After an inexplicable silence of 22-months, BCpl8s.ca staff submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the province in November of 2025 seeking the following:

All records pertaining to, and including the online questionnaires completed and submitted in relation to the 'Specialty Licence Plates Program Expansion' survey hosted on the engage.gov.bc.ca website. (Date Range for Record Search: From 12/11/2023 To 1/31/2024).

After another 7-month wait and multiple extension requests by various provincial ministries, the requested records were received at the BCpl8s.ca head office on June 24, 2026, in the form of a 1,068 page .pdf document:

FOI Request Number CTZ-2025-52788

As can be seen in the link above, the survey responses are too extensive for the volunteer staff at BCpl8s.ca to properly process. So, in the spirit of the "AI Age" we find ourselves living in, a number of LLMs were recruited to assist us in reviewing, compiling and summarizing the data. Accordingly, please be aware that all the information presented below is a summary prepared by AI (with some slight editing by BCpl8s.ca staff).

As we are also well aware of the accuracy challenges associated with using AI, we consider the results presented below to be indicative only and look forward to the day that the province releases the official results! In the interim, enjoy and hopefully new specialty license plates will be introduced soon!

Overview:

The formal public consultation period spanned from December 1, 2023, to January 31, 2024, utilizing the online portal hosted by govTogetherBC.  Driven by initial regional media coverage and final-week social media promotion by the Government Digital Experience (GDX) team, the consultation experienced a massive late spike in completions.  The engagement closed with a robust dataset consisting of 8,257 completed responses, which yields high statistical validity for guiding upcoming provincial policy decisions.

Several limitations should be acknowledged and the most significant limitation is the self-selection bias. Respondents chose to participate and therefore may not perfectly reflect the views of all licensed drivers in British Columbia.

In addition, some organizations may have encouraged their members or supporters to participate and this can influence participation patterns, but it also provides useful information regarding the capacity of organizations to mobilize future specialty plate purchasers.

A substantial proportion of respondents already owned specialty licence plates and, as a result, the survey may over-represent individuals who are already positively disposed toward specialty plate programs.

As with any survey, some questions may have attracted higher response rates than others, potentially influencing the reliability of individual findings.

Responses - Question No. 1:

Respondents were asked to identify which specialty plates (if any) their household currently has: “Which, if any, personalized or specialty licence plates do you have on vehicles in your household”:

The Key Finding from this question is that the Collector/Vintage category dominates, suggesting the survey captured significant participation from the vintage/collector vehicle community — a segment with existing awareness of specialty plate programs.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% as respondents could select multiple categories. The 20.6% who selected "No specialty plate" indicates a meaningful share of respondents had no prior exposure to specialty plates, yet still participated in the survey — likely motivated by interest in the proposed program.

Responses - Question No. 2:

Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the statement: “I support the introduction of a specialty licence plate program that raises funds for non-profit organizations and charities”:

The Key Finding from this question is that combined support (Strongly Agree + Agree) represented 7,050 respondents = 85.4% of all respondents.  The combined opposition (Disagree + Strongly Disagree) represented 708 respondents = 8.6%. Undecided: 462 respondents = 5.6%. Only 37 respondents (0.4%) did not answer this question.

Respondents who already own at least one specialty license plate showed higher support for the program than those with no specialty license plates. However, both groups show majority support, indicating broad appeal beyond the existing specialty license plate customer base:

Existing Specialty License Plate owners show 89.7% combined support vs. 83.2% for non-owners — a meaningful but not large difference. Both groups show strong majority support.

Responses - Question No. 3:

Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with: “I would be willing to pay a one-time fee in addition to the annual renewal fee for a new specialty plate”, which probes the price sensitivity of potential customers:

The Key Finding is that, of the 4,456 respondents who answered Q9: 59.8% agreed or strongly agreed with willingness to pay; 19.5% were undecided; and 20.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed. The high non-response rate (~46%) is likely attributable to survey routing (respondents who answered N/A to all plate ownership questions may have been directed past this question) or respondent drop-off, not necessarily opposition.

Responses - Question No. 4:

Respondents were asked: “What is the primary reason you would not be interested in a specialty license plate?”:

The Key Finding is that cost considerations is the primary motivator for someone considering the purchase of a specialty license plate. However, the secondary finding - that 28% prefer direct charitable donations - suggests that motorists prefer direct donations to their preferred charities, rather than relying on ICBC to do it for them through the purchase of a license plate.

Responses - Question No. 5:

The FOI disclosure includes open-ended text responses on approximately 490 pages of respondent comments, which was rendered in a diagonal/wrapped format in a PDF due to the spreadsheet export method, making automated reconstruction difficult. The following theme frequencies were derived from keyword analysis of the raw text extraction and should be treated as indicative rather than precise counts:

The Key Finding is that, of the 4,456 respondents who answered Q9: 59.8% agreed or strongly agreed with willingness to pay; 19.5% were undecided; and 20.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed. The high non-response rate (~46%) is likely attributable to survey routing (respondents who answered N/A to all plate ownership questions may have been directed past this question) or respondent drop-off, not necessarily opposition.

Additional themes that came ouf of the open-ended comments are provided below:

THEME NO. 1:  Fee Structure and Opposition to Annual Renewal Fees

The most frequently expressed concern across the open-ended comments relates to the fee model for specialty plates. While many respondents are willing to pay an initial one-time purchase fee, there is widespread resistance to ongoing annual renewal fees. This objection appears across supporters and skeptics alike and is the single most consistent thread in the comment data.

Respondents generally do not object to paying a premium for a specialty plate at the point of acquisition, but view recurring annual fees as disproportionate and financially burdensome, particularly in the context of already-high insurance costs. Several respondents specifically contrast this model unfavourably with amateur radio or Olympic plates, which carried only a one-time charge.

Representative quotes:

• I think it is a great idea but feel like charging a renewal fee for the plate each year as well is too much. If there was only the initial plate purchase fee I would be more likely to have one. I would even be willing to pay more for the plate initially if I did not have to pay every time I renew.
• I don’t want an additional yearly fee. A one-time fee, like for my Amateur Radio plates, is fine. But I wouldn’t ever get a personalized plate that I have to pay for year after year.
• If there was a 1-time higher fee and then the $18 annual fee (same as the regular plates) I think that more people would choose a customized plate.
• Make it a One-time fee like the Olympic plates... I could do the one-time fee but not annual.
• One time fee for a special plate is fine but not an annual fee.
• The cost of a specialty plate lacks the tax advantage of direct donations.

THEME NO. 2:  Charitable Cause Selection and Fairness, Transparency & Scope

A second prominent theme concerns how charities and non-profit organizations would be selected to participate in the program, and whether that process would be equitable. Respondents raise concerns about the difficulty of choosing among eligible causes, the risk of appearing to favour certain organizations over others, and the potential for politically or ethically controversial groups to be included. Some respondents call for broad inclusion; others argue the program should be tightly restricted.

Sub-themes within this category include:

1. Concern that not all charities are equally meritorious or that overhead costs may consume a large share of proceeds;
2. Questions about governance and accountability for how funds are distributed;
3. Calls for transparent annual reporting on revenue and disbursement;
4. Concern that religious or politically contentious organizations should be excluded;
5. Some respondents favour limiting the program to provincial government–aligned causes (parks, healthcare, Indigenous programs);
6. Others want the program open to any registered charity.

Representative quotes:

• Not all charities are as charitable as all others (management fees). On top of that, where do you draw the line without being seen to be favouring some over others?

• Making a charity pay a $10,000 deposit might limit the number that apply, which would be good. Avoiding areas where there is coercion to get a plate, like religious charities with weekly services, might make sense.

• I believe this is an opportunity to ... ensure no one is getting paid excessively out of the proceeds. Any money given to a non-profit should verify no one is getting paid from these funds beyond reasonable expenses.

• A breakdown of how funds are distributed should be published annually to the public.

• I’m concerned that the charities involved will become a political flashpoint or harbor politically sensitive leanings. A person who thought they were just supporting a charity could later be attacked over things they weren’t aware of.

THEME NO. 3:  Plate Readability & Public Safety

A consistent minority of respondents express concern that proliferating specialty plate designs may compromise plate readability for law enforcement, automated licence plate readers, and the general public. These commenters often invoke road safety and the ability to report incidents as reasons why the standard plate format should be preserved or at minimum carefully maintained.

Some respondents specifically cite the current BC Parks plate as an example of a design that is already difficult to read, particularly at distance or in low light. Others raise concerns about the ability to distinguish out-of-province plates when BC offers many competing designs internally.

Representative quotes:

• Specialty plates are very hard to read.

• I find specialty licence plates difficult to read because of the different designs and colours used. If a licence plate’s primary purpose is to identify a vehicle, it should be as legible as possible using dark characters on a light background.

• Licence plates exist to identify vehicles, not to customize them. They should be as clear as possible. White background, blue letters, flag in the background.

• The current Parks plates are very difficult [to read]. Designs would bear the plate number in a much higher contrast [to be effective].

• It’s very difficult to quickly determine where (Province/state) the plate is from when there are too many varieties. This is a safety concern as well. And where would the limit be?

• Police will not be able to recognize the plate and/or read [it] easily... The 2010 Olympic plates were frequently used by organized crime.

THEME NO. 4: Desire for Sports Team Plates

Support for sports team–branded licence plates represents one of the most enthusiastic and clearly defined sub-groups in the comment data. Respondents frequently cite examples from Alberta (Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames), Manitoba (Winnipeg Jets), and Washington State as evidence that such plates are popular and financially successful. The Vancouver Canucks and BC Lions are mentioned most often as desired BC equivalents.

Some respondents who support sports plates suggest that proceeds should still go to charity (e.g., the Canucks for Kids Fund or BC Children’s Hospital). A smaller number oppose sports plates on the basis that professional sports franchises are commercial enterprises and should not be treated the same as charities.

Representative quotes:

• If doing a sports one, please do more than Canucks and Lions; Manitoba has the Wheat Kings, no reason we can’t have a Canadians (MILB) or Giants (WHL) one.

• I think it would be great to have BC sports teams included. Especially if the money still went to charity. I spent time in Saskatchewan, and it was fun to see the local sports teams on licence plates.

• Vancouver Canucks plates and/or BC Lions plates… AB/SK/MB have sports team plates with a logo. Let’s catch up.

• I’ve seen Oiler and Flames logos on Alberta plates and also the Jets logo on Manitoba plates for the Winnipeg Jets. I really hope this goes through!

• Vancouver Canucks Plate ftw.

• Specialty plates are fine, but I would not support plates for commercial for-profit enterprises such as the Vancouver Canucks, as they are not a charity.

THEME NO. 5: First Responders, Emergency Services & Military Recognition

Many respondents advocate for specialty plates recognizing emergency service workers: firefighters (both career and volunteer), paramedics, search and rescue volunteers, police officers, and members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This category overlaps with the existing Veterans plate but extends further to include currently serving members and civilian emergency responders, groups perceived as not currently recognized.

Several respondents note that comparable plates exist in other provinces (Nova Scotia, Alberta) and US states, and express frustration that BC has not introduced similar recognition. Some suggest that emergency responder plates should carry a discounted fee or no fee at all as a form of acknowledgment.

Representative quotes:

• In many other jurisdictions, I have seen licence plates for firefighters, SAR volunteers, and other responders. I think this would be a great idea for BC. I am not talking about the licence plate toppers or hangers that paid on call fire departments and SAR teams have, but one with a crest, like the BCSARA logo on it.

• Consider a plate for Fire Service members.

• There are a lot of paramedics that volunteer their own time to risk and rescue strangers. These people get called out for emergencies 24/7. I am always in support of these people that help our communities all year around.

• First Responders should have either their own plates or [recognition]. I worked through the pandemic and survived it.

• Most of the provinces in Canada offer a firefighter plate.

• I would love to support the veterans of this country—those that have served, a daily reminder and monetary support to continue their care.

THEME NO. 6: Opposition to the Program Concept

A meaningful proportion of the open-ended comments come from respondents who oppose specialty plate expansion at a fundamental level. Their objections range from cost and administrative burden to concerns about equity, ICBC’s appropriate mandate, and the broader implications of allowing licence plates to carry organizational messaging.

Common arguments in this category include:

1. ICBC is an insurance provider, not a charity fundraising vehicle;
2. Charities should raise funds through direct donations, not government-administered plate programs;
3. The program will inevitably favour some organizations over others, creating perceived inequity;
4. Proliferating designs creates confusion and compromises ICBC’s brand consistency;
5. The program is characterized as a “money grab” with insufficient proceeds flowing to designated causes.

Representative quotes:

• Please don’t waste ICBC’s time setting up a new process for this. People can support charities directly and this is an unnecessary waste of their time and our money.

• What a waste of ICBC and government resources. Governments and Crown Corporations should be providing basic necessities and not using tax dollars and resources for luxury items.

• ICBC is in the business of insurance; they are not a foundation.

• This is nothing more than a money grab.

• Governments should be focused on putting charities out of business, not assisting them. The existence of charities only shows the gaping holes in what governments are supposed to be providing.

• Routine government licences and permits should be neutral, not used as advocacy tools.

THEME NO. 7: Environmental, Conservation & Indigenous Causes

Respondents who are enthusiastic about expanded specialty plates often identify environmental conservation, wildlife habitat, and Indigenous reconciliation as the most appropriate cause categories for such a program. There is strong support for plates benefiting the BC Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, freshwater fisheries, conservation land trusts, and outdoor recreation organizations. A distinct sub-group advocates for a plate supporting Indigenous reconciliation, noting the significance of DRIPA and the broader reconciliation context in BC.

Representative quotes:

• I would love to have the option to support... GoFishBC. Please bring a GoFishBC plate! More people would help if it was affordable.

• Conservation organizations that support science-based hunting, wildlife and conservation and spread awareness of what our land and abundance of species [have] and rehabilitation of habitat [deserve] a specialty plate.

• Since 2015 when the TRC report was released, as a country we have lagged behind the notion of Reconciliation. Only in 2021 when the first ‘215’ were discovered in Kamloops did Canada collectively have an awakening. In 2019 BC created DRIPA recognizing the rights of Indigenous people, and having these plates allows both Indigenous People and allies to show their support for Reconciliation.

• Would like to see indigenous licence plates designed by Indigenous artists in their traditional styles in celebration of BC—wildlife, scenery, etc.

• I’d buy a Backcountry Hunters and Anglers plate. I think BCHA is an organization I would buy a plate for.

THEME NO. 8: Plate Design Quality & Expansion of the BC Parks Program

Many respondents who already hold BC Parks plates express pride in the program and want to see it expanded rather than diluted. Common requests include more image choices representing northern and interior regions of the province, motorcycle eligibility (currently restricted), and personalization options combined with the specialty background. Some respondents criticize the current Parks plate design as aesthetically poor or difficult to read, and call for a redesign.

Representative quotes:

Demographics:

The survey captured voluntary demographic markers across three primary metrics: driving/insurance status, age distribution, and gender identity. On the first metric, Age Distribution, respondents indicated the following:

Key Findings: the respondent curve skews heavily toward mature and senior demographics with drivers aged 50 and over make up a combined 54% of the explicit response pool, while young drivers under the age of 30 represent only 6% of total participation. 16% of respondents preferred not to answer .

The high participation rate among older demographics highlights a notable engagement gap among younger B.C. drivers. Because older demographics traditionally possess higher disposable income, their support validates the short-term financial viability of an new Specialty Licence Plate program.

On the second metric, Driving and Insurance Status, an absolute majority of 95% of respondents identify as holding a valid B.C. driver’s licence and a matching auto insurance policy under their direct name . Approximately 4% possess a valid licence but do not hold an active vehicle policy under their name, and 1% occupy non-licensed or non-insured positions .

The response base is almost entirely made up of active, paying consumers within the ICBC system. The survey feedback reflects the opinions of the actual customer base who will handle registration and renewals, giving these fiscal insights serious weight.

On the final metric, Gender, respondents identified as:

• Man: 64%
• Woman: 30%
• Non-binary: 1%
• Prefer not to answer: 5%

The disproportionate representation of male-identifying respondents suggests an automated self-selection bias toward automotive-related policy topics. Program designers should adjust for this skew when evaluating design options, ensuring that final plate concepts appeal across all demographics rather than catering solely to traditional automotive interests.

Where in the World is ...

One of the options available to respondents was to advise the province where in the World they were located when completing the survey. The vast majority of people resided in British Columbia, but the "Long Distance Award" goes to someone in ... Kazakhstan?!?

A more detailed "Heat Map" that focused most on British Columbia was produced the week of January 23, 2024, and shows where responses within BC and neighbouring jurisdictions (e.g. Washington and Alberta) were originating:

Participation ...

Another interesting tidbit contained in the FOI materials, is the response rate by day, starting on the opening day of the Survey (December 11, 2023) through to January 23, 2024 (NOTE: the survey was open until January 31, 2024). Following an initial surge of interest, responses dropped off with the exception of an artificial bump on January 17th when the Government Digital Experience (GDX) Division sent out a "push" on social media to encourage more participation:

Floatsam and Jetsam - Year of Manufacture Plates

An interesting aspect of the survey are the items that people volunteered that the province had not really asked for input on, such as "Year of Manufacture" (YOM) plates.

A distinct and well-organized sub-group of respondents specifically requested the ability to register year-of-manufacture licence plates on collector or vintage vehicles. This is a long-standing request from the classic car community in BC, with many respondents noting that other jurisdictions permit this and that BC’s existing collector plate regime does not accommodate it.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of YOM plates, it is an original licence plate that was actually issued in the same year as a vintage vehicle and is later authorized for use on that vehicle instead of a modern plate. So, for example, if you own a 1967 car, a YOM program may allow you to register and display an authentic 1967 BC licence plate, provided it meets certain requirements (such as being in good condition, having a number that isn't already registered, and matching the correct year).

Respondents in this group often make explicit reference to organizations such as the Vintage Car Club of Canada (VCCC), the BC Hot Rod Association (BCHRA), and the NAACC, and frame the ask as both a heritage preservation measure and a potential revenue generator for ICBC.

Some representative quotes from this group included:

• Would like to be able to use original plates dated to the age of my classic cars.
• Hot rods and classic cars should be able to use [the plate] year of their car. Example: 1958 Corvette should be able to use [a 1958 plate].
• BC should issue year-of-make plates be to vehicles of the same vintage like many US states and Canadian provinces. If the system is consisting of the 123-456 system, there wouldn’t be any overlap with 1986 and newer BC plates.
• The arrogance in not doing this a decade ago is unforgivable. Who cares if ICBC is in favour or not, the people of BC have been asking and you know what they want.
• Year-appropriate plates for collector cars—it would be an amazing finishing touch to an old car.

Floatsam and Jetsam - Eliminate Front Plates

Of course these hosers would use this opportunity to advocate for something that the province has indicated multiple times over the past 30+ years they have no intention of doing; eliminating front license plates.

If you are asking yourself what this has to do with specialty licenses; nothing! These guys - and they are always invariable guys - can't help themselves and think they are on the right side of this issue, even though major studies have indicated the strong policy rationales for maintaining front plates. This comes up so regularly, we felt compelled to create a page dedicated to the issue, to read more about it; Click here!

Regardless, the LLMs noted a recurring and unsolicited suggestion from this group ("not directly related to the survey question" Ha!) about the elimination of the mandatory front licence plate. This comment appeared frequently enough across the dataset to constitute its own theme. Respondents noted that Alberta and other provinces do not require front plates, that modern vehicles often lack a front mounting provision, and that removal would reduce material costs and waste (none of which is true!).

Some representative quotes from this group included:

• We need to get rid of the front plates like Alberta! It will save money.
• Remove the need for front plates like in other provinces.
• Front plates should be optional.
• The front plate requirement is one of the only things I’d actually like to see changed about BC’s plate program. Most of today’s modern vehicles do not have a provision for them installed. Please do away with the front plate requirement.
• Get rid of front licence plate requirement.