Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, I rise to speak about certain insurance companies operating in the Northwest Territories. I used to think that sometimes during question period I got the run-around by the honourable Ministers. I wish to state, for the record, that the Ministers are mere amateurs when compared to the run-around I recently received at the hands of my insurance company.
---Laughter
---Applause
Mr. Speaker, I am sure most Members of the House recall the arguments my truck had with the bison.
---Laughter
Mr. Speaker, the end result of the bison incident was that my truck insurance quadrupled from $600 per year. At the time of the renegotiation -- and I use the term "renegotiation" very loosely -- I determined that under the new and improved rate I was being charged, there would not be much point in getting glass coverage for my vehicle. That was not a hard decision on my part because the insurance company wished to charge me more than what a new windshield was worth for this coverage.
Mr. Speaker, on November 13, the small side window of my truck was broken. As a good, conscientious citizen, and not having had any recent run-ins with the highway patrol, this wanton act of destruction was duly reported to the proper authorities. Now, is where the plot thickens, Mr. Speaker.
I decided that since I carried vandalism insurance, it might be possible to recoup from my insurance company the $160 I had to pay to replace my window. Mr. Speaker, this was not to happen. For, you see, Mr. Speaker, vandalism does not cover glass. If someone took a hammer to my vehicle and smashed up the body of my truck, that would be vandalism. However, if the same person took the same hammer and smashed my window, this would not be considered vandalism. For the window to be covered under my insurance, it would have been necessary for the perpetrator of this destructive act to break the window and steal my vehicle. Mr. Speaker, this makes a lot of sense.
---Laughter