Has question period degenerated to new depths?

There were a couple of pretty good speeches in the Nova Scotia legislature Friday, but before they were heard the place gave testimony that if things don’t change they stay the same.

Nowhere is the deficiency of the legislative branch more evident than in the political theatre known as question period. The opposition generally asks legitimate, if partisan, questions of the premier and ministers, who respond with all the precision of a ham-handed shadow puppeteer.

Some will claim it has always been thus. Question period is that time when the government frustrates the opposition with answers to questions not asked. To varying degrees that is so, but the show has degenerated to the point where some of the retorts are delivered with the perverse delight of a future serial offender shaving a cat.

Opposition members are not innocent in the political joust. They frame questions to embarrass the government and instigate a bellicose response.

The long, ignoble tradition of question period distinguished by barbs and blather rather than serious discourse has not only descended to previously unplumbed depths, it should have run its course.

There are fleeting glimmers of hope, like when Justice Minister Mark Furey conceded, in different words, that legal opinions are as dependent on the lawyer as the law. But for the most part question period is a game of charades where the government mimes while observers attempt to discern meaning.

Friday, Premier Stephen McNeil used the first question period of the new session to remind the opposition that he and his party had won the spring election. While unquestionably true, the confirmation of May’s results came in response to questions about small business taxes.

The premier’s reply was vaguely and unfortunately familiar. Its association would have been unmistakable had it been delivered on Twitter rather than in the house of assembly.

Not coincidental to all of this was Opposition leader Jamie Baillie’s observation that only 53 per cent of eligible Nova Scotians bothered to vote in the spring. He suggested the turnout reflects the defeatist message of the government — “give up and go home” — which further alienated an already disengaged public.

The more likely explanation is that most people no longer have a party affiliation to motivate their vote, and even more can’t discern any difference or hope for change from any of the major parties. If it doesn’t make any difference how you vote, why bother?

That suggests politicians of every stripe need to get the nonvoters’ message and find ways to make themselves more relevant to more people. While they’re at it, they should think seriously about changing their behaviour and at least alleviate the acrimonious partisanship that only appeals to their ever-diminishing base.

Mention has been made of two pretty good speeches Friday. Both were ideological and partisan, but neither was rancorous.

Progressive Conservative leader Baillie, in his address in reply to the government’s throne speech, focused primarily on the indications of a faltering economy in Nova Scotia’s high tax environment.

NDP leader Gary Burrill, who is prone to rhetorical ebullience — and you gotta love that — said the inclination to fiscal responsibility has become a fixation of the government, to the point where a budget surplus is of greater importance than the hardships of people.

He said it is “less than moral” for the government to deny nursing home care workers earning $14 an hour the right to negotiate a cost-of-living wage increase. The McNeil government legislated wage settlements across the public service.

Baillie’s demeanour and delivery in the legislature is polished and effective, reflecting the hard lessons learned over several years in the house and two provincial elections. He also exudes a confidence that must, in part, be attributed to his party’s strong showing in the spring.

Burrill displays the passion of the true social democratic believer, effectively amplified by oratory honed in the pulpit. He is a United Church minister and drew on biblical references to illustrate his points, as when he noted that Jesus asked followers, if their children wanted bread, would they give them stones? If they asked for fish, would they be given snakes?

Are Nova Scotians getting stones and snakes when they deserve bread and fish? Are they being served partisan rancour when the province needs serious public dialogue?