President of the 8/1 CPI admits political link with Lira – 06/06/2023 – Power

Allied with the president of the Chamber of Deputies, the president of the CPI on January 8th, federal deputy Arthur Maia (União Brasil-BA), says that only those who “are not linked to any place” do not participate in command positions in Congress, but denies that it will “warp” the investigations.

“Denying that I have a political relationship with President Arthur Lira is absurd. In the same way that, for example, the rapporteur [Eliziane Gama] is linked to the government. She is linked to [ministro da Justiça, Flávio] dino. The Great Malta [2º vice-presidente] is linked to the opposition,” he says in an interview with Sheet.

Maia is also rapporteur for the timeframe in the Chamber and claims that the Minister of the Environment, Marina Silva (Rede), has “Shiite” positions, demands approval of the text in the Senate and condemns Ibama’s veto of oil exploration in Foz do Amazon. The parliamentarian also criticized the political group of the Minister of the Civil House, Rui Costa (PT), his opponent in Bahia.

What was the political agreement that placed you in the presidency of the CPI? I think it stems a lot from the fact that the CPMI is a collegiate that has two very radical positions and that, in order to have credibility, it would need to have a president who had a more neutral position, neither a Bolsonarist nor a PT. I am it. I have no connection so that someone can call me a Bolsonarist or a PT.

Mr. said that it is neither one side nor the other, but supported Bolsonaro in the election. I am a politician who has been here in the National Congress for four terms. It is absolutely natural for me to take a stand in the presidential election. My party in the first round had a candidate for president [Soraya Thronicke]. I voted for her. The people who elected me in the October election mostly supported Bolsonaro and therefore I supported Bolsonaro in the second round.

Could this have any effect on the conduct of the CPI? For God’s sake. Of course.

Base senators point out that Mr. is a mayor’s man in the commission and see undue interference on his part, not only in this CPI. There is no office that is held in the Chamber of Deputies, in the National Congress, without party representation. I am part of União Brasil and the party is in the same block as President Arthur Lira. Denying that I have a political relationship with President Arthur Lira is absurd. In the same way that, for example, the rapporteur is linked to the government. She is linked to [ministro da Justiça, Flávio] dino. O [senador] great malta [2º vice-presidente] is linked to the opposition. Here, only those who are not linked to any place do not participate in command positions.

To say that I have a political connection with President Lira here is absolutely true. I have a political relationship here, my party is in the Arthur Lira block. To say, however, that we are going to compromise the conduct of the CPI due to this political connection or any other, absolutely [não].

The rapporteur is close to Minister Flávio Dino. Can this generate criticism or any harm? It’s already generating criticism. Now, I trust her work, I know she is an experienced, mature and serious woman. Who is on this CPI that has no political affiliation? I have mine, she has hers. It’s absolutely normal. Now, I do not believe at all that, once the evidence is gathered, the senator will build a narrative contrary to what has been demonstrated.

How are you going to avoid suspicion that you are shielding someone? Acting. These things are not shielded. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t have any pet investigators; nor Flávio Dino, nor Bolsonaro, nor whoever. I will not put to the vote requests that have a political, electoral bias, that want, instead of clarifying, to make the CPI a political stage. Why are we calling Bolsonaro? If there is, in the course of the investigations, reasons to summon Bolsonaro or whoever, that’s fine. But starting the CPI, I don’t know of any reason to summon the former President of the Republic. If it comes forward, it will be heard.

Mr. thinks that the governor of the DF, Ibaneis Rocha, should be summoned? The CPI does not have the power to convene a state governor or governor of the Federal District. But invitations can be made. An invitation was made, and I hope that the governor accepts this invitation so that he can come here and give his testimony. The governor is an important piece to clarify these facts.

Mr. said that the government pretended that it did not participate in the emptying of Marina Silva’s ministry. What was the government’s involvement? The deputy Isnaldo [Bulhões Jr., relator da MP dos Ministérios] made this report with a permanent conversation with the government. The government cannot live with a developmental agenda with the Shiiteism that exists today in Ibama and in Marina’s ministry. So we see that the government is starting to take a position contrary to what Marina and the president of Ibama defend, including oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River [que o Ibama vetou, mas Lula está mediando]. I have no doubt that the government will not accept this report from IBAMA.

The government says that União Brasil has three ministries and is the acronym that has given the fewest votes on the president’s agenda. Then take it out [os ministérios]. That simple. Then take it out. Why hasn’t he taken it off until now if we’re not casting votes? This talk that the party has three ministries, with all due respect to the ministers who are there, I disagree.

Minister Rui Costa (Casa Civil) has been criticized by parliamentarians and even said that, for many in Brasilia, doing wrong is right. Everyone knows here in Brasilia that this PT group from Bahia is largely responsible for this withdrawal from União Brasil, because they brought the parochial problem of our state here, to Brasilia, and vetoed the natural name for the ministry that was that of the leader, Elmar Nascimento [também da Bahia]. Rui Costa is living a delicate situation here. Now, I don’t want to criticize former governor Rui Costa, former governor of my state, so as not to seem like I’m reciprocating in kind.

Government supporters pointed out that Elmar spoke badly about Lula during the campaign and it would make no sense for him to assume a ministry. I’ll answer you with a question: so does it make sense for Geraldo Alckmin to be Vice President of the Republic on Lula’s ticket? Elmar did not speak ill of Lula in the campaign, they refer to past things. Elmar has not spoken against Lula even 1% of what Alckmin has already spoken. It is also necessary to ask whether they want to govern looking in the rearview mirror or looking ahead.

Mr. he was rapporteur for the project of the temporal framework. Why do you defend this thesis? There is an intellectual dishonesty that permeates this debate. Some say it means wiping out existing Indian reservations. This is bad faith or ignorance. The law has no retroactive effect. We need to value legal certainty. The way it’s going, there’s no way in 100 years time Brazil won’t become an indigenous area. Because we are on the verge of creating indigenous areas that have a profoundly ideological bias. They want to implement socialism in Brazil and one of the instruments is this transformation of areas into indigenous reserves to combat private property, to promote the socialization of land and to combat agribusiness. The project is not against real Indians, it is against pseudo Indians who want to use this absurd instrument that Funai has to expropriate other people’s property.

When mr. says they want to implement socialism, who would they be? Everyone who is in this fight for the expansion of indigenous reserves in Brazil, in this unbridled way, who are against the time frame.

Who does this include? Can’t you see? Just open the newspaper and see who is defending this thesis. This fight is not a fight in favor of the Indian. This struggle is an ideological struggle.

Mr. Do you attribute this vision to President Lula and the PT as well? No no. If they think so? I think the government that was against the project thinks so, unfortunately. Now, of course, what we are experiencing today in relation to the Indians cannot be attributed only to this government. The important thing is for us to define who is the subject who is entitled to this right, because what exists there are profiteers.

The government tried to postpone the vote in the Chamber by proposing a group with the three Powers to solve the impasse over the milestone. Every time they don’t want to vote on a law, there’s this idea of ​​creating a group. This project has been in Congress for 16 years. We had to vote. I think the Senate has to vote. If you approve, if you don’t, I don’t get involved. But I think it is reckless that such an important issue for Brazil should be forgotten.

Does the Senate, in your assessment, have to vote on the PL even after a possible decision by the Supreme Court? Especially if the Supreme Court makes a decision, because the Supreme Court is not a legislator, we are legislators. The Supreme Court has the right to judge in a concrete case, in the constitutional conflict, but we were elected to legislate.

The PL says that indigenous peoples may lose their territories due to changes in cultural traits. Why insist on this much criticized point? Imagine a reservation that the Indians gradually abandoned and, suddenly, there are no more Indians. Is it fair that someone who is not an Indian arrives there and appropriates it? No. That should go back to the Brazilian State.

But the text talks about losing cultural traits. Losing the cultural trait of that reserve means the absence of these people. It doesn’t mean that because they have changed their habits they will lose that land. I think this could have been worded better. [ajustar essa parte do texto], but it has to be clear that if there are no more indigenous people of that ethnic group living there, there is no reason for the reserve to exist. If there is a descendant there, we will keep it with those people.

---

X-RAY | ARTHUR MAIA, 58

Bahia federal deputy for the União Brasil, he is president of the CPI of January 8th. He was rapporteur for the project for the time frame and for the pension reform, in the Temer government. Lawyer and master in economic law from the Federal University of Bahia.