This article is meant to be read alongside The Canmore Legacy Commitment.
That earlier piece describes the principles that guide the design of Canmore Legacy. This one explores what the word permanent is intended to mean in that context — and what questions arise when trying to build long-term funding for an institution like a hospital foundation.
Why the word “permanent” is used carefully
In everyday language, permanent often just means “intended to last.” In practice, many well-intentioned initiatives that aim to last a long time still depend on continued attention, energy, or advocacy to remain aligned with their original purpose.
When thinking about hospital funding, that raises a question rather than an answer: what would it take for a funding mechanism to continue operating usefully even when attention fades or priorities shift?
Commitment and structure
The Canmore Legacy Commitment sets out a number of guiding ideas — transparency, separation of roles, and a clearly identified beneficiary.
Those ideas express intent. Whether they hold over time depends on how they are translated into structure.
This article does not assume that structure alone guarantees outcomes. It explores the possibility that certain design choices may reduce the likelihood of drift, rather than eliminate it.
Durable thinking and permanent thinking
One way to think about longevity is to distinguish between what might be called durable initiatives and permanent systems.
Durable initiatives can function well for many years, but often rely on ongoing effort, renewal, or reinforcement. Permanent systems, at least in theory, try to rely less on repeated effort and more on embedded processes.
This distinction is not presented as a rule, but as a lens for thinking about funding models that institutions may depend on over long periods of time.
Time-limited approaches and their role
Fundraising campaigns and appeals play an important role in supporting hospitals. They respond to immediate needs, moments of urgency, or specific projects.
At the same time, it is reasonable to ask whether long-term institutional capacity can rely entirely on time-limited efforts. Canmore Legacy exists in that space of questioning, not as a replacement for fundraising, but as an exploration of whether ongoing economic activity can be structured to support institutions more predictably.
What permanence might look like operationally
If permanence is possible at all, it may show up less in declarations and more in constraints.
From that perspective, permanence might involve:
- A clearly identified beneficiary that is difficult to change quietly
- Defined roles so that operating, allocating, and explaining the system are not handled by the same party
- Boundaries that limit how the system can evolve
- Enough visibility that changes over time can be noticed and questioned
These features do not ensure success. They may simply make certain kinds of drift easier to see.
Planning for change, not avoiding it
Any system intended to last must assume change — in leadership, in markets, and in community needs.
The question is not whether change will occur, but whether the original purpose remains legible as those changes happen. In this case, that purpose is to support the Hospital Foundation through a funding approach that is intended to be ongoing rather than episodic.
How this connects back to the commitment
The Canmore Legacy Commitment describes what the system is trying to protect.
This article reflects on how protection might be approached in practice, while acknowledging uncertainty and limits.
Permanence is not a claim about the future. It is an attempt to design responsibly in the present.
Together, these two articles are meant to frame an ongoing conversation — not a finished answer — about what long-term institutional support might look like, and what kinds of structures are worth examining when the goal is to think beyond individual campaigns or short time horizons.