Appendix:
The News Conference
I Never Held

Click here to go back to Chapter 10.

This is the text of the statement that I drafted for my resignation announcement during the week of April 30, 2012. It has not been changed since the day I wrote it. After concluding that this way of proceeding would do more harm than good, I never delivered it.

Earlier today, I submitted to the premier my resignation from the Cabinet.

I will continue to serve as the MLA for Halifax Fairview.

As I understand the principle, a Cabinet minister who has misgivings about a major decision or policy direction of the government must resign.

I have resigned because I have misgivings about the policy direction of the government that is embodied in last week’s contract settlement with the NSGEU.

This settlement, and the arbitration that flows from it, will now form the basis for all public service contract settlements covering the next three years.

To put it simply, I am not sure that the settlement is financially sustainable, no matter what the outcome of the arbitration.

And in the long run, this settlement will likely contribute to the weakening of important public services, including health care.

This is a complicated area. There are many complex factors in play. Reasonable people can easily come to different conclusions. When dealing with big public-policy issues, there is rarely a single “right” answer. But given my misgivings, my understanding is that I must step down as a Cabinet minister, and so that is what I have done.

I can’t possibly explain, in detail, all of the thought process behind my decision. I believe that at least some of what happened over the past couple of weeks falls under Cabinet confidentiality, which I take very seriously, and so I find myself in the peculiar position of resigning from Cabinet without being able to explain exactly why.

I did, however, note an interview done on CBC Radio last week with Mary Jane Hampton, a Halifax-based health care consultant, and I agree with and adopt everything she said.

For today’s purposes, let me try to summarize my decision with two thoughts.

The first is that by far the largest part of the government’s expenses is wages and related items such as pensions and benefits. If we take all of the limited new money we have and spend it on higher wages and benefits, all we’re doing is buying more of the same. We are not investing in more innovation, greater efficiency, higher productivity, better services, or better health outcomes for Nova Scotians. None of these things was on the table during the negotiations.

My second thought is simply that the province’s finances are not yet in a position to sustain public-sector wage settlements of this size.

I’m not suggesting that bad things will happen next week, next month, or even next year. The health care system will probably carry on much as before and may carry on for quite some time. But the structural deficit that we inherited is real, substantial, and difficult. My fear is that last week’s settlement adds to the structural deficit and makes the health care system that much less sustainable.

Among the many challenges that our government inherited is a collective bargaining process within the provincial public sector that makes little sense. There are far too many bargaining units for a province of this size, which leads to a never-ending bargaining process and inconsistency between bargaining units that fuels never-ending demands for “catch up” or “leap frog.” It continues to puzzle me that the one critical factor that is never on the table, and that arbitrators treat as irrelevant, is the actual ability of the taxpayers to pay for the settlements. This needs to change.

In this particular case, the NSGEU picked, as its lead, the bargaining unit that would, if it went on strike, have the greatest impact on the largest number of vulnerable people. In fact, the bargaining unit was effectively on strike last week, because the Capital District Health Authority had to ramp down activity in anticipation of a walkout. In only a couple of days, hundreds or even thousands of sick Nova Scotians and their families were adversely affected. The thought process behind the union’s choice disturbs me. This also needs to change.

My resignation is intended to be a wake-up call. A wake-up call not just to the government, but also to opposition members of the legislature, to the unions, and to Nova Scotians generally. Last week’s settlement is a sign that we are probably not truly coming to grips with the financial sustainability of our public services, including health care.

The last time I tried some sort of wake-up call was in late 2005, when I spoke about the system of MLA expenses. What I said then was dismissed on all sides of the House. Everyone knows how that turned out.

I’m hopeful that this wake-up call, which is about a much bigger and more important issue, will have more impact. But given the state of Nova Scotia political culture, I’m not very hopeful.

The opposition should take no joy in my resignation. Let me say, as gently as I can, that their positions on questions of financial sustainability and the future of public services are simplistic, contradictory, and highly partisan. This wake-up call is for them, too.

In fact, my resignation offers Nova Scotians a useful test. Those whose inclination is to react to my resignation by attacking me or attacking the government have missed the point, and they’re not the people who will move the province forward. The people who will take us forward are those who respond thoughtfully and pragmatically to the issue I’m raising.

There is only one issue today in provincial public finance, and that is sustainable funding for health care. If we get that right, then everything else will fall in place. Health takes up a larger and larger part of the budget every year. Costs for drugs, technology, doctors, other health care professionals, and utilization are very difficult to contain. Expectations and demands are high. This is not a Nova Scotia issue, and it is not a party issue. It is the same in every province, no matter which government is in power. The growth in health costs means that every year there is less and less for other important public services like education, transportation, and support for the poor and disabled. That’s why the financial sustainability of health care has to be everybody’s issue.

I have taken the province’s finances as far as I can take them. We have done some good and necessary things to put the province’s finances back on a sustainable footing. Now it’s someone else’s turn. I’m not concerned about who that will be because there is a tremendous amount of talent within the NDP caucus.

Let me now address some of the obvious practical questions.

I am resigning my Cabinet positions, but I am not resigning my seat in the House. It has been my privilege to represent the people of Halifax Fairview as their MLA since 2001, and I will continue to serve them in that capacity.

I will not re-offer in the next election.

I will continue to sit as a member of the NDP caucus, assuming that they will permit me to do so. There is an important distinction to be drawn between my role as a Cabinet minister and my role as a member of the caucus. As a Cabinet minister, I must support all major decisions or policy directions or resign. As a member of the caucus, the test is different. I was elected as a New Democrat, and I support this government’s record and I will continue to support its legislative program. I know that this distinction will be difficult for some people to understand.

This statement is now posted on my website so that everyone, and especially the people who elected me, has the opportunity to read the whole statement. I have nothing further to add to this statement, so I will not be taking any questions or doing any interviews.

I will probably not attend the House for a few days, in order to allow things to settle down a bit, but there is work to be done and I will return to the House very shortly to carry on my work on behalf of the people of Halifax Fairview.