New index of wellbeing challenges Canada’s GDP as sole measure of progress

Waterloo, Ont. – Canada has become a world leader in measuring wellbeing with the launch of a new comprehensive composite index set to challenge the gross domestic product (GDP) as the sole measure of our country’s progress, says the Honourable Roy Romanow, advisory board chair for the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW), located at the University of Waterloo. 

The CIW today is releasing a comprehensive composite index designed by an interdisciplinary team of accomplished Canadian and international experts to measure the overall wellbeing of Canada. It shows that Canadians’ quality of life hasn’t improved at anywhere near the pace of economic growth as measured by GDP. 

“Since 1994, the starting point for the CIW, Canada’s wellbeing has seen an overall improvement of 11 per cent – paling in comparison to the 31 per cent growth in the country’s GDP over that same time frame,” says Romanow. 

“The CIW shows us what GDP cannot: our country is not reaping all of the benefits of our economic growth. Our quality of life has actually gone down in areas such as the environment, leisure and culture, and time use, with only modest gains in health. And even in areas where growth has been robust, our research shows that it was the top 20 per cent that received the lion’s share of rising income and wealth during the boom years, while the gap down to the bottom 20 per cent grew even larger. That’s the Canadian reality.” 

Seen as a global leader by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the CIW composite index is based on 64 separate indicators in eight interconnected categories, built to reflect real Canadian life. 

“This may well be a defining moment in our new economic reality,” says CIW deputy chair, the Honourable Monique Bégin. “By providing an accurate snapshot of how Canada’s wellbeing is faring over time, the CIW gives us the tools we need to hold governments accountable for their actions and decisions – so that our quality of life grows along with GDP.” 

Located in Waterloo’s faculty of applied health sciences, the CIW provides an opportunity to bring together experts in all aspects of wellbeing. The faculty has been an international leader for over 40 years in research related to promoting health and optimizing quality of life.

“This is an exciting first step toward a better understanding of the complexity of our wellbeing”, says Bryan Smale, professor in the faculty of applied health sciences and director of the CIW. “The reports we will be generating in the coming years will drive the conversation leading to real social change that will enhance Canadian lives.” 

Today’s release of the CIW puts Canada ahead of France and the UK, countries also on their way to developing a similar index. 

To learn more about the CIW or enjoy a short video and infographic please visit:www.ciw.ca 

About Waterloo

In just half a century, the University of Waterloo, located at the heart of Canada’s Technology Triangle, has become one of Canada’s leading comprehensive universities with 30,000 full- and part-time students in undergraduate and graduate programs. Waterloo, as home to the world’s largest post-secondary co-operative education program, embraces its connections to the world and encourages enterprising partnerships in learning, research and discovery. In the next decade, the university is committed to building a better future for Canada and the world by championing innovation and collaboration to create solutions relevant to the needs of today and tomorrow. For further details, visit www.uwaterloo.ca.

In difficult times, we still need to protect our cultural identity – CIW Director

By Bryan Smale

In the recent research findings released in Canada’s Vital Signs, we see an interesting comparison of the percentage of people attending cultural events in different cities across Canada. Notably, cities such as Victoria, Calgary, Montréal, Toronto, and interestingly, Kelowna, show up consistently as reporting comparatively higher percentages of people taking part in these activities.

Just as notable is the absence in this top group of the many other Canadian cities included in the General Social Survey. Are their residents just not interested in the arts?

The variable patterns of attendance among the cities are frequently explained as a function of differences in the demographic profile of the population. For example, in Victoria, the higher proportion of older residents in that city is pointed to as the reason underlying their higher percentages of attendance to the performing arts. Similarly, the relatively higher attendance at cultural or artistic festivals in some cities is tied to the size of the cities, where larger cities (e.g., Montréal) report higher percentages than smaller cities (e.g., St. John).

However, there is another factor to consider. In a report on Leisure and Culture released last year by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW), it was reported that “both total and average attendance at performing arts performances have declined steadily since 2001, although average attendance rebounded somewhat in 2006, in part due to the fewer number of performances available.”

So, the patterns of decline we see in attendance among Canadians are just as much a function of the availability of performances, events, and especially the venues where they are presented.

When coupled with the recent cuts in support for the public agencies and non-profit and voluntary groups typically responsible for these activities, this decline in engagement is even more troubling for the wellbeing of Canadians and their communities. Deliberate losses in our capacity to develop and provide meaningful venues and opportunities for the performing arts and cultural activities threaten the wellbeing of individuals, communities, and society at large. We must strengthen our resolve to ensure that our capacity to sustain and further develop such resources is maintained.

We must avoid “blaming ourselves” for declining attendance at arts and cultural performances and events. We must demand more from our elected officials and bureaucrats to protect those places where we celebrate our culture, our humanity, our sense of ourselves. Without those places, we are less well as a nation.

Please visit our website on October 20 to read the first-ever CIW composite index report ‘How are Canadians Really doing?’ and ask yourself what progress means to your wellbeing.

Explore the infographic to see what areas of wellbeing are improving or getting worse, and watch the video to be inspired to start the conversation with your colleagues, with friends and families, and with elected officials.

 Bryan Smale is the Director of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) and a Professor in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the University of Waterloo

 

CIW environmental report echoes earlier findings released by CFC

By Sara Lyons

In April 2011, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing released its first Environment Domain Report. The report found that while Canada is not in the midst of an environmental crisis, key concerns include soaring greenhouse gasses, increasing waste generation and energy use, declining stocks of large fish species, and shrinking water supplies in parts of the country.

At the individual level, noted trends were that Canadians continue to be large consumers of hydrocarbon energy and of water, and we are consuming and disposing more, so much so that while recycling is increasing, it does not reduce total waste.

These findings are particularly interesting in light of the Vital Signs National Public Opinion Survey, conducted by Environics Research Group, which Community Foundations of Canada published last October as part of our Vital Signs program. We found that while we know from other research that Canadians rate the environment as a top global concern, most generally feel positively about the quality of the environment in their own community.  The vast majority of Canadians believe their local environment is either stable or improving.

Further, while nearly all Canadians feel that citizens can have at least some impact on their local environment, nearly half said that the primary reason they were not doing more was a lack of motivation and unwillingness to change their lifestyle.

What might explain this mismatch between the facts and our perceptions, motivations and actions? A couple of ideas come to mind.

First, as the Environment Domain Report notes, there are considerable gaps in environmental data. The capacity to undertake environmental monitoring has decreased over the years and is badly underfunded. In other words, Canadians don’t have the tools to be aware of local environmental degradation and threats in their own backyards.

Another, even more troubling contributor, is that those most affected by environmental concerns are the least likely to have a voice, or social and political power.  A 2008 report by PollutionWatch found a high correlation between pollution and poverty in neighbourhoods in the Great Lakes basin, home to almost a third of Canadians. Polluting industry tends to be located near low-income neighbourhoods.

We also know that local environmental conditions on Aboriginal reserves in Canada are generally abysmal. Just last month, outgoing Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted in her latest report that more than half of reserves don’t have reliably safe drinking water. So those who are the most directly affected by local environment concerns are the least likely to be in a position to lead change, have their voices heard, or take personal positive action.

Canadians who feel their local environment is doing well need to demand more monitoring to find out if this is really true, better connect their individual actions to the bigger picture and the right of all people to environmental health, and better understand that their patch of green may be under threat.

Sara Lyons is Program Director with Community Foundations of Canada, and mom to toddler Chloe

Canada’s environmental path worrisome, says new CIW report

Canada’s environmental path could jeopardize long-term quality of life, according to a new study released today by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW).

While the CIW Environment Report says our country is not in crisis, it also finds clear warning signs of potential threats to our environment and wellbeing.

Those include soaring greenhouse gases, increasing waste generation and energy use, declining stocks of large fish species and shrinking water supplies in parts of Canada.

These are topics Community Foundations across the country are grappling with on a daily basis. We can face a distressed future or a better quality of life, but now is the time to act. Download the full report at the CIW homepage, and have a look at a supplementary paper called Ideas for Positive Change.

 

Tough economic times still ahead

By Lynne Slotek

As Canada’s Vital Signs 2010 reported, “the fallout from the global recession is far from over.”

Regrettably, history has taught us that – without extensive government stimulus – it will be many years before Canada returns to unemployment and poverty levels that existed before the recession. After the 1980s recession, for example, it took seven years for Canada’s unemployment rate to return to pre-recession levels, and even then poverty rates kept going up for another three years.

Recessions do not hit all Canadians equally. A report prepared last year for the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW), The Economic Crisis through the Lens of Wellbeing by Jean-François Arsenault and Andrew Sharpe, showed that in each of the previous two recessions, lower and middle income families experienced much larger losses of income than higher income households.

In the 1982-83 recession, the market income of the bottom 20 per cent of households dropped by 38 per cent, while the top 20 per cent of households lost just 3 per cent. In the 1990-93 recession, the bottom 20 per cent lost 74 per cent of income compared to 5.1 per cent for the top 20 per cent.

The situation for the unemployed and Canadians living in poverty has been further complicated by the growing holes in our country’s social safety net. Cuts to EI combined with a weakening of welfare benefits have rendered the climb out of poverty more difficult than in the past.

The climb has been especially steep for historically disadvantaged groups such as recent immigrants, racialized groups, Aboriginal peoples and youth. A second report prepared for the CIW, How are Canadians Really doing? A Closer Look at Select Groups by Caryl Arundel and Associates noted that racialized groups are three times as likely to be poor than other Canadians.

History can be an important predictor of future patterns. But sometimes we need to remind ourselves that it’s there to teach us, not to bind us. History will only repeat itself if we allow it to. We Canadians are an adaptable people and we have the capacity to explore new solutions.

What does this mean in public policy terms? It means there must be two priorities for government action. First, since recessions and their aftermath primarily hit those who lose their jobs, it is vital that governments support such individuals by designing and implementing income supplement and retraining programs that meet their needs by opening up real access to real jobs.

Secondly, governments must offset as much as possible the shortfall in private-sector spending that prevents our economy from operating at full capacity. This is no time to become complacent and assume that just because GDP may be picking up a little, the market economy will take care of everything. It was that kind of thinking that got us into trouble in the first place.

In short, we still need ongoing government stimulus and support for both Canadians hit hardest by the recession and for the economy if we are to avoid the extended periods of high unemployment and even higher poverty rates that have followed previous recessions.

Lynne Slotek is the National Project Director of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. CIW Reports on the quality of life of Canadians are available at www.ciw.ca.

The Census Long Form and Vital Signs

On Wednesday September 29th, the House of Commons passed a motion calling on the federal government to reinstate the mandatory long-form census. This is just the most recent of many efforts by businesses, academics, community organizations, individual citizens and politicians from all parties and levels of government to convince the federal government to change its course. Community Foundations of Canada has been part of this effort and in July wrote a letter to Minister Tony Clement.

The loss of the mandatory census long form represents a disaster for Canada’s statistical infrastructure. The resignation of Canada’s Chief Statistician shows the seriousness of this issue. But this bad political decision is reversible. It appears not to be possible to reinstate the long form for the 2011 census (although some argue this still can be done by postponing the census to the second half of 2011), but the long form can certainly be reinstated for the 2016 census.

It is important that Canadians make their views known on this issue in as many ways as possible. One way is by signing the national petition to reinstate the long form. Another way is to contact your local MP and let them know that you support the reinstatement of the long form census.

The demise of the mandatory long form for the 2011 census is a blow to the Vital Signs project organized by Community Foundations of Canada, as it is for other projects that rely on this data such as the Canadian Index of Wellbeing and Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Quality of Life Reporting System. The census provides high-quality, reliable data for Canadian communities of all sizes. It is the most important data source used by local community foundations to compile their Vital Signs reports.

As part of the research support for the Vital Signs project, the Centre for the Study of Living Standards developed and maintains a comprehensive data base for Vital Signs communities containing about 70 indicators in ten issues areas. The census is a source 18 of these indicators, and is more important than other data sources such as the Labour Force Survey (LFS), the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID), and the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCSH). The census is particularly important for small Vital Signs communities, such as Wolfville, where the limited sample size of national surveys such as the LFS means that estimates for these communities are just not possible.

Even for the CMAs where estimates from other household surveys such as the LFS, SLID, and CCHS are often available, these estimates are much less reliable than census data because the census long form has a much greater sample size (20 per cent of the population). More important, information from the census long form is used to benchmark and weight the different groups in other household surveys. The demise of the long form means that the quality of the estimates in these surveys will deteriorate in the future because these benchmarks and weights cannot be updated.

Looking beyond the needs of the Vital Signs project, the loss of the census long form means that the community profiles posted on the Statistics Canada website, which are freely accessible to all Canadians, cannot be reliably updated.

These profiles, which unfortunately are much less known and used than they should be, provide estimates for such variables as population, gender, age group, characteristics of dwellings, educational attainment and field of study, marital status, family and household characteristics, earnings and income, mother language, knowledge of official languages, labour market status, employment by industry and occupation, mobility status, Aboriginal and visible minority status, immigration and citizenship status, place of work, and mode of transport to work, for all cities, towns, municipalities, and reserves in all provinces and territories in Canada. Data for literally tens of thousands of communities are available.

For example, if one want to know the median income in 2006 of female lone-parent families in the small town of Vulcan, Alberta (population 1,940), one can find it on the community profiles website with several keystrokes ($34,614). By replacing the mandatory census long form, which was answered by a random sample of 20 per cent of Canadians, by the non-mandatory National Household Survey, the results for the 2011 census will be much less reliable for the construction of community profiles than was the case in previous censuses, if they can be used at all.

Again, it is important that Canadians tell the government that we want reliable data to be available to policy makers, the not for profit sector, researchers, advocates and the public. Please sign the national petition to reinstate the long form www.savestatcan.ca and contact your local MP and let them know that you support the reinstatement of the census.

Andrew Sharpe
Executive Director
Centre for the Study of Living Standards
Ottawa, Ontario
andrew.sharpe@csls.ca

Spotlight on Income Inequality

Throughout the month of October the Vital Signs Canada blog will feature guest bloggers who are experts on various aspects of community vitality. Today’s contributor Lynne Slotek, CEO, Institute of Wellbeing and National Project Director, Canadian Index of Wellbeing.

In Vital Signs most recent report, ‘total income’ is the indicator used to provide a snapshot on ‘The Gap Between Rich and Poor‘. According to Vital Signs, “income inequality in Canada has grown over the past 25 years, through both bad and good economic times… and the current economic challenges run the risk of worsening the trend.”

Recessions are a difficult way to learn a lesson. Still, there’s one thing that the current economic meltdown has taught us, and that is to question the notion that all growth is a sign of progress. The “growth is good” concept is one that has been increasingly reinforced by the dominance of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – a tool that was invented in the Great Depression and has often been misused as a surrogate for quality of life.

New times call for new measures. We need to adopt a new paradigm for the way we measure our wellbeing and think about ourselves and our world. Just as Vital Signs shines a light on the quality of life of communities, the Institute of Wellbeing with its signature product, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW), is designed to do that at the national level.

One of the key goals of the Institute of Wellbeing is to connect the dots between Canadians’ public policy decisions and quality of life (measured by indicators) – to promote a new understanding of wellbeing and the interrelated factors that contribute to it; and to encourage policy makers to make evidence-based decisions that respond to the values and needs of Canadians.

In its First Report, How are Canadians Really doing? the CIW drew attention to the dynamic interactions among income, health and education. People with higher incomes and education tend to live longer, are less likely to have diabetes and other chronic conditions, and are consistently more likely to report excellent or very good health. “The stark reality”, the report says “is that household income continues to be the best predictor of future health status. This is true in all age groups and for both women and men.” For policy shapers and decision makers, it highlights the need to confront disparities in education and health, in addition to income in order to come up with real and sustainable solutions for poverty reduction.

The CIWs First Report‘s message also clearly demonstrated that “the poor stayed poor”. The poverty gap – the amount of money by which the average poor family fell short of the poverty line – was the same in 2007 as it was in 1981. At the same time, “the rich got richer”. The after-tax income of the top 20 percent of households rose 38.7 percent from 1981-2007 while the increases for all other income groups were between 21.4 and 25.8 percent.

The recession is not helping. In July 2009, the Institute of Wellbeing, released a Special Report, The Economic Crisis through the Lens of Economic Wellbeing. The report comments that the current recession will erase many of the economic and standard of living gains made since the mid-1990s. Unemployment and poverty will likely continue to rise and stay at high levels for years. The report points out that there has been a great loss of income since the onset of the recession and the hardest hit have been the bottom 20 percent of households. Based on previous recessions, the report predicts that unemployment will likely peak at around 10 percent in 2010 and the poverty rate will rise to 13.2 percent in 2010.

There is a wealth of information on income inequality in this country. About 11.4 percent of the total population, or nearly 3.5 million Canadians, including nearly 880,000 children aged 17 years and under, lived in low-income in 2005 (Statistics Canada 2008b). According to the OECD (2008), both inequality and poverty rates in Canada are now higher than the OECD average. The Senate of Canada, Subcommittee on Cities (2008) reported that “labour force participation is no longer enough to keep Canadians out of poverty.” And Food Banks Canada (2008) report that nearly 15 percent of food bank users in Canada get all their income from work and still aren’t able to care for and feed their family. Despite all of this, in June 2009, Canada rejected the UN Human Rights Council recommendation for the development of a national strategy to eliminate poverty.

So, what does this mean for policy application? The Institute’s Living Standards report links changes in the income inequality of Canadians with specific government public policy decisions. Some policy decisions have been harmful to wellbeing, such as changes to Employment Insurance and the significantly lower Welfare Benefits in 2007 than in 1986. On the other hand, the introduction of the Child Tax Credit and the National Child Benefits Supplement in the mid 90s, has provided additional income to poor working families and has lowered the poverty rate for this group somewhat – a good start towards Canadian wellbeing.

We can learn from these examples of policy decisions. The CIW, Community Foundations of Canada, other partners, and concerned Canadians, are engaging in dialogue to discover new possibilities. Sometimes, confronted with the need for significant and immediate change to complex problems, we fall back on band-aid solutions. To do so, means that we will still be looking at the same challenges or worse, come the next recession. Instead, let’s find innovative and sustainable solutions that confront root problems in integrated ways.