CRD Watch Homepage

The Corporatization of Governance in BC and What To Do About It

Systemic deregulation and privatization, have been driving cost of living increases, while quality of life and the environment are steadily degrading.

This is how it has been happening, and this is how it can be reversed.

By Dean Unger
July 24, 2026


—————————————————————————————————

According to historic trends over the last three or four decades and as confirmed by an historical information overview, provincial, federal, and municipal governing bodies in Canada are indeed becoming increasingly corporatized. What are the effects of this on the market, on individuals and upon the corporations and presumably the governments who stand to gain from this trend, especially here on Vancouver Island, British Columbia?

The corporatization of government manifests uniquely across each level of government – federal, provincial, municipal. Nationally, the federal government increasingly outsources policy development and information technology infrastructure to corporate management consulting firms, leading to what critics have labelled “consultocracy”.

Driven by fiscal deficits, provinces (more downloading of costs) forced cities to operate more like businesses, leading to the corporatization of public services (like water, waste, and transit) and an increased reliance on user fees. The corporatization of government—adopting private-sector management models, establishing public enterprises, and utilizing performance-based contracting—yields measurable effects in BC and in Canada proper. These impacts primarily center on heightened operational efficiency and revenue generation, set against reduced democratic transparency, public sector motivation, and long-term public accountability. The public most often bears the cost.

Economic planning should supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition. In order to do this there may be a need to re-establish authentic democratic self-government, based upon economic equality, not upon profit for corporations and government at the expense of its citizens. After thirty or forty years of the privatization and deregulation experiment, it is now glaringly obvious that the resulting lop-sided effects are due in some large part to corporate and industrial lobby framework by which companies are able to sway or convince government bodies toward outcomes favorable to their bottom line. Historically, when private profit over public benefit becomes the primary focus to the economic effort, culture and society reverberates between periods of abundant prosperity during which the main benefits go to speculators and profiteers, and periods of devastating retraction. It is in these times of retraction that the tax paying citizen bears the brunt of rising costs and inefficiencies.

Some of the reasons given at the time privatization occurred in BC in the past is characterized by the adoption of private-sector management models, a focus on “efficiency” and “customer service,” and a reliance on corporate consulting firms. So what does the report card look like in the case of marketing and consulting firms employed to do this work for various governments within BC? Is this a neutral agency result or is there risk or proven incidence of bias and croneyism in this framework – especially within the forest and housing sectors as example? Where the administration and management of medical services in British Columbia is concerned, The BC government has relied heavily on external consulting firms to administrate, manage, and transform or restructure its medical and healthcare services. Whereas the BC Ministry of Health sets policies, private consulting firms, global tech vendors, and healthcare advisory groups are regularly contracted to run essential systems, optimize operations, and design funding frameworks.

Aside from a handful of efficiency and cost related benefits of hiring outside consultation firms there are numerous concerning results that fall to the feet of British Columbians:

• Relying on external consulting firms over time degrades internal skills of government employees, degrades longer-term recall and active memory regarding historic results and details, and degrades the long-term capacity of the civil service in general for these reasons.
  
  
• Numerous conflicts of Interest: In the past consultation firms have often advised government regulators while at the same time consulting for the private corporations being regulated.
  
  
• Policy decisions under this framework can easily shift from one of full accountability where elected officials are concerned to private, opaque entities that are often hidden or beyond reach of public scrutiny.
  
  
• Policy standardization is also a concern as in the past consultants have frequently applied copy and paste, generic driven frameworks that tend to ignore unique characteristic local or cultural conditions.
  
  
• Another past criticism has been that an over-reliance can lead to exploding budgets and bloated contracts that drain public funds – costs that the taxpayer ultimately shoulders.
  
  

Several past controversies and problems regarding conflicts of interest, contract transparency, and the firms’ past practices are of note:

• In April 2024, the province requested a review by the B.C. Auditor General into the accounting and consulting firm, MNP, following concerns voiced by applicants that the consulting firm was administering some green and clean-energy grants while at the same time gathering consulting and “success fees” from companies seeking provincial grants.
  
  
• McKinsey & Company Opioid Lawsuits whereby the B.C. government launched legal action and successfully certified a Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against McKinsey & Company, alleging that the firm advised opioid manufacturers and helped design advertising campaigns that directly fueled the opioid and toxic drug crisis.
  
  
• Where BC Housing is concerned, a glaring conflict of interest is noted: The B.C. government contracted the consulting firm, Ernst and Young, to carry out a forensic review of BC Housing and the investigation revealed serious concerns regarding internal conflict-of-interest protocols and nepotism at the Crown corporation, which ultimately led to the resignation of the organization’s CEO. (The Ernst & Young Forensic Investigation Report that was commissioned by the B.C. Ministry of Finance and released in May 2023, details how this compromised the Crown corporation’s administrative and financial integrity.
  
  
• Another detail leading to high costs of this consultation approach – lack of Competitive Bidding: review of the provincial public sector’s procurement have commonly raised criticism from independent oversight bodies. As well, the Auditor General of B.C. Management Consulting Engagements Report, issued in 2001, highlighted that many government consulting contracts were awarded directly (sole-sourced) rather than through an open and fair competitive bidding.

There has also been an emphasis and emerging trend where the provincial governments public-private business partnerships (P3s) – especially for larger infrastructure related projects. In the past BC has adopted aggressive business-like performance metrics for public institutions, such as healthcare and education. Here there is a visible trend of transforming Crown corporations or public services into arms-length, revenue-generating entities to ease the tax burden (a common complaint governments use to justify passing responsibility on to others: Federal passes fiscal responsibilities to provinces, and provinces pass responsibilities on to municipalities; Municipalities in turn ultimately pass the problem on to the public.

This has proven to be a huge problem where municipalities are concerned as these passing on of costs are driven by provincial municipal restructuring and amalgamation mandates, whereby cities and towns are operated more like corporations with a mandate for economic development – accountable to themselves, not to the public. Example: municipalities frequently rely on corporatized delivery models (MOCs) to run utilities, water treatment, and waste collection.

While corporatization aims to increase accountability and reduce costs through competition, it also draws plenty of criticism for potentially compromising democratic oversight, eroding public service capacity, and treating citizens more like “consumers” than participants in a democracy.

Governmental bodies in North America became increasingly corporatized starting in the mid-1970s and 1980s, driven by the rise of neo-liberal economic policies. This shift focused on privatization, deregulation, and adopting private-sector management models, fundamentally altering governance at all three levels:

Federal: The shift gained momentum in the 1980s and 1990s as federal administrations embraced free-trade agreements, downsized government departments, sold off Crown corporations, and prioritized market-driven efficiency over broad social safety nets.

Provincial: Starting in the 1980s, states and provinces began downloading expensive social and administrative responsibilities to lower tiers of government, while adopting performance metrics and public-private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure.

Municipal: The 1990s marked a dramatic era of municipal restructuring and mega-amalgamations.

Measurable Positive Effects:

• Improved Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: Analyses of corporatized government agencies (e.g., Crown corporations and municipal utilities) show that shifting to corporate frameworks increases output, narrows revenue-to-expenditure gaps, and boosts employee productivity.
• Access to Capital and Infrastructure: Corporatized entities, operating as separate legal entities with managerial autonomy, can often raise funds, issue bonds, and leverage private partnerships for public works without solely relying on tax revenues.
• Enhanced Service Delivery: Autonomy from civil service bureaucracy allows public corporations to deploy business management techniques, modernize IT systems, and respond more rapidly to specific market demands.
• Depoliticization of Operations: Removing day-to-day management from political interference helps stabilize long-term strategic planning for utilities, transit authorities, and airports.
  
  

Measurable Negative Effects:

These systemic negative outcomes—collectively known as the critiques of New Public Management (NPM) and corporatization—are widely acknowledged by policymakers, auditors, and legal frameworks across all levels of government. However, because corporatized entities are structural hybrids, these negative vulnerabilities are frequently leveraged or exploited by both political and private actors.

Key Drivers and Nuances toward Corporatization by Jurisdiction

Municipal

At the local level, corporatization is often driven by dwindling intergovernmental transfers and strict property tax bases. Cities increasingly form wholly-owned municipal corporations (MOCs) to manage public transit, social housing, and waste, resulting in complex governance structures. Provincial / State: Corporatization frequently manifests through Crown corporations (e.g., provincial energy utilities or liquor control boards). The measurable benefit is typically high dividend yields for public treasuries, offset by concerns over monopoly pricing and lack of competition.

Federal

The federal government corporatizes major infrastructure and services (e.g., airports, VIA Rail, port authorities). While this streamlines global competitiveness and eases the burden on the federal budget, it can lead to a loss of federal oversight and reduced equitable access to services.

Provincial

What are some negative results of provincial and municipal governing bodies in BC becoming increasingly corporatized? The increasing corporatization of provincial and municipal governments in British Columbia—characterized by adopting private-sector management models, prioritizing efficiency and growth, and relying on public-private partnerships—has led to the erosion of public accountability, reduced community consultation, the offloading of social responsibilities, and rising inequities across local communities re; the present circumstances and shortcomings in delivery of medical services and delivery, water supply, roads and transportation, over-crowding and over-development, BC ferries et al.

Key Negative Outcomes:

Corporatization in BC has frequently led to revenue-driven service cuts, outsourcing, and governance models prioritizing bottom lines over public good. Other examples include public-private partnerships (P3s) (e.g., in hospital and transit construction), the push to abolish or privatize the Vancouver Park Board, and changes in water management. The shift toward treating public services like private businesses has manifested in several notable ways: The Dissolution of the Vancouver Park Board: The ABC-majority municipal government initiated a controversial push to abolish the elected Park Board, citing a desire for streamlined, corporate-style governance over traditional democratic parks and recreation management.

Key Strategies to Counter Corporatization:

Mandatory Ethics Enforcement: Pressuring the province to enforce strict codes of conduct. Historically, many municipalities lacked enforcement mechanisms, making them vulnerable to conflicts of interest.

Deliberative Engagement: Moving beyond basic public hearings to utilize Citizen Panels, where a demographically representative cross-section of residents helps draft policy.

Independent Oversight: Advocating for a provincially-appointed Municipal Ethics Commissioner and Ombudsperson Review to investigate conflicts of interest, lobbying, and dysfunctional councils.

Limits on Privatization: Establishing strict municipal charters that cap the percentage of core civic services (e.g., water, transit, waste management) that can be contracted out to private entities.

Corporate-style Subsidiaries: BC municipalities have increasingly created formal “local government corporations” (such as Development Corporations or Community Forest Companies). While these entities allow councils to generate commercial revenue and limit legal liability, they are frequently criticized for bypassing traditional democratic scrutiny.

—————————————————————————————————

See also:

List of articles and other resources on corporate regionalism. – CRD Watch Homepage

Index of CRD Watch articles concerning the environment/ecology. – CRD Watch Homepage