January 15, 2005
This paper offers a chronology of certain events since September 11, 2001 surrounding the consideration and enactment of legislation and regulations "reforming" motor vehicle accident injury litigation in Alberta. This review may help provide, by way of contextual background, an understanding of the government's intent behind the recent Alberta auto insurance reforms, and in particular the so-called "minor" injury compensation cap.
2001 - 2002
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were tragic, causing significant loss of life. The events of 9-11 also had negative repercussions for the insurance industry, triggering depressed investment revenues and markedly increased reinsurance costs.1 With profits plummeting, the consensus in the industry was that something had to change.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada is a trade organization representing about 90% of the private (non-government) property and casualty (home, auto and commercial) insurance companies in the country. In Alberta, IBC performs the curious dual role of acting as both the industry lobby group and as the Progressive Conservative government's official agency for collecting and reporting auto insurance statistics.2
On October 10, 2001, Alberta IBC Vice President Jim Rivait, a former executive assistant to two Alberta PC cabinet ministers, penned a letter to Patricia Nelson, complaining on behalf of auto insurers about what he termed the "blatant overcompensation" of insurance claimants.3 Ten years prior, Mrs. Nelson (at that time a rookie MLA using the name "Pat Black") had chaired a committee formed to consider auto insurance reforms in response to concerns raised by the Automobile Insurance Board (chaired at the time by Justice Al Wachowich). Very little came of the Black committee deliberations, but by October 2001, Pat Nelson was Alberta's rookie Minister of Finance, in charge of the government department responsible for insurance legislation.
Under cover of his letter to Finance Minister Nelson, Mr. Rivait enclosed an October 9, 2001 document titled "Everyone Pays: Overcompensation in Alberta's Insurance Industry". According to that document, "Statistics continue to verify that 16 or 17 year old male drivers are four times more likely to have a claim than drivers over 25 years old. Correspondingly, insurance rates for young male drivers are higher than for experienced drivers."4 The document outlined two areas of "significant cost pressure" to insurers and through them to policyholders, namely the Alberta government's health care levy and its insurance premium tax.5 The health care levy and premium tax reportedly transfer just over a quarter of a billion dollars per year from Albertans to their government.6
The document also stated, "Actuarial analysis by Exactor Insurance Services Inc. suggests that this year, total overcompensation costs incurred by Alberta's auto insurers will exceed $133 million in 2001."7 The document continued, "Our analysis indicates that there are five key areas contributing to overcompensation in the auto insurance system directly. Wage and income compensation. Collateral benefits. Future loss of earnings in fatality cases. Structured settlements. Pre-judgement interest on non-pecuniary damages."8 Notable by its absence from this list was general damages compensation for pain and suffering.
Evidently, Mr. Rivait's document was received favorably by the Alberta government, at least in relation to reductions in cost pressures that would not consequently diminish the flow of insurance cash to government coffers. In 2002, the government passed legislation severely reducing fatal accident victim compensation9 and issued a December discussion paper requesting of interested parties immediate feedback on auto insurance reform proposals to change income loss recovery from gross to net and to eliminate "double recovery" of collateral benefits.10
In addition to intervening to help private insurers on the expenses side of the equation, it would appear that the government assisted auto insurance companies on the revenues side as well. In 2001 - 2002, the Automobile Insurance Board, appointed by the Finance Minister, approved 302 of 306 auto insurer rate increase applications.11
It is interesting to note that according to Statistics Canada, Alberta auto insurance premiums spiked 57% from December 2001 - December 2002.12 By way of contrast, IBC data reveals that the increase in bodily injury claims costs per insured vehicle in Alberta rose by less than 2% from 1999 ($418.34) to 2002 ($424.86).13 Furthermore, and again according to IBC data, the average injury claim payout in Alberta actually dropped from $20,108 in 2001 to $19,500 in 2002.14
2003
On January 24, 2003, IBC responded enthusiastically to Alberta Finance's December 2002 request for stakeholder feedback on proposals to reduce income loss compensation from gross to net and to eliminate "double recovery" of collateral benefits. Additionally, IBC complained about pain and suffering awards, stating that "insurers can pay $15,000 to $20,000 for pain and suffering from soft-tissue injuries to those involved in a low impact crash with minimal damage (under $800 to their car). Those injuries are often hard, if not impossible, to detect and make up 70% to 80% of the bodily injury claims."15
However, any insinuation of rampant exaggeration on the part of Alberta auto insurance claimants appears to be unsubstantiated. A self-described "ground-breaking independent study" commissioned by the Canadian Coalition Against Insurance Fraud (an IBC affiliate) reportedly found that Alberta home and auto insurers pay an estimated $34 million annually for personal injury claims "that contain some form of fraud".16 CCAIF's February 11, 2002 "Media advisory" regarding the study failed to mention that even if all $34 million worth of these allegedly tainted claims occurred in auto insurance, that figure would work out to less than 3% of the over $1.2 billion in annual auto insurance claims costs.17
On March 3, 2003, IBC's Rivait participated in an insurance industry presentation to the Alberta government's Standing Policy Committee on Economic Development and Finance. The presentation alleged that auto insurers were losing money, and suggested that in a "Perfect World", premium revenues would match claims costs and operating expenses, leaving investment income as pure profit.18 This resembled a statement made by IBC in its October 9, 2001 document: "Insurance companies have two main sources of revenue - insurance premiums and investment income. In a perfect world, what an insurance company collects today in insurance premiums should cover operating costs (including government premium taxes, health levies, and other taxes as well as the cost of combating fraud) and pay the claims made by policyholders and third parties."19 To help insurers reach that "perfect world", the presenters urged the Alberta government to consider tort reforms relating not only to income loss and to collateral benefits, but to "pain & suffering awards on minor injuries".20
It is worth noting that in the 25 years from 1978 - 2002, the Canadian insurance industry had never visited this "perfect world". In each of those years, the industry posted underwriting losses, meaning that the cost of claims and operating expenses combined to exceed premium revenues. Yet in each and every one of those 25 years, the industry posted net, after-tax profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars, due to the revenues earned investing premiums and accumulated capital.21 Nevertheless, the IBC in 2003 evidently considered it worthwhile to lobby for government intervention to reduce compensation payable by private insurance companies to injured traffic accident victims. The Alberta government proved very receptive to the insurance industry lobby efforts.
Three weeks after the insurance industry presentation to ED & F SPC, Alberta's PC government presented Bill 33 for first reading in the legislature.22 Government MLA Tony Abbott explained the objectives of Bill 33 a month later when he introduced it for second reading: "one, to eliminate the potential for double-dipping, or recovering compensation for the same expenses from more than one insurer and two, to ensure that income replacement awards are based on an individual's net versus gross pay."23
In response to Mr. Abbott's speech, Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman appeared to express skepticism as to whether insurers really required government protection from injured claimants. Said Ms. Blakeman, "Yeah, those poor insurance companies standing on those cold street corners, clutching about them their tattered rags, their little noses running from the cold, and their cheeks gaunt from the lack of nutrition that they'd had. My goodness, I feel so bad about those insurance companies."24
The spring sitting of Alberta's Legislative Assembly concluded in May 2003 without Bill 33 being passed. However, it was clear that the government intended the changes outlined in the bill as merely a "first step" towards more comprehensive insurance reforms.25
On June 6, 2003, Premier Ralph Klein spoke with media on the issue of auto insurance reform. He declined to divulge specific details, but said "I can tell you that some people are going to be mad, probably the personal injury lawyers might not be happy with what we recommend because it will affect their ability to litigate on behalf of their clients." The Premier expressed particular concern about high premiums charged to young male drivers.26
Any doubt that the Alberta government would make auto insurance reform an urgent priority disappeared on June 9, 2003, when Premier Bernard Lord's PC government nearly lost the New Brunswick election amidst voter discontent over skyrocketing car insurance premiums. Like the Klein government, Premier Lord's PCs held all but nine seats in their legislature going into the election. After coming within one seat of losing his majority, Premier Lord said "The insurance problem is not limited to New Brunswick. It's an issue in other provinces as well. And it may have an impact on other elections in Canada, too."27
The New Brunswick election results may have been foreshadowed by George Anderson, immediate past president of the IBC. In an article for the February 2003 Canadian Insurance magazine, Anderson stated: "Our whole system of government has developed in recent years with a bias to respond to crisis and with a pronounced penchant for drift the rest of the time. In insurance, crisis can come in many forms for the industry, but only one matters to governments and that is how voters are reacting to the price of the product. Price increase is the burning platform of political action on automobile insurance. But it is not enough to know that prices are going up. What is really needed is a crisis in pricing on the eve of an election. That is the opportune time, or so it seems, for change."28
In Alberta, the government called upon Medicine Hat MLA Rob Renner to oversee auto insurance changes. A year prior, Mr. Renner and IBC VP Jim Rivait had made presentations at a course in Jasper called "Changing Legislation and Lobbying Government."29 Before that, Renner had ably steered through the Legislative Assembly changes to the Insurance Act, barring public insurance companies from other provinces from competing against private insurers in Alberta.30 Edmonton MLA Brent Rathgeber, a caucus colleague of Mr. Renner, appeared to question his impartiality, saying "the fact that Mr. Renner may have had some previous involvement on a file, that I'm assuming the insurance industry must have lobbied for, gives me some concern."31
In late June 2003, with no plans to hold any public consultations on auto insurance, the Alberta government did quietly commission an Environics poll to gauge public opinion on possible auto insurance changes. Of 789 Albertans polled, 39 of them (5%) expressed support for a cap on injury settlements, and 7 people (nearly 1%) felt that the Alberta government should "get rid of" or at least imprison injury lawyers in order "to help insure fair automobile insurance rates."32 The survey also found that over 59% of Albertans supported adopting a government run automobile insurance system.33
The poll results did not seem to support the government's auto insurance reform plans. The government declined to release the poll results to the public until after their insurance reform legislation was passed.
At the government's July 7, 2003 "Stampede caucus meeting" in Calgary, PC MLAs approved a recommendation that Alberta Finance develop a new regulatory framework that would quantify one's auto insurance premium on the basis of driving record and not age, gender or marital status.34 Based on that very general policy direction from caucus, Alberta Finance quickly assembled an Auto Insurance Reform Implementation Team. Co-chairing the Team were Renner and Jack Donahue, a Calgary corporate lawyer and friend of Premier Klein. The other five members of the Team were Gregg Hanson, CEO of Wawanesa Insurance and Deputy Chair of the IBC; Nick Geer, CEO of Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; Alain Thibault, CEO of Meloche Monnex Insurance; Brian Kapusianyk, insurance defence lawyer with Gowlings law firm in Calgary; and Shelley Miller, insurance defence lawyer with Fraser Milner Casgrain in Edmonton.
Ms. Miller had particularly relevant auto insurance reform experience. In 1999, she oversaw changes in New South Wales, Australia, that resulted in the elimination of the pain and suffering compensation rights of over 90% of that jurisdiction's injured traffic accident victims, as well as nearly a $7/month savings on the average NSW motorist's insurance premium.35 "It was so much fun," said Miller of the process.36 Miller noted: "The reform occurred over objections by executives of the Law Society and the Bar Association of NSW, who opposed further restriction of the rights of traffic injury victims to have the monetary value of their pain and suffering judicially determined. The reform also occurred without extensive evidence that awards for pain and suffering were too high for NSW traffic victims and did not effectively console injured persons, or that the price of the average motor accident insurance premium was prohibitive."37
PC MLA Brent Rathgeber expressed his concerns about the composition of the Team in an August 11, 2003 letter to Renner (later leaked to the media): "Where is the victims' advocate? Where is the consumers' rights advocate? I appreciate that the bureaucrats at the Department of Finance have limited interest in an unbiased and objective analysis; however we as politicians MUST insist on objectivity and fairness both in process and result. I am concerned that the above team will achieve neither."38
Renner, a career florist prior to his election, reacted to the letter by branding Rathgeber as "uninformed".39 Rathgeber had practiced personal injury and insurance law for about 10 years prior to his election. Bureaucrat Jerry Bellikka, spokesperson for Finance Minister Nelson, added, "There's three lawyers on the team. Just because none of them run an I-Am-Hurt injury firm doesn't mean they don't know both sides of the business."40
Also on August 11, 2003, Alberta Finance hired KPMG to provide actuarial services in relation to insurance reform proposals. KPMG's report was not released to the public until December 2004. In its report, KPMG notes that in estimating costs savings that could be garnered by limiting injury awards, it relied on 2001 New Brunswick and Nova Scotia closed claims data in the absence of "recent claim data readily available for the Alberta auto insurance industry."41 To its credit, KPMG acknowledged that the lack of claims data provided by Alberta auto insurers was a "major" limitation to the usefulness of its conclusions.42 Interestingly, KPMG's report also revealed that Alberta Finance asked it to estimate costs savings for eleven different insurance reform scenarios, all eleven contemplating reduction in pain and suffering awards for so-called "minor" injuries, by way of either a compensation cap or a deductible payable by the injured victim.43 KPMG was not asked to consider costs savings alternatives that did not involve reducing pain and suffering compensation to injured accident victims.
In September 2003, IBC ran a full page newspaper advertisement in the Edmonton Sun stating, "In Alberta, claims costs amount to 74.6% of premium revenues."44 This was a noteworthy admission, considering that IBC had previously admitted that Alberta auto insurer operating expenses were 25% of premium revenues.45 In short, the Alberta auto insurance industry had reached its self-styled "Perfect World", where premiums meet or exceed claims costs and operating expenses, leaving investment revenue as pure profit. And the destination had been reached without a cap on pain and suffering compensation.
September 2003 also saw the release of an auto insurance reform "Alert" from economist Dr. Mark Mullins on behalf of the Fraser Institute. Dr. Mullins observed that the odds of dying in a car crash are 30 times higher for people 15 - 24 years of age than for the rest of the population.46 Dr. Mullins concluded that provinces that resort to "social risk pricing", i.e., artificially reducing premiums payable by high-risk young male drivers, suffer sharp increases in accidents involving young people. Said Mullins, "The unintended costs of mispricing risk are more deaths, injuries, and property damage, especially for young drivers."47
Dr. Mullins was echoing concerns raised by IBC a year prior. In an article titled "False Kindness", IBC noted, "Inappropriate regulations can have terrible consequences. One disturbing example involves interventions in some parts of Canada to artificially lower the price of insurance for young drivers. This tragic social experiment has contributed to thousands of additional traffic fatalities and hundreds of thousands of preventable injuries over the past quarter decade. Insurers strive to set prices that reflect the risk of providing coverage. Young drivers are up to three times more likely to be at fault in a motor vehicle collision and so their cost of insurance is higher. Young male drivers have the highest collision rates, so they should pay more for insurance to offset their higher level of risk."48
Be that as it may, perhaps Edmonton Sun columnist Neil Waugh concisely outlined Alberta Finance's theory of the "advantage" of considering social risk pricing as part of its insurance reform package. Said Waugh, "all you have to do is click on the Saskatchewan Government Insurance home page to see just how much better the Saskatchewan Advantage is and why thousands of former Saskatchewan residents continue to run green and white licence plates on their vehicles, make the trek home on Thanksgiving long enough to eat turkey with their folks and renew their insurance. Why not? An 18-year-old called Troy driving a 2002 Ford Taurus with one accident and a $500 deductible pays a crushing $6885 a year in Calgary under Ralph Klein's wonderful government-mandated insurance system. His equivalent, Ryan, in Saskatoon, pays only $1270."49
On October 15, 2003, Rob Renner presented his Team's recommendations to the ED & F SPC. Renner recommended passage of Bill 33, which his Team estimated would reduce claims costs by $63 million per year. He also recommended increasing the Section B medical expense limit from $10,000 to $50,000, which he estimated would increase costs by $27 million per year. And most notably, he recommended a $4000 cap on pain and suffering compensation for non-catastrophic injuries, which he estimated would reduce claims costs by $214 million per year. According to Mr. Renner, KPMG's analysis was that these three auto insurance reforms would result in net claims costs savings of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars per year.50
Under Mr. Renner's proposal, auto accident injuries that would not be subject to the $4000 cap included death, quadriplegia, paraplegia, serious traumatic brain injury, limb amputation, internal organ injury, fracture to the spine or to a weight-bearing bone, third degree burns, loss of one or more of the five senses, TMJ dysfunction, fibromyalgia, chronic pain syndrome, or any other physical injury likely to result in permanent disfigurement or permanent impairment of an important bodily function that substantially interferes with a person's ability to perform that person's usual daily activities or regular employment.51
Mr. Renner's proposal was strongly backed by ED & F SPC member Pat Nelson, but was fiercely opposed by ED & F SPC member Brent Rathgeber, who said, "We have to look for different solutions. I think it's fundamentally wrong to lump people with injuries into arbitrary categories."52 Mr. Rathgeber suggested that the government consider less intrusive means to reduce claims costs and insurer expenses, such as scrapping the premium tax and/or emulating the solution accepted years ago in Victoria, Australia.53 In 1989, Victoria, an Australian province comparable to Alberta in population, decided to markedly increase public spending on traffic safety initiatives from $2 million per year (about what Alberta spends)54 to around $22 million per year. From 1989 - 1992, Victoria invested approximately $88 million in traffic safety, and saw a $968 million reduction in claims costs, an 11 - 1 return on investment. According to Dr. Nigel Waters, a University of Calgary professor, "Victoria became acknowledged as a world leader in traffic safety. Collisions dropped 22 percent, fatalities 44 percent (776 to 396) and injuries 37 percent during four years."55
The October 15 SPC meeting was adjourned to October 27, 2003 for further discussion and a possible vote. Between the two meetings, University of Alberta torts professor Lewis Klar expressed his opposition to the proposed cap, saying, "Why would you want to penalize accident victims who have already been hurt? There is no reason to do that, except the myth that they have been taking advantage of the system, which I don't think has been demonstrated."56 However, the Alberta government website maintained that a $4000 compensation cap "is necessary to reduce costs to the auto insurance system, in order to bring down premiums."57
At the October 27, 2003 SPC meeting, Finance Minister Nelson put forward the Renner - Donahue Team's proposals as a Ministerial Recommendation (MR) and called a vote. Of 33 government MLAs present at the meeting, 16 voted in favor of the MR, and 17 (including Rathgeber) voted against it. On the front page of the Edmonton Journal the following day under the headline, "Fictional victim helps fell Tory Goliath", journalist Graham Thomson wrote, "Even Goliath didn't go down this hard. Finance Minister Pat Nelson's plan for reforming Alberta's auto insurance industry was toppled with the help of a seven-year-old accident victim named Rebecca. To add insult to injury, Rebecca isn't even real. Neither was her accident. She is a fictional character in an ad campaign presented by a lobby group run by personal injury lawyers, the Accident Victims/Insurance Policyholders Advocate or AVIPA."58 Thomson concluded, "Finance Minister Nelson must be especially worried. She just got clobbered by a seven-year-old girl."59
On October 29, 2003, IBC submitted a revised insurance reform proposal to the Alberta government, dropping its demand for a pain and suffering compensation cap. The proposal suggested that "Stabilization of premiums can be accomplished through the following changes to the Tort and Claims environment", and went on to list ten items including passage of Bill 33, elimination of pre-judgment interest, waiver of Schedule C costs on claims settled at the adjuster level, mandatory mediation on request of either party at six months post accident or later, a freeze on the health care levy, streamlining of estate claims, a requirement that plaintiff counsel notify insurers within 30 days of retention, an automatic 25% contributory negligence reduction for failing to wear a seatbelt, a cap on contingency fees and prohibition of advertising lawyer cash advances.60
The following day, under the headline "Insurers back off injury-claim cap", the Edmonton Sun reported, "The auto insurance industry completed a dramatic U-turn on the road to reform yesterday by dropping demands for a cap on injury claims. 'They could have a cap and it could be worthless,' said Insurance Bureau of Canada regional vice-president Jim Rivait, after submitting a new proposal to the Alberta government, minus any mention of a cap. 'It's not in the proposal because I don't think the government will be able to do it. If they manage to do it, it will be watered down.' Rivait has repeatedly called on the government to introduce a cap on claims, saying injury-related lawsuits are to blame for skyrocketing premiums. The government's reform implementation team, led by Medicine Hat Tory MLA Rob Renner, proposed a $4000 cap after heavy lobbying from the industry. But Renner's proposal was voted down by Tory MLAs earlier this week, amid concerns over the cap."61
In November 2003, a joint proposal of AVIPA, ACTLA, the Canadian Bar Association (Alberta branch) and the Fight for Right Coalition was submitted to government. The proposal quoted John Crosbie, former Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, who said, "Why should we, because of concern about the mounting cost of automobile insurance premiums, accept a solution that restricts the rights of innocent third parties to be compensated for the pain and suffering they experienced because of the fault or carelessness of a motorist? Surely, we, as a feeling and informed and thinking society can do better than that!"62 The joint proposal outlined 25 alternative means to reform auto insurance rather than capping the pain and suffering compensation of innocent victims injured in Alberta traffic accidents.63
Nevertheless, the Alberta government opted to proceed with its $4000 cap, albeit abandoning the exclusionary "serious injuries" list proposed at the October SPC meetings. In a press release dated November 19, 2003, the government said, "A compensation limit of $4000 will be introduced, but only on minor sprains and strains, as defined by medical experts and only for pain and suffering."64 Said Mr. Renner, "There was commitment made on my part that we would have a clear understanding of what is meant by minor injury, that being sprains and strains, the kind of injury the average man on the street would clearly understand as a minor injury."65
Despite Renner's commitment, orthopedic specialist Dr. Guy LaVoie expressed his serious reservations in a letter dated November 27, 2003, which read, "As a physician, I am troubled by the reports that a task force of insurance industry representatives would like the government to impose reductions on the amount that private insurance companies pay victims of vehicle collisions. I treat patients suffering from soft tissue injuries most every day. Some have what the man on the street would consider a 'minor sprain and strain', i.e., an injury that resolves within a few weeks. Many others only recover after several months of treatment, and a significant number never fully recover from their injuries. In my opinion, it would be folly to depart from the current norm, which is to treat each patient as an individual, on a case by case basis, rather than trying to lump them into an arbitrary funding category or rigid treatment protocol. What these changes could do for my patients is deeply concerning to me and I urge these representatives to reconsider their impending action."66
Bill 53, the Insurance Amendment Act 2003 (No. 2), subsumed Bill 33, the proposed legislation introduced but not passed in the spring sitting. Bill 53 was rushed through all three readings and royal assent between November 24 - December 4, 2003. In the legislature, Premier Klein explained, "Where the discrepancy lies is in the extraordinary amount that young drivers with good driving records are paying and older drivers are paying and also as it relates to younger drivers, young males in particular. What we want to do is deal with that complaint mostly."67 Finance Minister Nelson added, "We have not taken access to the courts away from anyone that's involved in an automobile accident. What we have done, though, is put a cap on for what we call minor strains and sprains, and we've put that in place to do a number of things. One is to keep costs down but also to process claims on a quicker basis."68
In fact, Bill 53 was for the most part a piece of enabling legislation with scant content, designed to allow the Finance Minister to pass the actual details of auto insurance reforms relating to "minor" injuries in subsequent regulations when and as she deemed appropriate, in consultation with her cabinet colleagues.69 With the passage of Bill 53, section 650.1 of the Insurance Act now says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council (effectively the responsible Minister with approval of cabinet) may make regulations defining what constitutes a "minor" auto accident injury and capping (or limiting by way of a deductible) non-pecuniary damages compensation for minor injuries.70
The government's tactic, of passing skeleton legislation and leaving the flesh to regulations that can be formulated and passed without debate and behind closed doors, attracted criticism from perhaps an unlikely source. On December 15, 2003, Thompson's Insurance News reported that it had obtained a copy of a "strongly-worded" letter from Dominion Insurance CEO George Cooke to the Alberta government. The letter expressed doubt that most Albertans would see rate reprieve as a result of the insurance reforms. "The letter said also the Bill ought to offend the legislature and hence the people of Alberta. It appears to transfer all the authority for reform to cabinet, deferring accountability to a future time."71
Arguably, the government's reaction to Mr. Cooke's letter was illustrative of its general attentiveness to insurer concerns. According to Finance Minister Nelson, "On November 5 Mr. Cooke did in fact write to the Premier. We responded. On November 11 the Deputy Minister of Finance along with the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance met with Mr. Cooke and the other Insurance Bureau of Canada representatives in Toronto. On November 25 there was a letter from Mr. Cooke that went to the Deputy Minister of Finance. On November 27 the Deputy Minister of Finance and the assistant deputy met with Mr. Cooke and, again, other IBC representatives in Toronto. On December 11 and 12, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the ADM of Finance met with Mr. Cooke again in Toronto. On December 16 the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance met with the IBC representatives. On December 19 I personally met with the IBC representatives."72
