I had an opposing response to this, which included looking up what our government has to say about it, and you’re (mostly) right! Here’s a link for those who are interested.

Here’s an interesting bit from there:

Unfortunately, as everyone knows, this ideal of civility does not always obtain in parliamentary practice. When debate degenerates into sterile reflex antogonism the process itself becomes discredited. Part of the problem comes about when frustration arises because the demands made on Parliament do not permit it to exercise its representation and surveillance functions properly. Backbench MPs cannot expect to have a major influence on legislation. But all MPs have the right to articulate the interests of their constituents, to scrutinize the actions of the government, and, if in opposition, to present alternative policies to the public. All of this requires time on the parliamentary agenda – time which the government usually thinks would be better spent proceeding with its legislative program.

It’s worth noting that colloquially, “the government” also means not just the ruling party or parties, but the entire governmental apparatus, in multiple institutions at multiple levels.