Letters (August 01, 1999)

Dear Editor,

The [June 1999] issue was excellent from cover to cover. I like the Autovision being separate rather than inserted. The subject matters are very different and while I read it from cover to cover as well, I did it at home in the evening.

The profile article about ICBC’s president Thom Thompson, describes a dedicated individual, perhaps even a crusader. Having started my own insurance career in the loss prevention discipline, I line up right beside him when it comes to reducing crashes and saving lives.

There are two “themes” in your article that I would like to challenge. First is the suggestion that the savings due to road safety initiatives are being appropriately turned back to BC drivers in the form of premium reductions. Second is the inferring that it’s a bad thing that “private” insurers are profit motivated.

If fatalities have dropped by 29% and injury claims are down by 1500, why have the monopolistic rates for compulsory insurance coverages not been reduced? I would suggest that ICBC is far from the altruistic organization you depict and that the reduced optional coverage rates are a result of renewed competition rather than road safety.

Profit is not a dirty word. Does Mr. Thompson know that economic theory shows that the more profit-greedy competitors operating in a market, the closer the price gets to the actual cost of the product. In perfect competition, it’s survival of the fittest with the consumer the ultimate winner. I take exception to any attempt to position ICBC as a not-for-profit foundation rather than the government monopoly that it is.

I’d like to suggest that BC is big enough for both Mr. Thompson’s road safety crusade and also a fair shake for BC drivers provided by a competitive insurance marketplace.

Sincerely,

Mike Valiquette, B. Math, F.I.I.C.

Regional Vice President

ING Western Union