Lorraine Michael is 100% Right - Here's Why

MHA David Brazil appeared on a talk show this morning to downplay the significance of the findings by Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Victor Powers.

He said the Commissioner said the violation was a "minimum of minimum" - yet I do not see this in the report. In fact Brazil's take on the finding is that he accepts the findings but his actions were not that bad and were an "oversight".

He brushed off the "conflict of interest" comment by saying it was not outlined how he did that.

Basically - he brushed off the Report and inserted his own interpretations of what are clear findings.

How serious is this?

Well let's reflect on why there is a Code of Member's Conduct to begin with.

This was established to satisfy one of the recommendations of Chief Justice Derek Green in his report - acting as the head of an Independent Commission of Review set-up by the Williams Government.

All this of course followed the scathing findings of Auditor General ( Elizabeth Marshall) regarding conduct of Members of the House of Assembly.

We had MHA's go to jail, MHA's who just missed the criminal threshold pay thousands of dollars back to the Crown, MHA's buying artwork, women's lingerie, and even trinkets purchased from a company whose owner was also was found guilty of criminal behavior.

Due to the nature and severity of the MHA behavior - it became incumbent on all MHA's in the future to make a concerted effort to understand the law to the point where oversight would not occur. This needed to be achieved for the public to regain trust in their elected representatives.

In Commissioner Powers Report regarding the actions of MHA David Brazil - the Commissioner in no way takes away from the seriousness of the violations of two laws of the Province.

David Brazil contends that the Commissioner stated that his violations of the law were a "minimum of minimum". This is where the buffoonery enters. The minimum of minimum would mean he violated no law. The Commissioner did find that David Brazil was in violation of two laws and that in each case he found the Member should be reprimanded. A reprimand is the lesser of the penalties available.

Victor Powers did not negate the seriousness of Brazil's breaches - he in fact spent many words highlighting the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and further the importance of full disclosure by the Member of his Interests.

Listening to David Brazil on the talk show this morning makes me believe that the MHA does not accept that his actions were serious, he is not taking the Commissioner's report and recommendations seriously, and he is not prepared to be meaningfully remorseful for his actions.

An MHA - a person who is a Member of the Legislature - where laws are debated and passed -should absolutely be crystal clear on what the laws are related to his conduct as a Member. This was clearly not the case if Brazil contends an oversight.

Should the House re-open to deal with this? Yes - after the history of abuse by Members of the law - and in a day of continued breaches by Senators of Canada - it should be treated seriously and dealt with swiftly. If this does not occur - those who may consider breaking or those who may consider being lax with the law in the future - would have no real deterrent. Further Commissioner Powers did say that failure to disclose required information to the Commissioner's Office contributes to the erosion of transparency and accountability as required from members.

If David Brazil were seriously interested in accountability and serious about breaches in the law - he would do the honourable thing and resign - and let his constituents decide what the "reprimand" should be.

Then again this government giveth and taketh away from transparency and accountability. On the one hand we get new laws for disclosure and accountability for MHA's and on the other hand passes Bill 29 which erodes disclosure and accountability. In this respect I find David Brazil's attitude in keeping with his leader and Cabinet. This should be sufficiently concerning to us all.  


Here are the Links to Relevant Material

Commissioner Powers Report
House of Assembly Act
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
The Code Of Conduct
The Green Report - Rebuilding Confidence

MHA Brazil's Oversight - another Red Flag

Tory oversights of which Dave Brazil owns the most recent must cause all people of Newfoundland and Labrador to pause.

In Canada right now we have a Senate mess that has some files referred to the RCMP, Senators repaying hundreds of thousands of dollars, the PM's former Chief of Staff cutting a personal cheque to cover Duffy (a Tory Senator), and hundred's of thousands of tax payer dollars spent to audit the oversights, omissions, falsehoods, half-truths, and possible criminal behavior of some of our Upper Chamber. The House of sober second thought has become the House of drunken spending.

Not too long ago we had Steve Kent apologizing on YouTube for his failure to achieve complete information on the Boy Scouts situation before commenting publicly about what he said were "facts".

Then there is the accidental expropriation of what has been called the entire community of Grand Falls - Windsor under the then Minister now Premier Kathy Dunderdale.

And who can forget the stream of MHA's led away in handcuffs for stealing from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Peter Penashue fiasco still resonates in the Big Land. Oversight - Oversight - Oversight

So now we have Brazil who violated the Member's Code of Conduct apologizing for yet another OVERSIGHT.

So then ask yourself - is it it any way possible that there has been any oversight in this Muskrat Falls deal. Is it in any way possible that serious mistakes have been made and missed? In ten years will we be hearing yet again that it was just an oversight - I apologize.

Lack of an escalation clause in the Upper Churchill agreement was an oversight - how many billions has that cost?

And last but not least Bill 29 - The oversight Bill. Because we can't see things means Cabinet gets a future pass to claim oversight. 

Sorry - there are too many red flags to proceed with this deal on Muskrat Falls.

Rules Matter? Progressive "cons"erv-myself

Headlines:

Sullivan censured for lobbying government

Penashue accused of election overspending

and then a story where Dave Brazil is committee vice-chairperson looking into "suspicious" agriculture spending. Why are we paying the farmers in barley and hops?

...so when the children are looking for role models in society - where should they look?

Should they look to the House of Commons or the House of Assembly? Should they follow some of them to jail? Why not? We trust them all so much we elect them.

While we are at it - where can I buy an acre of land in St. John's for $300?

Some of the the elite and the elite wannabes are telling us: Muskrat is good for you; there is money to be made with this development; this is the only option you and I have - we should listen right?

If we don't listen - the bullies come out of the woodwork - you know the adult bullies setting great examples for the children.

Currently I am building an art collection and gathering fine wine. Anybody know how I can fund it? If I do that - the Bank of Canada might consider me for a Board position. Still trying to figure out what it takes to sit on the Board of Nalcor - any suggestions?