Paradigm Sifts, and Deduction Deconstruction: The problem with Canada's public-private partnerships

How public-private partnership solutions to the crises facing Canada will result in corporate capture and a loss of Sovereignty

Public-Sector Private-Sector Collusion

1. The Absence of a Viable Strategy

Since 2025, Canada’s national and provincial governments have struggled to formulate effective strategies to address the country’s most pressing crises: economic insecurity due to U.S. tariffs, housing affordability, climate change, and the erosion of public services. While policy documents and expert recommendations call for reducing dependence on the U.S. market, improving productivity, and diversifying trade, these are long-term, aspirational goals rather than actionable plans1 4 13. The immediate response has been reactive—tariffs are met with retaliatory tariffs, and economic shocks are managed with short-term support for affected industries and workers2 3 5. There is little evidence of a coherent, long-term vision capable of fundamentally restructuring Canada’s economy or insulating it from external shocks.

2. The Dominance of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Corporate Power

In the absence of bold public initiatives, governments have increasingly turned to public-private partnerships as the default solution for infrastructure, housing, and even climate adaptation projects7 8 12. PPPs are presented as a way to leverage private capital, transfer risk, and accelerate project delivery. However, the reality is far more complex and concerning.

a. Corporate Interests at the Forefront
PPPs overwhelmingly favor large corporations—domestic and international—due to their ability to manage complex contracts, absorb risk, and navigate opaque procurement processes7 11 12. This has led to a situation where the solutions proposed and implemented are those that best serve the interests of these corporations: guaranteed returns, risk transfer (often illusory), and long-term control over public assets. Small businesses and community organizations are effectively locked out of these arrangements, reinforcing economic concentration and undermining local innovation11 1228.

b. The Illusion of Risk Transfer and Accountability
Proponents of PPPs argue that they transfer risk from the public to the private sector. However, numerous audits and independent studies have shown that this risk transfer is frequently overstated, and when projects fail or costs escalate, it is the public that ultimately bears the burden11 12. Examples abound: hospital projects in Ontario costing hundreds of millions more than public alternatives, toll roads with exorbitant interest rates, and failed PPPs in water, transit, and education sectors. The private sector’s primary motivation is profit, not public service, and when returns are threatened, companies often renegotiate contracts or walk away, leaving governments to pick up the tab11 12.

c. The Revolving Door and Conflict of Interest
The close ties between political leadership and major corporations further entrench corporate influence. High-profile examples include Mark Carney’s ongoing financial interests in Brookfield Asset Management, a company that stands to benefit from government policies on housing, infrastructure, and energy9. While formal safeguards exist, the revolving door between business and government ensures that corporate perspectives dominate policy discussions. This dynamic is not unique to Canada, but it is particularly pronounced in sectors like energy, where the oil and gas industry has successfully lobbied to shape climate policy and delay meaningful action on emissions629.

3. The Risks of Deference to Corporate Interests

a. Policy Distortion and Neglect of Root Causes
By prioritizing solutions that suit large corporations, governments neglect the root causes of Canada’s crises. In housing, for example, PPPs focus on modular home construction by major developers while ignoring systemic issues like land speculation, renovictions, and the lack of affordable rental stock. In climate policy, the emphasis is on technological fixes like carbon capture and storage (CCUS), which are favored by the oil and gas industry but do little to address the need for rapid emissions reductions629. The result is a policy environment where corporate challenges—risk management, profit maximization, regulatory certainty—are prioritized over public needs.

b. Erosion of Public Control and Accountability
PPPs are negotiated behind closed doors, with contracts kept confidential and limited opportunities for public input or scrutiny12. Once signed, these contracts often lock in private control over public assets for decades, making it difficult for communities to hold anyone accountable when things go wrong. The lack of transparency and accountability undermines public trust and entrenches a system where corporate interests are prioritized over the common good11 12.

c. Economic and Social Consequences
The reliance on PPPs and corporate solutions has significant economic and social costs. Private financing is more expensive than public borrowing, leading to higher project costs and user fees11 12. Essential services like water, transit, and healthcare become less accessible and more expensive, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. At the same time, the focus on large-scale, profit-driven projects crowds out smaller, more innovative solutions and reinforces economic inequality11 1228.

4. The Broader Context: Disaster Capitalism and the Capture of Public Policy

The current trajectory of Canadian policy—reactive, corporate-driven, and lacking in long-term vision—reflects the dynamics of disaster capitalism as described by Naomi Klein. Crises are exploited to push through policies that privatize public goods, deregulate industries, and entrench corporate power. The result is a system where public assets and decision-making are increasingly controlled by private interests, while the risks and costs are shifted onto taxpayers and future generations.

5. Conclusion: The Need for a New Approach

Canada’s current approach to its crises is not only inadequate but actively harmful. The reliance on PPPs and deference to corporate interests has led to higher costs, reduced accountability, and the neglect of the root causes of the country’s most pressing problems. To build a more resilient and equitable future, Canada needs to reclaim public control over its economy and policy agenda. This will require:

Rejecting the reflexive use of PPPs and privatization as solutions to every crisis.
Strengthening public institutions and investing in public alternatives for infrastructure, housing, and climate action.
Enhancing transparency and accountability in government contracting and policy-making.
Reducing the influence of corporate lobbyists and closing the revolving door between business and government.
Prioritizing the needs of communities and small businesses over the interests of large corporations.

Only by taking these steps can Canada hope to address its crises in a way that serves the common good, rather than the narrow interests of a powerful few11 1228.

In summary:
Canada’s policy response to its current crises is characterized by a lack of viable, long-term strategies and an overreliance on public-private partnerships that prioritize corporate interests over public needs. This approach has led to higher costs, reduced accountability, and the neglect of the root causes of the country’s most pressing problems. The result is a system where public policy is increasingly shaped by and for large corporations, undermining the common future of all Canadians. A fundamental shift is needed to reclaim public control and ensure that policy solutions serve the broader public interest.

_____________________________________________________________

Paradigm Sifts, and Deduction Deconstruction

Monday, June 9, 2025

The problem with Canada's public-private partnerships

1. The Absence of a Viable Strategy

2. The Dominance of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Corporate Power

3. The Risks of Deference to Corporate Interests

4. The Broader Context: Disaster Capitalism and the Capture of Public Policy

5. Conclusion: The Need for a New Approach

No comments:

Post a Comment