

TL;DR - Crown Corps don’t go far enough, get raided by politicians, and sometimes aren’t juiced enough to repel private interests.
I have some reservations about this in the sense that it doesn’t go far enough to solve some of the issues that are evergreen, but now are critical. I’m sure most would agree that there’s a lot of logic to have a public corp operate what are accepted Public Goods (transportation, healthcare, utilities). But simply creating a Crown Corps that holds the status of 100% state owned doesn’t solve some of the more prominent issues with these corporate vehicles.
I’ve said as much before, but I believe that the politician is both the most flexible and the weakest unit in the chain. Politicians are lobbied (possibly to the point of corruption), corporations with global shareholders have interests that go beyond the jurisdiction, and public corporations (Crown Corps) that become successful are targets of acquisition via…the Politician.
Drawing inspiration from the experience of Danielle Smith’s CorruptCare in Alberta, and the so-called “War Room” of Premier Jason Kenny’s years, I would want a fully autonomous Public Corp that is completely divorced from the politician, and focused solely on the provision of the Public Good in question with some hard baked fiduciary requirements: to focus on the targeted jurisdiction, to include stakeholder consultations (community, municipalities, interest groups), to have quarterly reports to a multidisciplinary committee of experts (economics, health, social workers, lawyers, emergency response, military, engineers, agriculture, aviation, environment, accountants etc.), and to respond to these stakeholders and experts in semi-regular town hall styled discussions. In this environment, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner would be free to engage in all discussions, and publicly weigh in on any issues that arise.
The government in question would simply seed the Public Corp by handing over property and be on a list of preferred service providers on the understanding that the Public Corp would operate in the public interest, and at a preferential rate like as if the property in question is completely undeveloped. In turn, the Public Corp would be essentially unbound, and allowed to develop property, invest, grow, make loans, and create other corporate entities, unfettered by the threat of hard baked backdoors where the politician may be tempted to raid the cookie jars of successful Crown Corps for money, install cronies, and peddle influence.
In exchange for this unusual arrangement, because the Politician is normally the interface for the public, the Public Corp makes some binding vows. Off the top of my head to never sell out to foreign interference or designated opposing forces should be an easy one. Another example is Hong Kong’s MTR Corporation. Besides the most elementary focuses on providing safe, reliable public transportation, MTR is bound to only make investments that are expected to bring returns on investment. We could also build in some kind of mechanism of greater punishment for anyone involved with the Public Corp that later is found to be stealing or involved in corruption.
We can also use the Scandinavian Model by basically having the Public Corp aim for 51% of the market.
Alberta nearly had that with its Alberta Health Services, but the UCP and Danielle Smith have destroyed it.
BC had something similar with its ICBC, but I understand some of ICBC’s success was just too tempting over the years.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/icbc-proposed-class-action-lawsuit-1.5483879


















I’d also point out for those wondering if a Public Corp can be seeded in the way I describe, I think there’s a deep potential across Canada.
“Edmonton looks to sell, demolish old buildings due to $3-billion gap”
https://edmonton.citynews.ca/video/2026/04/08/edmonton-looks-to-sell-demolish-old-buildings-due-to-3-billion-gap/