Yesterday I asked Dr. Bratt what "rule" was broken. In the discussion I suggested that the Minister had failed to abide by a recommendation, not a rule. Is this nit picking or should it matter to Dr. Bratt?

I think it matters. Let's unpack why.
1/
#ableg https://twitter.com/DuaneBratt/status/1344803139266887682

In this thread, with the help of @ehbsea, I tried to precisely describe the infraction. I described it as follows - though @ehbsea did later propose an amendment which I accepted:
2/ https://twitter.com/Citizen004/status/1344879659943567360?s=20

Why should @DuaneBratt care? Is this just a lawyer nit picking? No it is not, & he should care, IMO.

Why? This sets the standard; this is the precedent.

The question is, should a cabinet minister, taking a trip against public health advisories without deceit, resign?
3/

That is important. Minister Allard did not break a rule. She didn't fabricate a lie as @RodPhillips01 did. She just went on a vacation against recommendations made by the @CMOH_Alberta. That is the offence. That may not be good, but that is the problem we are facing.
4/

So if she resigns, that is the standard. That is the precedent the Premier must use to measure all other cases going forward. That is not nit picking, it is important in my submission. I wonder if Dr. Bratt agrees?
5/

Am I suggesting she should not resign? No. But I am saying the standard matters. And the Premier should assess this matter carefully. I suggest he must ask, how many other Ministers went on vacations & where? If this is a one off, I suggest it is more straight forward.
6/

It is one thing to lose a Minister, but another to lose 10. If there are more, he should know that & the circumstances. What if 5 went to the beach, 2 to the lake cabin in AB, 2 to a farm in Sask & 1 to Invermere? Can he afford to lose 10 Ministers? Are there distinctions?
7/

These distinctions may lead him to frame his rational in a way that differentiates cases. It may be one thing to go to Sylvan Lake, another go to Mexico or Invermere. 8/

In private industry, the CEO would weigh the costs & benefits of every course of action. It might be in the interest of the organization to bear some PR pain & maintain continuity where no dishonesty is involved. I wonder if Dr. Bratt thinks that calculation plays a role here?
9/

Some have criticized me for this analysis. Some of the criticism has been personal. But I maintain assessing the impugned conduct is a worthwhile exercise, importantly it sets the standard & precedent going forward & that is important for future cases. 9/

But it in no way diminishes the fact that this trip has caused Premier grief. Both left & right are united in condemning this as a double standard. That is truly a New Year miracle. Fin.