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?"

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.”

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.”

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

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.”

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.”

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.