Are there any other general comments? Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make some comments, because I was responsible for originally introducing this bill, and presenting it to the Standing Committee on Finance. I will take the liberty of making some comments.

Mr. Chairman, as I said when I introduced the bill, at that time, it is easy to assume that a small percentage increase in the premium tax in the Northwest Territories, will automatically translate into increased premiums rates. Premiums, and I think I explained this to the committee at the time, are set, based on a much larger area than the Northwest Territories. They are set by these large, sometimes multinational insurance companies, and there are a whole range of factors that are taken into account.

One principle factor is the lost rate, or the accident rate, and I think it is fair to say, although no one can predict for sure, it is unlikely that a small adjustment in the tax rate in our very small jurisdiction, is going to have an impact on premiums that are set by national companies for much larger areas than the Northwest Territories. You know, our population is relatively small when you look at the size of these insurance companies.

So, I would not want the public to assume that there is going to be a direct correlation between premium costs, and this tax. In fact, if loss rates go down nationally, we might well have a reduction in premiums. Or, if they go up nationally, we might have an increase in premiums quite apart from this relatively small factor of the premium tax.

So, I do want to repeat what I said in introducing this bill, that the N.W.T. is a small part of a very much larger country, and jurisdiction, and it is simplistic to suggest that this adjustment is automatically going to be passed onto our consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I would just also mention that we get requests for additional spending in this House from ordinary Members, and the government has to try to respond where ever possible, and so it is incumbent on us to come up with what we think are reasonable sources of revenue, and this one seems reasonable. Yes, there are some risks, but people who buy insurance on new buildings, houses, or cars, they may have money to do so. I am not sure that when you recognize that we are facing declining revenues, and increasing demands for services, I would hope Members would put this request in the proper perspective, you cannot always ask for more programs and services, and, yet, turn down every revenue initiative that the government brings forward.

So I would hope that it can be considered in that context, that sometimes we have to make decisions that may appear to add a burden, although I am not sure that is the case. Sometimes we have to act responsibly, and make some difficult decisions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any general comments? Mr. Pudluk.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I do not want to slow this committee business down, but before we go into this clause by clause, I see something that I have difficulty with.

Unless these are new reading glasses, there is no translation into Inuktitut, and I know I can go along, but my colleague over there might have a little problem. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pudluk. I will make sure that we do not proceed with clause by clause, until Mr. Pudlat has a copy of the translated version. I will proceed, though, with general comments, if you do not mind. General comments, Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that I have never viewed my colleague Mr. Dent's comments, or concerns, as simplistic, however, the former Minister seems to assume that is the way he is.

The fact of the matter is, if he is prepared, the former Minister who seems to want to talk to this issue, to take the position there will be no increase to the consumer, has he also prepared to take the responsibility if there is an increase to the consumer?

I mean, if he feels so strongly about it, there are two ways of looking at it. Perhaps Mr. Dent's concerns are as legitimate as the Minister's, or the former Minister's, comments with respect to this bill.

I, for one, am prepared to support it, and was prepared to support it, and will continue to support it at this time, and I would hope that other Members of the committee would see it that way. I think it is important, however, to point out that the committee legitimately is concerned that this is viewed as a hidden tax, and, in fact, for what it is worth, we are concerned that it may be passed onto the consumer. We are equally concerned that with the increase of costs what with W.C.B., which we will be addressing next week, or anything else that goes on here, in these difficult times causes the small business, and big business, to be legitimately concerned about increases in costs.

I would have thought the former Minister would have felt the same way.

Thank you. Mr. Whitford.

Thank you. Mr. Dent.

Thank you. Any general comments? Mr. Lewis.

Yes, just a very simple one, Mr. Chairman. I know, from experience, that the rates of insurance go up, and up, all the time, without any explanation, without any indication that the hikes are justified. Just for the interest of Members, you can visit any big city in North America, and on every street corner in the most important intersections you find a building that houses an insurance company, the fanciest in town.

I never hear of any of them going bankrupt, yet we continue to accept increasing rates, year after year, and we are not prepared to tell them that they really should be paying a little more of their share for doing business in the jurisdiction that gives them their income. Anything like this, which is a revenue initiative, we get so few ideas from governments, on how you can get money to spend. All we seem to do is spend money, we never seem to find ways of finding revenue, that seems to be one of the things that we are bad at, finding revenue.

Even though this will not provide an awful lot, I have always though that insurance companies are one of the big mysteries of our age. How they seem to get bigger and bigger, get fancier and fancier buildings, buy more, and more real estate, and never seem to go bankrupt. They all seem to thrive. I suspect it is because they do not pay their way. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to concur with my colleague from Yellowknife south. I, too, have a difficulty with this particular bill, and I expressed a lot of my concerns in the Standing Committee on Finance. I want to indicate to the Minister, as I have indicated to the previous Minister, that I believe that this is a tax grab, in a very sly way, if I may use the term.

Mr. Chairman, I am just going through the actual department's budget very quickly to see, for this amount of funding that is going to be raised, how much it is costing the department in respect to this area. I do not believe that there was any increase that even justified the need for this percentage increase for premiums. I felt, and I still feel, that because of it being a revenue initiative, that it should go through the Department of Finance, through the budget, as part of the overall government's revenue initiative process, as opposed to wanting to amend one type of act just to increase funding.

Now, I am concerned that if we look at this particular amendment to this Insurance Act, what other types of acts will be amended accordingly, to look at bringing in revenue initiatives for the government overall. I have to just echo the concerns of some of my colleagues, that this particular act, the process used for this particular act, certainly was not appreciated. It is an initiative to raise revenue, and it is not looked at as an initiative like when the government wants to raise liquor tax, or whatever types of revenue initiatives that they take upon themselves.

I have unequivocally stated, in the Standing Committee on Finance, that I do not agree with this bill. I have not seen any significant changes that would allow me to agree with it, so therefore, I just want the committee to note that this amendment on the Insurance Act is not acceptable, and I will be voting against it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any general comments? Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on what Mr. Lewis said, I am not too clear on how insurance companies operate. It used to be that, Mr. Chairman, I used to get my windshield changed every year, and for the last ten years I have been changing my windshield because of rock damage. During the last two years, Mr. Chairman, my premium has gone higher than the cost of the windshield itself, so I am not buying any more windshield insurance. It is not worth it, because my premium is higher than the windshield, itself.

I could not figure out the insurance company at that time, because I thought that, by driving in a safe condition, by replacing my windshield every year, that I am doing a favour to the insurance company, but they do not look at it that way. I have not bought any windshield insurance since. Thank you.

Any other general comments? Is it the wish of the committee that we deal with the bill clause by clause? Agreed?

Agreed.

We will deal with it clause by clause. Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Insurance Act. Clause one. Agreed?

Agreed.

Clause two. Agreed?

Agreed.

Clause three. Agreed?

Agreed.