4th-36th Vol. 55A-Committee of Supply-Consumer and Corporate Affairs

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. We are on Resolution 5.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I wanted to share with my honourable colleague a comment that I received from the Corporations Branch. I was really quite enthused to see they are right on the bit. They have forwarded over to me a copy of a pamphlet called Impact 2000, which is in response to my honourable colleague's line of questioning on the Y2K problem. [interjection] My honourable colleague indicates to me that he has copies of this pamphlet.

The significant thing is that the Corporations Branch has copies of this pamphlet. The Corporations Branch will be mailing out the annual return notices to all the corporations during the course of the year, and they advise me that 66,000 copies of the pamphlet they have received, and they began including them in their mailings in August '97. All active corporations will receive this pamphlet some time between August '97 and '98.

The business-name renewals occur every three years, and we will have sufficient copies to mail to business names until January '99 with this pamphlet. So this pamphlet is hitting the street, and it shows that Corporations Branch is plugged in and aware. This is the reason why, I think, Corporations probably got that award of excellence, second prize, recently because it indicates that they are right on the money.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): When we left off the other day, the minister had just begun to get into the subject of cookies, so I did want to follow up on that and ask him some questions about that issue. I would like to know whether the government has studied the issue of cookies, and does the government have a position on that issue?

Mr. Radcliffe: It has been several days since we were last discussing Estimates, and I would ask my honourable colleague to refresh my memory because we do not have the facility, I do not think, to read back from the transcript in this Chamber as we do in the courthouse. So I disremember this topic, and if he could assist me in reviewing the topic, I would be more than happy to respond.

Mr. Maloway: We were talking about the Y2K problems, and the minister brought up the issue of cookies. I thought that I would use that opportunity to ask him whether his Research department has done any work in that area and whether he could give me an update as to whether they have done anything on that subject.

Mr. Radcliffe: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Maloway: I believe that his department probably has not done a lot of work in the area, but certainly I think the federal government has done some work in the area, and I would ask him to check with them. It is certainly an emerging issue because privacy is important, and people are finding that the issue of the cookies question is allowing people to compile information on people, and that can be used, for example, when your kid gets on the Internet and uses certain Internet sites. Through the use of the cookies, the information is obtained, and it can be used to sell products and to be able to cite preferences and so on.

So, certainly, there is an issue, and governments have been looking at the area. I just wanted to make certain that he was going to look into the issue and check with his department, check with the federal department and just find out what is going on on that issue.

I have quite a number of pages on the issue here. I would like him to sort of look into it and get back to me at some later point.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I thought that my honourable colleague was referring to cookies being that nutritious substance that is found in the caucus room in the jar behind the door, but, in fact, I believe he must be referring to an anagram of identification in different Internet site locations where you have to sign in, and you give your name, address, age, et cetera.

I believe that is perhaps what he is talking about and that marketing corporations or marketing individuals then have the opportunity to respond, react, cull and collect that information. If that is, in fact, what he is referring to, I was not aware that that was an anagram called cookies, and I would love to know how we arrive at that designation.

* (1010)

In any event, I have just received a communication from Marjorie Simpson who is my director of Consumer Affairs who is working on the agenda for the ministers' conference in Prince Edward Island, in Charlottetown, this fall, in November. I believe that the Internet's commerce is one of the issues that is going to be discussed and researched. It is a matter of concern for me, because it is an issue. Electronic exchanges, are, in fact, a significantly unregulated medium at this point in time and begs for abuse. At this point, it is I think subject to abuse in some cases. I have had constituents talk to me about anti-Semitic literature that has been placed on the Internet.

There is concern in my community about this, and I am concerned. I am a bit at sea at this point perhaps because of my lack of technical knowledge on how these things can be controlled, and I would welcome any research that my honourable colleague might have or if he can direct me because I certainly would put that into the department, and this could form a topic for national consideration.

Mr. Maloway: I did not want to spend a lot more time on the issue, but I think I have some information here from the Internet on the subject. It refers to, under Government Speaks Out On Cookies--it has to do with the Energy Department's, I guess this is in the United States now, Computer Incident Advisory Capability. They issued a report, and they did stress a concern over the use of persistent cookies to target users. They are being used to track people's browsing habits.

So there are a number of issues involved here. Nevertheless, I will pass this information on to the minister, and maybe he can follow it through with his deputy and his Research and Planning branch.

I would like to ask the minister for an update on the CAMVAP program. It has been in place now for a number of years, but I continually have people come to my office with horror stories, with files in which the use of the CAMVAP should, in fact, be producing results for these people and it does not seem to be doing that. I am certain there are some happy customers, I guess, of the current CAMVAP program, but I am finding enough people who are not happy with the results. So could you give me an update as to what is happening with CAMVAP?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am more than happy to forward the last annual report from CAMVAP to my honourable colleague. I do not have that at hand here, but that gives us an up-to-date as of last year of the activities of this department.

I do want to extend to my honourable colleague the offer that, if, in fact, there are individuals in the community, consumers and Manitobans in the community who, he feels with his research, have been not satisfied and have legitimate claims, if he would be so inclined to pass their names along, I am more than pleased to look into the matter and report back to him.

Mr. Maloway: Has he made any representations to CAMVAP with the view to improving the program, perhaps getting it involved in used vehicles? I believe Florida developed a program similar to the lemon law for new cars, but adopted a program for used cars. Has he made any representations on this or any other area concerning the CAMVAP program?

Mr. Radcliffe: I have not at this time. I am certainly prepared to look at that. I have met with some of the representatives from this organization in the past, and they will be coming in again to meet with me, I am sure, in the next year, in the course of the year. I am certainly prepared to give this matter some attention.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to thank the minister for that. As the minister knows, the cable companies, when they are not asking for rate increases, actually do some work on introducing new products. One of the products that they have been working on is the Wave. I would like to ask the minister: what is the state of this technology right now, and just when is it going to be widespread available to Manitobans and, in fact, to this Legislature?

Mr. Radcliffe: I do not have anything up to date on this matter at this point in time, but I will certainly direct my staff to make the appropriate inquiries and respond to my honourable colleague on that issue.

Mr. Maloway: I know that there is kind of a spotty approach to the roll-out of both the Wave program that the cable companies are bringing out and its competitor in the telephone area. Some areas of the country and B.C. have the cable option but do not have the telephone option yet, and others have the telephone option but do not have the cable option.

So I realize there are some inconsistencies. Also, I do not know that the producers or the suppliers are meeting their targets. I have heard different target dates for this roll-out. I have heard it last September and then January and then June, then in the fall, so I would like to know what the problems are with that whole issue. Also, I would like to know whether and when they are going to have a hookup, a Wave hookup, anyway as far as cable is concerned, to the Legislature.

One would think that this would be one of the first places they would start. I would like to know what the minister can do about that or will do about that.

Mr. Radcliffe: Certainly we are prepared to contact the cable companies and discuss this matter with them and look at the technological requirements for it, and the cost for it. I know there are some limitations to electronic communication within the building. I know the LBIS has some restrictions on our behaviour within the confines of government and tries to restrict the activity in ministers' offices, so anything that would be done we would have to contact and co-ordinate with them as well.

Mr. Maloway: While he is meeting with and discussing these issues with the cable companies, I would like to ask him whether he could inquire of them as to why they cancelled the replay of Question Period here in the Legislature. It seems to me that as a service to the public they provide the initial--they used to anyway--the original Question Period, and then a replay later on in the evening. As from the beginning of this session, they have cancelled the replay so there are absolutely no replays now. There is only the first broadcast of the actual Question Period, and then, I am told, only if there is no City Council meeting. So the days when there is a City Council meeting, either they do not do it or they do it after the City Council meeting. So what people were used to was the Question Period live, a replay in the evening. Believe it or not a lot of people evidently watched this program and five days a week, Mr. Minister.

Well, now, as of the beginning of this session, we are down to four days a week. We are knocked down to two runs, and then we are down to one run a day, and then on Wednesday when there are City Council meetings, they do not even get that, so it is a drastic reduction. So I would like the minister to bring that up with the cable companies when he meets with them and report back to us as to what his results and findings are.

* (1020)

Mr. Radcliffe: Well, Mr. Chair, I can only respond to my honourable colleague that maybe the ratings on Q.P. are down. It just may show a paucity of acerbic probing questions or wit or intellectual content, I do not know. I am not an expert in media marketing. However, given the opportunity if that presents itself, I certainly will make the inquiries, and if I receive anything substantive I will share that with my honourable colleague.

I must caution him that media share and public attention is a very fickle thing, and perhaps this is just an example of the fact that the public was not interested in watching us perform here in Question Period on the public medium, that the cable folk have gone elsewhere for their entertainment, that we were not the appropriate gladiators that my honourable colleague may think that we are.

Mr. Maloway: I simply ask him to take the issue up without the editorial comments and his personal opinions as to whether or not it is good value television or not, just to take it up because evidently there are some people who like to watch it. I am not certain why either, but they do, and they do ask about it.

I would like to ask the minister what his Research and Planning department has, or has not, done over the last year in the area of a franchises act. We have discussed this in the past. This is certainly an emerging area. We could spend hours and hours, days in fact, of Estimates on that subject alone. Alberta had a very substantial act for a number of years. In fact, they were the only jurisdiction to have one. With the increasing number of franchise operations, I mean, they are not a declining area of business. In fact, it is an increasing area of business. It is sad to see people who have worked in jobs for 20, 30 years take early retirement--it is very common nowadays--and take their retirement savings and invest in some franchise operation and find out that it is not what they thought it would be.

I think that when there are business failures, people will oftentimes--you know, they do not blame themselves, but sometimes they have good reason not to blame themselves because they were not at fault. There were promises made, for example, by franchisers and promises of million-dollar advertising campaigns or different promises and the franchisee, who is not usually all that sophisticated an investor to begin with, finds him or herself victimized. After they have turned over $50,000 or $100,000 for the franchise, they find that the franchiser has perhaps overextended themselves, unable to keep their promises of this advertising and so on, and the result is they are left to die on the vine. That is common, that goes back. I remember running into issues like this as early as 1980 or so with franchisers.

You know, they have an organization in Canada, and they do try to police their members and so on, but I think that people who are unsophisticated investors, who are going at this with the right intensions and reasons and putting up all of their life savings to buy these franchises, I think they expect a consistency, and they expect the promises to be kept. When, Mr. Minister, the company--and I am just using this as a for example--promises to spend a certain amount of money as an enticement, in fact an inducement to get people to sign up on the franchise and put up their money, when they make certain promises like I will advertise a half-million-dollar advertising program in six months and I will do this and I will do that and I will do the other thing, and then they put up their $50,000 and the company uses it but diverts the money off to another use somewhere else because it has sprung leaks in other parts of its organization in Ontario or Nova Scotia or whatever, and the little Manitoba franchiser is out his money and does not get what he is expecting.

Now, how did Alberta solve the problem? Alberta solved the problem under their previous franchise legislation by requiring that the deposits be put in trust until the promises that were made were kept. So what is the moral of the story? I guess the moral of the story is do not make promises if you are not going to keep them. In other words, if you promise the advertising campaign, in this case, or if you make any promises, then the money is held in trust. It is a typical lawyer, you know, the lawyers are used to this. The money is held in trust, and then when the promises are kept, the money is transferred.

So what does a franchiser learn from that? The franchiser learns from that that they do not make these promises in the first place, right? They do not promise million-dollar advertising campaigns. They do not make all these promises. They are much more careful. They are much more realistic. They disclose the information more readily.

You know, what was very interesting under the Alberta law was franchise companies tended to route their way around Alberta. They tended to stay away from Alberta. They stayed far away from Alberta because, once again, they could not get away with making promises that they were not going to keep. They did not like putting the money in trust because they liked to grab it and use it for other purposes, and they did not like the disclosure rules--well, I mean, if the country had consistent rules, like CAMVAP has consistent rules.

There are a lot of national programs. If you had a national program and some sort of consistency here, then it would not matter. If they are going to deal in Canada, they would have to have the same kinds of rules. As long as Alberta had this different set of rules, they would work right around Alberta. They would go to the Saskatchewan border and then stop, go around Alberta and go into B.C.

So I would like to know what this minister is doing about this or what he is planning to do about this over the next 12 months.

Mr. Radcliffe: I recall the very thorough conversation that we had last year, my honourable colleague and I, on this very issue at Estimates time. As a result of that conversation, my Consumers' Bureau, I can advise him, was very vigilant throughout the year with regard to trying to perceive whether there was any abuse going on in the marketplace that would justify or require legislation or intrusion into public affairs.

In fact, I can tell my honourable colleague that as at this moment the state of my knowledge is that we have had no complaints on franchise fraud. What I can tell my honourable colleague is that, No. 1, the Consumers' department is vigilant on the issue, but, No. 2, we are engaging in a national program called Can Share which is a communication vehicle from province to province.

We are only going to be the passive recipients, unfortunately, of the information from other provinces, because at this point we do not have the technological expertise to hook up to the system. We expect to be operative on the system probably around July, August this year, so that all the provincial Consumers' Bureaus will be corresponding with each other on an electronic basis. So if there are issues that do show up, say in Quebec or Halifax or Vancouver, we will be up to date, and we will be watching and waiting for these people.

The other thing is that I do remind my honourable colleague--and as soon as he started this topic or line of questioning, I was trying to remember the name of the chap who was charged, and his name was in the newspaper quite recently. He was convicted of consumer fraud, and his sentencing was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press within the last month, where he was going out and fleecing the public on a franchise concept.

On a personal note, I can respond, as well, that one of my nieces was the victim in one of these scams. When I was her solicitor, I was able to get back, I think, $3,000 of the $5,000 that she had put into it, because traditionally these people do attract people who are vulnerable, people who are overeager for a business opportunity, people who are perhaps unemployed and have certain assets but are out of the workplace and do not have access to communication. So I want to assure my honourable colleague that from a personal perspective, as well, I am very sensitive to the issue.

* (1030)

I am aware of some of the inputs that make up a scam and how these people operate. They try to inveigle the mark in the door with blandishments and promises of riches. Then there is always a high-pressure sell where they have to commit within a very short length of time in order to prevent the individual victim from going to their support group to obtain rational and appropriate counsel. There is always a significant deposit up front, a failure of the bunco or fraud artist to provide any substantial references.

It is almost a pattern that you can see develop in this behaviour. I have worked with these sorts of cases and I am aware of it, so that if we see that there is an upsurge in the market of this sort of behaviour, we will become involved and start researching it and look at our alternatives. As of the present time, we have not had significant reports to us of this type of misdemeanour.

Mr. Maloway: I believe the minister when he says they have not had significant reports, and I want to tell him why I think they have not. Typically what happens--and by the way, there are a couple of types of franchise operations. There are the fairly legitimate operations, and I think if you talk to somebody in the franchise organization of Canada, they can tell you which ones are the good ones and which ones are not, but there are some that are just designed for failure. They are designed that way.

There was one in town here. I think it was a pizza operation, and the reason you could tell it was designed for failure was because of the turnover rate. They did not care whether it failed. They took maybe a $10,000 up-front fee, and they knew it was going to fail. It had failed 100 times before; they did not care. They were just running people through. They would put ads in the paper and take $10,000 up front, and they knew three months later they would be refranchising it. So they were making it on the up-front fees right? I mean, a guy would get in. He would lose his money. They would say, oh, sorry, pal, time to go, and they would have another guy waiting in the wings, right? Each of these people would think it was their fault for it not being successful, but the reason it was not successful, it was in a bad location, or there were reasons why, but we are not talking about supersophisticated investors here.

You see, what happens is the people who can put up $10,000 and $20,000 and $50,000, my voters do not feel sorry for them, you know. So it is not a big issue here. Probably a bigger issue for the minister because he represents a constituency where probably a much higher percentage of his constituents are buying franchises as opposed to my area. But my point is that the people who are buying these things, a lot of them are not going to be on the welfare lines if they lose all their money. So it is embarrassment, and on their part they do not want to make an issue of it.

The other issue, by the way, is very clear, and it goes back to lawyers again. There are these 50 and 100 page--the minister has seen these. You know, you have read these franchise agreements. They are designed to keep those franchisees in line. I mean, that is what it is all about. Franchise companies have a huge franchise agreement that says you cannot do this, you cannot do that. You cannot talk about--

An Honourable Member: Call a lawyer.

Mr. Maloway: Exactly. You cannot talk about all these things. There are all these confidentiality agreements in there that these people do not even want to talk to me about it. You know, they will tell me there is something wrong, but they say, well, you know, I am worried that I might be sued because it says that it is supposed to be confidential.

So you are right. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says, well, you talk to your lawyer, right? That is exactly what happens. The guy has just lost $50,000, right? Does he want to lose another $50,000 and his first-born talking to his lawyer? Right? [interjection] Well, but this is what it will amount to.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, a point of order, my honourable colleague has suggested that lawyers are rapacious, an element of society that go after a first-born.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of order. I did not understand the words.

If they have lost $10,000, it may cost them two or three years of legal wrangling to try to get their money back, and the contract is against them in the first place, so they walk away from it. What I am saying, if you have an act similar to the old Alberta act which spells all these details out, then people do not. They can invest. They know that there are rules there, disclosure rules. They know that they do not turn over their money until promises have been made. They do not have to go to lawyers to the same extent they have to right now, and if they lose, they lose. I mean, if they get involved in a losing proposition, they lose on a level playing field, then they will not mind it as much, but right now it is not really a level playing field for them.

Now, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) had a couple of questions he wanted to ask the minister about cable companies, so I wanted to give him the opportunity to do that, and then I have some more questions for the minister.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I was listening to the minister's response when you were talking about Videon Cable and the hookup over here, and I did have a couple of questions with respect to that, but prior to that, I just wanted to add a little bit to what the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) is talking about because I do believe there is indeed a need, a requirement, for the government to take some sort of action with respect to franchises.

I can cite one specific example in my riding in which I met with a constituent who for all intents and purposes got shafted. It is the clauses, the many clauses that are in these franchisee agreements so, for example, here is an individual that buys a doughnut shop franchise, if you like. A wonderful, beautiful picture is painted for him, and it does start to materialize, and then all of a sudden another doughnut shop from the same company pops us right in the same proximity, which really takes away a lot of the business. He then finds out that because of a clause within his contract that he signs that the franchiser has the ability to put up additional doughnut shops as long as they do not infringe upon this amount of distance. Well, that was never really pointed out.

Now, one could ultimately argue, well, consumer beware, but as the member for Elmwood has pointed out, these contracts are not three, four, five pages. They are fairly lengthy, and for someone who is looking to fill a job by becoming an employer, or looking at the opportunities, maybe not all of the work is being done that could have been done, or possibly should have been done, but the point is that it is quite odoursome--onerous. The minister, who knows many more words than I know, corrected me on that, Mr. Chairperson.

* (1040)

I think that responsibility can be assisted if, in fact, the government did come up with legislation that allows for more disclosure, or more open disclosure, something to help facilitate. I do not believe you are getting--the phone is not ringing off the hook. I do not believe that that would be the case. I think a number of these individuals will go through the bankruptcy modes, they will take other forms of just getting out of the business because they have had a real bad experience that could have been prevented had government been more forceful with some of these franchisers in the way in which they sign agreements and get people involved in some of the franchises. I believe that there is something more that government should be doing, and I would suggest that the minister should look at that.

Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, I sat inside many different forms of committee hearings and had many discussions with respect to this Chamber and how it is televised, and I do not think it has anything to do with the ratings at all in terms of why we are being televised or why we are not being televised.

In fact, in other provinces, and I look to our neighbour Saskatchewan, where the population is not as high as the population in Manitoba, and if you have ever gone through the Legislature, you take a look inside. They have cameras virtually in every corner of their Chamber. They have a high-tech television crew, if you like, or a booth or whatever it is called that is zeroing in when members are speaking and so forth. They have made a decision, obviously, that it is important that people that live in Saskatchewan are, in fact, aware of what is happening inside the Legislature.

Well, Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if we have to be as extravagant as what is happening in Saskatchewan. I do not believe that that is necessary, but I do believe there is some responsibility for this government to make sure that Manitobans are provided the opportunity to tune in. Question Period is something in which I think there is some benefit to having it televised, uncensored television. Other legislatures have done so, and I do not think it has anything to do with the ratings.

Mr. Chairperson, if you watch some of the Videon productions on Channel 11, some of them are just wonderful, masterful pieces of work, but there might be the odd one which I would suggest to you the ratings for that particular program might not necessarily be all that high, and ours would not be any worse than that. We have public television in order to send many different types and forms of messages to talk about culture or heritage, or, in our case, I believe I have even seen reports on--whether it is the NDP caucus reports, whether it is the--I believe Reg Alcock has--or there is a House of Commons report, all on this nonprofit, not-for-profit programming through Videon.

I do not believe that we would be any less in demand, or maybe in no greater demand, but there is merit to having Q.P. televised through here. Even though I might like to see myself on television or whatever it might be, I really suggest to the minister that he should be bringing it up. I do not believe he would receive opposition to having it televised. I am curious as to whether or not the government wants to see it televised. I do not believe it wants to see it televised. [interjection] The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) talks about how at one time we used to have replays, and I can recall there used to be replays. That has been cut out, so he says. [interjection] The minister from the second row says it is because the ratings have been cut down.

I can assure the minister it has nothing to do with ratings. I really do believe that it has more to do with this particular government. I do not think it is a plot per se, that they are going out there to try to get us off of television in a public way, in a grand scheme. I do believe that the government really does not care about it, that they would be just as happy to see nothing come out of this Chamber on public TV. I think that is the wrong direction, that what the government should be doing is ensuring that there is a certain amount of public telecast from this Chamber.

Question Period seems to be the most appropriate time, because that is when opposition attempts to hold government accountable, so Manitobans, whether it is one or whether it is a hundred or whether it is a thousand people who want to tune in to watch their government being held accountable and government holding opposition accountable, that they should have that opportunity, and I do not believe that it has been given any sort of serious dialogue from within the Conservative caucus.

The reason why I came up from my office to talk about this after listening to the dialogue between the minister and the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) is because I sat in on LAMC meetings, or management commission meetings, when we were being approached--and the Clerk would have been there at the time also--about the possibilities of expanding, to go beyond just Question Period.

So I think that whether it is through CPAC, I believe it was at the time, that there is some demand that is out there and that the minister should not be quite as quick just to throw it off. I guess what I would be interested in knowing from the minister is that is he in agreement with members such as myself and the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), and I would ultimately argue even members from his own caucus that there is a need to provide some sort of public viewing through television, which is a main part of our medium of communication of what is taking place in the Manitoba Legislature?

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

I would think it is just as important, for example, as City Council meetings that are televised. At least, that is what I would think, and I would look to the minister to get his thoughts on whether or not he believes there is any benefit to having televised reports, public televised sessions, in particular for Question Period, or does he not see any real merit to it, therefore believes that Videon or whomever, Shaw Cable, should do whatever it is that they want?

Mr. Radcliffe: I think my honourable colleague's remarks opposite are quite insightful. I have a number of responses which I would like to put on the record on this issue.

Firstly, and I think my honourable colleague's question contained one of the answers which is that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is a regulatory and a registry function in our government. The CCA does such things as record land titles, birth, vital events in one's life, birth, death, marriage, et cetera. We record the existence of corporations and partnerships.

Then, on the other hand, we are the public watchdog in a number of areas such as the Consumers' Bureau itself, the Securities Commission, the Gaming Commission. That is the regulatory side of the issue, the Public Utilities Board. So my research people, the civil servants that are in the department, are geared to resolving disputes at the Residential Tenancies Branch and commission. They are geared to trying to regulate behaviour or register behaviour. I think the concept of whether we should have public media broadcast out of this Chamber or different areas of government or whether we should not is perhaps something that more properly belongs at a debate at LAMC. I think my honourable colleague did mention that LAMC was a forum that had or might consider this in the future. I think that is probably the more appropriate forum.

Mr. Maloway: You are the minister. They will listen to you far more than they will listen to LAMC.

* (1050)

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask honourable members if they have something to say, they should come through the Chair and put their comments on the record rather than interrupting a member when they are in full flight?

The honourable minister, to conclude his remarks.

Mr. Radcliffe: My intellectual process has just been derailed there, Mr. Chair, but I do acknowledge that LAMC is the appropriate vehicle or function to first of all see whether the will of this Chamber and the will of all parties is of the view that there should be further media presentation.

Moving beyond that now, I would like to reflect a little bit on the fact that I think our society as a whole--this is rather a remark of general response--has become addicted to the quick-fix stimulation which is found in television. I belong to the generation where we were trained and educated to read, and to me, still, even at this point in my life, there is not a finer activity for me than to curl up in front of the fire on a cold September afternoon with a good book and sit and read. Whether I was reading G.A. Henty, as a child, or The Rise and Fall of the New Roman Empire, whether it was--

Mr. Maloway: On a point of order, what does this have to do with asking the cable companies if they would consider replaying the Question Period in the evening, which they have done for years and years and years, and they have just discontinued at the beginning of this session? That is all we asked the minister to do. Would he take it up with them as quickly as possible and find out why they will not do it?

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order, but I would ask the honourable minister if he could be relevant to the question that has been put.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, in response, although I did attempt to raise my hand to respond to my honourable colleague's response on his point of order and I acknowledge that perhaps his interjection or ejaculation was not, in fact, a point of order, nonetheless I was trying to be responsive to the remarks of the honourable member who last asked me the question, because his was a long, free-ranging question, and I wanted to cover some of the aspects of the significance of television in our lives. In fact, this may be something that might be more properly debated at LAMC.

The whole concept of media is something, as well, that is something I think which deserves inspection and review, whether, in fact, the different arms of the media are properly representing and presenting the facts that transpire in this Chamber and the opinions of various members that people have sent to this Chamber. I can look to the country media, the country newspapers, who do an excellent job at representing the views of their elected members.

So this issue and this debate I think is very appropriate to occur. Whether it should occur here in Estimates for Consumer and Corporate Affairs or whether it should occur at LAMC, I question. Certainly, if LAMC were prepared to charge me with the issue of going to contact the media, I would be more than glad to make those inquiries.

As I said already on the record to my honourable colleague opposite, if and when I have the opportunity to discuss this matter with the media company, I am certainly prepared to inquire what the reason was for reducing our exposure. As I say, I can only suggest that it is because the ratings were down, and they had deduced that there was less interest in their viewing public and that we were not obtaining market share.

I do not know about my honourable colleague, but I often am called, telephoned at home during the dinner hour by media people asking my opinion on what I am watching, what I am listening to, what I think about different issues, and I know that the different broadcast companies are very sensitive to their ratings. They do these opinion polls so that they know what people want to hear and what people want to see and what the public taste really is. So it may very well be that the public taste, being a fickle thing, had moved on from watching their elected representatives ruminate in this Chamber on the worthy issues of the day.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairman, I will make a very quick question, and that is: is it the opinion of this minister that there is value to having Question Period publicly broadcast? I believe every other Chamber virtually across Canada, in particular Ottawa, does have it broadcast. Does he recognize the benefits of that?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I think what my honourable colleague is really asking is should this be a transparent process? Should there be accountability of elected members, government and opposition both, to the public of their activities in the Chamber so that the public can see whether they are getting value for their money? Absolutely. We should be on display. Our activities in this building and in government should be transparent and open to the public, whether that is being on a television broadcast out of this Chamber, which is, as my honourable colleague knows, only one very small fraction of what we really do, or whether we should be subject to scrutiny on all our activities, which I truly believe in. So I would affirm my honourable colleague's remarks.

Mr. Lamoureux: Does the minister agree, then, that there is also benefit for unedited communications through media to the public?

Mr. Radcliffe: I think I believe in the overall principle of accountability, of transparency, of assuring or enabling the public to perceive whether they are getting value for their dollars here. I think these are very important principles. I think that we have open courts. We have an open Legislature. We have a viewing gallery where members of the public can come down and see us actually in the flesh to perform. We are one of the few Legislatures I think that still have public representation on our legislation, and I think these are advantages that we have in Manitoba that are unique to our system.

Not being a person skilled in media, not being a person trained in these issues, I would want to take some advice, and I would want to think about whether we should have one broadcast, whether we should have two broadcasts, whether we should be on public viewing channels, whether we should be on commercial television. These are weighty issues and serious issues. With the printed press, there should be more content in the printed media about our activities in this Chamber.

I can tell my honourable colleague that we on government side think that we have a wonderful message for the people of Manitoba, and that, if only we could get our message out in a sure and accurate and complete form, the people of Manitoba would flock to our banners and applaud our efforts at government, and that is how we feel. One of our major, major difficulties is getting the message out. So maybe the opportunity of more public television of our proceedings would afford us that opportunity. But those are things that I think deserve discussion and thought, and I think it is very appropriate my honourable colleague should bring that matter up.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, for the minister, because I know he enjoys reading, there is the printed Hansard now through the Internet, so there is that form of unedited printed text which anyone can get a copy of. I would suggest that to him.

What I am talking about is the need for public broadcasting of Question Period at the Manitoba Legislature. I believe very strongly, if we have a public network, that it is essential. When we see other legislatures across Canada, and particularly the House of Commons, that provide that service, I think that it is a part, given today's state of medium of communication; that it is negligent on our behalf if we are not doing what we can to be promoting the way in which we operate as a democratic society.

* (1100)

Question Period is one of those ways which is, in essence, one of the cores to our parliamentary system. I think that for Manitobans, whether it is one person who views in or it is a thousand people who view in, there is a great deal of value in having it publicly broadcasted. I have seen it being taken away. As the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) points out, they no longer show the replays. You have City Council from five days to four days, and now one of those days it is City Council, Mr. Chairperson.

If you are going to try and tell me it is strictly ratings, it would be interesting to see ratings for a City Council over a Question Period. I am aware of people who have commented to me on both. It should have nothing to do with ratings. It has everything to do with what I believe is important, and that is promoting our parliamentary system. Other Chambers do it. It does have an impact on the way in which we operate inside this Chamber. The more people who are aware of it, I believe, the better we are.

All I was really wanting from this minister, because I am very much aware of his responsibilities as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but I raise it to him because he does have communication between the government and our public television, or Videon, where there is a responsibility through regulation with these two, with Videon and Shaw Cable. At least that is what I understand.

Most importantly, he is a member of the Conservative caucus. That is why his opinions and views are important. It goes beyond a government policy. In my opinion, it is more about the society in which we live and the way in which we communicate. I think that it would be a positive step forward, at the very least, to ensure that we are not losing ground. When every other Legislature seems to be moving in the other direction, it seems that we are moving in another direction. It is just another way in which Manitobans can become better in tune with the way in which we operate as a Legislature. I think that is a positive.

There are many other questions which I could have been asking in Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I am sure I will get another opportunity. It was primarily because this is an issue which I have dealt with in the past through LAMC, in part, and I heard the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) comment on it and the minister's response to it. I was not really satisfied with the minister's response. I think he should be taking it more seriously, for what it is worth. Thank you.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chair, I welcome the remarks from my honourable colleague, and I do not want him for one moment to think that I am deprecating the value of the opinions that he holds, because I think that openness and publicity are essential to democratic government. These are one of the foundations and touchstones of the democratic process. What is done in public that bears the scrutiny of the eyes of the public is something that we are all accountable for, and accountability is really one of the foundations of open and democratic government.

Whether it is televised hearings one day a week, or five days a week, or in our case we only have four sitting days where we are sitting in Assembly here doing Question Period.

An Honourable Member: Eighty days a year.

Mr. Radcliffe: That is right. My honourable colleague says that we are only sitting 80 days a year. So these are the technical, specific issues. I do not disagree with what he is saying, but I think that it may very well be fruitful and beneficial for the general reputation of democracy if proceedings in this Chamber are televised, or, in fact, the public may be horrified at the carryings on during Question Period.

I must put on the record that, albeit I have indulged from time to time in some of the chicanery and facetious behaviour that goes on in the Chamber during Question Period where we razz one another and we tease and we cat call from our benches and whatnot, but when we have children sitting in the upper galleries coming from the schools, and then I have gone off to room 200 afterwards to explain to these individuals who have come to watch our proceedings the merit and the value of what they have seen, I can look at their faces and see horror at the behaviour of learned, educated, well-paid representatives of the public coming in and behaving in such an infantile fashion. So it may well have an adverse effect as well--[interjection] Educational at best, that is right. We might well be surprised if members of our viewing public had an opportunity to see us on a frequent basis and to see some of the silliness that does go on in this Chamber but, nonetheless, that begs the . The real issue is accountability, publicity, and I heartily endorse those principles. I think they are essential to the mainstay of democracy.

Although my honourable colleague did make a remark which I would want to correct, which he says that I have the function to regulate communication and the media, I do not believe that is an issue that is within the purview of my department. I think that more falls under the CRTC. That is not something that is my responsibility.

However, having said all of that, when next I have the opportunity to share with members of the media, be they the television media, the print media, I will discuss the issue.

Mr. Maloway: Well, the minister gave a rambling and confusing nonanswer to this question. You know, I asked him a very simple question, and that is: would he meet with the cable companies and ask them why they cut back the Question Period replays? There used to be five replays; they have cut them back. I asked him to do that. He said he would meet with the cable companies and do that. A few minutes later, in response to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), he then decides that it is an LAMC problem, and he is going to let them deal with them. This is like a 180-degree turn in a minute, minute and a half. Then he turns further and he says after that he is going to think about it first, about the whole concept of this.

Which answer is the correct one here? He starts out by answering my first question by saying he is going to meet with the cable companies, bring this issue up with them and resolve it, and I accept that answer. I thank him for the answer, and I am prepared to move on to the next subject. Then two minutes later, he is saying, well, no, it is the LAMC's problem. I am not going to talk to the cable companies, I will let LAMC deal with it. Then a minute after that, he says, well, I am not even sure about that anymore. I think we will think about it first.

So I would like to ask him which is the answer? Is he going to talk to them about this problem as he first promised or is he going to do one of the other two options that he is contemplating now?

Mr. Radcliffe: I want to assure my honourable colleague opposite that I will certainly be delighted to contact the cable companies and discuss the issue.

Mr. Maloway: Fine. Now, could we move on to the issue of warranties? That is a huge issue in Manitoba, provides all sorts of problems. We have widespread problems with warranties over the years where people buy products. They think with the product they have bought a warranty, a one-year, two-year, three-year warranty, and then either the company that is supplying the warranty either goes out of business and leaves people stranded and hanging or the company does not honour the intent and the spirit of the warranty. The warranty is just nothing more than a piece of paper that is really worth nothing. I would like to ask the minister: just how vigilant is he and his department in following through on warranty complaints and what sort of results are we getting?

I know that the annual report each year spells out problems with warranties, but we have not got this year's annual report yet, and he obviously knows more about this issue than we do at this point. So could he tell us what is happening?

* (1110)

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, in response to my honourable colleague's answer, I am not going to insult him with repeating the statistics that are in last year's annual report, because he can read those himself. I guess the one reflection that I have on my department is when the Consumers branch, when the Residential Tenancies Branch, when all the different regulatory, dispute-resolving branches of the Consumers department are doing their job and doing their job well, I get very few complaints coming up to the minister's office. In fact, on the issue of warranties, I cannot recall a single complaint in the last year coming to my office.

So I am not saying that there have not been, and our annual report, when it comes out, will show the volume of traffic in that particular area. The fact that the Consumers' Bureau is receiving the complaints, that they are mediating the disputes, that they are tending to them and either referring them to the Crown for prosecution or arbitrating them and coming to successful conclusions, leads me to the conclusion at this point that the Consumers' Bureau is doing its job.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister about the regulation--or lack of regulation, I guess--in the travel business, and the minister probably knows that I believe in Ontario, Quebec and, I think, B.C. they all have travel funds set up for a number of years right now. I am not certain exactly how they are working, but I understand they work reasonably well.

The reason I ask the question and bring up the issue now is that there have been recent articles in the paper about commission caps that the airlines have brought in through stages. They brought in one a year or so ago and another one more recently. So the projections are that there will be a huge shakeout with the business, with a large number of bankruptcies and people going out of business and so on, because of these commission caps and cuts. With that, of course, there is the inevitable problem with people making deposits and then the agency is not around or goes under and does not have the money and people are left stranded.

So I would like to know whether there have been any representations from the industry or by the minister to the industry dealing with that whole question of the commission caps--we have certainly had letters on the subject of commission caps--and how it will shake out with the potential for agencies to go under, go bankrupt and leaving people perhaps stranded and losing money.

Mr. Radcliffe: I can tell my honourable colleague there has been no communication directly to me from consumers' groups nor the industry at this point in time on travel agents and caps. On a related issue there was some concern in our department on one particular corporation, I think it was called Mr. Canada's Touring Network Inc., which arranged for bus tours and then left people high and dry, and our response to that has been there has been an investigation ongoing on this matter, which is confidential at this point in time, I am told. The bureau is investigating the business practices and to ascertain whether there have been any misrepresentations made, and that, I think, is the real issue, is whether there are misrepresentations and whether it deserves the scrutiny of the Crown for prosecution.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, in that regard, can the minister tell us then whether the police Commercial Crime division, or whatever it is called, is involved in this case as well?

Mr. Radcliffe: I do not know at this point in time whether it has gone that far or not.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, would the minister then endeavour to contact the industry with regard to these commission cuts to try to ascertain for himself what the effects will be and whether the news reports are accurate, that they expect a large shakeout and people going out of business and bankruptcies, to find out whether that is a valid concern and is an issue in which his department perhaps should be taking a look and looking at some sort of preventative measures?

Mr. Radcliffe: Certainly, Mr. Chair, I am following the issue in the newspaper on this matter, and I do have some personal contacts in the travel industry. I am certainly prepared to discuss those matters with some well-informed individuals that I am aware and ascertain whether they see if this is an issue of concern that government should be involved with.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, last year I asked the minister a number of questions regarding tower funding and the whole issue of these unregulated loan brokers operating in Manitoba. I would like to get an update from him as to what is going on, or not going on, in the loan broker business these days.

Mr. Radcliffe: As a result of the discussions that we had last year with regard to this issue, I can tell my honourable colleagues that we have been very vigilant watching this matter, and it has not been an issue of concern that we have been able to deduce in Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister still has the floor.

Mr. Radcliffe: I have concluded my answer, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Maloway: I did want to inquire of the minister as to what was happening with the Autopac Appeals Commission. I know the annual report was submitted in the last number of weeks. I would like to know whether there is any movement on the part of the appeals board to be a little more lenient with people. We are getting increasing complaints. The minister is here, and he would know of which I speak, the minister in charge of the corporation, but there is an increasing body of opinion out here, and I think it is clear by virtue of just the sheer numbers of appeals.

I think the first year there was only maybe a very small, minuscule, number of appeals. In fact, I think people were surprised. The corporation authorities were quite shocked that there was such a minuscule number, so to be fair, they did expect that the number of appeals would increase over time. I am just wondering whether the appeals have increased at a much greater rate than they thought or whether this is what they thought, but certainly we are getting increasingly more calls about it, people concerned about the arbitrary nature of the system and the fact that they do not seem to be treated correctly.

Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I would like the minister to elaborate on those points.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, my honourable colleague is correct that there has been significant increase in appeals and cases that are being processed at the Personal Injury Protection Plan Review Commission. I do not think that is a function necessarily of any level of policy of people being shortchanged at the lower level. I think this is an issue of the fact that we are now moving thoroughly into the no-fault process and that the issue of individuals resorting to the court system and civil litigation is now being diminished. We expect to be finished with court litigation issues perhaps sometime in the year 1999.

However, with regard to the level of reward or replacement of loss in the PIPP, I would direct my honourable colleague's attention to the legislation that is sitting before this House right now. There was a review, as my honourable colleague knows, of the MPIC report. The hands of the PIPP commission are tied in that they can only award to the limits of what the MPIC policy and the MPIC legislation and schedules and tables permit.

Now, we have had an opportunity as government to review this. This is something that requires constant updating, and our government is dedicated to that. The whole issue of level of compensation has been reviewed, and I believe my honourable colleague will be satisfied when he reviews the legislation to see that there is a significant increase in levels of compensation in some areas that required it.

* (1120)

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, you know I do appreciate that government is becoming more sensitized to that area. I mean, it may be due to the fact that 1999 is close at hand and an election is coming up, but for whatever the reasons, they do seem to be moving a little bit.

There just seem to be problems in many cases regardless of what the legislation says. How the legislation is enforced is what really kind of tells the tale. So we pass laws in this Legislature and we think that they are going to be enforced in a certain way, and sometimes the reality is a little bit different. We think we have solved the problem, and then we find out a year or two down the line from people who have actually had some experience with the system that their experiences are not what we envisioned when we passed the laws in the first place. So there is a tendency for some people to apply the laws and rules very strictly and a tendency for a certain amount of leniency.

The impression I got was that regardless of what the levels of coverage were, that in the last three years, in the first three years of the operation of this particular new plan, in fact, they were very, very strict in how the rules were applied.

Now they are changing some of the rules. The question is how are they going to apply those new rules? Are they going to be very strict with those new rules? So it remains to be seen how this is going to take effect. I can tell you that we have been concerned and, as the minister may or may not know, he was not elected at the time when we passed this legislation, but the NDP did propose, I think, upwards of 30 amendments. One of them that we proposed was the actual review that you see before you after three years. There was no plan originally to review it in three years, but we got that through as an amendment. The government did accept it at the time that we get a three-year review.

There were other things we wanted, too. We wanted worldwide coverage or we wanted North America and Central America coverage, and the minister at the time said, well, you know, we will give you the three-year review, but we are not prepared to give you beyond North American coverage, because the argument was, you see, right now it applies only to Canada and United States. But we were saying, well, you know, with free trade and NAFTA, and so on, we should at least apply the coverage beyond territorial U.S.A. and Canada. That is something we may well do, depending on what the experience has been. The experience has certainly been very good from a financial position, because the corporation is flush with money. It has got enormous reserves right now, more than it has had before, and so the time is right to look at making some improvements.

One of the other things we suggested as late as last year, we introduced some amendments to a bill last year to have people's or claimants' advocates, and we would like that put in there. I introduced the same resolution last year, or amendment, under the flood compensation legislation similar to the worker adviser. The minister is probably aware of the concept and the practice of the workers advisers, and we were suggesting that that approach should be applied to the Autopac appeal process so that these appellants could have an appellant adviser, I guess you would call it, right, and that we would also apply that same idea, which has worked well in the worker adviser question, over to the flood victims' cases.

Well, our argument at the time was that this would not only be good for the appellants but would be good for the government too because, if they had some advocate where the flood victim would see that there was somebody there to help them through the red tape and somebody was on their side, they would feel better about the whole process and would be less inclined to go to the press, and so on. So that would be the help to the government and the help to the individual, that they would be able to get their claims settled with less harassment, less hassle. Well, we just thought that that idea would work well here with Autopac as well.

I mean, from the government's point of view, and I am trying to think of it from their perspective, I mean, they do not need the hassle of people going to the Free Press to do stories about this issue, right? So why would they not? They have got a lot of money in the kitty right now. Why would they not consider this as a positive idea that will keep people happier and also help them and make the system less onerous for them and more user friendly?

I think that is the key. This government is trying to make the system of government more user friendly. We are trying to be helpful here and give them some ideas as to how that can be done, and we get a little disappointed at times when those ideas are not accepted. This government has shown in the past that it will accept good ideas. I recall being on CJOB a few years ago advocating a no-fault program, and, to my shock and horror, they announced one six months later. You know, that was something we never thought they would do. They have done that with business practices legislation. We never thought they would introduce that either, and they kind of surprised and shocked us by doing exactly that. So we know that you people will do these things when forced to or pressed very hard on the subject, but anyway it just seemed to me as a sensible approach.

I would like to know whether the minister has any plans to introduce that kind of worker advocate concept in this appeals process, and being a lawyer he would be quite understanding of the value of such an approach. Would he advocate for this kind of change?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I would invite my honourable colleague to look at the legislation which we are bringing in on the MPI reforms. I recall the conversation that we had with regard to this very issue, and my recollection is faulty at this point in time because it is not a matter within my personal area of responsibility. I certainly am very much in favour of what he is recommending. I believe that is an issue that is in the recommendations in the legislation for the changes to the MPI Act that we are introducing at this time, but I am subject to correction on that. I certainly understand and concur with my honourable colleague's remarks that it does focus areas of frustration, cuts red tape and enhances service to the public.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, there are several issues at the fore right now regarding the Manitoba Securities Commission. There are certain investments being sold improperly to people, and it has been a subject of news reports this past week on CJOB, for one. I think there was an investor alert sent out in recent times, plus there is a whole question of, you know, Internet investments and a whole range of problems that are kind of emerging and developing certainly with technology and so on.

It seems that no matter how much supervision and enforcement we have, the problem never seems to go away. There is always somebody that comes up with some new curve and some new scheme to try to circumvent the rules and take money from people unwittingly. So I would like the minister to update us as to what is happening over at the Securities Commission with regard to the compliance problems that they face.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I advise my honourable colleague that we have a new chair at the Securities Commission now, Mr. Don Murray, who was formerly a litigator in the city, somebody who comes to the Securities Commission with excellent credentials. He was the vice-chair of the Securities Commission.

Regrettably, one of our leading legal counsel, Dave Cheop, has moved on from public service to investors mutual, Investors Syndicate, so we have lost a very good mind there. We are in the process now of advertising for more legal help at this point in time. One of our analysts is also moving on, and we have secured the services temporarily of some very high-priced and excellent analyst support from, I believe, Price Waterhouse.

* (1130)

With regard to public alerts, public scams, I concur with my honourable colleague that the more and as continually government or any individual tries to regulate and conform, it is like trying to grip Jell-O because the width and breadth and depth of the criminal mentality is such that it will always try to reinvent ways to fleece the public and get around the strictures that we present to try and protect innocent people.

To that end, therefore, one of the resources that we call upon is publication and education, and I am told that Doug Brown, who is one of the legal counsel, asked to go on Peter Warren on CJOB for a five-minute spot to alert the public to an investor scam that was going on. The individual, Mr. Brown, who is an employee of the Securities Commission, spent an hour with Peter Warren last week on the matter with regard to a bank investment scam.

I think my honourable colleague may be even aware that last winter a number of people were contacted through the mail with some sort of idea of a Nigerian investment, which was also equally spurious. So the Securities Commission goes to significant lengths to use whatever resources are available to them, not only to regulate the legitimate brokers--those, obviously, are not the people who cause the trouble--but to alert the public to what are the current flavours of the month of what is out there that could be harmful and deleterious.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask the minister a question regarding the Public Utilities Board. It really concerns whether the minister has done any studies through his Research and Planning department concerning the cost and value of the Public Utilities Board at this point. I mean, what we see is that the Public Utilities Board does certainly a lot of good work and is involved in very extensive examinations of certain issues, but I think at the end of the day what some members of the public see out of it is they see the Public Utilities Board looking at, for example, Centra Gas rates.

What they see out of it is basically rubber-stamping in some sense the applications of Centra Gas. So you find Centra Gas--and I am using them as an example--I mean, the same is true of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and others that appear before the PUB. You have enormous amounts of work and effort go into these proposals. They are constantly before the PUB. The gas company never leaves. They just get one rate increase approved, and then they are there the next day for another rate increase. It is just constant, and they seem to get these increases.

Autopac, for example, sometimes one feels that perhaps a couple of people in a room could come up with the same conclusions that it takes 100 people to come up with over at the board and without the cost. I mean, it does not take rocket science to know that, with the retained earnings in the Public Insurance Corporation right now, there will probably be a decision to reduce the premiums by 5 to 10 percent, coincidentally to take effect, as we have said all along, next March 1, which will be right in the midst of the runup to the election campaign. I mean, no surprise about that. You fill the kitty between elections, and then you blow it out in the election year.

Now, why does it take a multimillion-dollar PUB to do something like that? I mean, you have political appointees on the board. You know, in the old days they complained about the NDP setting the rates by cabinet. That was the big complaint. We took the political heat for that, we sure did, and this government learned the lesson and put it under the PUB and said, well, we will stick it over there and it will be independent. Now, it is not independent. The PUB members are appointed by this government. They are Tories through and through. The Tory ex-candidate in the Crescentwood by-election was on the board of the PUB. Now, where is this independence? There is no independence here. This is just smoke and mirrors.

So, essentially, this PUB, politically motivated board makes decisions which are in the political interest and for the political stability and longevity of this government. It is as simple as that. How many millions of dollars and how many lawyers and how many people does it take to sort through this stuff and come up with this notion that there should be a big rate reduction this year, which will end up in a huge deficit and then will go into rate spirals again the year the election is over? That is precisely what happened last time. They reduced the rates for the election; they came up with a $50-million deficit in the retained earnings account, which meant the corporation was technically bankrupt, minus $50 million bankrupt. When that happened, when that $50-million deficit occurred in the last year of the NDP government, I mean, we dropped to 6 percent over an issue like that.

This government perpetrated the same thing. They were maybe a million dollars better. I mean, they missed the distinction of being the worst deficit in the corporation's history by just a hair. So it was the second largest deficit in the 20-some year history of the corporation, and it came about because of the way the government ran the corporation just prior to the last election. To fudge the situation, they changed the accounting year and they played around with it. They hid it until we exposed it in this Chamber a couple of weeks before they would have had to anyway that they would run a huge deficit. Then they turned around and that was the year right after the election, coincidental, and they started with their rate increases, building up the reserve funds. Now they have the reserve funds back up to where they are. In fact, they will be projected to be a $30-million increase a year. They will be far in excess of what they have to be and just coincidentally at a time when the election is coming up.

So forgive me, Mr. Chairperson, if I see some political motivation here and question and people I know question the role of the PUB in all of this, because it is the PUB's role to take politics--that was the idea anyway--out of the situation, to sit back and look at this whole issue in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way, and to make certain that there was not these rate shock situations that occur, that the corporation would be run in a smooth sort of way with neither big increases nor big decreases hitting the people. That is the reason it was supposed to have been put under the PUB in the first place, and, yet, what we see at the end of the day is really a no different situation than they said was happening before. It is just they are being a little more sophisticated than we were in how they handle the situation.

So I would like to know whether the minister has even thought of the idea. I am sure they have, because they are interested in cost cutting, at least they are supposed to be, and I am sure they would be reviewing their value for dollar, what they are getting for value for dollar in terms of the regulatory process over at the PUB. I know that has to be in their equation somewhere along the line. So I would like to know: what is it costing and what improvements could be made in the way the PUB is structured and handled?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chair, with response to some of my honourable colleague's rhetorical comments on political expediency, I would respond with the Latin motto which is the motto to the Order of the Garter, which is honi soit qui mal y pense, which is translated into, evil he who evil thinks, or, handsome he who handsome does, so that I think is in fact full response to those issues.

To the substantive question that he is addressing, we are bringing in legislation this year with regard to specialist fees, advisor fees, that these then can be set by the commission and that the PUB has the authority to award costs at the hearing level. I think members of the public are always suspicious at the rate and the bottom line of when they get a legal bill or an actuary bill or an accounting bill or an engineering bill, and these are the issues that he is really addressing. The rate applications are incredibly complex. They are very detailed.

I can tell my honourable colleague that there is a decision pending right now as we speak at the Public Utilities Board. There is a decision pending right now at the PUB with regard to a significant application that Centra Gas has made resulting from some pricing deficiencies or acquisition deficiencies, I guess, that they suffered over the course of the last winter, and Centra found themselves on the wrong side of the market. So they have approached the PUB, the regulatory authority, in order to seek authority to pass this matter on to the ratepayers, and the decision is still pending.

* (1140)

I do not want to comment on the decision itself because, quite honestly, I do not know how they are going to come down. What I do want to comment on was that I think the actual hearing ran somewhere from the middle of March until the end of April. It was a six-week hearing. It was incredibly complex. It was incredibly detailed. Mr. Gerry Forrest is the individual who is the chair of the board, and I know a number of members of the PUB who are senior members that have been sitting a long time, who have a lot of experience in utility rate applications, devoted a significant part of their life to hearing this stuff.

Centra Gas, as my honourable colleague knows, is a highly sophisticated, highly successful corporation, has the ability to contact excellent accounting and actuarial help. So, therefore, in order to cope and to be responsive and to discern the truth of what the presentation is, the PUB must resort to specialists' support as well. That is where the significant cost lies, and, quite honestly, in this day and age, one cannot command the attention and the support of professionals of this skill and nature without paying them adequately.

I have often said in these halls that a government gets what it pays for, so that if you want to be cheap and not reward your specialists properly, then you get a poor result; if you want to pay properly and pay market rates, counsel on the street right now--actually, I do not even know right now. When I left private practice, topflight legal counsel at Thompson Dorfman were charging and getting--this is the significant point--they were getting $225 an hour, plus GST. [interjection] That is right, exactly. My honourable colleague says that he has constituents that will do it for a fraction of that, and if they had the skill and the experience and the erudition, then you know we would welcome that sort of input.

The PUB also gives the opportunity for interest groups, consumer groups, senior groups, to monitor and to intercede and make presentation so that it is a nonjudicial but highly complex, sophisticated, administrative judicial process that goes on. Am I concerned about the cost? Yes. Is the cost ultimately borne by the consumer? Yes. Is this something that is to the best interest of the consumer? I think probably coming to educated, intelligent decisions is probably in the best interest of the consumer, and for the board to have the best of all possible specialist advice is, in the long run, in the interest of the consumer. I go back to my comment, you get what you pay for. So I think that is probably--albeit we do not like it. I get decisions delivered to me by the pound because they are so complex and detailed, but it is because of the nature of the issue.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask the minister regarding the Residential Tenancies Commission. I know that he dealt with it at some length in his introductory remarks, but I would like to ask him what sort of changes have occurred in the last year over at the Residential Tenancies Commission.

Mr. Radcliffe: I do not want to put words in my honourable colleague's mouth, but I think he is probably referring to the Residential Tenancies Branch. The Residential Tenancies Branch is basically what would pass as the trial level for residential tenancies issues. The commission is the appellate board, so I will address my remarks--I see a note of affirmation coming from the member opposite--to the Residential Tenancies Branch.

One of the things that is happening is that they are going on-line with orders and judgments, which I am very enthusiastic about. I think that probably will be realistically sometime in August. I have had a preliminary briefing meeting with the director of the branch on that issue, and one of the concerns, obviously, is to ensure that privacy of individuals is protected. So identifying addresses of tenants or individuals who have moved on but still resort to a dispute will be deleted from the public record on the Internet.

We believe that the service will be an advantage to both tenants and landlords because both sides can look at the history of individuals who have become involved in a dispute at the Residential Tenancies Branch and make their own conclusions. There will be no editorialization obviously, and all that the Residential Tenancies Branch will be doing is giving a facility so that the public can, in fact, review at a glance in the toggle of a button or a mouse the nature of the proceedings that are there. So that, I think, is something that we are really excited about, that we are really looking forward to.

One of the other things which I would just share with my honourable colleague that, when I took over the chair of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, my deputy very graciously gave me a guided tour of all the departments. It was a bit of a whirlwind tour at that point in time, a bit of a roller skate, and the whole thing was a blur. But, because the Residential Tenancies Branch is such a high-profile face to the public, I made it my business to go back just to observe a couple of cases and sit in the back row. Obviously, as a minister, you cannot get away with being anonymous; nonetheless, one of the things that really impressed me very, very much when I went back to do my own personal observations and sit through a couple of cases was the quality of the hearing officers.

So the point I want to make was that in one case I sat through an order for possession hearing, and I was really enthused to see the mediatory and the conciliatory demeanour of the hearing officer to ensure that, yes, the tenant lost, the tenant got hoofed out, but to ensure that the tenant had other resources, that the imposition of the order was delayed a couple of days so that the tenant could organize their affairs in such a fashion as to get their belongings and move on, but also that the officer was assured by the tenant that the tenant had a fall-back position, that the tenant had relatives or a friend or another alternative so that they were not literally the Bob Cratchit situation of sitting on the street on your barrels and suitcases.

So that is not legislated, that is not mandated, that is just common humanity, and I am glad to report that that really does exist. There is no way that that appears in a dry annual return or a report. I do not know whether that was for my benefit. I presume I give them the benefit of the doubt that that, in fact, is general practice at the RTB.

* (1150)

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, I believe last year was the minister's first year in Estimates, and during the flood we went a total of 30 hours, I think, which was sort of unprecendented for this department, because we had not got in the practice of going so long, but we had such a good time that the hours seemed to pass very quickly. Unfortunately, to the minister, this is not to be repeated this year, I am sorry, very sorry, but perhaps next year we could get back our 30 hours. I will do my best, but we will have to stop at what I am told is about 10 hours now and relinquish the floor to my colleague the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) who wants to ask questions of this minister. So I think at this point we could pass the rest of the Estimates in this department. Thank you.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking my honourable colleague for the opportunity of being able to exchange these ideas and concepts. It is always helpful for the administration of the department from my perspective to be able to consider fresh new ideas and a fresh way of looking at things. I want to put on the record that it is a value to government and administration to be able to go through this exercise and it is rewarding. I can assure my honourable colleague that some of the points that he has brought up have given me real food for thought, and I am proceeding as we speak to implement some of the concepts and suggestions.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

Item 5.1.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $59,400--pass.

5.1.(c) Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $526,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $162,400--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from Legislative Assembly ($181.50)--pass.

5.1.(d) Research and Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $160,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $27,200--pass.

5.1.(e) Vital Statistics Agency--zero--pass.

Item 5.2. Consumer Affairs (a) Consumers' Bureau (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $898,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $215,100--pass.

5.2.(b) Residential Tenancies (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,604,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $651,000--pass.

5.2.(c) Automobile Injury Compensation Appeals Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $463,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $134,700--pass.

5.2.(d) Grants $87,700--pass.

Resolution 5.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,055,000 for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Consumer Affairs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.

Item 5.3. Corporate Affairs (a) Insurance Branch (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $278,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $179,600--pass.

5.3.(b) Manitoba Securities Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,436,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $428,300--pass.

5.3.(c) Public Utilities Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $695,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $797,800--pass.

5.3.(d) Trust, Cooperatives and Credit Union Regulation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $421,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $100,500--pass.

5.3.(e) Property Registry--zero--pass; (f) Companies Office--zero--pass.

Resolution 5.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,338,000 for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Corporate Affairs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day March, 1999.

We will now return to the Minister's Salary and Resolution 5.1. The minister's staff has already left so we are fine with that.

1.(a) Minister's Salary $26,300--pass.

Resolution 5.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,098,300 for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.

This concludes the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We will be moving on to the Department of Seniors.

Is it the will of the committee to call it twelve o'clock? [interjection] Well, you have three minutes for his opening statement, Conrad. [interjection] No, I cannot do that. We would have to wait for the minister.

Is it the will of the committee to call it twelve o'clock? Twelve o'clock.

The hour being 12 noon, pursuant to the rules, I am interrupting the proceedings of the Committee of Supply with the understanding that the Speaker will resume the Chair at 1:30 p.m. today, and that after Routine Proceedings, the Committee of Supply will resume consideration of the Estimates of Seniors.