International Comparisons - CANADA

1. International Comparisons - CANADA • "Are there emergency management principles promoted in Canada and what influence do they have on the practice and teaching of emergency management?"

2. Does Canada promote a set of emergency management principles? • Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) does not have a clearly endorsed set of principles. • The National Emergency Response System is based on: • Escalating responsibility from the local level up. • A comprehensive (4 phases) all-hazards approach

3. Does Canada promote a set of emergency management principles? • The National Security Policy, Securing an Open Society (April 2004) states “National emergency coordination currently suffers from the absence of both an effective federal-provincial-territorial governance regime, and from the absence of commonly agreed standards and priorities for the national emergency management system.” • There has been limited progress in 24 months

4. Draft Emergency Management Doctrine • A draft report has reviewed by the FTP Deputy Ministers responsible for emergency management and will be considered by the Ministers shortly. • The doctrine will serve as a cornerstone to highlight the Canadian approach to emergency management.

5. Draft Emergency Management Doctrine • The PSEPC draft doctrine will likely include: • Comprehensive emergency management • Partnerships (collaboration, coordination) • Coherency of Action (connecting jurisdictions) • Risk based • All-hazards • Resiliency • Responsibility • Clear public communication • Continuous improvement

6. Does Canada promote a set of emergency management principles? • Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have adopted an emergency management strategy based on the principles: • Comprehensive Emergency Management • Strategic Programs Approach • All Hazards / Common Consequences • Sustainability • Resiliency • Pan-Canadian, trans-jurisdictional

7. Comprehensive Emergency Management • “involves addressing hazards and disasters through a constant balancing of the mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery components.”

8. Strategic Programs Approach • “provides an objective and logical process to achieving an ongoing comprehensive emergency management system that is part of the organization’s integral and normal business practices.”

9. All Hazards / Common Consequences Approach • “examines the full range of threats and the implications of their common consequences to Canadians and to the health and emergency social services sectors.”

10. Sustainable • “programs, policies, and plans that can be implemented and maintained without transferring risk to other communities nor simply postponing risk to future generations.”

11. Resiliency • “within the health and emergency social services sectors and the population will allow communities to resist the harm of an impact and return quickly to normal.”

12. Pan-Canadian and Trans-jurisdictional • “systems will ensure that programs, policies, and plans link easily between local, regional, provincial/territorial and federal levels within the health and emergency social services sectors and with other sectors and partners.”

13. Key Elements supporting the principles • Risk Management • Continuity of Services • Evaluation and Quality Improvement • Cooperation and Coordination • Evidence Based Approach (includes research) • Communications • Management Systems (includes IMS) • Volunteer Participation • Resource Management (includes funding)

14. Link to New Zealand • In 1999 MB Health hired an emergency manager who had participated in the development of principles in NZ. • In 2001 MB Health developed its emergency management strategy. • In 2003 Health Canada contracted MB Health to assist in the development of the National Framework.

15. Are these principles formally adopted (though legislation or policy)? • The National Framework for Health Emergency Management has been presented to the F/P/T Ministers of Health but is not a formal government policy. • New legislation is coming that will include a comprehensive, all-hazards approach.

16. Are they applied at a national / regional / local level? • Health Canada / PHAC have adopted these principles and the provincial health departments have also taken them on to varying degrees. • The intent was the principles can apply at the health facility / service level as well as regionally, provincially and nationally.

17. Are they more strategic or tactical/practical in their intent and application? • The PHAC adopted principles are meant to guide program development. • The supporting elements are more practical and meant to apply to the implementation of every principle.

18. Are there principles that should or should not be included? • The principles and supporting elements were derived through a consultative process with the federal and provincial / territorial governments that tried to identify as full a range of mutually agreeable concepts as possible.

19. How do these principles influence emergency management higher education? • At the moment this is a limited issue in Canada as there are so few programs. • The principles are discussed, as one example of a set of principles, at Brandon University.

20. Is there any evidence the principles are actually influencing decision-making? • In some areas, especially the implementation of incident management systems, but not a significant widespread influence. • The principles had some influence during the creation of PHAC but as the two processes occurred concurrently it was not a direct link.

21. Conclusions • Canada’s emergency management system has not (yet) developed a clear set of principles at the national level to apply across all sectors. • Individual provinces and/or sectors, such as Health, have made some progress.