How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada...
Transcript of How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada...
Executive Summary April 2013
How Canada PerformsA Report Card on Canada
How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada
by The Conference Board of Canada
About The Conference Board of CanadaWe are:
� The foremost independent, not-for-profit, applied
research organization in Canada.
� Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby
for specific interests.
� Funded exclusively through the fees we charge
for services to the private and public sectors.
� Experts in running conferences but also at con-
ducting, publishing, and disseminating research;
helping people network; developing individual
leadership skills; and building organizational
capacity.
� Specialists in economic trends, as well
as organizational performance and public
policy issues.
� Not a government department or agency,
although we are often hired to provide
services for all levels of government.
� Independent from, but affiliated with, The
Conference Board, Inc. of New York, which
serves nearly 2,000 companies in 60 nations
and has offices in Brussels and Hong Kong.
©2013 The Conference Board of Canada*Published in Canada • All rights reservedAgreement No. 40063028*Incorporated as AERIC Inc.
Forecasts and research often involve numerous assumptions and data sources, and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. This information is not intended as specific investment, accounting, legal, or tax advice.
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
ConTenTs
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2What does the Conference Board’s report card measure?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
What is meant by “a high and sustainable quality of life for all Canadians”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
How does the Conference Board measure performance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
How were the comparator countries chosen? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
How does Canada’s quality of life compare with that of its peers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Putting the Economy report card in context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Is Canada still in the gifted class? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Which countries are at the top of the class? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Should Canada continue to look to the U.S. as a role model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Has Canada’s report card improved since the 1970s? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Putting the Innovation report card in context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
How is innovation performance measured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
How does Canada grade on innovation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Does it matter that Canada ranks so poorly?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Why does Canada rank so low on innovation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Putting the Environment report card in context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
How does Canada compare to its peers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Do geography and industrial structure affect environmental performance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Is Canada’s environmental performance improving? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
education and skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10How is education performance measured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
How does Canada’s education performance measure up? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
What are Canada’s strengths? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
What are Canada’s weaknesses? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12How do we measure health performance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
How does Canada grade on health?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Why does Canada get a “B” when its health care system is one of the best in the world? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Who’s at the top of the class? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Are Canadians healthier today than in the past? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Putting the Society report card in context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
What is Canada’s grade on social performance?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
What is the main social challenge that Canada must address? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Where does Canada do well? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Has Canada’s social performance improved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
2 | How Canada Performs 2013
What does the Conference Board’s report card measure?The report card measures how well Canada is meeting
its fundamental goal of creating a high and sustainable
quality of life for all Canadians.
What is meant by “a high and sustainable quality of life for all Canadians”?The Conference Board considers a high and sustainable
quality of life for all Canadians as being achieved if
Canada records high and sustainable performances in
six categories:
The word “sustainable” is a critical qualifier. It is not
enough for Canada to boost economic growth if it is done
at the expense of the environment or social cohesion. The
Conference Board has consistently argued that economic
growth and sustainability of the physical environment
need to be integrated into a single concept of sustainable
national prosperity. According to the United Nations’
Brundtland Commission: “Sustainable development is
development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.”1
How does the Conference Board measure performance?The Conference Board compares the quality of life of
peer countries using “outcome” indicators—indicators
that tell us what a country is achieving, rather than what
1 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 37. http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf.
efforts it is making. In some cases, an input indicator
was used a proxy for outcome.
The report card also focuses on indicators that can be
influenced by public policy—that is, factors contributing
to quality of life that can be modified by individual,
organizational, or public efforts. Policy may influence
outcome indicators directly or indirectly. Some indicators
emphasize a gap in performance (i.e., differences in levels
among countries); others emphasize progress toward clos-
ing a gap (i.e., differences in growth rates among countries).
We adopted a report card–style ranking of A–B–C–D,
to tie in with the title A Report Card on Canada. We
assigned a grade level to each indicator by calculating
the difference between the top and bottom performers
and divided this figure by 4. A country received a report
card rating of “A” on a given indicator if its score was
in the top quartile; a “B” if its score was in the second
quartile; a “C” if its score was in the third quartile; and
a “D” if its score was in the bottom quartile.
How were the comparator countries chosen?To choose the comparator countries, we began with the
countries deemed “high income” by the World Bank; this
is the group of countries likely to have achieved a high
and sustainable quality of life, and would therefore serve
as a worthy peer group. We then eliminated countries with
populations of less than 1 million, as well as those coun-
tries of less than 10,000 square kilometres. We ranked the
remaining countries using real income per capita and
included only countries that ranked above the mean.
Italy was dropped from three report cards because its
current income per capita is not high enough for it to
be considered a peer country under our methodology.
While Italy had already been included in the most recent
updates for the Health, Environment, and Society report
cards, it was not included in the recent Education and
Skills, Economy, and Innovation report cards.
Introduction
� Economy � Education and Skills
� Innovation � Health
� Environment � Society
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
The Conference Board of Canada | 3
How does Canada’s quality of life compare with that of its peers?In the most recent report card, Canada’s performance
improved in one subject: education—moving from a
“B” to an “A.” Canada once again receives “B” grades on
its economic, health, and social performances; a “C” on
environmental performance; and a “D” on innovation.
While the “A” on education and skills is encouraging,
Canada’s “D” on innovation does not bode well for
future growth and competitiveness. P
economy Innovation environmenteducation and skills Health society
Australia A D D B B B
Austria B D A D C A
Belgium B D B D C B
Canada B D C A B B
Denmark C B A D D A
Finland D B B A B A
France D C A D B B
Germany C D B C B B
Ireland D C A D D B
Italy – – A – A C
Japan C C A B A D
Netherlands D B B C C A
Norway A D A C B A
Sweden C A A C B A
Switzerland C A A B A B
U.K. D B A C C C
U.S. B A D C D D
Note: Data for the most recent year available were used. Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
4 | How Canada Performs 2013
Putting the economy report card in contextThe Conference Board’s overarching goal is to measure
quality of life for Canada and its peers. We ask two
questions: Do Canadians have a high quality of life? Is
it sustainable? When measuring the economic aspect of
quality of life, we consider three dimensions: economic
wealth, economic disadvantage and hardship, and eco-
nomic sustainability.
Is Canada still in the gifted class?Certainly Canada is still in the gifted class among nations.
While the 2008–09 financial crisis and recession hurt
Canada and its 15 peer countries, they remain among the
wealthiest and most successful countries in the world.
Among its peers, however, Canada’s 6th-place ranking
means that it sits in the middle of the class. Canada’s
overall “B” grade in Economy is good, but “C” grades on
two individual indicators—income per capita and outward
FDI—and a “D” grade on inward FDI are not. Canada’s
overall “B” in 2012 reflects an “A” on inflation (along
with most of the peer group), and “B” grades for employ-
ment growth, GDP growth, labour productivity growth,
and the unemployment rate.
. . . High unemployment tends to hurt labour productivity and GDP growth. It is also linked to higher rates of poverty, homelessness, income inequality, crime, poorer health out-comes, lower self-esteem, and social exclusion.
Did You Know . . .
Economy
1 Norway A
2 Australia A
3 Belgium B
4 U.S. B
5 Austria B
6 Canada B
7 Sweden C
8 Switzerland C
9 Denmark C
10 Germany C
11 Japan C
12 Finland D
13 Netherlands D
14 U.K. D
15 France D
16 Ireland D
Note: Data for the most recent year available were used.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
Economy B
Key Messages
" Canada has been a chronic laggard on several import-ant economic indicators—most notably, productivity.
" Over the past four decades, Canada’s ranking on inward foreign direct investment (FDI) has steadily dropped, reflecting the end of the “branch plant” FDI model under which high tariffs on manufactured goods encouraged FDI as a substitute for international trade.
" Norway weathered the 2008–09 financial crisis and recession better than most of its peers, and a recovery in energy demand and commodity prices helped to sustain its economic recovery
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
The Conference Board of Canada | 5
Which countries are at the top of the class? Norway is the top-rated country among the comparator
group. Norway moved from 3rd spot in the report card
for 2007 to 1st position in the 2008 report card, and it
remains in 1st position in this report card. Norway leads
the class in income per capita—a full $12,000 above
that of Canada—and it both weathered the 2008–09
economic recession and shifted into recovery better
than most of its peers. It is the only country to receive an
“A” grade for income per capita in 2012, and it receives
three other “A’s”—for GDP growth, employ ment growth,
and the unemployment rate.
Australia is the other peer country to receive an overall
“A” grade, placing 2nd overall. Unlike most of the com-
parator group, Australia never experienced recession in
2008–09. It receives “A” grades in this report card for
GDP growth, labour productivity growth, inflation, and
the unemployment rate.
should Canada continue to look to the U .s . as a role model? When assessing economic and most other aspects of
its performance, Canada naturally looks to the U.S., its
closest neighbour and most important trading partner.
Canadians know this relationship must be managed
carefully. But in the new integrative economy, this is
perhaps too narrow a focus for comparison. As well, the
2008 financial crisis originated in the U.S., and the U.S.
path to recovery has been slow—further reinforcing the
fact that the U.S. is not the perfect role model.
Has Canada’s report card improved since the 1970s? Canada’s relative performance slipped slightly, from
a “B” in the 1970s to a “C” in the 1980s, 1990s, and
2000s, rebounding to a “B” for 2010–12.
Perhaps surprisingly, the G7 countries—against which
Canada traditionally compared itself—are not the reason
for Canada’s relative slip. The top five “A” grade spots
in the 2012 report card for are taken up by non-G7,
smaller industrial countries. P
" Unemployment in the U.S. has been slow to turn around, hovering above 8 per cent in 2012.
" Inflation has ceased for now to be a headline issue among the comparator group, largely because these economies have operated below their growth potential since the 2008–09 recession.
More on the Web
Canada’s Economy
1970s B 1990s C
1980s C 2010–2012 B
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
" Norway ranks first in income per capita and was the only comparator country to earn an “A” grade on this indicator; six countries receive “D” grades, with France trailing the pack.
www .conferenceboard .ca/hcp/details/economy
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
6 | How Canada Performs 2013
Putting the Innovation report card in contextThe Conference Board defines innovation as a process
through which economic or social value is extracted
from knowledge—through the creation, diffusion, and
transformation of ideas—to produce new or improved
products, services, processes, strategies, or capabilities.
Canada has a weak innovation record, which is a major
reason for its mediocre national productivity performance.
Poor productivity, in turn, undermines Canada’s global
competitive position and affects its standard of living
and quality of life.
How is innovation performance measured? Innovation performance is assessed using 21 indicators
across three subcategories that reflect the creation, diffu-
sion, and transformation of ideas. Eleven new indicators
were added this year. They assess:
� public and business enterprise R&D spending;
� information and communications technology
(ICT) investment;
� venture capital investment;
� new firm creation;
� the share of top-cited papers;
� ease of entrepreneurship;
� connectivity;
� government online services;
� new firms that patent; and
� patents index.
How does Canada grade on innovation?Overall, Canada ranks 13th among the 16 peer coun tries
on innovation and continues to be a “D” performer. In
the latest report card, Canada scores 6 “B”s, 2 “C”s, and
13 “D”s. Canada earns no “A” grades. Canada is above
the 16-country average on only six indicators: top-cited
papers, ease of entrepreneurship, the government online
. . . Canada’s business enterprise spending on R&D as a share of its GDP is one of the lowest of its peer countries.
Did You Know . . .
Innovation DInnovation
1 Switzerland A
2 Sweden A
3 U.S. A
4 Denmark B
5 Netherlands B
6 U.K. B
7 Finland B
8 Ireland C
9 Japan C
10 France C
11 Germany D
12 Australia D
13 Canada D
14 Norway D
15 Austria D
16 Belgium D
Note: Data for the most recent year available were used.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
The Conference Board of Canada | 7
service index, new firm density (creation), scientific
articles, and public R&D spending. It is below average
on 15 indicators.
Does it matter that Canada ranks so poorly?Innovation is essential to a high-performing economy.
It is also critical to environmental protection, a high-
performing education system, a well-functioning system
of health promotion and health care, and an inclusive
society. Without innovation, all these systems stagnate
and Canada’s performance deteriorates relative to that
of its peers. With new key players in the global econ-
omy—such as China, India, and Brazil—Canadian
businesses must move up the value chain and specialize
in knowledge-intensive, high-value-added goods and
services. Although Canada has some leading companies
that compete globally, its economy is not as innovative
as it could be.
Why does Canada rank so low on innovation?Many explanations for poor innovation performance
have been proposed over the years by academics, indus-
try groups, think-tanks, and government bodies. But
these studies have been limited by a lack of sufficient
data and information. Consequently, more conclusions
have been reached based on beliefs and opinions than
on actual evidence.
Where and how to take action? Some major attempts
at solutions have already been tried. For example, great
progress has been made in reducing the business tax
burden in recent years. However, we have not seen
hoped-for gains in business innovation performance. Is it
because the tax changes were not focused on innovative
firms? Did regulatory and other public policy roadblocks
get in the way? Did Canadian firms fail to adapt quickly
enough to the forces of globalization by internationalizing
their business through the development of global value
chains and greater openness to the use of foreign direct
investment? Or is it because there are internal issues
within Canadian firms that are preventing them from tak-
ing advantage of lower taxes to become more innovative?
So far, there are no conclusive answers—or solutions—to
these firm-level issues. A major roadblock for business
and government is the lack of comprehensive data and
information for diagnosing the problem. Once that solid
evidence is obtained, the next steps will be to create firm-
level strategies and reinvigorate the policy environment
to encourage firms to innovate. P
" Canada’s connectivity record is poor. Canada ranks 13th out of 16 peer countries on the number of per capita broadband subscriptions.
" As a percentage of GDP, venture capital in the U.S. is three times that of Canada.
" Business spending on R&D (as a percentage of GDP) is nearly equal to that of public R&D spending in Canada,
More on the Web
the Netherlands, and Norway. In most other peer countries, business R&D spending as a share of GDP is at least twice as large as public R&D spending.
www .conferenceboard .ca/hcp/details/innovation
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
8 | How Canada Performs 2013
Putting the environment report card in contextThe Conference Board’s overarching goal is to measure
quality of life for Canada and its peers. But a country
must not only demonstrate a high quality of life—it
must also demonstrate that its high quality of life
is sustainable.
There is growing recognition that GDP produced at the
expense of the global environment, and at the expense
of scarce and finite physical resources, overstates the
net contribution of that economic growth to a country’s
prosperity. Canadians understand that protecting the
environment from further damage is not a problem for
tomorrow, but a challenge for today. Without serious
attention to environmental sustainability, Canada puts
its society and its quality of life at risk.
How does Canada compare to its peers?Canada ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries and scores a
“C” grade on its environmental performance report card.
Fourteen indicators are used to assess environmental
performance across six dimensions: air quality, waste,
water quality and quantity, biodiversity and conservation,
natural resources management, and climate change and
energy efficiency. These six dimensions were selected
based on the common environmental and natural resour-
ces policy themes identified in a review of respected
national and international environmental reports.
Canada receives an “A” grade on four of the fourteen
indicators, a “B” grade on three indicators, a “C” on
one indicator, and a “D” on six indicators.
Canada earns “A” grades for water quality, biodiversity,
how it manages its forest resources, and its production
of electricity from low-emitting sources. Respectable
“B” grades are earned for the sulphur oxides indicator,
. . . Canada’s large land mass, cold climate, and resource-intensive economy make it less likely to rank high on some indicators of environmental sustainability, but many of these poor grades are the result of using resources inefficiently.
Did You Know . . .
Environment C
Environment
1 France A
2 Norway A
3 Sweden A
4 U.K. A
5 Ireland A
6 Switzerland A
7 Japan A
8 Italy A
9 Austria A
10 Denmark A
11 Germany B
12 Finland B
13 Belgium B
14 Netherlands B
15 Canada C
16 U.S. D
17 Australia D
Note: Data for the most recent year available were used.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
The Conference Board of Canada | 9
PM (particulate matter) concentration, and the indica-
tor measuring the change in forest cover. But Canada’s
poor record in several areas—including climate change,
energy intensity, smog, and waste generation—drags
down its comparative performance. Only Australia and
the U.S. rank below Canada with “D” grades.
The top three performers are France, Norway, and
Sweden.
Do geography and industrial structure affect environmental performance?They matter. The three countries that rank lowest in the
overall ranking are the U.S., Australia, and Canada. Not
only are they among the most resource-intensive econ-
omies in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), but they are also the three
largest countries in terms of land area. They rank poorly on
nitrogen oxide emissions, VOC (volatile organic com-
pound) emissions, Water Quality Index, Marine Trophic
Index, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy intensity.
It is difficult to target a single cause of their poor
environmental performance. But resource extraction
and processing industries often use a lot of water and
may contribute to greater stresses on local air quality.
Further, greater distances mean that greater amounts
of energy are required to transport people and to move
goods to where they will be consumed, leading to
greater GHG emissions.
Geography and industrial structure are hurdles to over-
come—through technology, innovation, efficiency, and
behavioural changes—in improving Canada’s environ-
mental performance.
Is Canada’s environmental performance improving?Canada’s success in improving its environmental per-
formance has been mixed. It has improved air quality,
reduced its energy intensity, and increased the growth
of forest resources relative to forest harvest. But Canada
must do more to lower greenhouse gas emissions, to use
its freshwater resources more wisely, and to reduce waste.
To improve its overall performance, Canada must
promote economic growth without further degrading
the environment, partly by encouraging more sustain-
able consumption. P
" Total energy consumption per unit of GDP can be used as an indicator of energy efficiency. Canada receives a “D” for its energy intensity in 2009, ranking in last place out of 17 peer countries.
" Canada’s water withdrawals are nearly double the average of the comparator countries.
More on the Web
" In 2010, Canada’s GHG emissions were 20.3 tonnes per capita—significantly higher than the 17-country average of 12.5 tonnes per capita.
www .conferenceboard .ca/hcp/details/environment
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
10 | How Canada Performs 2013
How is education performance measured?Education performance is assessed using 20 indicators
across three levels of labour market participation:
� basic participants (people who have low literacy and
basic skills, are often unemployed, lack coping strat-
egies, and when employed, cannot perform most
jobs competently);
� mainstream participants (people who have mid-
range literacy and job-specific skills, who are usually
employed and performing their jobs reasonably com-
petently, but who may be experiencing difficulties in
adjusting to workplace change); and
� advanced participants (people with high literacy and
job-specific skills and advanced thinking skills that
enable them to adapt to workplace change, innovate,
and create new processes, products, and services).
Two indicators were dropped from our latest report
card because the data are no longer being updated by
OECD—the proportions of students with high- and low-
level problem-solving skills. Seven new indicators were
added this year. They assess:
� equity in education;
� the attractiveness of the education system
to foreign students;
� the difference between the university attainment
of men and women;
� lifelong learning;
� the difference in reading scores between students
who speak the language of the test at home and
those who do not; and
� the financial payoff for men and women of getting
a university degree.
How does Canada’s education performance measure up? When benchmarked against its peers, Canada earns an
“A” grade on the Education and Skills report card. It
. . . Canada attracts more foreign students than the size of its education system would suggest.
Did You Know . . .
Education and Skills A
Education and Skills
1 Finland A
2 Canada A
3 Japan B
4 Australia B
5 Switzerland B
6 Sweden C
7 Germany C
8 U.K. C
9 Netherlands C
10 Norway C
11 U.S. C
12 Belgium D
13 Ireland D
14 Austria D
15 Denmark D
16 France D
Note: Data for the most recent year available were used.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
The Conference Board of Canada | 11
ranks 2nd behind Finland. Canada achieves “A” or “B”
grades on 13 of 20 indicators. Only Finland has a better
report card.
What are Canada’s strengths?Canada’s strength is delivering a high-quality education
with comparatively modest spending to people between
the ages of 5 and 19. While Canadians are at school, they
become well educated (for the most part) in core subjects
like mathematics, reading, and science. Canada now has
the second-highest rate of high school completion and
the highest rate of college completion among its peers.
Canada also ranks well on two new indicators added this
year. The equity in learning outcomes indicator measures
the gap in student reading test scores of Canadian-born
students who speak the language of the test (i.e., English
or French) at home and the scores of Canadian-born,
second-generation students who do not speak the test
language at home. Canada ranks in second place and gets
an “A.” Canada’s score puts it close behind first-place
Australia and well ahead of its next closest competitor,
the United Kingdom. The performance of disadvantaged
schools indicator measures the difference in reading test
scores between 15-year-old students in the most and
least disadvantaged schools. In Canada, the difference
is 31 points—the equivalent of about 10.3 months of
learning. This result earns Canada an “A” grade
and 3rd spot behind Norway (13 points) and Finland
(23 points).
What are Canada’s weaknesses?Canada needs to improve workplace skills training and
lifelong education. Canada’s adult literacy skills are
mediocre, with a large proportion of adults lacking the
literacy skills necessary to function in the workplace.
Canada gets a “C” and ranks 10th out of 15 peer coun-
tries on the indicator measuring adult participation in
job-related, non-formal education.
Canada also underperforms in the highest levels of skills
attainment. Canada produces relatively few graduates
with PhDs and graduates in math, science, computer
science, and engineering. More graduates with advanced
qualifications in these fields would enhance innovation
and productivity growth—and ultimately ensure a high
and sustainable quality of life for all Canadians.
Canada’s middle-of-the-pack ranking on university
completion may reflect the fact that the financial return
from investing in university education in Canada is also
middle-of-the-pack at best. Many other countries (and
the individuals in those countries) get much better returns
on their tertiary investments. P
" The imbalance in educational attainment between Canadian men and women has increased over the past decade, raising questions about whether higher education in Canada is becoming less hospitable to male learners.
" The earnings premium on education in Canada has diminished slightly over the past decade.
More on the Web
" Because second-generation students are testing well in a language other than their home language, it is clear that the Canadian education system is making a contribution to equity.
www .conferenceboard .ca/hcp/details/education
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
12 | How Canada Performs 2013
How do we measure health performance? To measure health performance, we evaluate Canada
and 16 peer countries on the following 11 report card
indicators: life expectancy; self-reported health status;
premature mortality; mortality due to cancer; mortality
due to circulatory disease; mortality due to respiratory
disease; mortality due to diabetes; mortality due to dis-
eases of the musculoskeletal system; mortality due to
mental disorders; infant mortality; and mortality due
to medical misadventures.
It is important to note that the Conference Board is not
attempting to rate Canada’s health care system. Although
the health care system has an impact on the health status
of a population, our goal is to evaluate the health status
of Canadians and of their peers in other countries.
How does Canada grade on health?Canada get a “B” for its overall health performance.
On the surface, this puts Canada in good standing, but
the results also reveal a disturbing fact showing that
relative to its peer countries, Canada’s performance is
weak on key indicators. Although Canada has no “D”
grades, its “C”s for mortality due to cancer, mortality
due to diabetes, mortality due to musculoskeletal dis-
eases, and infant mortality point to areas that require
focus to improve the overall health of Canadians and
to increase Canada’s standing in relation to its peers.
Diabetes remains a growing concern. Canada has the third-
highest mortality rate due to diabetes among the peer
countries, and diabetes prevalence continues to increase.
This should be raising alarm bells, not only among
Canadian policy-makers but also among the public.
Canada scores “A” grades on three indicators: self-
reported health status, premature mortality, and mortality
due to circulatory diseases. Canada achieves “B” grades
. . . Obesity is one of the most significant contributing factors to many chronic conditions, including heart disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes.
Did You Know . . .
Health B
Health
1 Japan A
2 Switzerland A
3 Italy A
4 Norway B
5 Finland B
6 Sweden B
7 France B
8 Australia B
9 Germany B
10 Canada B
11 Netherlands C
12 Belgium C
13 Austria C
14 U.K. C
15 Ireland D
16 Denmark D
17 U.S. D
Note: Data for the most recent year available were used.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
The Conference Board of Canada | 13
for life expectancy, mortality due to respiratory diseases,
mortality due to mental disorders, and mortality due to
medical misadventures.
Why does Canada get a “B” when its health care system is one of the best in the world?Canada’s middle-of-the-road ranking overall—a solid
“B”—would surprise most Canadians. But health care is
just one of several contributors to the health of Canadians.
Other factors also come into play, such as the age of the
population and lifestyle choices including tobacco use,
alcohol consumption, physical activity, and eating habits.
Who’s at the top of the class?Japan, Switzerland, and Italy are the three “A” perform-
ers. There is no easy, single answer to the question of
why other countries are doing better than Canada. Most
top-performing countries have achieved better health
outcomes through actions on the broader determinants
of health such as environmental stewardship and health-
promotion programs focusing on changes in lifestyle,
including smoking cessation, increased activity, healthier
diets, and safer driving habits. Leading countries also
focus on other determinants of health—such as education,
early childhood development, income, and social
status—to improve health outcomes.
Are Canadians healthier today than in the past?On balance, fewer Canadians are dying today from the
diseases benchmarked here than they did in the 1960s
and 1970s. Clearly, progress is being made in reducing
the number of people dying from catastrophic disease.
Relative to its peers, however, Canada has dropped to
10th place from a much more enviable 5th place in the
1990s. Canada’s relative performance has fallen on sev-
eral indicators—specifically, mortality due to medical
misadventures, mental disorders, diabetes, musculoskel-
etal system diseases, and cancer. P
" Canada’s high mortality rate due to mental disorders is a concern. Mental illness not only affects personal rela-tionships and physical health, it can also have a huge impact on workplace performance.
" Among the peer countries, Canada has the second-highest prevalence of diabetes. Even more distressing is the fact that the prevalence of diabetes continues to increase, for both men and women.
More on the Web
Health
1960s B
1970s B
1980s B
1990s B
2000s B
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
" Although cancer mortality rates have fallen, cancer will continue to place an increasing burden on Canadian society. The number of new cancer cases is rising as the Canadian population grows and ages.
www .conferenceboard .ca/hcp/details/health
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
14 | How Canada Performs 2013
Putting the society report card in contextAchieving the goal that the Conference Board sets out
for Canada—that of providing a high and sustainable
quality of life for all Canadians—requires much more
than economic success. By “high quality of life,” we
mean communities that ensure the active participation
of individuals within society (including its most vulner-
able citizens, such as youth and people with disabilities),
minimize the extremes of inequality between its poor-
est and richest citizens, and are free from fear of social
unrest and violence. Outstanding economic performance
does not guarantee outstanding social outcomes—the
U.S. performs well in the Economy report card yet
receives a “D” in the Society report card. Nor are out-
standing economic performance and outstanding social
outcomes mutually exclusive. Norway earned an “A” in
both report cards.
What is Canada’s grade on social performance?Overall, Canada earns a “B” and ranks 7th out of
17 countries on this report card. Its position below the
Nordic countries is not surprising; the Nordic countries
have long outperformed Canada. But Canada now also
ranks below the Netherlands and Austria. Canada’s
middle-of-the-pack ranking means it is not living up
to its reputation or potential.
What is the main social challenge that Canada must address?The financial crisis has put rising income inequality
and poverty in the media and political spotlight. Canada
ranks 12th on the income inequality indicator. Income
inequality rose markedly in the 1990s before stabilizing
in the early 2000s. Since 1990, the richest 20 per cent of
Canadians has increased its share of total national income,
while the poorest and middle-income groups have
lost share.
. . . The global financial crisis that hit in 2008 increased the overall share of people in the low-income category.
Did You Know . . .
Society B
Society
1 Denmark A
2 Norway A
3 Sweden A
4 Netherlands A
5 Finland A
6 Austria A
7 Canada B
8 Belgium B
9 Ireland B
10 Germany B
11 Switzerland B
12 France B
13 Australia B
14 U.K. C
15 Italy C
16 Japan D
17 U.S. D
Note: Data for the most recent year available were used.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
The Conference Board of Canada | 15
Canada ranks 15th on both child poverty and working-age
poverty. The child poverty rate of 15.1 per cent is higher
than it was in the mid-1990s. Canada’s rate of working-
age poverty increased from 9.4 per cent in the mid-1990s
to 11.1 per cent in the late 2000s. Compared to its peers,
Canada had the third-highest increase in the working-
age poverty rate during this period. As a result, Canada’s
grade for this indicator slipped from a “C” to a “D.”
Where does Canada do well?Although Canada has a high level of income inequality
compared to most of its peers, it surpasses most other
countries in intergenerational income mobility. Canada
earns an “A” grade and ranks 5th of 13 peer countries
on this indicator. Intergenerational income mobility can
be seen as a measure of equality of opportunity, as it
measures how likely individuals are to remain in the
same income class as their parents.
Canada ranks first in citizens’ acceptance of diversity.
Canada also gets top marks on measures of life satisfac-
tion, the elderly poverty rate, the income gap between
disabled and able-bodied workers, and the suicide rate.
Has Canada’s social performance improved?Canada has been a steady “B” performer overall in the
Society report card, ranking in the middle of the pack in
the 1990s and 2000s. Canada was an “A” performer in
the 1990s and 2000s on four indicators: elderly poverty,
homicides, life satisfaction, and acceptance of diversity.
Canada has been unable to improve its relative perform-
ance on several of the indicators: the consistent “C”s
on child poverty and the drop to a “D” on working-age
poverty are the most disheartening. P
" If the U.S. were removed from the analysis, Canada would lose its “A” grade on the homicide indicator.
" Many Canadians believe that the gender gap has been dealt with. Yet the gap in income between men and women in Canada is 19 per cent.
More on the Web
Society in Canada
1990s B
2000s B
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RePoRT CARD
" Only 53.8 per cent of adult Canadians voted in the 2011 federal election—the second-lowest turnout in history.
www .conferenceboard .ca/hcp/details/society
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
Acknowledgements
InvesToRs In HoW CAnADA PeRfoRMs
Twenty-six companies invested in the project this year, providing invaluable financial, leadership, and
knowledge support.
TeAM foR HoW CAnADA PeRfoRMs
Project Director
Brenda Lafleur
Content Contributors
Michael Bloom, Len Coad, Sorin Cohn, Glen
Hodgson, Brenda Lafleur, Daniel Munro, Daniel
Muzyka, Gabriela Prada, Sheila Rao, Jean-Louis
Renaud, Douglas Watt
editing
Stephanie Small
Web Design
non-linear creations
Web Development
Dan Jones, Steven Lugtigheid
Graphics
Colette Boisvert, Jennifer Seguin, Lizl Rodriguez
Production Coordinator
Josée Plouffe
Acklands-Grainger Inc.
Agrium Inc.
Banque Nationale du Canada
Bell Aliant
Bell Canada
Gaz Métro
GE Canada
George Weston Limited
Groupe Canam inc.
Harvard Developments Inc.
Hydro-Québec
IBM Canada Ltd.
KPMG MSLP
Nitro Microsystems
Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Trade,
and Employment
Power Corporation of Canada
St. Joseph Communications
Scotiabank
Slaight Communications Inc.
Symcor Inc.
TD Bank Financial Group
Telus Corporation
The Co-operators Group Limited
The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
TransAlta Corporation
Xerox Canada Ltd.
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..
The Conference Board of Canada
255 Smyth Road
Ottawa ON K1H 8M7 Canada
Tel. 1-866-711-2262
Fax 613-526-4857
www.conferenceboard.ca
The Conference Board, Inc .
845 Third Avenue, New York NY
10022-6679 USA
Tel. 212-759-0900
Fax 212-980-7014
www.conference-board.org
The Conference Board europe
Chaussée de La Hulpe 130, Box 11
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel. +32 2 675 54 05
Fax +32 2 675 03 95
The Conference Board Asia–Pacific
2802 Admiralty Centre, Tower 1
18 Harcourt Road, Admiralty
Hong Kong SAR
Tel. +852 2511 1630
Fax +852 2869 1403
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
255 Smyth Road, Ottawa ON K1H 8M7 Canada Tel. 613-526-3280 • Fax 613-526-4857 • Inquiries 1-866-711-2262
conferenceboard.ca
Publ
icat
ion
13-2
60E-
copy
: Com
plim
enta
ry
For the exclusive use of Rob James, [email protected], Stoneleigh Strategies, Inc..