Canada’s ‘livable’ cities still have work to do

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) recently published the 2026 edition of the Global Liveability Index (GLI), a ranking of the world’s most “livable” cities. This year, Vancouver placed ninth out of 173 cities—and other Canadian cities tend to rank highly in this index. These results should be interpreted with caution. The GLI tells us something useful about life in these cities, but it measures only part of what makes a city livable. The index largely ignores affordability, tax burdens and economic opportunity—issues that matter deeply to residents and that governments can improve through better policy.

The GLI combines 30 indicators in areas such as education, infrastructure and safety. But while it measures the quality or availability of many things residents value, it generally does not measure their cost. That methodological choice reflects the index’s original purpose: helping employers assess hardship when relocating staff, separately from ordinary cost-of-living differences.

As a result, a city may score well in the GLI for amenities many residents cannot afford or for government services that taxpayers fund at a very high cost.

Consider a Canadian example. In 2023, Vancouver ranked fifth on the GLI while Calgary ranked seventh. Both cities were scored on the “availability of good quality housing” among other factors, but without any adjustment for house prices and rents. That misses how ordinary families experience the housing market—that year, the cost of buying a typical home relative to local incomes was more than twice as high in Vancouver as in Calgary.

Likewise, cities are scored on measures such as the “quality of public transport” and “public education indicators” with no adjustment for what residents pay through fares, fees or taxes to use or support these services—even though such costs can differ greatly even among Canadian jurisdictions. In other words, the GLI measures some aspects of service quality or availability, but not the value residents receive compared to what they must pay.

Cost is not the only important factor missing from the GLI. The index also does not measure how economic opportunities differ between cities.

If it did, Canadian cities might not score as high, at least relative to U.S. cities. For example, Vancouver ranked 131 out of 141 in a study comparing typical incomes among large U.S. and Canadian cities in 2019—and a related study found that, in 2022, typical incomes in every Canadian province were lower than in every U.S. state.

These omissions underscore an important point—the GLI is not a definitive verdict on whether a city is succeeding. Its rankings reflect choices about what to measure and how much weight each factor should receive, which explains why the GLI’s results can differ meaningfully from other livability rankings. Such choices are unavoidable in any attempt to distil something as complex as “livability” into a single index. But it also means politicians, government agencies and ordinary Canadians should not treat a high GLI ranking as proof that current policies meet the needs of residents.

Regardless of how Canadian cities rank in the GLI, life for their residents could be greatly improved through better policy.

Canadians would have better access to affordable housing if governments cut the red tape and taxes that deter homebuilding. They would face more manageable tax bills if municipal, provincial and federal governments were more judicious with spending. And they would have more economic opportunities with reforms meant to attract investment, permit resource development and allow greater competition.

In general, governments should aim to give Canadians greater economic freedom, as this is associated with a range of positive outcomes including less poverty, less homelessness and better food security.

The GLI tells us something interesting about the “livability” of Canadian cities, but not everything residents need to know. High housing costs, heavy tax burdens and weak economic opportunity do not factor meaningfully into these rankings, even though they affect daily life for many Canadians. That means even cities with high GLI scores should remain focused on the basics: make it easier to build homes, control government spending, attract investment and expand economic opportunity.

Ultimately, we should judge Canadian policymakers by whether residents can afford to live, work and prosper in these cities—not by how the cities score in one international ranking.