OTTAWA — It’s widely accepted that Parliament is a fractious, dysfunctional forum that alienates millions of Canadians from politics. The question is, why has it descended to this distressing state?

A report to be released Monday provides a startling answer. According to 65 former parliamentarians interviewed by Samara, an organization that studies citizen engagement with Canada’s democracy, political parties themselves are to blame.

To the former MPs, “it is often the way political parties manage themselves, their members and their work that really drives the contemporary dysfunction facing Canadian politics,” the report says.

“This was far and away the largest theme that came through,” says Alison Loat, Samara’s executive director. “To have, across all parties, the finger pointed so consistently at the political party was a real shocker.”

Ms. Loat says the report’s findings point to the need for a “more robust conversation about what we really want political parties to do for us as citizens.”

With the election campaign under way, this would be a fine time to have that conversation, she says. “Our hope is that people will heed the advice of 65 pretty thoughtful MPs who’ve been there before as we approach the next parliamentary session.”

The former MPs, who left office between 2004 and 2008, represent all parties and regions of Canada. They spent more than a decade in office on average. Nearly one-third served in cabinet. One, Paul Martin, was prime minister. Another, Ed Broadbent, led the NDP.

In the fall and winter of 2009-10, Samara conducted exit interviews with the former MPs — the first of their type. Some findings have appeared in two earlier reports. But Samara’s latest report provides an eye-opening front-line perspective on what ails our politics.

Two overriding trends emerged from the exit interviews. One was that the greatest frustrations the former politicians faced came from within their own political parties.

“Time after time the MPs articulated how decisions from their parties’ leadership were often viewed as opaque, arbitrary and even unprofessional, and how their parties’ demands often ran counter to the MPs’ desires to practice politics in a constructive way,” the report says.

The other major area of agreement was that MPs’ “real work” is done away from the public spotlight. The former politicians “insisted they did their best work — collaborating across parties, debating and advancing policy, and bringing local issues to the national stage — in the less publicized venue of committees and the private space of caucus.”

The politics the public sees on the floor of the House of Commons, they said, “did little to advance anything constructive.” Indeed, the politicians claimed to be embarrassed by it, especially the daily Question Period, the report says. “They viewed it as a partisan game, and said they were embarrassed by how it misrepresented Parliament and MPs to Canadians.”

The way party leaderships stage-manage Question Period also rubbed many the wrong way. One former politician characterized MPs as “potted plants” moved around for decoration.

Other House of Commons duties were no more productive, the former MPs reported. Most viewed “House duty” as a monotonous waste of time. Several said they were ordered to make speeches on subjects they know nothing about.