If you live outside of the province of New Brunswick you can be forgiven if the name Carmel Robichaud doesn’t ring a bell. Heck, if you live inside New Brunswick, there’s a pretty good chance you don’t know who she is either. She’s kept an incredibly low profile and for her professional career maybe that’s a good thing, because very few places in the country would let the issue she was involved in slide under the radar like it has in N.B.Robichaud is the Liberal MLA for the riding of Miramichi Bay. She also holds an important position in Premier Shawn Graham’s cabinet as the Minister for Family and Community Services. She lands on this list though for what can only be described as questionable actions concerning the very serious issue of drinking and driving in a province which finished dead last in a Mothers Against Drinking and Driving report for the slackest attitude on the issue when it comes to laws.
In January 2005, Carmel Robichaud wrote a letter to then New Brunswick Transportation Minister Paul Robichaud to ask if one of her constituents, convicted of drunk driving, could be given a permit to drive to and from work. Following that it was discovered that Robichaud was becoming the go-to person for similar requests as she wrote a second letter on behalf of the same constituent and another similar letter for another constituent.
The letter eventually became public amid questionable circumstances which ended up embarrasing the governing PC’s when the letter was released to the media with the name of the drunk driver, a clear volation of the Privacy Act. The firestorm meant Robichaud got a free ride on this issue. The media with rare exception, ignored her completely and let her off the hook. Mothers Against Drunk Driving wrote a letter to Robichaud asking for some clarification and received nothing back. CBC Radio reporter Jacques Poitras cornered Robichaud and tried to get her to explain herself this past Fall when N.B. Ombudsmen Bernard Richard also condemned her actions during a CBC interview indictaing that she should have known better and stopped. Robichaud refused to offer any explanation whatsoever.
Drunk drivers kill 4 people a day on Canadian highways and injure almost 200 more every day. It is totally preventable and clearly anyone who chooses to drink and drive puts everyone on the road at risk including themselves.
Does Carmel Robichaud believe we should be lenient with people who blatantly put other people’s lives at risk? Who knows? She refuses to publicly address this issue or explain what have become very public actions. Her actions however suggest she does indeed believe that drunk drivers deserve a break.
Politicians are accountable to the voters for the actions they take in the offices they’re elected to. Carmel Robichaud has decided to lay low and by and large she’s been able to get away with it, well pretty much. I started a petition on my blog this Fall at Spink About It asking Madame Robichaud to apologize for her actions and publicly address her actions. A handful of people signed it and no surprise Robichaud refused to respond when I sent it to her. Fortunately my actions weren’t all in vain. Google the name Carmel Robichaud and my blog on the issue comes up twice in the top 10 searches. That sticks with you for a while when others are checking you out.
Perhaps this issue will resurface during the Spring legislature sitting or perhaps the media, concerned citizens or the voters in her own riding will still hold her accountable. In the meantime she’s screwing up this country by not coming clean publicly on a very serious issue that ruins the lives of innocent victims every single day.
10 comments:
Bit of a stretch, but whatever, it's your blog.
Maybe she doesn't want to be lenient on this guy, so much as let him drive back and forth to work so that his mistake doesn’t ruin his life (and maybe the lives of his family).
Interesting point 4:52 but who knows where she stands? She won't say despite the fact she did this under the auspices of being the area's MLA and the fact that this is all now public knowledge. All we can determine is her actions which show a pattern of her asking for drunk drivers to be given special treatment.
You could always post it to her Wikipedia bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmel_Robichaud
Following that it was discovered that Robichaud was becoming the go-to person for similar requests as she wrote a second letter on behalf of the same constituent and another similar letter for another constituent.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving wrote a letter to Robichaud asking for some clarification and received nothing back.
N.B. Ombudsmen Bernard Richard also condemned her actions in a report.
This is the first I have heard of the above three claims. I've just read Richard's report and it does not condemn her actions as you claim here.
With respect to your first two claims, could you provide a reference?
My mistake. Richard condemned her during a CBC interview not in a report in which he said, "she should have stopped." or something to that effect. It was also during that same report by Jacques Poitras that it was revealed for the first time that she had written THREE letters on behalf of TWO constituents (that we know of). She really should deal with this nbpolitico. Anytime drunk driving comes up with this new government, this will always be raised until she comes clean. Not responding to me is fine. Not answering MADD or the media's questions on it is quite another.
spink flogging dead horse
MADD disgraced
carmel re relected
non issue
get over it spink
"Get over it"? Not when it comes to drinking and driving, carmel supporter. It's far too serious a issue although given that the above commentator came from within the Government of New Brunswick, I shouldn't be surprised.
Clearly you have not had a friend or family member's live ruined by someone who has decided to take action which has resulted in death or major injury. I have a feeling Carmel Robichaud hasn't either. The report link NBpoliitico provides an excellent quote from Paul Robichaud in his response to Carmel;
"It is for these reasons that encouraging and approving the renewal of a driver’s license to a person who drove while impaired is socially reprehensible, but also unacceptable. I have great difficulty understanding your request because, as elected officials, we have an obligation not only to represent the interests of a particular individual, but also to represent all persons who together form the society in which we live."
The only odd thing I found is that a report is on the Internet with the drunk driver's name on it. So much for privacy.
Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), not the Privacy Act
should drunk drivers receive a free ride? they have the responsibility to operate vehicle and the responsibility not to operate it drunk. any consequences of those actions should be meet with the full measure of the law, maybe even zero tolerance for driving under the influence.
Post a Comment