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.

www.cboc.ca/ip

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


http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf

http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf

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


www.cboc.ca/ip


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



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


http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/economy.aspx

www.cboc.ca/ip


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


RePoRT CARD



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


http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/innovation.aspx

www.cboc.ca/ip


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


RePoRT CARD



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


http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment.aspx

www.cboc.ca/ip


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


RePoRT CARD



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


http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/education.aspx

www.cboc.ca/ip


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


RePoRT CARD



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


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


http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health.aspx

www.cboc.ca/ip


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


RePoRT CARD



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


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


http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society.aspx

www.cboc.ca/ip

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.


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


www.cboc.ca/ip

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


http://www.conferenceboard.ca

How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada...

Documents

Transcript of How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada...