Regulating the Sharing Economy

We hope you’ll join us on Monday for a discussion on the issues and potential challenges of regulating the sharing economy. Dr. Robert Murray will be speaking at this session along with Darren Thomas and Nancy Jacobsen. We caught up Dr. Murray to get his perspective on the issues government faces in regulating the sharing economy.

IPAC Impact Blog: What is the sharing economy?

Dr. Murray: The Sharing Economy is a socio-economic system that has emerged over the last 10-15 years that enables people to share resources, commodities, or services. 

IPAC Impact Blog: Who participates and why?

Dr. Murray: The Sharing Economy enables sharing among a number of groups, and in many cases, motivation is based on ease of sharing, perceived benefit, access to a new or innovative approach to an industry, and is highly technological in nature.

IPAC Impact Blog: What is the overall impact on the economy?

Dr. Murray: It’s too soon to say in terms of a quantifiable calculation, in my opinion. The greatest impact thus far has been on our perceptions of industry control, regulation, competition, and governance.

IPAC Impact Blog: How can government regulate the sharing economy to ensure safety, competitiveness, tax compliance, etc.?

Dr. Murray: The first step is for government to understand *why* the services that fall under the Sharing Economy have become so popular, so quickly. By identifying the variables that have made the Sharing Economy popular for consumers, government can better determine how to approach regulatory issues without fundamentally interfering or eliminating the most benefit-driven aspects of the Sharing Economy. 

IPAC Impact Blog: What kind of challenges does the sharing economy pose to governments?

Dr. Murray: Quite a number, including statutory authority, regulatory development and compliance, oversight, registration, etc.

The sharing economy is an major phenomenon that we’re looking forward to discussing further. If you haven’t registered yet, go to https://www.ipac.ca/edmonton/registration-policyforbreakfast to sign up. Also, stay tuned to the blog where we will provide a summary of the key issues and ideas discussed at this event. 

Café Pracademique Announcement

Introducing Café Pracademique: A Forum for Developing Concrete Solutions to Pressing Public Policy Challenges

Café Pracademique is the newest initiative of IPAC Edmonton. It aims to mobilize knowledge by uniting practitioners, academics and citizens to develop concrete solutions to pressing public policy challenges in four key areas: Public Sector Leadership, Environment & Sustainability, Digital Public Service and Indigenous Affairs. 

Between March and April 2016, the first four Café Pracademique events will take place in Edmonton. Various high profile public policy experts from academia and the public sector will attend and contribute to these sessions. The events in chronological order are: 

Building our Future: Developing Tomorrow’s Leaders – March 7, 2016
- What new ways of learning, particularly in higher education, will Canadians need in order to thrive in an evolving society and labour market?

Green is the New Black: Mobilizing Eco-Citizens – March 22, 2016
- What effects will the quest for energy and natural resources have on our society and our position on the world stage?

Advancing Inclusive Digital Services – April 12, 2016 
- How can emerging technologies be leveraged to benefit all e-citizens, including persons with disabilities?

Connecting our Futures : Building Reconciliation Today – April 28, 2016
- How are the experiences and aspirations of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada essential to building a successful shared future?

Why are these initiatives important?

Often there is a disconnect between academics, practitioners and citizens when addressing challenging public policy issues. This can be attributed to the different priorities and areas of expertise of these key stakeholders. Café Pracademique’s events are significant as they provide a knowledge-sharing platform for stakeholders to discuss these issues and enable them to devise cooperative solutions which take into account the viewpoints of all interested parties.  Furthermore, these events generate concrete outcomes (roadmaps, educational multimedia tools and options to consider), which will allow participants to bring the knowledge they acquire from these sessions back to their own agency or organization. These tools will also help participants implement practical solutions to challenges they face in their own organizations in the areas of Public Sector Leadership, Environment & Sustainability, Digital Public Service and Indigenous Affairs. 

What’s ahead for the Impact Blog?

To support the Café Pracademique events, the IPAC Impact blog will release several articles in the upcoming months. These posts will include interviews with the guest speakers to understand their unique perspectives and ideas; analyses of the outcomes of the events and how they can be applied to the public sector; and a look at the experiences of the participants themselves and what they have learned. Stay tuned.

For more information on Café Pracademique’s events and how to watch it live, visit the website: 

http://cafepracademique.com/

An Interview With Professor Matti Siemiatycki, Author of "Public-Private Partnerships in Canada: Reflections on twenty years of practice."

Q: What are two distinct characteristics of Canada's current PPPs? 
 
Canada’s P3 model has a number of features that are unique. 
 
1) The main feature is that the project delivery functions that are included in the model are
quite varied. Typically, project delivery models include design, build, finance, operations
and maintenance features. Canada’s P3s model tends to be more selective of what parts
of the project delivery bundle are included. This gives the governments’ greater
flexibility when utilizing P3s. 
 
2) A second feature is Canada’s P3s typically don’t include a new revenue stream and do
not implement user fees. This means that Canadian P3s tend to be more stable and less
prone to forced renegotiations or collapse because risk is allocated to parties best able
to manage it. P3s are also not a replacement for government money as it is seen as a
procurement strategy not a funding strategy. 
 
Q: What are three challenges/critiques of Canada's current PPPs?
 
1) There are questions about the extent to which PPPs actually deliver value and value for
money. In reality, P3s are not a cheap way to deliver infrastructure. Transferring risk is
its value, especially in regards to construction. A question raised in debates is how much
are we paying as a premium to transfer risk to the private sector partner. Currently
there are no detailed studies on the comparisons of risk. This was highlighted in the
auditor general of Ontario’s 2014 report. 
 
2) Public and stakeholder engagement in the P3 process is challenging. Community groups
have a hard time engaging in P3 planning processes due to the high level of
confidentiality of commercially sensitive information. 
 
3) Typically, P3s have average architecture and design. There are concerns raised about
whether we can come up with P3 models that promote design excellence. Public
buildings delivered through P3s are the types of facilities that will often be main
community hubs and we want these to be truly exceptional. Canada is trending upwards
in regards to this and many agencies are starting to encourage high quality design.  
 
Q: Are there any examples of current PPPs you find particularly significant in shaping Canada’s PPP model? 
 
On the transit front, the Canada line in Vancouver was the largest transit P3 done in Canada
and the first to use a design, build, finance, operation and maintenance P3 model. It set the
tone and demonstrated the potential of P3s. However, it is important to highlight that there
were tradeoffs to this project and lessons learned. During the planning process there was
controversy over community access to key documents necessary to meaningfully engage in the decision-making, and how risk was managed during construction. Another example of a recent P3 is the Ontario construction of the PanAm athletes’ village. It demonstrated a broader partnership approach between Waterfront Toronto, Infrastructure Ontario and a private sector partner, pushing boundaries of how P3s can work. 
 
Q: What predictions do you make on the future of Canada’s PPPs? 
 
1) I see P3s going in a number of different directions. The promise of P3s being on time
and on budget is powerful. There is currently a political boost and drive to get more
infrastructure built and this is put in jeopardy when projects go over budget or are
delayed. P3s from a technical planning and political perspective provide the capacity to
deliver projects on time and on budget and there is strong incentive and interest to
continue down this path. A couple of outstanding questions relating to his are: How
much of an insurance premium are we paying to stay on time and on budget? Can we push to get models where the architecture, design and community benefits are exceptional? I believe there are ways to do this and we are starting to learn lessons from the past. 
 
2) We will see a wider diversity of models used due to the variety of different projects that
are using P3s. For example the design, build and finance model may be used in cases
where it is not feasible for the private sector to operate the project. And we will see an
increase in partnerships to develop large mixed-use buildings where the public and
private sectors both own space in a shared facility. The full suite of models will be
leveraged. 
 
3) In the medium term, the series of agencies that are PPP agencies such as PPP Canada,
who have a mandate to deliver infrastructure through PPPs will expand their mandate
and morph into infrastructure and procurement agencies capable of delivering
infrastructure from a broader suite of models. They will have the capacity to deliver
both PPPs and traditional procurement effectively. 
 
Further reading: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/capa.12119/abstract 
 
Dr. Matti Siemiatycki is an Associate Professor in the Department of Geography and Planning
at the University of Toronto with research interests in transportation policy and planning,
infrastructure finance and delivery and community and regional planning.

Do You Know What it Takes to Become a Leader?

Andy Stuart

In defining leadership, experts regularly publish articles focusing on the most important traits of leaders. However, in this discourse, a significant gap exists on the various processes and activities one engages in to become a leader. To become a leader, individuals must develop leadership awareness, engage in leadership education and reflect upon their personal development.

Three Things Everyone Should Know about Becoming a Leader:

1. Leadership awareness occurs with engagement in our community. It is from these experiences where we start to formulate broad ideas about leadership. Unfortunately, we are likely to gain an understanding of what ineffective leadership looks like as we are more in tune with behaviours or actions that offend us.  Conversely, when you do experience the exceptional leader this is your opportunity to take notes – what precisely is it they do so well?

2. Leadership education builds upon the broad ideas gained during leadership awareness. Education does not have to be a formal degree or diploma. In fact, the most effective method is personal engagement with leadership articles, books, websites, blogs and workshops. Ultimately, what matters most is a desire to learn and gaining exposure to an array of leadership philosophies.

3. Reflection is critical to becoming a leader. The ability to honestly evaluate your own actions, decisions and behaviours and acknowledge external feedback is the key to moving from leadership education to being a leader.  All of the knowledge or wisdom in the world without self-awareness is for naught.  

Three Myths about Leadership:

Myth #1: Natural leaders are born with specific personality traits destined for leadership.

Reality: No one is born a leader. True leaders are continually aware of their words and actions, engage in ongoing education and constantly reflect upon their leadership.

Myth #2: Rigorous education leading to a degree in leadership alone can create a leader.

Reality: Education is only one component of creating a leader. As there are no natural born leaders, everyone must learn leadership but without awareness and reflection the learned material may sit idle or be misapplied.

Myth #3: Once you are recognized as a leader that is the end of your developmental journey.

Reality: No one is perfect and even those who are considered great leaders need to be aware, learn and reflect in their quest for self-improvement.

Further reading:

Day, D.V., Fleenor, J.W., Atwater, L. E., Sturnm, R.W., & McKee, R.A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004

Andy Stuart is a police officer in British Columbia and recently graduated with a Masters in Public Administration from the University of Victoria.

Research Use Capacity in Provincial Governments

Creso Sa

Daniel Hamlin

Three things to know about research use capacity in provincial ministries:

1. For decades, researchers have indicated that the use of high-quality research has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of public policy.   Yet, research use has remained stubbornly minimal at provincial levels of government where many of Canada’s most critical policies on healthcare, education, and economics are formulated. Understanding the factors that bolster provincial capacity to use research in the policy process is important for increasing research use.

2. Although research use capacity in provincial ministries appears to be generally low, some ministries have undertaken initiatives to enhance capacity in recent years by developing research use coordination strategies, including forming research steering committees, creating researcher in residence positions, and implementing ministry-wide training programs.

3. Other important capacity building efforts include appointing civil servants with research expertise to leadership positions as well as developing working relationships with academic researchers at local universities.

Three myths about research use capacity in provincial ministries:

Myth #1: Governments don’t care about research.

The Reality: Civil servants across provincial ministries share a general interest in using research to inform decision-making. However, civil servants are often uncertain how to apply research findings to their specific contexts.  

Myth #2: Vast resources are needed for governments to invest in research capacity

The Reality: Larger provinces may have greater financial resources. However, smaller provinces without large operating budgets may be tighter knit communities and able to develop relationships with local researchers for accessing and generating locally relevant research.

Myth #3: Governments don’t care about the views of academics

The Reality: Governments need to act with available information, and their decisions reflect a number of factors beyond what is known about the problem. Moreover, civil servants may not have well-developed channels for gaining access to scholars. However, deliberate initiatives aimed at developing on-going relationships appear useful for creating enduring partnerships with scholars.  

Further Reading:

Sá, C. & Hamlin, D. (2015). Research use capacity in provincial governments. Canadian Public Administration, 58(3), 1-20.

What is a Meeting? Municipal Councils and the Ontario Ombudsman

Andrew Sancton, Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario

Municipal councils are generally required to hold their meetings in public. In order to meet these requirements they need to know the definition of a “meeting”. In Ontario in recent years there has been much confusion about this. Similar confusion might well spread to other provinces.

Three things to know about the definition of meetings of municipal councils:

1. Statutory definitions of such meetings in Canadian provinces only refer to official meetings, but judges have extended the definition to include less formal “retreats” and “strategy sessions” where councillors “materially advance” the course of municipal business.  In certain specified circumstances councils are allowed to meet in camera.

2. “Sunshine” laws in many US states prevent state legislators and municipal councillors from discussing public business with each other outside formal meetings.

3. The Ontario ombudsman has applied the spirit of American “sunshine” to his rulings about informal meetings of municipal councillors in Ontario.

Three myths about the Ontario ombudsman’s definition of meetings:

Myth #1: The ombudsman must have had some Canadian statutory or judicial bases for his decisions that groups of municipal councillors meeting together to “lay the groundwork necessary” for the advancement of municipal business are conducting illegally closed municipal meetings.

The Reality: There is no statutory or judicial basis for the ombudsman’s position on this matter.

Myth #2: What the ombudsman decides on this issue doesn’t matter because he has no authority to invalidate municipal actions or to impose penalties and his decisions only apply in Ontario.

The Reality: Municipal councillors who have been condemned by the ombudsman have suffered loss of reputation and, in some significant cases, have been unable to be re-elected.  Others have become very nervous about any conversations with their colleagues. Councillors in other provinces wonder if similar rulings might one day be made in their provinces. 

Myth #3:  We would all be better off if local politicians held all their discussions about public business in public.

The Reality: Highly debatable!  If this is true, should we not extend the same logic to meetings of federal and provincial cabinets and party caucuses?

Further Reading: 

Sancton, A. (2015), What is a meeting? Municipal councils and the Ontario ombudsman. Canadian Public Administration, 58: 426–443

Andrew Sancton is the author of numerous books and articles about municipal politics and institutions, most recently Canadian Local Government: An Urban Perspective 2nd edn (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2015)