Comment 87749

By More Random Thoughts (anonymous) | Posted April 09, 2013 at 03:56:51 in reply to Comment 87740

I didn't actually mean to suggest that government involvement was the problem here. In fact, I think a public insurer might be more amenable to basing fees on use than private firms. That's because the costs of infrastructure (building or maintaining it) are not borne by the private insurance industry whereas they are by the government.
For all its flaws, I would take a public option like ICBC here over what's available now anyday. Sadly, covenants of the FTA have probably ruled any chance of that out forever.
Regarding the 407, I would have much preferred it remained in public hands with an arms-length decision making structure devised to limit the sorts of exceptions I suggested above. It was sold for a dime on the dollar to "balance" a budget before an election when much better options were on the table.
Finally, I agree with you on Andrea/Andrew. Her quest for popular appeal is getting in the way of sound coherent policy decisions. Such is the bane of having to please all of the people all of the time (something that private industry doesn't have to do --- making a profit is oh so simple in comparison).

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds