"Once again the government has proven that it has no intention of dealing with high insurance rates in the immediate future," said Sweeney. "I have reviewed their Terms of Reference in detail and I see minimal rate impacts to be realized for the consumer. It is a matter of public policy of this government not to move with meaningful reforms because they do not want to upset the legal or insurance communities. It is unlikely that any study will change their mind on this issue.

"When they took office, the government had a clear mandate to implement an insurance policy that would have seen a $2500 cap on soft-tissue injury payments. We are one year past that time and consumers have received little or no rebate on these high rates. Since they failed to follow earlier recommendations in a study released in March 2004, another review is not likely to change the mind of this government. The first study provided detailed information about deductibles ranging from $7500-$15,000 and government decided arbitrarily to implement a $2500 deductible. This government refuses to take advice or live up to their promises and I cannot see how another study will influence their policy-on-the-fly attitude to governing."

The Liberal MHA says the government also promised a plan to deal with high rates for people being discriminated against because of the age, sex and marital status. "On two occasions Mr. Williams announced plans to deal with rating discrimination on this basis. Once elected, he turned his back on these people who are the most influenced by high insurance rates. The March 2004 insurance study by the PUB provided government an excuse not to move forward with these reforms and now this Terms of Reference has been written to provide government more excuses not to deal with this issue."

Sweeney feels the process being used to deal with insurance rates is not in the best interests of consumers. "The government appointed an insurance advocate and is using the PUB as a policy vehicle in a manner that is completely inappropriate. The role and mandate of the PUB is to regulate rates and conduct hearings, not partake in studies or make the policy decisions on behalf of government. While I have no problems with Mr. Johnson’s qualifications as a lawyer, I believe someone without a vested interest in a personal injury law practice should have been appointed to represent consumers. In fact, someone outside the legal community would have been a better selection for this process.

"I tell the government it is now time to show some backbone and deal with the serious issues that surround insurance reform. They had a plan and it is time to implement it before consumers are further impacted and more government money wasted. I will continue to fight for consumers until government decides to listen to our concerns and stop catering to insurance companies and legal firms."