Opinion

Let's Harness ICBC's Great Success

Rebates? Small thinking. How better to invest all that profit?

By Will McMartin, 3 Nov 2005, TheTyee.ca

ICBC_Logo

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

ICBC is giving it away.

After reporting net income of $390 million in 2004, the publicly-owned Insurance Corporation of British Columbia mailed rebate cheques totaling $100 million to provincial motorists in September. It was the third such repayment by ICBC in recent years, following the distribution of $47 million and $218.5 million in 'road safety dividends' in 1998 and 2000, respectively.

Despite those sizeable rebates, ICBC's balance sheet still shows retained earnings of $925 million. Clearly, the Crown corporation is a very profitable entity. Indeed, an analysis of ICBC's annual reports from 1985 to 2004 - when B.C. was governed by Social Credit, the New Democratic Party and the BC Liberals - shows that the company had net income in 15 of the past 20 years.

Yet, the Consumer's Association of Canada reported this summer that ICBC's insurance rates - that is, the average premiums paid by B.C. policy holders - are 45% below those for Ontario drivers and about 30% less than what Albertan motorists pay. In those two provinces, automobile insurance is provided by the private sector.

This seems a conundrum. On the one hand, ICBC has an enviable record of profitability and is sitting on a pile of cash totaling nearly one billion dollars. On the other, ICBC's rates are lower than those levied by private insurers. How can a publicly-owned company enjoy such manifest profitability while charging below-market premiums?

But perhaps a second question also should be asked. That is, is there a better use for the Crown corporation's ongoing profits, instead of being rebated to drivers who already enjoy lower-than-market premiums or left sitting on the balance sheet?

Put another way, could ICBC's profits be put to a better use for its shareholders, the 4.2 million people who call British Columbia home?

Buffett explains the insurance biz

Let's consult Warren Buffett, the folksy American investment guru known as the 'Oracle of Omaha.' According to Fortune magazine, Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway, last year was the United States' 12th largest corporation, with annual revenues pegged at $74.4 billion. Buffett clearly knows something about business.

And as he makes clear in an annual letter to his shareholders, "Our main business - though we have others of great importance - is insurance." Berkshire Hathaway has extensive insurance and re-insurance operations, including one entity not dissimilar to ICBC: GEICO, which targets drivers through extensive advertising and direct mail campaigns.

Buffett likes to explain that insurance is unlike nearly every other kind of commercial enterprise. That's because most businesses expend a considerable amount of cash before they generate revenues from the sale of their products or services.

Consider a shirt-maker, for example. The manufacturer must purchase raw materials (fabric, thread and buttons), pay wages and benefits to employees; rent or purchase premises where the employees will work, as well as tools and machinery; pay for utilities such as power, heat and light; package and ship the shirts to a retail outlet; and conduct an advertising or promotional campaign to create consumer demand. If it all works out, the shirts will find favour with the buying public and eventually the retailer will send a portion of the proceeds back to the manufacturer.

The entire process may take weeks, months or longer. And because there is a lag between outlay and income, the shirt-maker must finance operations either from savings or, more likely, by borrowing the necessary funds. And this adds yet another cost item to the manufacturing process: interest expense.

The above is true for nearly every kind of business. Interest must be paid on monies borrowed to cover the lag between outlays and income (or, foregone on re-invested profits).

But the process is reversed for insurance companies: income precedes their largest outlay. Initially, policy-holders make premium payments to an insurance company; it is only later, after a claim is approved, that the insurer will expend monies to cover the approved claims. Between the time when premiums are received and when claims are paid, the insurance company earns interest on the monies it holds.

Simply, most businesses pay interest expense on borrowed monies. Insurance companies, however, earn interest on premium revenues held - which Buffett calls 'float' - until they pay claims.

"Float is money we hold, but don't own," he explains. "In an insurance operation, float arises because premiums are received before losses are paid, an interval that sometimes extends over many years. During that time, the insurer invests the money."

Over the past two decades, ICBC has generated $38.5 billion in 'premium income' from B.C. motorists. On top of that, it realized another $6.5 billion in 'investment income,' which is the interest on float. Total revenue from both sources - premiums and interest - was about $45 billion.

Not all gravy

But there is a catch. "This pleasant activity," says Buffett of generating float to earn investment income, "typically carries with it a downside. The premiums that an insurer takes in usually do not cover the losses and expenses it eventually must pay. That leaves it running an 'underwriting loss,' which is the cost of float."

Simply, an insurance company incurs many costs in the course of conducting its business. These include advertising to build consumer demand, a sales force to sell its policies and analysts to approve or reject claims submitted by policy-holders. Plus, there are numerous administrative expenses. Taxes must be paid. And finally, the biggest expense of all, the payment of approved claims.

These costs - operating expenses plus claims payments - usually exceed premium revenue. The result, as Buffett says, is an 'underwriting loss.' And the only way to make up this shortfall and generate a profit is with 'investment income' - which is the interest earned on the float.

ICBC's profits come from interest on 'float'. It breaks down this way:

As mentioned earlier, ICBC's premium income over the past two decades totaled $38.5 billion. But the company also incurred approximately $11 billion in operating costs and paid another $33 billion in approved claims.

Total expenses were $44 billion or $5.5 billion more than the $38.5 billion in premium income. This resulted in what Buffett describes as typical for insurance companies: an 'underwriting loss.'

But when ICBC's investment income of $6.5 billion is added to the picture, the $5.5 billion deficiency is transformed into a profit of about $1 billion. (The cumulative total of profits, minus losses, over the past two decades was $943 million, and as mentioned earlier, retained earnings are $925 million.)

Lower costs, lower premiums

ICBC seems pretty typical of most insurance companies. But what about those low premiums paid by B.C. drivers? The answer is that ICBC has lower costs than private firms.

Since it enjoys a monopoly on 'basic' automobile insurance in B.C., the Crown corporation does not need to expend large sums on advertising to attract customers. And because it is owned by the B.C. government, ICBC pays neither federal nor provincial taxes (with the exception of insurance-premium taxes to Victoria).

With lower operating costs than private insurers, ICBC therefore has a lower 'operating loss,' and so can charge lower premiums. ICBC's low rates and profitability benefit countless British Columbians.

The average B.C. motorist, according to the Consumers' Association's study, pays $1,324 for insurance annually. That's $390 less than what Albertans pay and a whopping $1,059 less than Ontario drivers. B.C. businesses benefit in two ways: first, their employees' wage and salary demands are dampened by lower-than-market auto-insurance costs; and second, their own fleet insurance and transportation costs are lower than those faced by competitors in other provinces.

The provincial government also benefits from ICBC's profitability. First, because Victoria has adopted generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), which includes Crown corporations in the province's bottom line, ICBC's retained-earnings reduce B.C.'s total debt. Second, the Crown corporation's annual operating profits help to boost provincial revenues, thereby contributing to a 'balanced' or surplus budget. And third, ICBC collects more than $400 million annually in fines and revenue for the province and operates 'Road Safety programs,' at no cost to Victoria! (The $100 million-plus annual cost of these activities is paid by ICBC.)

Critics criticize

Still, ICBC has many critics. The Consumers' Association of Canada claims that the Crown corporation's already-low premiums ought to be slashed even further. But not only would that jeopardize the company's financial health, it would put more motorists on the road as driving costs were reduced. The provincial government would have a less-profitable Crown corporation and face rising road construction and maintenance costs.

Private insurers continually bemoan ICBC's basic auto-insurance monopoly, saying they cannot compete with a publicly-owned entity. Yet, it must be remembered that a free market is one where consumers can walk away without purchasing a good or service if they do not like the offered price. That option does not exist with automobile insurance because the government, by law, requires motorists to buy coverage before getting behind the wheel.

This legal requirement distorts the insurance market at least as much as the presence of a publicly-owned corporation. As well, it would be perverse for a government to require its citizens to purchase something without ensuring that it was available at the lowest-possible price.

Could ICBC be more than it is?

Perhaps there is a different way to view ICBC. Forget about reducing rates even further. Quit sending rebates to policy-holders. Ignore demands to privatize the Crown corporation.

Instead, why not utilize ICBC's ongoing profits for all British Columbians?

The reason Warren Buffett is so well known is that he took steady, if unspectacular, profits from Berkshire Hathaways's insurance operations and built sizeable equity positions in companies including American Express, Coca-Cola, Gillette, H&R Block, Moody's, The Washington Post Company and Wells Fargo, among several others.

He also owns outright numerous smaller companies in such disparate fields as shoe-manufacturing, furniture-retailing, building products, jewelry, energy, flight simulators, jet-leasing and candy, plus such well-known consumer brands as Dairy Queen and Fruit of the Loom, and much, much more.

Is it time that British Columbians quit complaining about ICBC and instead thought about its commercial potential?

Put another way, what would Warren Buffett do if he owned ICBC? He'd invest.

With ICBC being a public insurance company, the question, therefore, falls to you, me and the rest of British Columbians. Where should we be investing all those hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the long-term betterment of British Columbians?

Political analyst Will McMartin writes a regular column for The Tyee. [Tyee]

116 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    Comments on "Let's Harness ICBC's Great Success"

    Good article Will, I like your research and have a few points to make to all the ICBC naysayer's.

    I grew up in Ont private insurance land, I have never met anyone who says they love their auto insurer, never. And competition my butt, just like the gas prices all the companies either The Co Operators or State Farm etc, they all standardize their prices , you cannot get big savings anywhere.

    Plus when you have an accident in Ont, its your lawyers and witnesses and insurance company vs their lawyers and insurance company. It's a big mess every time, I know folks that have been wrapped up in court for yrs now.

    In short ICBC rocks, as Will has pointed out the profit margins are huge, this would also be true of private investors but the difference is the profits stay in BC and the jobs stay in BC, the money is not shipped out to some head office and shareholders in Chicago or NY.

    And my coverage in BC is top notch and cheaper, but ICBC is a very scary entity for allot of folks and I'll tell you why.

    It challenges and disproves the fact that governments should stay out of the market and that private companies always do things better, as Will has pointed out ICBC is a very efficient corporation owned by us. Also over the weekend they reported that BC Liquor stores are the 2nd largest cash cow for the gov as far as tax revenue. You see right
    wingers hate good news stories that disprove their narrow view of how the market works and what makes it successful,

    Not only is ICBC successful but we are in the driving seat( pardon the pun) we can can choose to invest and do great things with the profits but my latter reasons apply here. The last thing the gov wants to do is awaken folks and start a trend re nationalizing companies that do not behave in a ethical way for the public good( Telus comes to mind)

    Some ideas for ICBC revenue - Low income housing, build low income housing in the downtown eastside, invest in real estate and solve this issue once and for all, how many years do they need to redevelop Woolworths.

    2) They just closed Labatt's in New West, why in the world do we need outsiders to give us jobs, the plant is sitting empty now. Buy it back and rehire the workers and rebrand the product, we are smart enough to make beer
    and we already have the distribution lines in place.

    3) Buy out Telus and have BC Tel back, takeover or buyout the BC shareholders, get the Alberta red necks out of here.
    4) Buy the New sea port in their building in Prince Rupert, why have some US company from NJ do what we can do ourselves.
    5) Buy up Teresen gas, why give it to US kinder Morgan, anyway the list could go on, but like I said the last thing the gov needs is ICBC taking a bigger role and having
    a better public image.

  • burner

    6 years ago

    very interesting.

    personally, i feel there should be more controls over icbc.

    the idea to raise rates to the levels in other parts of canada, is exposed as a cash grab.

    icbc needs a social conscience.

    by the way, stuart, there is no appreciable difference beween telus and bc tel.
    as you admit to being from ontario, you may have missed the years of sociopathic rule that bc tel enjoyed.

    their official policy was 'do you want a phone, or not?' it was said with a sneer.

    some of your other thoughts are good, tho.

    first we need a govt that wants to do good for the citizens, to replace the one that worships gold.

  • Martin

    6 years ago

    I am a naysayer for several reasons.

    1. The Consumers Association survey was a crock. What they did, was compare ICBC's rates, with the **average** rate charged by other companies for classes of insurance. But real people don't buy insurance using averages. They almost always purchase at the **lowest** rate. In those instances, ICBC's rate was usually higher than the lowest rate.
    This makes sense: Insurance companies often set rates to indicate what kind of business they prefer. They often overprice a type of service if they really don't want to service that kind of customer (example: bad drivers or inexperienced drivers).

    2. Every year I shop around when buying my supplemental insurance. Every year, a private insurer is cheaper. This year, I saved $280 by buying Canadian Direct over ICBC. I'm always amazed when people don't shop around when there's competition. You'd have to be a moron to pay extra for a comparable product, simply out of political correctness.

    3. The fact that there is competition in supplemental insurance demonstrates the basic economic law that competition always enhances consumer choice. When ICBC had a monopoly on everything, we were all worse off.

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    Sorry Martin but the competition theory is a myth.

    No one in Ont is signing the joys of private insurance, in fact quite the opposite. What the insurance companies do is crème of the good drivers and shaft the rest, they also discriminate. My first time policy was outrageous expensive when I purchased my first car, I was a responsible young driver with a small family, but the insurer does not care , they basically put me into the young male category and explained that because of my age and gender I was high risk. Nice . Also Martin not everything is about price, private insurers are accountable to no one but their shareholders, if they shaft you its good for business. ICBC keeps jobs and profit in BC bottom line, their is a lobby of private firms that are licking their lips to get in here
    and transfer the profits out. No one can touch my insurance rates at the moment.

    Its like buying gas when you deal with private insurance, you can drive across town to Petro
    Canada to save a penny sometimes. Also with private insurers they can tell you to get lost.
    Why in the world would anyone advocate such a profitable company be broken up,

    P.S I say Telus could be taken over via ICBC , forget the old BC Tel, make a new company, one with ethics. We used to have very affordable regional companies like Kooteney Tel. I say ICBC use its profits to do good things in the community and invest in local business ventures as my above post.

  • Working Man

    6 years ago

    Be careful on how rates are actually calculated. In my case, I would actually pay less in Alberta than in BC, the reason being my demographics. You see, a 20 year old with a muscle car can actually get insured in BC while in Alberta he would not.

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    Put ICBC profits into public health care targeted at new nurses and reducing waiting times. Can you image the trend coast to coast, hey see what BC has done etc, In fact many yrs ago Ont tried to start a public insurance
    like ICBC but the private companies were going to sue threw NAFTA and the gov backed off. Yep the Ont government did not have the democratic right to make that decision.

    Hey I have an idea We have 5 national banks in Canada each made 12 billion plus net income.

    That's 60 billion raped from the Canadian Taxpayer, we also have a Bank Of Canada that the gov used for loans etc, why not have one Bank, The Bank Of Canada, that's 60 billion in our pockets.

    Oh sorry, don't want to get our hands on that money. Other nations may think we're pinko's if we interfere with the banking industry.

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    "You see, a 20 year old with a muscle car can actually get insured in BC while in Alberta he would not"

    What about a 20 yr old with a regular car, should he pay more to. I don't think agism and sexism should be company policy

  • Davey-boy

    6 years ago

    Just for the record,

    Years ago, I shopped around for the optional portion of my auto insurance, and found Canadian Direct a little cheaper.

    Then I renewed with them for a few years, not bothering to check around.

    Last year, I checked ICBC's prices again, and they were lower than Canadian Direct's, so I switched back.

    Go figure.

  • moodyguy

    6 years ago

    I have lived in Alberta ( private ins), Manitoba (ICBC like MPIC) and I am continually amazed with the idea that many people in BC have that everythging works better, is cheaper etc. just over the mountains.

    Excellent article Will, and a solid explanation why ICBC (and also MPIC) work in this industry.

    I ponder this as I hear of another derailment on the CN (former BC rail line) and of Ferries not working (again). If there is a profit motive in a public service, there must be regulation, oversight and parameters to insure that the service operates and operates fairly in the pubblic interest. Although some of this regulation is nominally in place, it seems not to be either insufficient or ineffective in the case of both the former BC rail and our profit driven non-government (though still gov't owned) ferry system. Neither of these operate under anything like the on-going scrutiny (& accountability) of ICBC. Maybe they should or else the "service" they provide should not have been moved to the private sector.

  • Working Man

    6 years ago

    I don't think agism and sexism should be company policy

    It is all about relative risk, something every insurance company does, including ICBC

  • Ron Erwin

    6 years ago

    Let's hold on here for a minute. The only reason I can tolerate ICBC is because they do not raise money for general revenue. The minute money is taken out of ICBC for general revenue they are dead. I hope you realize this.
    Dead , dead, dead.

  • ubiquitous

    6 years ago

    Ron, Why?

  • Will

    6 years ago

    Ron: There was nothing in article about putting profits into 'general revenue.' Where did you get that idea?

    Besides, what do you think ought to be done with ICBC's on-going profits? Hoarded on the balance sheet? Returned to customers as rebates? Given to ICBC's managers and employees as bonuses? Or put to work on behalf of the Crown corporation's shareholders? (That is, us.) Will

  • Ron Erwin

    6 years ago

    REturned to customers as rebates or lower the premiums. Doesn't anyone realize how risky ICBC's existence is ? It would be within the mandate of this govt. to have a private insurance system. I subsidise young drivers big time. Let's leave a dead dog lie.

  • chuckstraight

    6 years ago

    The mandate of the BC gov`t appears to be sell to the US everthing that is publicly owned, so as long as Campbell is in power, watch out. I am old enough to remember BC before ICBC, and ICBC is better. Why is it that if we favour publicly owned or even locally owned some label us as "pinkos"?

  • Martin

    6 years ago

    Davey-Boy, you demonstrated my point exactly.

    Competition promotes choice, and you had the freedom to make the best economical decision for yourself.

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Hold on a second! Do we have any insurance people out there! The Consummer Association of Canada quotes the Average, the AVERAGE!!!
    For the average driver with a clean record and no demerits the insurance in Alberta is about half of what it is here in the lower mainland. So lets be sure we are crystal clear on that point. The private insurers do not give new drivers these same sweet rates as here, nor do they disregard traffic violations. If you have moving violations you are a greater risk, you should pay more, and you do, but not here. ICBC has the road star program for discounts but they don't consider age and demerits and families with occasional drivers etc. On average the rates are lower, but for you and me with road star discounts we pay twice as much as the same person in Alberta. Just thought I would point that out before you all run off and spend all that ICBC booty! Don't take my word for it call your insurance agency.

  • cobbeth

    6 years ago

    It is absolutely ridiculous to propose giving ICBC a mandate to make "investments" outside their core expertise of insurance.

    At any rate, I'm not sure what kind of investments Mr. McMartin is supposing.

    Investments to make more profit? If so, he should know that business minds like Warren Buffett's don't grow on trees. It's not as simple as saying, "Here's some money. Go make some more."

    Or is he supposing investments in the province, like low-income housing, daycare, etc.? If so, how would that be any different than a tax?

    I don't pay car insurance so that I can trust other people to invest part of my payment. The corporation should be run as a non-profit enterprise with all profits being rebated to its customers for them to do with it as they please. Like perhaps invest in British Columbia. But only if they want to.

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    ...Just so you don't think I'm against ICBC... If it works leave it alone. I'll pay a little extra for the new drivers, but they need to pay more too until they establish credibility, or you nail them when they have an accident within their first 3 years. Good incentive to drive with due care and attention. Then when it's time for rebates...right here baby...right in the roadstars pockets. Incentive to drive safe again. Then guess what? In a few years of safer driving the claims go down. Now you just have to deal with the fraudulent claims! Then the insurance is there for what it was intended, accidents. Not to line corporate pockets.

    Even though I've had one miserable experience with ICBC, I still think we are on the right track. So it needs some fine tuning, what doesn't?

  • Mel from Calgary

    6 years ago

    Private sector auto insurance in alberta is no joy. Recently they did a major change to my insurance, I was at a rate where if I had a my fault accident, my rates would not go up. I recently got married and when I added him to the insurance they changed the status because he did not have insurance in the last 5 years. They didn't just apply it to him they took it away from me and the rates went up 50%. The clerk could not explain why I lost my status.

    Even though I have the "choice" to go to another insurance company they all have the same rules and prices. It is like you can choose to go to Esso or PetroCan but you are not going to save money.

    Choice for choice sake is not a plus.

    If you like car insurance you will love health insurance.

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    The basic premise is that ICBC is making big bucks and giving us competitive rates.
    What's the problem, we have a positive choice, give back the surplus or use the money for
    other things that we need. AKA health care, social housing. We could do remarkable things
    if we were creative. The problem is that the political will is lacking, it will be harder to
    privatize ICBC and reward your friends when the public sees ICBC as good for everyone
    and truly beneficial. Listen folks , profits are good news, but better news when they
    belong to us and not some shareholder in a nice brownstone in Manhattan.

    Or should we just keep the status quo and wine for more social spending from governments
    and hope their nice, we should be advocating for that public money. Or are we only for
    investments when their outsiders like those good Texans from Kinder Morgan. We should
    use good government tax generators' to prop up our communities. Anyway, just
    my 2 cents. Let all those right wingers grind their teeth as the trend catches on, us the
    public being the shareholders.

  • allan

    6 years ago

    cobbeth, there is absolutely no reason for ICBC to put its money into investments outside its core area of expertice, as you say.

    After all , we want ICBC to be watching the ball they are paid to play with, right?

    Instead, as all Crown agencies are expected to do, when revenues exceed costs on a continual basis, funds should be passed on to the
    government for long term investment and long term protection against calamities etc.

    In that light, why not social housing, more access to healthcare and other things that Stuart mentions?

    ICBC is as much a peoples' agency as any within the province, suggesting to me, it's the perfect model for reinvesting the savings created by our improved driving habits.

    Those are "the peoples" profits.

  • Jeeves

    6 years ago

    Jeeves:

    Campbell wanted to privatize the company in 2001, so he hired Nick Geer - a Jim Pattison man to break it down. Geer went in and realized it was well run and he just had to tighten things up a bit. Imagine a Pattison man liking what he sees in a public company!

    Geer was then ousted by Campbell because he liked the way ICBC was run so much that he didnt want to give any market share up for political gain. Why do it if BC drivers are the ones benefiting?

    Campbell didn't like that. It made too much sense. It just couldnt be true. ICBC and it's employees doing things right? Get rid of Geer.

    Campbell then parachuted in Paul Taylor from the Treasury dept. of the government after an "exhaustive coast to coast search". Slowly Campbell will try to give marketshare back to the private insurance companies because they helped bankroll his campaign and they want payback.

    Of course people like Ron Erwin will say that is for the better. Look at Maximus and CN Rail - how could you argue with him ?

  • cobbeth

    6 years ago

    Hey Allan,

    Obviously ICBC needs to keep a float in case of some calamity that results in them paying out a whole load of claims. They have formulas to figure out how much they need to keep on hand. But that's not what you're talking about I don't think.

    My point is that if ICBC is to remain a Crown corporation, and I will assume that is a given at the moment, I still don't think they have the right to plow the profits they're making off drivers to fund non-driver-related projects (like social housing). Because isn't that just a sideways approach to taxing a certain segment? (Drivers being the tax base, in this case.)

    If the province as a whole feels the need for more social housing, all citizens should be forced to ante up and pay the bill equally.

  • gomer

    6 years ago

    my daughter moved to Edmonton 3 years ago and her experience with auto insurance was an eye opener. She was 21, been driving for 4 years, no accidents, no infractions, same car(92 Nissan). Her insurance in BC was $980.00. When she went to insure in Alberta the same coverage was $3600.00. She was able to negotiate that down to $2800 but, and this is important, the coverage was very minimal. My point is, when comparing car insurance between provinces make sure you are comparing apples to apples. Using terms like "average" is misleading unless you define average. As a test, I filled out an online car insurance request in Edmonton for my 86 toyota. Two insurers wouldn't insure it...too old. The one that would wanted $300 more for minimal coverage than what I pay here. The more coverage I added the higher the cost went exponentially.
    to clubofrome...go back and study the icbc website. New drivers are significantly penalized in BC for several years with programs in place to take away their right to drive if they prove unsafe.

  • Ron Erwin

    6 years ago

    gomer, you are supporting the argument that we do subsidise young drivers to a huge extent.
    You should know that if this information was ever explained to the general population they would soon realise that the rates of a safe driver over a certain age would be much less than it is now if we didn't support young drivers.
    Anyone who wanys to poke the fire and stir it up about ICBC is playing a dangerous game.
    Any thought of profits going into social programs is stupid. It would take legislation for this to happen. Go ahead and try to do this and see how fast private insurance would be the only game in town. I know I would pay less.

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    to gomer... Thats exactly what I said! Read the posting again. Your daughter is a relatively new driver, it takes about 8 years for the insurance to come down, depending on the record of course. The $980 she is paying here compared to $2800 there, is a sweet deal! I'm in my 40's, a road star with the highest discount and I'm paying as much as your daughter! (1991 Civic) Your story doesn't add up.

    I think it's OK to share in the costs, the average, to help the new drivers. But when they screw up it should cost them and increase expontntially every repeat until they lose the priveledge. The insurance numbers are also inflated right now but they are coming down. Can't insure a 1986 Toyota? Sounds fishy to me. She was able to "negotiate" $800 off her car insurance? Since when did they start negotiating insurance premiums over the counter? That's not the Albeta I lived in. But then again I lived in Calgary and we don't trust Edmonton!

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Ron!!! What a coincidence!! It's Friday, shall we meet a the safe injection site again, say 2pm?

  • burner

    6 years ago

    gorddumb campbell has obviously never heard of the goose that laid the golden eggs.

    icbc is a well established govt entity that lays golden eggs for the citizens of bc. (established by the ndp, and villified by the opposition socreds - now lieberals, icbc is wealthy and healthy)

    how would dumbbell replace the $900m, without sticking his hands into our pockets?

    it would mean we would pay twice for auto insurance.

    once to the new and more expensive owners, and once more as the lieberals pick everything but the lint from our pockets.

    there will be tax breaks given to whichever of gordo's friends buy icbc.

    this should be obvious to someone who has an mba.

    in fact, should someone who has an mba have some ideas to create govt entities that make a profit, instead of creating situations that cost the taxpayer?

    i notice that alberta has not sold off the rights to their cash cow. they are the richest province, by far. they have had the most stable provincial govt, by far.

    is there a connection between the success of the klein govt and the $ from oil?

  • cobbeth

    6 years ago

    Burner, geese that lay golden eggs create something out of nothing. ICBC makes its money off British Columbians.

    But I liked the way you turned the name Gordon Campbell into "Gorddumb Dumbbell". Do I have your permission to use that one? I'm sure it'll bring the house down when I do.

  • burner

    6 years ago

    cobbeth

    icbc is a tax base.

    the govt is constantly adding tax to anyone who uses any type of transportation.

    car users are taxed extra to pay for busses, and they raise tho cost for bus passengers, too.

    icbc has been amagalmated with the motor vehicle branch, and now if you owe fines, they withold your license and insurance, until you pay.

    they also pay for overtime for police roadblocks, in order to protect their bottom line.

    impaired charges result in fines, impound fees, revokation of safe driver discount for years, and supposedly unsave drivers are removed from the pool of drivers on the road, adding to the savings of icbc.(i personally know many convicted of impaired driving, and almost every one of them drove while suspended, so they are not all removed from the road, some drive illegally and without insurance.)

    you have no choice, but to insure at least half of your coverage from icbc, if you drive.

    read this article closely.

    the obvious theme is that insurance companies get a lot of money to invest, up front.

    with prudent investment, financial success should be a lot easier than starting a different business.

    there are over 900 million reasons to keep icbc.

  • cobbeth

    6 years ago

    Burner,

    You say, "They also pay for overtime for police roadblocks, in order to protect their bottom line." So that's a business decision, nothing to do with funding non-business related projects.

    You say "The govt is constantly adding tax to anyone who uses any type of transportation...
    car users are taxed extra to pay for busses" Is that money coming out of ICBC profits? (Seriously, is it?) Or is it by other means? Just because govt taxes us in other ways doesn't mean we should accept that they're taxing us through auto insurance.

    You say, "the obvious theme is that insurance companies get a lot of money to invest, up front." Great, and if they were a private company I would expect them to invest that money wisely in order to make themselves more competitive in the marketplace by giving themselves the ability to charge cheaper rates. Or, if they were making money and still charging high rates, I'd probably just buy shares in the company! (But I probably wouldn't use them if they were charging me higher rates to fund projects like social housing , projects that don't put money in my pocket - not because I don't support providing social housing through traditional taxation, but because that's not the company's purpose.)

    Finally, you say, "with prudent investment, financial success should be a lot easier than starting a different business."

    Since when has the government ever been prudent in investment? If ICBC is truly "for the people", they shouldn't be appropriating the people's excess float from them. They should be returning it to the people for them to invest as they so choose. Because the people can find more capable investment advisors than the government.

  • burner

    6 years ago

    cobeth

    feel free to use anything i say that describes gordo truthfully.

    do not worry about insulting him, as you cannot insult someone with no feelings.

    another good one i read here the other day is campbull.

    during the teacher dispute, it should have been campbully.

    and since icbc is mandatory for all drivers, has no competition for govt fleet business, and therefore can charge however much or little, in order to fit the books, it does create something out of nothing.
    if they feel they havenot gotten enough, they raise the rates for next year.

    (like the farmer, the govt allows us to feed ourselves, but like the goose, we do all the work, and the govt just takes their 'share', and would slay us all in a trice, if they thought they would find gold in our bellies.)

    in fact, when you drive for 20 years without a claim against icbc, have you not actually subsidized everyone who has had a successful claim?

    all you have gotten for your $ is a sticker for your plate.

    i think insurance costs shoould be based on merit, alone.

    proven bad drivers should have to pay lots - enough to cover the costs of bad driving.
    many should simply lose the right to drive.

    responsibility should be a priority.

    driving should be regarded as a priviledge that you can lose the right to have.

    yes, this will be impossible to police - like locked doors only keep out those who would not enter anyways.

    there are limited way to keep someone from driving illegally, if they so choose.

    i can think of two or three off hand, but they would be more likely to be used in places like iraq, or china, so i won't mention them out loud. they would never be used here.

    by the way, does anyone know if gordrunk has his license back?

    did he have to do a defensive drunk driving course?

    or is he still chauffeured by a squad of rcmp, minium pay $60k / constable, more for supervisors?

    and how do they feel, as trained public servants, and crimefighters, about driving around a convict?

  • burner

    6 years ago

    cobbeth

    Quote:
    Since when has the government ever been prudent in investment? If ICBC is truly "for the people", they shouldn't be appropriating the people's excess float from them. They should be returning it to the people for them to invest as they so choose. Because the people can find more capable investment advisors than the government.

    strangely, icbc has been run unusually well for a govt entity.

    i agree fully that icbc profits should be put into genral revenue, and spent on what bc-ers need.

    of course, they would have to keep a sizeable float to cover emergencies, but they have $900m now, so there is some room to invest back into bc.

    when i say icbc is a tax base, i mean they get all of their $ because they have a monoply.

    just like your employer deducts taxes from your wages.

    gasoline taxes were raised to help pay for busses. this comes from those who are not served well enough by public transportation to use it themselves.

    but they already pay taxes that are supposed to go for public transportation, and infrastructure.

    if they were not as inept as you have pointed out, they could have kept up with the problem, instead of waiting until they had to do something instantly, in the interest of safety, and avoidance of lawsuits, due to inaction.

    funding roadblocks is a business decision, but no other businesses make this contribution or effort. it is a valid tax expense.

    but they are doing it with tax $, and the $900m profits are after everything has been paid.

    since this business is so healthy, i think we should keep it.

    it will be way cheaper than selling it.

  • Ron Erwin

    6 years ago

    Burner, Gordon Cambpell does not have a criminal record as he was charged with a misdimeanor not a felony, you do know the difference don't you ? And as far as the RCMP protection goes, with screwballs like you out there with so much hate and fury over the frustration at being a loser, I would think he should double it.

  • chuckstraight

    6 years ago

    Apparently Mr. Campbell had doubles at the Latremouilles on that infamous evening. Is that waht you mean Ron?

  • gomer

    6 years ago

    clubofrome...you paid 2800 for 91 civic!! and you have roadstar...that doesn't add up. If you mean the 980(remember it was 2001) then realize she had build up a 4 yr discount by then. I believe I paid 640 total that year. My ICBC insurance for this year is 765 and I carry collision and comp. on that.(according to your first post, I would be paying $400.00 or less in Alberta...now that's fishy!)
    Negotiate doesn't mean...here's a 20 take off 800 bucks...it means, she negotiated less coverage than she had in BC to lower the premium to 2800
    AS far as ICBC subsidizing a new driver, I think that was truer ten years ago than it is now. ICBC has evolved. A new driver pays the "base" rate. For several years after they must "earn" by driving safely, subsequent discounts. Also there are many consequences in place to discourage bad drivers both new and old. I do not dispute that in all kinds of insurance we subsidize the less careful...this includes the new drivers under ICBC...but it also includes old drivers, drunk drivers, stoned drivers, cell phone talkers, yada yada

  • Ron Erwin

    6 years ago

    chuckstraight, how do you know, were you there ? or are you simply spreading misinformation ? I think I know the answer.

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    I'll speak for myself only this time, so as not to confuse you again.... My rates would be closer to half in Alberta.
    gomer... I pay 87 per month. Here, now. No collision. Driving within 15km to work and unlimited personal use. I am near the top of the discount rate. I repeat, I live in the lower mainland. Try and keep things in context, we may be comparing apples and oranges as you said earlier.
    The point is, selling ICBC to private hands would be a mistake. Even though I may personally gain I would vote against it. Because in the long run we all lose. It doesn't mean the corporation has to do anything more than invest its float in a conservative manner to be successful. I'm sure "Gunkin Hambone" would love to sell it off to his buddies, just so he can say he is part of the gang! They'll swat him aside later just like they did to him in school....

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Good dope eh Ron?

  • Davey-boy

    6 years ago

    1) Ron, you are partly correct. In the U.S., a criminal record generally is thought to mean a felony record. But the reality is that they keep records on misdemeanors as well, and Gordo has one.

    We differentiate crimes in Canada as well, using the terms summary conviction (misdemeanor) and indictable offense (felony). Generally, we consider those with any such convictions to be criminals.

    Interestingly, the Americans consider our summary conviction crimes (misdemeanors) to be serious enough to prevent such people from entering the U.S.

    Not that any of this matters in the big picture. He paid for his crime... well, that one anyway.

  • Davey-boy

    6 years ago

    2) ICBC rates vary considerably across the province, as they should, making iter-provincial comparisons difficult. On the Sunshine Coast, I pay $550 per year for basic, and a couple hundred more for the extras.

    In the Lower Mainland, I would likely pay double that.

  • chuckstraight

    6 years ago

    Ron- judging from the .16 blood alcohol that Campbell blew, I doubt he was drinking singles. Why do you constantly apologize for Campbell. A drunk is a drunk.

  • sdgreen

    6 years ago

    ICBC should be retained as a public entity and not privatized. At the same time, all premiums collected should be used soley for transporation safety programs and to adjust premiums at a lower level.

    The NDP siphoned off ICBCs profits for non-related projects and that crippled the corporation.

  • Jeeves

    6 years ago

    Ron Erwin:

    Once every few months I need to educate you on what a criminal record is. Whether the crime committed is a felony or a misdemeanor, it's still a crime. (Ya with me so far?)

    Once a felony ORmisdemeanor is committed, a crime is committed. (Stay with me here, it's getting complex now).

    If you are guilty of a misdemeanor or felony, you have a criminal record. That's just a fact.

    I've explained this to you ad nauseum but you keep bringing it up. Do some research. Educate yourself.

    I have no problem with your pro-liberal rants as you're likely a staffer in his office. But when you say idiotic things like that, you really lose any credibility you think you might have.

  • Mel from Calgary

    6 years ago

    The U.S. allows people to plead "no-contest" this allows them to commit crime and not have a criminal record.

    In the case of Gordon Campbell even though he legally does not have a criminal record we all know he committed a crime.

    His other failure was when he got back to B.C. and said he was going to take "full responsibility" but pleading "no contest" is not doing this.

    The press lets him get away with this because he matches their ideology. When the press lets politicians off the hook for scandal then the next politician will do worse.

    At least when scandal hit the NDP they resigned jobs they dearly loved. I guess this is too old fashioned a concept.

  • Davey-boy

    6 years ago

    Thank you, Mel.

    You are correct about the "no contest" rule for misdemeanor crime.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Ron
    Once every few months I need to try to educate myself further as to exactly what Campbell did wrong in Maui that would, or could, affect his job as the Premier and I always end up coming to the same damn conclusion, nothing. That's because in BC only the commission of an indictable offence can prevent a person from remaining in office and that folks is a cold hard fact.

    However, here's a sobering after the fact thought - Suppose just for minute, that later on while acting in his public capacity, the Premier committed a regulatory crime that could get him thrown out of office by promising a MAAD and volatile private group that he would meet with them behind closed doors to discuss "strengthening" BC's drunk driving laws (apparently to get them off of his back and keep them from tearing off his private interests)

    Now suppose he actually did make the promise to strengthen the drunk driving laws knowing full well that he couldn't possibly keep it because he's not the lawmaker.

    Perhaps Tyee commenter's would care to discuss the facts of that particular transgression (soft crime) ... Not that any of this matters in the big picture. He paid for his crime... well, that one anyway.

    Over to you my friend clubofrome. We need a legal opinion (no offence) - (and no pun intended)

  • douge

    6 years ago

    Do any of you remember the ICBC commercial of the guy walking around with a beer everywhere he went. Leaving home to go to the office, in his car, in the elevator, at a board meeting,and the punch line was, once convicted of drunk driving it will never leave you nor be forgotten. These commercials only lasted a few turns on the TV. , as they were being aired just before the election and were soon pulled. Anyway thats our Premier Gordo as I see it. Any comment?

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Nope Douge - apparently you missed the point entirely, there are plenty of drunk drivers out there. Including Premier's ( past and present)

  • Dave A

    6 years ago

    An excellent article by Mr. Martin, for sure, but he is eclipsed by the clarity expressed by Stuart, bang on! Why do we have to have foreign investment and takeovers in our socially necessary institutions, that has given us an envious standard of living all these years; I refer to BC Hydro, BC gas, ferries, power transmission, etc. Health care, education funding can all be supplied by the returns from these publicly-owned enterprises. Let's send the New York CEO's packing, and get back to our roots. These are monopolies I can love!

  • Dave A

    6 years ago

    ...and, yes, the telephone service is a publicly necessary utility, let's include them in our program of bringing control back to B.C., and while we are at it come to an agreement with the Telus workers, currently locked out by an avaricious employer who has no scruples about out-sourcing jobs to S.E. Asia.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Yes Dave A. and why not privatize government while were at it, since that's our largest corporation.

  • dononmain

    6 years ago

    Re: ICBC--The real question to me is what am I getting for the money I shelled out all those years. I have been unable to work since last year do to a head injury suffered when I was rear ended.
    I have been recieving $1300 a month to live on. If you get in an accident which renders you unable to work, you will be recieving $1300 a month to live on. Here is a quirky thing. First they made me apply to EI even though I don't work in an industry that contributes to EI. After a year I now have to apply to CPP. So, they are only on the hook for that $1300 for about ten months. They have to pay me for lost wages eventually and they know what that amount roughly is, yet they don't pay it out until the settlement. Luckily, I live a relatively modest lifestyle and although I have a short fall of between $1000 and $1500 a month I have some funds available to keep me afloat for a while. At this point you may want to ask yourself if you do.
    Stuart commented that in Ontario you have to have legal representation because it is one insurer versus another. That with ICBC being the only insurer you are dealing with one entity directly and there is no need to protect yourself. I used to think that too. In fact, I went to the first couple of meetings with an injury adjuster on my own. She contradicted herself more than once and I realized that I was not dealing with a straight shooter. I have since found out that her behaviour is not the exception. Those meetings made me realize that I had to have legal representation.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    It sounds like you've been "rear-ended" more than once ...

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Hey clubofrome! How about stepping away from the sheep for a moment, if you will.

    I have baroached (sic), the subject of the Members Conflict of Interest "Rule of Law" with the Premier several times in the past, but I have yet to hear any church bells ringing. You?

  • Dave A

    6 years ago

    gasworks posted: 2 Hours Ago

    Quote:
    Yes Dave A. and why not privatize government while were at it, since that's our largest corporation.

    It seems to me that that privatizing our resources is becoming more evident day by day with the Liberal wrecking crew in full swing, much to our detriment. Please, don't confuse the issue of privatization with public ownwership. We need people in government who don't have private vested interests, such as academics, workers (heaven forbid!), et al, rather than used car dealers, day traders and Howe Street traders.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Yes Dave A. but I think I've heard it all before ... Anyway thanks for the lesson in elementrick's. (my spelling)

    Got any fresh ideas?

  • Dave A

    6 years ago

    Gasworks:
    Your cynicism is well taken. It's
    understandable that you express it.
    Yes, there is nothing fresh about what
    I have touched upon, but if there is a
    better way of improving the lot of
    working people, then I'm willing to
    listen. Socialist policies throughout
    the world in the past eighty or so
    years, have been temporarily
    side-lined by the onslaught of
    Capital, whom, after all, wish not to
    hear of a threat to their hegemony.
    But, as recent events have shown, at
    the free trade conference in
    Argentina, their policies have flown
    in the face of the desires of
    millions, and are not what they are
    made out to be.We've come a long way, baby, but we've still got a long way to go!

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Holy! Toledo Batman, there goes another wasted graveyard shift.

  • BLONDE PITBULL

    6 years ago

    So, Gasworks, what do you think should be done with the "profits" of ICBC?

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    I dunno? The last time I thought about ICBC was around about the time Bob Williams and his wrecking crew were furiously working the secret trading floor at company headquarters unloading our Nortel Stock. (Around about the same time spin writers Hardy and Pelke were extolling the virtues of a piece of property ICBC had purchased in Surrey.)

    One thing though, I wouldn't hand it off to Peter Brown - that's for sure.

  • douge

    6 years ago

    Quote:
    Holy! Toledo Batman, there goes another wasted graveyard shift.

    The young Libs are sure into their Marvel comics apparently

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    I digress, clearly a waste of time.

  • Elliot

    6 years ago

    maybe we should hand icbc back to the ndp so bob williams can make bad real estate deals and hand out $100 rebates just before the election. NOT!!!! 'bout time this corporation were in good hands. well done gordo.

  • douge

    6 years ago

    I,m surprised he can juggle mai tais and icbc.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Just in case I'm being misunderstood, the point is that liberal politicians don't hold the sole patent on dishonesty.

    goodnight ...

  • Martin

    6 years ago

    Dave A: the Hugo Chavez of British Columbia, as we march toward a workers' paradise.

    Using the lefty logic of Dave's arguments, also on his list must be supermarkets and gas stations. In fact, even Zellers would qualify as he works to prevent that institution falling into the hands of the evil Americans. At which point Dave could re-name it GUM, and we'd have the kind of state he wants to live in.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    What a pleasant surprise Martin. - clubofrome couldn't have said it better...

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    Allot of silly comments being made here, sounds like some old neo con arguments of the the past propagated by the CKNW crew. Some folks have that little memory chip and you just have to pull the string to get the sound bites going. Okay just to maybe give a little perspective on the issue.

    Your correct ICBC lost money on the stock market, they invested some surplus and it went to waste. This of course was the best day for the right wing, they could run all over the province talking about this, every failure that ICBC makes is big news for the drooling inside interest trying to get in here. But the fact is EVERYONE lost money in the markets including the insurers out east, they actually raised rates to cover the loss, the entire marketplace took shock therapy via corruption scandals. CIBC just paid a 2.2 billion dollar settlement and so did 3 other Canadian banks. So basically it was private capital corruption
    that causes such loss, no worries thou the old Enron boss will be running our gas company.

    THIS NEWS MAY BE VERY UPSETTING TO SOME WARNING.

    ICBC is a model of success making huge profits while maintaining low rates for the people of BC. It is a publicly owned company paying dividends to the people of BC, it is an example of what can happen when we take control of our own destiny and not wait for others.

    "Dave A: the Hugo Chavez of British Columbia, as we march toward a workers' paradise."

    What a silly comment showing lack of any world events, when the US tried to oust Mr. Chavez via a coup over half a million people took to the streets and he was reinstated. Now ask yourself why so many love him , why
    has he been democratically elected time and time again. He is trying to do things differently, he is nationalizing the oil
    industry and giving the surplus money to citizens to build hospitals and schools etc. His great fault is that he gives a shit, anyway we are to stupid to run our own industries aka our sale of Teresen to Kinder Morgan. (their really smart in Texas)

    We can use the surplus from ICBC to do great things if only the naysayer's would get out of the way .

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    Martin , how can I say this is a nice way. Your an indoctrinated fool, millions have suffered in South and Central America via US military and economic policies. The people of the south are revolting and are will aware of what the FTAA would mean and are not interested. The entire continent is in revolt and the FTAA is dead in the water. 1% of the population is benefiting from he trade deals
    while the rest of the continent drifts in absolute poverty. You can poke fun but the entire continent is going left, even Mexico if they allow the mayor to run in the upcoming election .

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Yawn.......Is that you Canuck666...er gasworks, what's all the comotion about. By the way I gave up sheep, I herd dolphins now...

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    I dunno? Stuart of the left of the left has the stage. - (666 Burrard St. now there's an uptown address.) I'm off to the commode.

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    ...gargoyles over the entrance...

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Ok a fresh idea and than off sailing. Is it possible to kill a corporate criminal by public flogging/blogging? Remember the emails..."don't by gas from Shell this week." Is it even possible to educate the public on something as simple as how to vote with your consummer dollar? If the labour union wants fresh, then I suggest they use something along those lines. Something that says we are in this for all people not just the ones who pay dues.

  • HRW

    6 years ago

    Dear Will,

    ICBC had a Warren Buffett. His name was Bob Williams. One of the things he did as Chair of ICBC was to create ICBC Properties and hire Gordon Smith to run it. The Central City development in Surrey was one of its projects. That development has now been credited as the main factor in the revitalization of that part of Surrey (there are now six residential towers being built nearby). The Liberal government did what they could to sink the development, even though the loss would have been felt by BC's taxpayers. Finance Minister Gary Collins called Central City "landlocked fast ferries". So don't expect the current government to do anything creative or socially beneficial with ICBC's resources.

  • solocanoe

    6 years ago

    Excellent article. So the question is do we turn ICBC into another tax device? Do we let governement raise rates and get re-elected with a record of no tax increases? Do we see rates over the top and apporaching private rates? Do we end up with privates able to compete again with ICBC and then the golden goose loses all its market and thus profit to be invested in health care.

    ICBC is doing well enough just protecting rates and keeping them affordable; keeping profits in BC; eliminating certain kinds of discrimination in the insurance industry and conributing to the greater good in their road safety programs.

    I think that is quite enough and a good reason to keep it going. It ain't broke don't fix it!

    So many are poised to pounce on it and get some of the gold or political advantage. Just plain...BACK AWAY FROM THAT VEHICLE...WE NEED IT AS IS.

  • Steve P

    6 years ago

    Quote:
    car users are taxed extra to pay for busses, and they raise tho cost for bus passengers, too.

    I think you are confusing ICBC with Translink. Translink is the authority responsible for funding roads and transit in the GVRD. Drivers do help pay for transit, but I don't have a problem with this: more transit users mean less drivers on the road, which means less road congestion. It is in drivers' interest to help pay for transit. And besides, I take transit if I'm having a couple of drinks, so even though I drive, I use transit, too.

    Re: ICBC investing surplus funds

    If the article is correct, there is evidence that ICBC is doing an efficient job with providing insurance. This is what they focus on and demonstrate the most competence.

    I grow uneasy when a crown corporation (or any business, really) tries to grow beyond its core competence. This is considerably more risky than expanding upon what a company already does well, and is likely doubly true given the stereotypes about the questionable efficiency of crown corporations.

    So I think ICBC should stick to what it does best and leave the rest to other businesses or government departments.

    HRW: I was under the impression that the Central City development was regarded as a white elephant: beautiful building, but mostly empty and money-losing for the first several years of its existence. Is this still the case? Has Central City's business case turned around, filling it with tenants? Am I wrong on this?

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    The bottom line,

    ICBC is a profitable "publicly run" company that provides good service at low rates.
    Its hard to argue that ICBC is not a well run company. And the big fear out their in the
    business community is that this will become a trend, keeping public run enterprises in the
    public sector, in short private interest hates well run public services, they love to search the country for examples where they can discredit the public sector. Some things happen to de well in the public sector while other things do not. If ICBC was not making a profit their would be an argument that this is a wasted business opportunity and should be privatized, but because it makes money they try and stir resentment on this fact saying rates are high etc.

    ICBC making successful investments would be a nightmare for private money , that kind of
    self determination must be stopped at every level. Money invested in public Transit or housing would be a huge benefit for everyone except the insurance barons Gordo hopes to reward one day.

    Imagine this, Publicly owned commercial land.

    Coquitlam center and surrounding businesses all sit on private property , some billionaire property group determines who gets and in and who does not. Imagine the cash cow for Coquitlam if they owned and collected
    the rents on the property, they city would be rich and could be many things like lower property taxes, fund social programs etc, they could also guide the development of their own city and reduce rents in times of recession.

    One example of what happened in Coquitlam, long time resident Future Shop moved into the mall and let Best Buy take over their space, Best Buy built a new store but decided that they did not have enough parking, they approached the landlord or landowner and made a deal. They decieded to kick out the local community theater so they could bull dose for a new parking lot. They just raised the rent of the theatre until he could not compete. Now thats progress , when interviewed the property company said he had to think of the shareholders first, well if the city owned the land then we would be the shareholders.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    You are a very scary person indeed Stuart. We already own commercial beach front rental property in the Cayman Island's - well at least the taxpayers paid for it, or can't you remember?

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    Whatever Gasworks, you would rather have private interest owning and running the entire show. They have done such a good job so far, managing to lobby and bribe and get into the pockets of politicians of all political stripes, we have seen how moral these companies can be via World Com, Enron, Arthur Anderson etc, (BC Rail ) CIBC, TD Bank, yep more than just a few bad apples, we are letting these unaccountable shareholders make
    decisions that affect us putting themselves first.

    This media, corporations and government are all embedded unto themselves, as Rafe puts it, the establishment has one goal and that is to keep themselves enriched on our current system. How else can you explain gasworks the
    sponsorship scandal, how can such corruption continue for so long, this is just the tip of the ice burgh.

    Changing ones thinking and doing things differently is very scary for many, saying the corporate sector is clean and moral is obscene. We have the money to make the changes we want but the elitist few would hate to lose
    control, this whole scandal happened due to power and insiders, more public involvement would have stopped this years ago. Put another way, we are letting outsiders come in and utilize our resources to enrich themselves on
    our backs, and then we cry when they treat us with no respect.

    One more example Labatt's closes its 90 yr plant in New West and lays off all the workers, they basically expanded
    their London, Ont plant. Now the plant in New West sits empty, all the workers sit on unemployment etc

    Did anyone think that maybe , just maybe we are smart enough to make and market our own Beer, not rocket science. Or are we just morons that cannot make Beer unless Labatt is guiding us, why not purchase the plant and market our own dam beer, we already have the distribution network. All the profits would become BC's and we could rehire all the old Labatt's staff, its only ideology that keeps us immobile, the workers are the ones that made the profit at Labatt's , not some invisible shareholder.

    Scary for some , very scary, exciting for others, its all perspective.

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Six hours in the commode....is that where you got your name?

  • rouge+chartreuse

    6 years ago

    I drive my car only 3 - 4000 km per year. That's something like 15 - 20% of what the average person drives. Why do I pay the same rate as someone who drives 30 - 40,000 km per year, with their 10 times greater risk of having an accident? (Not to mention their greater pollution of the environment).

    Even at a buck a gallon, I pay more in insurance than I pay for fuel. And even with my max discounts I'm still paying around a quarter to ICBC for every km I drive while this other person might pay 0.02. How is that fair?

    Rather than give me some piddling rebate, how about just not having my rates subsidize other drivers? And help accomplish the goal of making people who primarily use fossil fueled dangerous speeding metal toys to get around pay more of the real costs to all of us for that use.

  • RickW

    6 years ago

    Stuart:

    Quote:
    My first time policy was outrageous expensive when I purchased my first car

    I can well understand a company's high charges though, for a "newbie". You'd be an "unknown quantity". However, I also firmly believe that rates for "unblemished" driver's should be reduced in real terms as the years tick by, until they at some point reach zero (say 10 years). However, rates revert to full with an accident, depending on the pecentage of fault assigned.

    I am not a great believer in actuarial tales. They are a rip, and with computers today, not necessary as each driver can be tracked individually.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Yeah! "six hours in(on) the commode". So what clubofrome? that's personal. - but if you just gotta know, it's because it just so happens that I'm smart enough to make my own beer now, but I ain't quite got all the bugs worked out yet...

  • Elliot

    6 years ago

    HRW; Did you, by any chance, major in revisionist history? Or perhaps you're Glennie himself.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    commentor: clubofrome posted: 20 Hours Ago

    Ok a fresh idea and than off sailing. Is it possible to kill a corporate criminal by public flogging/blogging?

    Besides having Gargoyles guarding the entrance against "E6V6I6L" from stealing your peanuts??? - Yes there is clubofrome, and it's a simple solution for sure. Drag the attorney general into it and hand him the whip. After all, he's the minister responsible for the administration of justice in this province and is the chief legal advisor of government to boot. (We are lucky indeed to have a person of his stature who knows a "point or two of law" when he sees one.)

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    The attorney general knows a bit of law, eh? Thats a stroke of luck! You're right about dragging him into it, more like dragged kicking and screaming. Not like their department is about to go looking for work, so what is required is a whistle blower with a few files. I've checked the buy and sell and didn't see any sections for corporate whistle blowers for sale, but we could run a want ad! "Retire now, we'll show you how. Corporate stoolies paid cash for information leading to conviction or Gov fines."
    Lets find someone dumping chemicals into a local waterway that always gets the gander up.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Hmmm... I can see I may have to rephrase the question because I don't appear to be getting through. Unless of course, you are happy with the status quo, (endless rhetoric and no action), or you ended up spending too much time with the sheep?

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    One of my first reactions was to ignore you, mainly for that same reason. You don't seem to be getting through... This is now a chronic problem, and just when I think we may be having a conversation you pull the rug out, again. Is this your Lucy and Charlie Brown routine? No wonder I prefer to spend time with sheep....or dolphins for that matter. They don't yank your chain. So speak or get off the commode...

  • birdstomach

    6 years ago

    Quote:
    when the US tried to oust Mr. Chavez via a coup over half a million people took to the streets and he was reinstated. Now ask yourself why so many love him , why
    has he been democratically elected time and time again.

    Saddam was democratically "elected" much in the same way Mr. Chavez was- the threat of a police state is very powerful. Perhaps his absolute control of all media, human rights violations and violent political repression are the foundations of his people's "love" for him.

    I agree with Stuart's idea of having government produced beer as well. We can then begin the transition towards the full expropriation of all private enterprise to produce goods for the citizens of BC. Perhaps the government can form a central planning committee to decide what to make and how much.

    The worker's paradise is within reach!

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    I'm disappointed you don't get it clubofrome, too many metaphors I suppose. Anyway if you prefer discourse with stuart I will leave it at is. One thing though, out of all of the tyeewriter's I always thought you were the absolute best.

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    Don't be fooled birdstomach, the poor people of Iraq never voted in Saddam, its common knowledge and not talked about very much but the US installed Saddam in a brutal coup, when he was at his worst gassing Kurds in the North Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq selling his the chemical weapons.
    The US loved their wonder boy, he could do no wrong, Saddam is hated and was never voted for
    his dictatorship was built with US support and then the people were forced to rely on him for everything during the brutal sanctions.

    All communists and leftist and intellectuals and political opponents of Saddams were killed or driven into exile after the coup with US support. But don't take my word for it, check out the link for a nice pic of Donald's with his wonder boy in the 80's

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

    The MSM is painting a brutal picture of Chavez , but his only crime is trying to get our from under the brutal free trade agreements and is trying to build an alternative to capitalism. He is using the
    oil resources to built hospitals and schools etc, he is loved by the common man and hated by the elites in his country. Don't be fooled, the entire southern hemisphere is in revolt and we should support them. The US has already tried one failed coup and will keep trying.

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    What about me gasworks, don't you love me to.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Nope! I suspect you're a little like borscht and would take some getting used to ...

  • cyclo

    6 years ago

    ICBC should be more proactive in investing in road safety initiatives, something that jurisdictions with private insurers don't benefit from.

    ICBC partners with local municipalities to fix roads or address unsafe designs. It reduces their exposure to claims and helps the community targeted with some of the problems their citizens face.

    They've been known to fund cycling projects and pedestrian improvements as they are over-represented in trauma accidents (compared to their mode share). Converting people to more sustainable modes helps reduce congestion and complexity in our transportation system, also a benefit for ICBC's bottom line.

    I think under the new Liberal administration, the corporation has been less committed to these strategies. It's in their interest and ours to revitalize those efforts to make our communities safer and reduce their claims costs.

    That's at least where some more of their profits should be going.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    A sensible alternative with the added bonus of not having to overthrow government to get it done. - cost control could be an issue however.

  • Peter Dimitrov

    6 years ago

    Here is my solution - ICBC, like all Crown Corporations, are owned by the Crown, not the people of BC - and the Crown, via one person, namely, the Minister responsible for ICBC, can privatize, all or part of ICBC at the drop of a hat, or as he has just done, issue a directive to the BC Utilities Commission which the BCUC must obey. Thus we, the people of BC, lost all or parts of several Crown Corps, and likely will lose more under Campbell's Kingly reign.

    Here is the solution- I trust neither the NDP or the Liberals - I trust the people of BC. Convert ICBC to a co-operative, issues one membership share in that co-op to every breathing person (not corporations) who takes out ICBC insurance. Let them elect, by direct elections the Board of Directors of their choosing. Put prohibitions against selling, privatizing, etc.etc..unless a special resolution is passed by 75% of all members. As for policy on profits - that is up to the elected Board to decide. I would favor returning a portion of that money directly to ICBC consumer - now a co-op member, and retaining a small portion within the co-op. I would also hope that the Board would see fit to tap into the $5-$6 plus billion set aside under ICBC reserved funds - which they now use to 'play' the market, perhaps even the hedge fund and derivative markets, take a goodly portion of that 'reserve' fund - thereby using the capital that is within BC - to democratize our economy...getting rid of major multinational corporations in several sectors. That we lost so many public sector Crown Corps is an absolute shame, that we will likely lose Terasen, because the Minister of the Crown responsible - introducted legislation removing the prohibition of 'take-over' by a foreign company - all could have been avoided --had the former BC GAs been transformed into a co-op owned by you, ditto, for Hydro, BC Rail, BC Building Corp, BC Ferries, etc...but, and here is the big "but" --public sector unions perhaps may not favor such a move. Well I do, as did 78,000 plus people who signed the petition at bcpolitics.ca --requesting that BC Hydro become a co-op - signees included former Premier Glen Clark. There is my take on all this - I don't trust, and neither should you, Joe & Jane BC Public trust any political party - the institutional structure of governance in Ottawa and Victoria is dysfunctional---Ministers and Premiers run the show like they are F**king KIngs...so Will ...good article as it is...I'm not for the solutions you propose - -I'd like to see us, as citizens demand much more!

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Peter - what directive was just issued to the commission?

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Peter - the reason I'd like to know about it is because I haven't heard anything about it on the six o'clock news and I don't want to wait up until 11:00 p.m.

  • Peter Dimitrov

    6 years ago

    Directive dated October 5, 2005

    check this url out for the story.

    http://www.thompsonsnews.com/story.asp?story=640

    This is story is just 'evidence' how Ministers of the CRown, whether they be NDP, Liberal, Socred, Conservative, etc. etc. use...the powers invested in the Crown and themselves as Ministers, to basically do whatever the hell they want...with a majority gov't...the Leg/ House of Commons just 'rubber stamps'. ..thus our low level democracy, thus our governance by elites, thus corruption/Gomery and others, thus the Auditor General reports, etc. etc. When will the people of BC/Canada finally get it---that is the 'system, the institutional system of governance' that facilitates, permits this..regardless of the party in power.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Peter wrote: "or as he has just done, issue a directive to the BC Utilities Commission which the BCUC must obey - "Here is the solution - I trust neither the NDP or the Liberals - I trust the people of BC."

    So it was just a lie then?

  • Stuart

    6 years ago

    Very good posts.

    Peter Dimitrov,

    What really burns me up is the BCUC refuses to hold public hearings on the sale, they have had over 6000 submissions from groups and individuals from all over BC but feel public submissions are not needed. I ask them , is this entire process just a rubber stamp, when would you hold public submissions if not on such an important issue . What can the public do other than hand over power to Kinder Morgan, can their be a legal injunction demanding public hearings. Any ideas,

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Well Peter - maybe that's the way they free things up in Bulgaria, but...

    (Or maybe you waited up for the 11:00 o'clock news hoping it would be there, or maybe you just went off to the commode to create your own "evidence" - OR maybe???)

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Trying to get me to kick the football one more time, aren't you? I am a bottomless well of forgivenenss, lucky for you. You are the BC historian here, I'm from Alberta and am still in mid re-education. My thoughts clouded with visions of Conservatives in slow motion, dancing through the daisy fields of the sunny Alberta praire, tossing cash from a wicker basket for all the loyal followers. From the eligant Peter Loughheed to his dog Getty. The prosperity cheques continue, although I can't say the same visual works for Ralph dancing through the daisies.
    Not to worry Stuart, lots of us love Borscht!

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    See knew you were the best, but you caught me at a bad time. I was just going off to the commode - too much Borscht... (I'll try not to be so long this time. Maybe I should target Ralph, you think?)

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    What can the public do other than hand over power to Kinder Morgan, can their be a legal injunction demanding public hearings. Any ideas

    Well Stuart, the reality is that the BCUC is in fact holding public hearings and they are scheduled to hand down their decision tomorrow. Can there be a legal injunction? The answer is no because under the the UCA oral hearings are not required; 86.2 (1) Despite any other provision of this Act, in any circumstance in which, under this Act, a hearing may or must be held, the commission may conduct a written hearing.

    Can their decision be overturned? The short answer is yes it can under the Judicial Review Procedures Act, assuming they erred in law, (the court would not review the "evidence") but you might need to hire a lawyer with a very shiny suit.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Of course at the end of the day we could always ask the attorney general if he's satisfied with whatever the legal decision may turn out to be, he's the person charged with the administration of justice in the Province of British Columbia, and it just so happens he works for us to boot, not for Liberal Amigo's.

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Well clubofrome, I certainly feel refreshed.

    I might point out that the Kinder Morgan folks appear to be planning some sort of "vertical amalgamation" with the Terasen assets. What's that you say? - I think it's something that you might visualize ralph illegally doing to the sheep if you didn't keep your eye on him.

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Sorry, we're having a bit of a family crises right now. My uncle, has been charged with molesting one of his patients. Needless to say we are shocked and we're just trying to deal with the fall out. My aunt, bless her is standing by her man. The review board will be investigating as with all complaints of this nature. We are sure his good name will be cleared and he will continue to be one of this provinces best veterinarians.

    I see another joke with Ralph and pulling the wool over someones eyes...

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    I'm sure everybody knows Ralph is a joke but I have to go and try to get all the snakes back in the bag, so I'll have to catch up later. (I'm sure Stuart is capable of "moving forward".

    Sorry to hear about your uncle, will you be representing him?

  • clubofrome

    6 years ago

    Look forward to your next revival...
    No, I won't be representing him but he's in good hands with daaaaaad....

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Regarding Peter - I can tell by his Bulgarian accent that he most likely just got his words mixed up and didn't really mean to tell us a lie, and in all honesty there was one time that I myself deliberately told a whopper right here on this site that no one caught. (with the exception of one who did come close.)

    Ps, I sent this link off to my gal pals in Alberta with a warning" don't try this at work".

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    Can you believe it - I just received this e-mail with the usual 8x10 glossy of course)informing me that I am now subscribed, I look forward to the facts, hopefully there will be no negative option billing.

    Welcome to BC Liberals Issue Alert!

    Dear Valued BC Liberal Party Member:

    As a new service for members of the BC Liberal Party, we are pleased to announce that you are now subscribed to receive our "BC Liberals Issue Alert" e-mail newsletter.

    Our periodic e-mail newsletter will provide you with valuable information such as:

    The facts about BC Liberal government actions
    News headlines, clippings, and action alerts
    BC Liberal Party activities and events
    If you do not wish to receive the BC Liberals Issue Alert, you can unsubscribe at anytime by simply clicking on the message at the very end of every e-mail.

    Thank you for your continued support!

    THE BC LIBERAL TEAM

  • gasworks

    6 years ago

    I wonder if Ron got one, by the way where has he been?

  • ocean44

    6 years ago

    Refering to the list of companies that should be in the hands of the public for public benefit is the former West Kootenay Power and Light. When the regional districts of Okanogan and West Kootenay wanted to buy this locally generated energy company, a Socred government instead allowed the sale to a foreign company to go ahead. The company is back in "Canadian" hands but profits continue to leak to private hands.

    Now if we could only get BC Hydro back in the public's driver's seat or for that matter all publicly supported crown corporations and ministries back into the hands of the public for public benefits.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.