Walmart took over around a hundred or so of the long-established Woolco stores, and converted them to Walmart stores. The Woolco stores I'm aware of were then replaced with new larger Walmart-built store in the same area within a few years.
I think Target's main problem was more timing rather than execution. In 1994, Canada still had a relatively strong middle class with money to spend, although that would eventually be harmed thanks to NAFTA, excessive government interference in the economy, and excessive immigration. By 2011 when Target showed up, Canada's middle class was already suffering, and it has only gotten much worse since then.
All of the Target stores I ever visited in Canada were decent. The pricing typically wasn't as competitive as Walmart's was, but the Target stores were generally a nicer experience.
It might have worked if they started with a few stores to work out the kinks and incorporate the data into their planning systems, but they went for a huge launch instead and couldn't keep shelves stocked because nothing was where it needed to be.
Cell carriage is, indeed, another great example. Many of the home-grown independent telcos in Canada started operating cell networks in the mid-2000s, but they were never able to win over the customers loyal to Bell and Rogers. The CEO of one of those telcos, which remains a strong player in the wired market in my local area, states that venturing into mobile was his biggest mistake.
It has nothing to do with loyalty, the coverage of these networks is just bad. I'm on one right now. Canada is a huge sprawling country and many people venture far for camping, to cottages and so on, and they won't go with a cell provider where they lose service 10 mins outside of Toronto.
It's even worse sometimes, coverage in cities adjacent to Toronto, like Oakville, is also sometimes bad. Canada's problem with mobile is sprawl and a largely ineffective regulator.
They had nationwide agreements. They still do, technically, but no longer operate any cell sites, now essentially being a Bell reseller. Even as a reseller, their customer base hasn't grown in any meaningful way, certainly not beyond the wired customer audience. In fact, I bet you don't even know their names. Nobody in Canada cares to look beyond their loyalty.
Perhaps, but as they are owned by the customer (or government in a few cases), that would ultimately be on the customer to decide. If future service, price, or quality was of concern, they could easily reject the deal.
But I don't see that happening because that'll lose votes in areas where the Liberal party is weak.
It was done for tobacco in 2009, but the tobacco industry in Canada was already essentially nothing. The cost to get out was still massive, but only a tiny, tiny fraction of what it would cost to get out of dairy, poultry, and eggs.
Canadians are risk averse, too afraid to stand out and too eager to put down America and claim to be better than them for any significant change to happen.
Maybe the worst out of the developed countries across all metrics.