I don't think that's the case. It's a "company limited by guarantee" and is non-profit making - the shareholders are the members, and (if I remember correctly) they are each liable for £1 towards its debts if it goes insolvent.As such, one would expect that its central aim, and perhaps its sole aim, is to make money.
I don't think it has any authority over clubs. As National Governing Body is has authority (from UK Sport, I think, and ultimately from Government) to manage UK representation in International competition. So far as clubs are concerned it offers them affiliation, which includes insurance, and a qualification scheme. There's no compulsion on a club to affiliate to BC, or to use BC qualifications.What actual authority does BC have to "govern" canoe clubs?
What I would like BC to do (and they have improved at this in recent years) is to use their authority as NGB in representing paddlers and paddlesport to others, to improve paddling opportunities for their members and potential members. Access is one example. Where they fall down (and I've made this comment in the individual member survey) is in failing to understand the difference between (A) running an organisation that spends public money and has professional staff, ie, the international competition, grant funded side, (B) running a training organisation for professional coaches and centre employees and (C) running a membership organisation which is almost entirely club and volunteer based. (A) and (B) need a very rigorous level of process; (C) is unworkable (in my opinion) without a lot of flexibility and judgement. That also requires clarity throughout that that's the way it is run; people shouldn't expect the same duty of care from a club volunteer as they do from a professional instructor - if they do, they should be prepared to pay the same fees.