy is the editor of, and a contributor to, Faith and Politics Matters (Novalis, 2015).