In the real world, consumers who shell out cold hard cash for goods or services expect to receive those goods and services. As a taxpayer, you might think that information produced and paid for by your tax dollars should be available if you want it. Think again.

BC's Freedom of Information Commissioner, David Flaherty, recently ruled that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) does not have to tell inquiring minds how many vehicles it insures, the amount of money the government monopoly receives from British Columbians in premiums, or the total insurance claims it pays outs for each insurance class.

Why does this information matter Simple. BCers have no choice as regards mandatory insurance coverage. While Canadians in most provinces shop around for the best insurance rate, British Columbians must line up at the government-mandated monopoly, just as Soviets used to have to do at shops in Moscow.

Like all monopolies, the absence of competition means there is an enormous potential for gouging. The Insurance Council of Canada, which first sought the information from ICBC and then appealed to the Commissioner, suspects that ICBC punishes low-risk drivers with higher-than-necessary premiums to subsidize reckless drivers with cheaper premiums than they deserve.

Of course, private insurance companies can't prove that. They, like the rest of us, must simply accept ICBC's promise that our auto insurance rates are competitive. If taxpayers sense a certain childhood dejavu here, it's understandable: ICBC's premium-holders are being treated like children by a government monopoly.

But why the secrecy Given ICBC's monopoly, one would think it would be eager to share information about how they're not gouging policyholders, say, by subsidizing loopy accident-prone 18-year-olds with cheap insurance by charging higher than required rates to the rest of us. It's not like the information will help private insurance companies. The law forbids them from selling mandatory insurance coverage.

Predictably, ICBC argues that its share of the optional part of insurance coverage might decrease if private companies understood ICBC's whole financial picture. That's convenient. In terms of both mandatory and optional auto insurance, ICBC controls 97.3 % of the market for total vehicle and driver premiums.

Try and imagine if the Royal Bank controlled 97% of all banking in British Columbia and argued nothing should be allowed to "damage" their iron clad grip on the market. Governments, especially left-leaning ones, would file anti-trust suits and bust up such a monopoly before tomorrow's breakfast.

The Commissioner's justification was that BC's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, better labeled the BC Government's Freedom-From-Leaks-of-Embarassing and/or Important-Information-Act, won't allow him to over-rule ICBC because, among other reasons, the information is a 'trade secret.'

I'll skip the technical details, but the Commissioner's interpretation is too generous to the government monopoly. On the other hand, sections of the Act are clearly written to strangle any flow of information that might shed some light on BC's monopolistic, consumer-gouging crown corporations. While the Commissioner broadly interpreted one clause, other sections of the Act would probably have shut down the request anyway.

Short of an overhaul of the Act, (hello Mr. Campbell) ICBC could itself help out in the meantime. Instead of writing another one of those spirited but pathetic public relation letters that appear after a critical article, the monopoly should simply release the financial information requested by the insurance companies. If that doesn't happen, the message to BCers from ICBC is to "trust" them.

No thanks.