Disaster and Emergency Management in Canada

Introduction
Brenda L. Murphy1 and David Etkin2

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this
license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter
to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California,
94041, USA.

“Disaster and Emergency Management in Canada: Introduction” by Brenda L.

Murphy and David Etkin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Table of Contents
BACKGROUND TO THE BOOK................................................................................................... 2
INVITATION ................................................................................................................................... 2
FOCUS OF THIS CHAPTER ............................................................................................................... 2
CANADA‟S RISK LANDSCAPE ................................................................................................... 3
PATTERNS AND TRENDS ................................................................................................................ 3
Global:.. ............................................................................................................................... 3
Canadian: ............................................................................................................................. 4
CANADIAN HAZARD TRENDS ................................................................................................... 7
NATURAL HAZARDS ...................................................................................................................... 7
CLIMATE CHANGE ......................................................................................................................... 8
TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS......................................................................................................... 10
PANDEMICS AND OTHER HEALTH DISEASE OUTBREAKS ............................................................. 11
CIVIL UNREST AND TERRORISM .................................................................................................. 12
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................ 14
DEVELOPING RISK RESILIENCY AND CAPACITY: GLOBAL AND FEDERAL
PERSPECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 16
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES................................................................................................... 16
CANADIAN FEDERAL APPROACHES ............................................................................................. 18
Mitigation: ......................................................................................................................... 19
Preparedness: ..................................................................................................................... 21
BUSINESS CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 23
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 24
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 25

1
Wilfrid Laurier University, Brantford Campus, [email protected]
2
York University, Toronto, [email protected]

1
Background to the Book
Disaster and Emergency Management, as an academic discipline, only formally
began in Canada in 2002 when Brandon University, under the leadership of
Prof. Emdad Haque, created the Department of Applied Disaster and Emergency
Studies. Since that time other programs at the certificate, undergraduate and
graduate levels have been created at York University and Royal Roads
University, as well as at numerous community colleges across the country.
One of the challenges facing academics teaching in this field is the lack
of textbooks and other teaching materials that are Canadian focussed. It is
because of this shortfall that this project was undertaken – to write a textbook on
disaster and emergency management that is relevant to the Canadian context.
This book avoids generic topics in the field that are well covered in many other
existing texts (e.g., Coppola 2007, Ferrier 2009, Haddow and Bullock 2003) and
instead pays more attention to issues of particular Canadian interest or
specialized topics. It is intended to be a “living document” on the internet that
can be added to over time, freely available to teachers and students in this field.

Invitation
Another advantage of this technology is that the existing chapters can be easily
updated and new chapters can be added. We would like to invite academics,
practitioners and students involved in Canadian disaster and emergency
management to participate in this project by developing a paper that can be
uploaded to our website. This could be a theoretical article, a practitioner-
oriented guide, a case study, etc. All papers are reviewed by the editors and are
also sent out for peer review prior to being uploaded to the website.

Focus of This Chapter

Given that this book is a living document, we do not offer a general summary of
the individual chapters in this introduction. Instead, we provide an overview
(both global and Canadian) of some of the important risks facing Canadians
today and in the next few decades. Then we offer a few comments about
opportunities for risk management, capacity building and resiliency.
Throughout, we integrate ideas about the predominant trends and ideas we see
currently unfolding within the field of emergency and disaster management.

2
Our focus is on broad Canadian trends and issues – it is beyond the purview of
this chapter to comment on specific regional or local contexts.

Canada’s Risk Landscape

This section highlights key findings about the overall issues and risk patterns
that will be important within Canadian emergency management for the
immediate future as well as over the next few decades. The following section
outlines some of the most important trends and ideas about the management of
these risks.

Patterns and Trends

Various authors, both academic and popular, have discussed how different
aspects of modern society create increased risk (e.g. Clarke 2006, Moran 2003,
Rees 2003, Perrow 1999, Perrow 2007). Several recent reports identify some of
the most worrisome threats at both the global and Canadian levels. Below, we
provide a brief summary of four reports, two international and two Canadian,
which capture the flavour of these reports.

Global:
At the global scale, the Global Risks 2011 reports that the following risks are
currently perceived to be the most important in terms of both impact and
likelihood (World Economic Forum 2011):
Climate change, food and water security, infectious and chronic
disease;
Fiscal crises, price volatility and economic disparity;
Geopolitical conflicts, terrorism, demographic challenges,
migration, corruption and global governance failures;
Storms, cyclones, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions,
biodiversity loss; and
Online data and information security.

The report argues that two risks, economic disparity and global
governance failures, are especially significant because of their high degree of
impact and interconnectedness (World Economic Forum 2011). These two risks

3
are expected to have an influence on many other risks and society‟s capacity to
respond effectively to those risks. Both of these threats are related to
globalization which, on the one hand, allows the world to be ever more
connected and interdependent, while on the other hand, has highlighted and
exacerbated the unevenness of the benefits flowing from globalization
processes. In particular, there is a growing divergence of opinion worldwide
regarding how to promote sustainable, inclusive growth. For the future, the five
risks to watch are: cyber-security issues; demographic challenges; resource
security issues; retrenchment from globalization; and weapons of mass
destruction. The report concludes by emphasizing that these various risks and
challenges are always associated with opportunities for innovation and growth;
thus, the identification of risks is only the first step in developing a response
strategy.
A second international report by Swiss Re, although written in 2004,
echoes many of these same ideas and continues to be applicable today. The
report entitled, The Risk Landscapes of the Future (Swiss Re 2004), notes the
countervailing trends between increasing disasters, but decreasing accidents.
The report asserts that at the international level it is generally agreed that
“[s]ince the mid-1970s, the number of serious natural catastrophes and technical
disasters has increased” (Swiss Re 2004, p.13). In contrast, in most
industrialized countries, life expectancies are generally increasing whilst
building fires, traffic accidents, industrial accidents etc. are generally
decreasing. Larger, more efficient transportation networks, for instance, reduce
accidents, but result in larger losses when catastrophe strikes. In an increasingly
densely populated, urbanized, technology-oriented world, fires, natural hazards,
power outages and loss of telecommunications can all have devastating impacts
that lead to disaster.

Canadian:
The report on Global Strategic Trends (Ministry of Defence, Government of
Canada 2010) surveys the world from a Canadian point of view. It maintains
that over the next 30 years climate change, globalization, global inequality and
technological innovation will be the dominant pervasive issues. This report
highlights that:
increasingly complex global systems are likely to experience
systemic risks and failures (e.g. global markets, telecommunications);

4
 the global power structure will be unstable and will move
towards Asia and towards a multi-polar distribution of geo-political power;
instability will be further exacerbated by the impacts of climate
change, unequal access to resources (e.g. food, water, energy) and population
growth, especially in urban areas;
globalization, underpinned by telecommunication innovation,
will increase on-line information availability and world-wide utilization of that
information and will generate winners and losers;
radicalization of disempowered urban males combined with the
opportunity for recruitment, knowledge and organization provided by the
internet, is likely to contribute to a continued terrorist threat;
the resources from oceans and polar regions will be further
exploited; and
the proliferation of modern weapon technologies (e.g. Weapons
of Mass Destruction; Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear Weapons)
will foster further instability.

This report concludes by suggesting that agile and versatile organizations

with access to good information, training, and focused comprehensive
management approaches are most likely to be successful at adapting to these
various challenges.
Another Canadian perspective is provided by the RCMP 2007
Environmental Scan that identifies the following trends as important in the
context of emergency management (Royal Canadian Mounted Police 2007):
Ongoing technology changes are leading to an increase in the
threat of cyber crime (including malicious viruses) and providing an opportunity
for criminals, including terrorists, to organize activities as well as gather and
disseminate information efficiently and without detection. Simultaneously,
technology is providing new tools to support, assess and minimize these risks.
Climate change is a central threat in the 21st century. It will
impact the security of nations and local communities (e.g. opening of the
Northwest Passageway in Canada‟s north); will disrupt critical infrastructure
such as road transportation; and will negatively impact responsible authority‟s
response capabilities.

5
 Canada‟s current demographic trends towards an aging
population with an increasing non-European, non-Christian population will
impact the types of vulnerabilities that will need to be addressed.
Aboriginal peoples in Canada are continuing to face a range of
problems, but at the same time are moving forward around such issues as health,
education, self-government and land claims. This will impact the levels of
resiliencies available to deal with disasters as well as the need to develop
approaches to emergency management that are appropriate within an Aboriginal
context.
Domestic radicalization leading to terrorism is perceived to be a
significant modern threat both within the home country of the terrorists and
abroad amongst the international community.
Improving critical infrastructure security is becoming an
increasing priority for the management of natural and technological disasters
including terrorist attacks and cyberspace attacks. Improvements have been
focused on such activities as contingency and business continuity planning,
training, security awareness and information sharing.

Over the next few decades, the overlap in ideas amongst these various
perspectives suggests that factors such as climate change, demographic shifts,
urbanization, globalization and geo-political unrest will underpin many of the
vulnerabilities and risks facing Canadians. This is supported by the second
edition of the Emergency Management Framework for Canada:
...accumulating risks associated with factors such as increased
urbanization, critical infrastructure dependencies and interdependencies,
terrorism, climate change, environmental change, animal and human diseases
and the heightened movement of people and goods around the world have
increased the potential for various types of catastrophes (Government of Canada
and Ministers Responsible for Emergency Management 2011, 3).
Thus, when thinking about Canadian-specific hazard trends and the
development of appropriate emergency management approaches, these broader
contexts will undoubtedly impact both vulnerability and resiliency. For
instance, the recent damage to the Japanese nuclear reactor has heightened fears
about the radioactive contamination of Canada‟s west coast as well as concerns
about the safety of nuclear facilities. Another cogent example is the concern

6
that the recent execution of Osama Bin Laden that may lead to an accelerated
retaliatory terrorist threat3 amongst Western nations.

Canadian Hazard Trends

Beyond these broad trends, the following section outlines a few of the specific
vulnerabilities and threats likely to be especially important for Canada across the
natural, biological and technological hazards. Since there is an interactive
connection between critical infrastructure (CI) and hazards, CI is also included
in this section.

Natural Hazards
Canada is a huge country, the second largest in the world, and is exposed to a
wide range of natural hazards (Etkin, 2009), including geophysical (e.g.
earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides), and meteorological threats (e.g. winter
hazards such as avalanches, snow and ice storms and summer hazards such as
tornadoes and heat waves). Hazard patterns have great spatial variation,
especially for threats that are locally specific such as landslides, floods and snow
squalls. Natural hazards often also follow a strong annual cycle depending upon
the season (with the exception of some geophysical ones such as earthquakes
and tsunamis).
In Canada, relative to other risks in society such as cancer and car
accidents, few lives have been lost due to these natural hazards though they can
cause significant hardship and large financial losses and have caused massive
fatalities in other countries. In B.C., Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes flood is
the most frequent disaster, while in the Prairie province drought is the most
frequent one, followed by flood. The most expensive Canadian natural disasters
are the droughts of 2001-2002 and 1980 (both about $5.8 billion), with the 1998
Ice Storm in Quebec and Eastern Ontario coming a close second at $5.4 billion
(Natural Resources Canada, 2004; Wheaton and Wittrock, 2005; Wheaton et al.,
2007). Five other droughts since the 1930s whose cost exceed $1billion make
drought Canada‟s most expensive hazard. The potential exists for a disaster of
much larger magnitude than has thus far occurred, and it may well be that within
the next few decades Canadians will experience a natural disaster that is much

3
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/features/binladen-dead/

7
worse than historical ones. This is due to several reasons: (1) No worst case
scenario has yet occurred for a large disaster, (2) Climate change is likely to
exacerbate some hazards (especially heat waves, flood and drought), and (3) In
many ways vulnerability to hazards is increasing due to urbanization,
environmental degradation, population growth (especially in flood prone areas)
and our increasing reliance upon critical infrastructure.
Information on Canadian natural hazards is available from a variety of
sources, including academic papers in a variety of journals, Environment
Canada4, Natural Resources Canada5, Public Safety Canada, The Institute for
Catastrophic Loss Reduction, as well as provincial ministries that have
responsibility for the environment and public safety. Two specific Canadian
publications in this area are “Canadians at Risk: Our Exposure to Natural
Hazards” (Etkin, Editor, 2009) and “An Assessment of Natural Hazards and
Disasters in Canada” (Etkin, Haque and Brooks, Editors, 2003).

Climate Change
Climate change is one of those wicked problems that lies within the realm of
post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz 2003). Efforts from the global (such
as the Framework Convention on Climate Change6) to the local (such as the
Toronto Climate Change Action Plan7) are underway to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in order to slow down projected warming, though measurements of
atmospheric carbon dioxide continue to grow. The best science we have tells us
that the climate is going to become warmer, which means that the world will be
faced with having to adapt to change. The main problem facing emergency
managers from a risk perspective is, “What adaptation actions should be taken,
given the large uncertainty that exists at local levels in terms of future trends?”
Climate change will reconfigure not only the hazard context, but also the
physical, social and economic vulnerability in many regions. Linkages between
climate change and disaster risk are non-linear and complex, and for that reason
are very difficult to predict, especially at local scales. It seems likely that many
4
E.g.,Canadian Atmospheric Hazards Network (http://www.hazards.ca/intro-e.html)
5
E.g. The Atlas of Canada: Natural Hazards
(http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/1) and Earth Sciences
monitoring (http://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/disdan/index_e.php)
6
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
7
http://www.toronto.ca/changeisintheair/

8
hazards will become more severe, while others such as cold snaps will be less
intense. Globally, the most authoritative voice on this topic is the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose publications are
available on the web at www.ipcc.ch. Table 1 (IPCC, 2007) summarizes
scientific levels of confidence in some hazard trends. Regionally, climate change
may be significantly different from global changes; Natural Resources Canada8
and Environment Canada9 are good sources for Canadian impacts and adaptation
information.

Table 1: An overview of the state of understanding of natural hazards according

to IPCC AR4 (IPCC, 2007)

In Canada, climate change could affect access to safe drinking water;

drought could lead to increased wildland fires and susceptibility of agricultural
products to pests and disease; warming coastal waters may experience more
toxic algal blooms that could affect aquaculture; warming temperatures could
lead to milder winters and less transportation mishaps, but will also lead to
increased damage to critical infrastructure (e.g., railway deterioration); could
cause a deterioration of health among vulnerable populations (e.g., young,

8
http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e.php
9
http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=2967C31D-1

9
immune-suppressed); and lead to the increased prevalence of flood, heat waves
and disease vectors (e.g., Walkerton E coli associated with heavy rain event)
(Natural Resources Canada 2004). Climate change is likely to have direct and
indirect impacts on a range of sectors including finance and insurance,
agriculture, energy, transportation, water and on ecosystems.
Generally speaking if, when and how adaptation to climate change can
occur will depend on how quickly or abruptly the climate changes, how reliably
these changes can be predicted, and how quickly socio-economic and
environmental systems are able to respond to changed conditions. Further, if
damage becomes so widespread as to affect everyone, the advantage of having
insurance will be lost since there would be no „non-victims‟ to bear the losses
(Swiss Re 2002). Climate risks could have impacts on all insurance categories
since they could affect mortality rates, transportation and industrial accidents,
business disruptions and fires, and so on.

Technological Hazards
Technological disasters involve a broad range of threats including human-
caused fires; major transportation accidents; releases of hazardous materials;
terrorism and civil unrest; industrial equipment and structural failures; and
critical infrastructure failure such as electricity blackouts. The distinction
between natural and technological disasters is quite blurry. For instance, if
human-induced climate change causes a more intense hurricane and if human
decisions lead to higher levels of vulnerability, the resultant „natural‟ disaster is
socially constructed to be more catastrophic (Mileti 1999). Further, Perrow
(1999, 2007) notes that most technological systems are tightly coupled; a failure
in one part of the system may cause cascading and often unpredictable knock-on
impacts that further exacerbate the hazard event. For instance, in the recent
radionuclide release in Japan, an earthquake caused a tsunami that caused the
failure of both the primary and secondary electricity systems. In turn, this
triggered a series of „loss of coolant‟ events that, as we write this article,
continue to contaminate the surrounding environment.
In Canada, the potential release of radionuclides is mostly related to the
nuclear power generating plants located in Ontario, New Brunswick and
Quebec. Additional localized threats are associated with the mining and
processing of uranium ore and the use of medical isotopes (Ahier and Bliss
1998). A further, ongoing issue is the long-term management of nuclear wastes

10
including mine tailings, processing by-products and spent fuel rods (Durant and
Fuji Johnson 2009, Murphy 2009). To date, Canada has not experienced a major
radionuclide release and the probability of a release is very small. However, the
consequences of such a release are large and potentially catastrophic. As
Canada considers ramping up nuclear production to deal with climate change,
the risks of radionuclide contamination should be assessed and evaluated against
the threats of climate change.
Notable Canadian technological disasters include the 1917 Halifax, Nova
Scotia harbour disaster; the 1979 Mississauga, Ontario train derailment; the
2003 electricity blackout that affected the eastern part of Canada and the USA;
and the 2003 Barriere, British Columbia fires. Other technological disasters are
explored in subsequent sections below.

Pandemics and Other Health Disease Outbreaks

Similar to the SARS experience10, a pandemic is likely to lead to number of
broad economic effects including loss of income for any business that involves
the gathering of people together in one place (malls, theatres, etc.);
unwillingness of employees to report for work; increased vulnerability and
illness to those professions in direct contact with the public (e.g. health care
workers, hair stylists); reduced supply of both raw materials and finished goods;
and perhaps a crash in consumer confidence (Weisbart 2006). Further, once a
pandemic starts, it can be quickly spread by international travellers.
Since the stronger immune response of healthy adults may lead to an
overactive and potentially fatal immunological reaction to pandemic viruses, it
is thought that the highest fatalities will occur among this group. This could
cause long-term societal effects because healthy adults are the most
economically productive age group within society (Cooper 2005).
Internationally, past pandemics attacked about 25-35% of the total
population. Until recently, the World Health Organization considered the avian
viruses known as H5N1 to be among the most virulent and lethal (WHO
FAQ11). Between 2003 and 2006, 217 people from 10 countries were known to
have been infected with the H5N1 virus, resulting in 123 deaths. To date, only a
few of those infections were contracted through human to human transmission;
most individuals contracted the virus from direct contact with infected birds
10
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome: http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en/
11
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/pandemic10things/en/index.html

11
(Weisbart 2006, 2). In the future, it is estimated that 2-7.4 million deaths will
occur for a mild pandemic outbreak, or up to 40 million for an outbreak similar
to the 1918 pandemic (WHO FAQ).
Despite these fears about H5N1 in 2009-2010 another virus, H1N1 led to
a world-wide pandemic that resulted in 1.6 million infections and 19,600
confirmed deaths12. This new strain of Influenza A infected about 10% of
Canadians and led to 400-500 confirmed deaths13. A national vaccination
campaign resulted in the immunization of about 40% of Canadians. When
compared to the general population, there were a higher percentage of First
Nations peoples in Manitoba and northern Ontario infected with the virus14.
In Canada, the federal-territorial-provincial governments have developed
the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector (Government of
Canada 2006). It provides guidelines for monitoring disease spread and the use
of vaccines and medicines to reduce illness. It does not outline an approach to
deal with the financial costs that would be incurred during the response and
recovery periods. More recently, the governments of Canada, the USA and
Mexico committed to the North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic
Influenza (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America 2007). The
plan is designed to detect and control an outbreak, minimize illness and deaths
and mitigate the impacts to infrastructure and the economy.
Other human health diseases important for Canada include tuberculosis,
West Nile Virus, outbreaks of E.coli and other infections and antibiotic resistant
“super bugs” such as MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).
Animal and plant disease outbreaks that can impact Canadians include exotic
pests such as the Mountain Pine Beetle and Asian Long-horn Beetle, as well as
Foot and Mouth Disease, BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), infectious
salmon anaemia, avian influenza and many others.

Civil Unrest and Terrorism

Civil unrest includes public protests, civil disturbances and riots. Beyond
Aboriginal protests related to long-standing issues around land claims, the most
recent examples in Canada are related to the Toronto G20 Summit and the

12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2009-2010_flu_pandemic_table
13
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/surveillance-archive/20100128-eng.php
14
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/faq/faq_rg_h1n1-anic-eng.php;
http://www.nccah-ccnsa.ca/99/The_NCCAH_and_Pandemic_Planning.nccah

12
Quebec City, Summit of the Americas meetings in 2001 involving 20,000 anti-
globalization protestors. Other large recent events include the 1994 and 2011
Stanley Cup Riots in Vancouver. To assess the effects of such events on critical
infrastructure, Public Safety Canada evaluated the following British event
because it is also possible in a Canadian context. When British farmer and truck
drivers launched a direct action campaign to protest a fuel duty in 2000, it led to
a fuel crisis that paralyzed critical infrastructure sectors. Following protests that
blockaded fuel refineries and distribution depots, just-in-time delivery systems
were affected, panic buying ensued, and shortages in the energy sectors led to
chain reactions in the health, transportation, food, financial and government
sectors. It ultimately cost about $2.2 billion Canadian15.
“Terrorism refers to the strategy of achieving a political objective by
means of a campaign of seemingly random violence”16. Perpetrators of such
attacks typically do not see themselves as terrorists, rather as freedom fighters or
soldiers fighting for a just cause (Swiss Re 2003). The objective of a terrorist
attack is not always to inflict widespread physical harm. It might be related to
the psychological impact; fear can destabilize society and challenge the status
quo power relationships within society. Terrorism can involve either domestic
or foreign organizations and involves potential threats posed by chemical,
biological, radioactive, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) weapons. Canadian
society‟s overall capacity to accommodate ethnic diversity has meant that it has
had little experience with terrorism. Domestic terrorism in Canada has been
limited to such events as the Direct Action bombing in 1982 and the FLQ crisis
in 1971. Foreign terrorism has touched Canadians in several ways such as the
Air India bombings in 1985 and September 11, 200117.
The risk of terrorism can be assessed by evaluating the terrorist‟s
intentions, potential for harm and the vulnerability of the society at risk. It is
thought that for future attacks the potential to do harm has increased
dramatically and that the intention to ratchet up the level of damage inflicted has
also increased (Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies 2007).
Targets particularly vulnerable to attack are symbolically significant locations

15
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/ccirc/2005/ia05-001-eng.aspx
16

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007926
17

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007926

13
and landmarks, especially public facilities that are difficult to monitor or control.
By 2025, attacks against the energy infrastructure of oil producing United States
allies, such as Canada, are likely to increase (Canadian Centre for Intelligence
and Security Studies 2007). According to the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service (2004-2005), terrorism involving foreign organizations, or
“transnational” terrorism, began to emerge as the most serious security threat to
Canada during the 1990s. Among other concerns, the report asserts that
transnational terrorists “have conducted preliminary reconnaissance against
potential Canadian targets” (Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
2004-2005, 3) and that these groups are increasingly sophisticated, well-
educated, multilingual and skilled in the use of modern technology and
cyberattacks (See also Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies
2006). In terms of domestic terrorism, it maintains that a “number of people are
prepared to resort to violence to achieve their goals. Among these are neo-Nazi
and violent fringe elements of single-issue groups from the ecological, animal-
rights and anti-globalization movements” (Canadian Security Intelligence
Service (CSIS) 2004-2005, 5).

Critical Infrastructure
Canada‟s critical infrastructure (CI) consists of those physical and information
technology facilities, networks, services and assets which, if disrupted or
destroyed, would have a serious impact on the health, safety, security or
economic well-being of Canadians or the effective functions of governments of
Canada (Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency
Preparedness 2003, 7).
CI sectors include energy and utilities, communications and information
technology, finance, health care, food, water, transportation, safety, government
and manufacturing. These could be affected by both physical and cyber threats,
thus an „all hazards approach‟ is required (Public Safety Canada 2009). The
three key threats to Canada‟s CI are natural hazards (e.g., ice storms – see
section 3.1 above), accidental hazards (e.g., human error, mechanical or
programming errors), and malicious hazards (e.g., bombings, computer virus).
Since CI are typically interdependent and connected, cascading effects are
common (e.g. power outage impact on banking and transportation). Several of

14
the impacts on various CI sectors have been outlined above (e.g. ice storms). In
this section a few additional details about Canadian CI threats are provided.18
A cogent example of the impact on the energy and utilities CI sector is
the electricity power failure of 2003. It is estimated that the 2003 power failure
caused foodstuff losses of $75-100 million USD. Similarly, the 2001 California
power failures caused productivity losses of $21.8 billion and income losses of
$4.5 billion (Swiss Re 2004, 15).
Communications and information technology, including hardware,
software, networks and services, are another important component of Canada‟s
critical infrastructure. Canadians are “becoming increasingly dependent on the
Information Infrastructure for both our safety and the function of our society”
(Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada 2004, iii). The internet is a
key example of information infrastructure and of the risks inherent in this
technology. Since it has no natural political boundaries, security is reliant on the
private or semi-private sector enterprises that manage and operate the
infrastructure. Cyber-security issues include email spam and denial of service
attacks. Given the multiple private and public stakeholders involved, dealing
with cyber security will necessarily involve the coordinated efforts of key actors
across sectors and scales (Bruce et al. 2005). For this reason, initiatives such as
the Ontario Critical Infrastructure Assurance Program, outlined in the
Emergency Management Doctrine for Ontario 201019, has been developed
(Nelson 2009).
Whereas governments have traditionally focused on the threats to
physical infrastructure, the advent of cyber threats now requires significant
attention since the capacity to inflict damage is readily available and relatively
easy to use and the „threat agents are diffuse in nature‟(OCIPEP 2003). For
instance, the 2000 ”slammer worm” caused a denial of service attack that led to
a global internet slowdown and negatively impacted airline automated booking
procedures leading to flight delays and cancellations in the USA (Office of
Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness 2002).
The interconnected impact of a disaster event on CI is demonstrated by
the September 11, 2011 terrorists attack. OCIPEP‟s (2002) assessment of the
terrorist attacks maintained that the strikes affected critical infrastructure in two
main ways. First, CI facilities were directly disrupted and damaged by the
18
For more details see: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/ci/ntnl-eng.aspx
19
http://www.emergencymanagementontario.ca/english/goverment/oemd/doctrine.html

15
physical impact of the attack. Second, decisions of CI regulators, owners and
users caused further impacts. This included the national grounding of all
commercial aircraft, temporary closing of key financial and banking sectors and
the increased demand for communication network access forced the truncation
of service to avoid network crashes.

Developing Risk Resiliency and Capacity: Global and

Federal Perspectives

Our future....What it really becomes will depend on how successful we are in

taking advantage of our opportunities and mastering the risks they entail (Swiss
Re 2004, p.3).
Given the risk landscape outlined above, this section outlines global
views and Canadian federal approaches to mitigate risk and increase resiliency.
Resilience is the capacity of a system or community to adapt to disturbances
resulting from hazards by preserving, recuperating or changing to reach and
maintain an acceptable level of functioning (Government of Canada and
Ministers Responsible for Emergency Management 2011, 8). Resilience
minimizes vulnerabilities and strengthens social and physical capacity to cope,
adapt, respond, recover and learn from disasters. In terms of emergency
management, resilience strategies include proactive risk identification and
response strategies, as well as mitigation, preparedness and business continuity
approaches.

International Perspectives
At the international scale, three organizations that have provided broad advice
regarding risk resiliency are the OECD, Swiss Re and the World Economic
Forum. All three argue that dealing effectively with future risks is possible if
today‟s managers adopt a proactive approach and that ongoing, timely access to
accurate information is critical for threat assessment and management. The
reports also stress the increasingly interconnected and complex nature of risk
assessment and management. The more specific recommendations of each
organization are provided below.

16
 The OECD International Futures report, Emerging Risks in the 21st
Century (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2003)
argues that while the magnitude of potential disasters has never been greater,
effective management of future risks is possible. First, the report asserts that in
our increasingly inter-dependent world, the risk assessment and management
approaches need to be broadened to include a wide range of perspectives from
across the physical and social sciences as well as from the public and industry.
Second, risks should be evaluated as part of complex systems in order to
mitigate hazards and project the implications of a disaster event (e.g., the
domino impacts of earthquakes – an earthquake can lead to fires). Third, since
many modern risks have world-wide causes and consequences, disaster
resilience requires international cooperation and coordinated approaches. In this
regard, both government-to-government agreements and public-private
partnerships are recommended.
In a broad analysis of future risk landscapes and the insurance industry,
Swiss Re (2004) reminds us that absolute security is an illusion, that every
change involves risk, that future risks arise in the present and that the faster
change occurs the faster the future risk landscape becomes today‟s reality. They
maintain that dangers are becoming increasingly difficult to understand and that
hidden risks related to increasingly complex technological systems are likely to
trigger cascading impacts and widespread losses. Swiss Re (2004) maintains that
if we are to manage future risks successfully we must first recognize the changes
leading toward those risks and develop an early approach to influence them
systematically. Early warning about potential risks is the key to controlling and
mitigating the future risk landscape.
The Global Risks 2011 report reviews common global risk response
strategies. These include risk avoidance, risk mitigation, adaptation to risk, risk
transfer and the acceptance of residual risk. Although avoidance and mitigation
are usually preferred, adaptation to risk and risk transfer (e.g. insurance) are
important opportunities to further manage the potential damage caused by risk
events. However, it is impossible to control all risk, therefore awareness of
residual risk allows for the development of additional contingency planning such
as the maintenance of contingency cash reserves (World Economic Forum 2011)

17
Canadian Federal Approaches
In the Canadian public sector, resiliency in the area of emergency management
rests with a suite of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal initiatives,
plans, policies and laws. After outlining two key critiques of the federal system,
this section focuses on some key federal approaches aimed at increasing disaster
resiliency at the national level.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
released a report in 2008 that outlines 12 key problems and associated
recommendations about emergency management in Canada (Standing Senate
Committee on National Security and Defence 2008). These problems include
the failure to table an annual report to Parliament documenting the business
continuity plan for each federal department and agency; poor federal leadership
on critical infrastructure protection; the lack of coordinated approaches to
national emergency response; lack of communications interoperability; the need
for a national alerting system; the need for a “lessons learned” archive; and the
lack of funding for equipment and training for CBRNE events. This report, a
follow-up to a 2004 study (Standing Senate Committee on National Security and
Defence 2004), also soundly criticized Public Safety Canada for procrastination
in implementing the previous recommendations.
Similarly, the Auditor General of Canada published a report in 2009
about the role Public Safety Canada (PSC) plays in coordinating and leading
emergency management across federal departments and agencies (Auditor
General of Canada 2009). The Auditor General found that PSC had not
exercised the leadership necessary to coordinate emergency management
activities, but that it was making improvements through the development of the
Government Operations Centre and a draft strategy to protect Canada‟s CI.
Cyber-security and interoperability of responder equipment and communications
were two further issues where progress has been slow.
That said, in January 2011, the federal government announced several
new initiatives that suggest a more pro-active and resilient approach for
Canadian emergency management (Canadian Intergovernmental Conference
Secretariat 2011). These initiatives include a revised Canadian emergency
management framework (Government of Canada and Ministers Responsible for
Emergency Management 2011); a national emergency response system
(Government of Canada 2009); a CBRNE resilience strategy and action plan
(Government of Canada 2011a); and a strategy and action plan for

18
communications interoperability (Government of Canada 2011b, Government of
Canada 2011c). Further, a memorandum of understanding to enhance
emergency management relationships amongst provincial and territorial
governments was announced, and it was mentioned that progress has been made
to develop a national public alerting system and an emergency management
strategy in support of Aboriginal communities.
Another important new initiative is the National Platform on Disaster
Risk Reduction that is mandated through the United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction and the Hyogo Framework for Action (United
Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 2008). As a signatory to
this agreement, Canada announced in 2009 that it would establish the platform
to build multi-sectoral stakeholder involvement and leadership to reduce the
risks caused by disasters. In the fall of 2010, in coordination with the Canadian
Risk and Hazards 7th annual conference, the inaugural Annual National
Roundtable for Disaster Risk Reduction was held20.
With these, and the many other more local actions taken by different
levels of government and the private sector to increase resilience and capacity,
the question of interest is “How are Canada‟s risk profiles and resiliencies
evolving?” Answering this difficult question requires a comparison of the
effectiveness of different programs aimed to reduce risk to the different trends
that influence it. Only a few local studies of this sort exist, the effectiveness of
the Red River Floodway (Kelman and Pooley 2006) being one exception, and so
the answer to this question is not well known. Data on the number and costs of
disasters imply that risk is increasing (Etkin & MacGregor, 2011), which
suggests that the policies and actions taken are insufficient. There is a great deal
that is known regarding ways to reduce risk, but unfortunately it is not
implemented as often as one might hope (White & Burton, 2001). Below we
provide a few overarching observations regarding some specific strategies in the
areas of mitigation, preparedness and business continuity.

Mitigation:
Mitigation has only recently come to the forefront as an important approach in
emergency management. Mitigation “strategies can reduce or prevent disasters,
losses and emergency response and recovery costs that would otherwise be

20
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/ndms/drr-eng.aspx

19
incurred” (Government of Canada 2010, 1). Mitigation includes both structural
(e.g., dams) and non-structural (e.g., planning) activities that reduce disaster
risk. A review of mitigation studies from various countries (Kelman and Pooley
2006) supports the notion that mitigation, in general, has a very positive cost-
benefit ratio.
Global Risks 2007 asserts that within the international context, there is a
fundamental disconnect between risk and mitigation (World Economic Forum
2007). The report argues that there is a need for active engagement of all sectors
and that no one group can effectively mitigate risks independently; instead joint
responsibility and action are required. Five pathways to mitigation are presented
including research to improve insight, enhanced information and communication
flow, development of mitigation incentive frameworks, improving investment in
mitigation and developing risk mitigation institutional frameworks.
According to Canada’s National Disaster Mitigation Strategy,
mitigation actions provide an excellent return on investment. For instance, the
$63.2 million invested in the Manitoba Red River Floodway in 1960 has saved
an estimated $8 billion in damage and recovery costs. Current priorities in
Canada‟s strategy include the development of a centre for mitigation excellence
to facilitate information exchange; the advancement of non-structural mitigation
programs; oversight of national awareness activities; promotion of social and
physical and social science disaster mitigation research; and the facilitation of
community/regional hazard identification. Additional funding for mitigation
will be provided by leveraging the Building Canada Fund 21 to provide structural
mitigation and research grants and through the revised Disaster Financial
Assistance Arrangements22 that now allow 15% of recovery funding to be
allocated to post-disaster structural mitigation.
Part of mitigation is educating and training professional emergency
managers, and in this area there has been a great deal of progress in Canada.
Beginning with Brandon University in 2002, the academic sector now offers
numerous courses at community colleges, as well as several BA and MA
programs. Over time, as these graduates enter the profession, there will be a
positive impact, though currently there is still a significant (though narrowing)
gap between academia and practitioners. Nirupama and Etkin (2009) found that

21
http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/funprog-progfin/target-viser/bcf-fcc/bcf-
fcc-eng.html
22
See http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/dfaa/index-eng.aspx#guide

20
a large majority of emergency managers surveyed in Ontario felt that they had
sufficient education for their job, yet about half of them demonstrated beliefs in
common disaster fallacies. This gap may result in very divergent views – for
example Nirupama and Etkin (2009) found a lack of consensus on the degree to
which mitigation strategies should be top-down or community-based. This lack
of consensus probably creates challenges in terms of developing resilient
communities.

Preparedness:
The degree to which Canada and individual Canadians are prepared for disaster
events is unclear. At the national level, some reports (mentioned above) by the
Senate Committee on Security and National Defence (Standing Senate
Committee on National Security and Defence 2004) and Auditor General Sheila
Fraser (Auditor General 2009) have been highly critical of some aspects of
Canadian levels of preparedness, and especially of Public Safety Canada. As
outlined above, the response to these reports will likely increase Canadian
resiliency; this section will provide details of other initiatives, including those
undertaken to increase individual emergency preparedness and will briefly
address the issue of social vulnerability as an impediment to resiliency.
At the federal-provincial-territorial levels, one of the key approaches to
augmenting emergency preparedness in Canada is through the long-standing
Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP). JEPP “was established in 1980
to enhance the national capacity to respond to all types of emergencies and to
enhance the resiliency of critical infrastructure” (Public Safety Canada 2010, 5).
Through the program, the Government of Canada contributes to provincial and
territorial preparedness by funding emergency planning and training, the
purchase of response equipment, urban search and rescue, etc.
Preparedness at a personal level has been a recent priority for all levels
of Canadian governments. In the last few years, campaigns to encourage
individuals and families to be prepared to handle emergencies for 72 hours
without outside assistance have been prominent. For example, Public Safety
Canada regularly advertises and assesses the effectiveness of its72 hour
preparedness campaigns (Strategic Counsel 2008, Phoenix Strategic
Perspectives Inc. 2010). The effectiveness of these campaigns has been mixed.
In 2005, a survey about emergency preparedness in Canada concluded:

21
 Canadians are generally aware of hazards, with natural hazards
most commonly mentioned. Importance of various threats was mediated by
location; residents on the west coast, for instance, were most concerned about
earthquakes.
Only one third of Canadians have taken preparedness actions
such as the development of an emergency plan or an emergency kit. Of those
who were not prepared, many did not believe they needed an emergency kit.
Conversely, most Canadians have some emergency supplies on hand, e.g.,
flashlights and first aid kits.
Over 40% of Canadians believe that disasters in their area will
quickly be resolved and feel confident they could handle an emergency (GPC
Public Affairs 2005). This confidence may not be totally justified. It is one thing
to have a plan, but it is quite another to implement it – witness how ineffective
the hurricane response plan was for New Orleans, during and after Hurricane
Katrina. Emergency plans need to be practised, if they are to be effective, and
this aspect of preparedness is often neglected.

Given these perceptions, the report argues that there are a number of
attitudinal barriers preventing Canadians from actively engaging in preparedness
activities. A study of preparedness in Canada completed for the Canadian Centre
for Emergency Preparedness reported similar findings23 while a study of on-
reserve emergency preparedness perceptions found that First Nations people
were more likely to rely on their community for help when compared to other
Canadians (Ekos Research Associates Inc. 2007).
At a deeper level, underpinning these emergency preparedness
campaigns and perceptions, are the levels of social vulnerability that can
impinge on the capacity of Canadians, including emergency management
organizations, to prepare for, and respond to, disasters. For instance, a recent
Canadian Red Cross Study (2007) identified ten high-risk groups: seniors,
medically dependent persons, low-income residents, children and youth, persons
with low literacy levels, women, transient populations, and new immigrants and
cultural minorities. It identified significant gaps in meeting the needs of these
high-risk populations; asserted that resources and relationships do not always

23
http://www.ccep.ca/survey/

22
exist to meet the existing needs; and that networking and bridge-building
between emergency management and volunteer organizations is needed.
It is easy to become complacent about future disasters. At the time this
introduction is being written, Japan, probably the world‟s most advanced
country in emergency preparedness, has experienced the cascading impacts of
an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe. Despite their mitigation and
preparedness efforts, their defences have been overwhelmed and the impacts of
planning errors are being felt (e.g., the siting of backup generators close to the
ocean). It is not possible to be totally prepared for all worst case scenarios or to
reduce risk to zero, and a common approach to mitigation is to address what are
considered to be the more realistic or common scenarios. This strategy, which
Lee Clarke calls probabilistic thinking can be used to justify dangerous systems,
and should be augmented by possibilistic thinking, which incorporates worst
case scenarios in risk assessments (Clarke, 2006).

Business Continuity Management

Business continuity management or planning (BCM, BCP), sometimes called
Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP) seeks to protect and ensure the
continuation of an organization‟s “mission critical” functions during a risk
event. The process of BCM identifies key functions and resources, identifies
potentially disruptive events, develops a plan to maintain functionality and
builds capabilities to increase organizational capacities and resiliencies (Hiles
2007). BCM is increasingly recognized by private companies, non-government
organizations and governments as a key risk management strategy (Government
of Saskatchewan 2006, Standing Senate Committee on National Security and
Defence 2008). Although BCM first emerged as a disaster recovery mechanism
for the information technology sector, it has now been embraced as a way to
manage emergency events across entire organizations, including governments.
Some organizations have gone further and have embedded BCM into the
broader concept of Enterprise Risk Management. This approach focuses on the
strategic aspects of risk, including understanding an organization‟s appetite for
risk, and balancing the opportunities afforded by taking risks with the negative
aspects of risks (Chapman 2006). The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
updated approach to risk management partially mirrors this broader focus. The
Framework for the Management of Risk outlines the risk management principles
that are to guide deputy heads across Canadian departments and agencies „in the

23
effective management of their organizations in all areas of work, including
policy and program implementation‟24.
As well, standards by a technical committee, based upon a
comprehensive emergency management model, have been created by the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA Canadian Standards Association 2008).
This standard, designed to be aligned with the U.S. NFPA 1600 standard,
provides a very good guide for the development of emergency management or
business continuity programs by government, NGOs or the private sector. The
development of such standards are important, since surveys (Quarterly Tracking
Survey 2009) have found that most businesses, especially small ones, do not
devote resources to business continuity and are therefore vulnerable to crises.

Conclusion
Canada is exposed to a very large range of hazards – natural, technological and
biological – and we are very vulnerable to many of these threats. Moreover, our
risk environment is highly dynamic because of the evolving nature of the
hazard, vulnerability and resiliency contexts. Education and training is needed at
every stage of the emergency management cycle, particularly as Canadian
authorities move towards more proactive management approaches. This
includes a host of activities such as effective disaster plan exercise training and
recovery strategies that lead to increased resiliency. By achieving a better
understanding of these issues, by training emergency managers to have a greater
insight into the Canadian context, and by translating this knowledge into more
effective institutions and policies, progress can be made towards a more resilient
and safer nation.
The field of disaster and emergency management is both
interdisciplinary and vast. In Canada, it is a relatively recent addition to
academia, though its practise has a much longer history. The articles in this on-
line textbook are intended to help fill the gap related to Canadian content, thus
making the teaching of it more relevant to Canadian students. This set of papers
is a living document. If you would like to contribute to our collection, either by
adding to an existing topic, or suggesting a new direction, please contact the

24
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=19422&section=text

24
editors. We are interested in both conceptual papers and case studies that would
be relevant to Canadian students studying in the field of emergency
management.

References
Ahier, B. A. & T. L. Bliss (1998). Radionuclides in the Great Lakes Basin.
Environmental Health Perspectives, Open Access Journal, September
18. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1995/Suppl-9/ahier-full.html (last
accessed March 2011).
Auditor General of Canada (2009). Report of the Auditor General of Canada to
the House of Commons, Chapter 7: Emergency Management - Public
Safety Canada. Fall: Cat. No.: FA1-2009/3-7E-PDF. http://www.oag-
bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_200911_07_e.pdf (last accessed
January 2011).
Bruce, R., S., H. Dynes, B. Brechbuhl, E. Brown, P. Goetz, E. L. Vrehoest & S.
Helmus (2005). International Policy Framework for Protecting Critical
Information Infrastructure: A Discussion Paper Outlining Key Policy
Issues. Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, Glassmeyer/McNamee
Center for Digital Strategies, TNO report 33680.
http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/library/158.pdf (last accessed March
2011).
Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies (2006). A Framework for
Understanding Terrorist Use of the Internet. ITAC Presents, 1-21.
http://www.itac-ciem.gc.ca/pblctns/tc_prsnts/2006-2-eng.pdf (last
accessed January 2011).
--- (2007) .Terroism in 2025: Likely Dimensions and Attributes. ITAC Presents.
http://www.itac-ciem.gc.ca/pblctns/tc_prsnts/2007-3-eng.pdf (last
accessed January 2011).
Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat (2011). News Release,
January 26th. http://www.citig.ca/Data/Sites/1/action700/nr-
ministersjan26-en.pdf (last accessed January 2011).
Canadian Red Cross (2007). Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk
Populations: Survey Report and Action Recommendations. December
19.
http://www.redcross.ca/cmslib/general/dm_high_risk_populations.pdf
(last accessed January 2011).
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) (2004-2005). Public Report: A
Changed World. Cat No. PS71-2004. http://www.csis-

25
 scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/nnlrprt/2004/rprt2004-eng.pdf (last accessed March
2011).
Chapman, R. J. (2006).. Simple Tools and Techniques for Enterprise Risk
Management. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Clarke, L. (2006).. Worst Cases: Terror and Catastrophe in the Popular
Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cooper, S. (2005). Don’t Fear Fear or Panic Panic: An Economist’s Vew of
Pandemic Flu.
http://www.bmonesbittburns.com/economics/reports/20051011/dont_fea
r_fear.pdf (last accessed March 2011).
Coppola, D. P. (2007). Introduction to International Disaster Management.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
CSA Canadian Standards Association (2008). Z1600-08 Emergency
Management and Business Continuity Programs. Mississauga, Canada:
Canadian Standards Association.
Durant, D. & G. Fuji Johnson. 2009. Nuclear Waste Management in Canada:
Critical Issues, Critical Perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Ekos Research Associates Inc. (2007). Percpetions of Emergency Preparedness
On-Reserve: Final Report, Part of the First Nations People On-Reserve
Study, Submitted to Public Safety Canada. August. http://epe.lac-
bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-
ef/public_safety_canada/2007/024-07-e/report.pdf (last accessed January
2011).
Etkin, D. (Editor, 2009). Canadians at Risk: Our Exposure to Natural Hazards.
Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction Research, Paper #47.
http://www.iclr.org/listofclimateextremes.html (last accessed March
2011).
Etkin, D., E. Haque & G. Brooks, editors, (2003). An Assessment of Natural
Hazards and Disasters in Canada. Natural Hazards, 28.
Etkin, D. and MacGregor, S. (2011) .Disaster Data: A Global View of Loss of
Life and Damage. In “Treatise on Geomorphology, Hazards/Applied/
Anthropogenic/Cultural Geomorphology”, Elsevier Press (in press)
Ferrier, N. (2009). Fundamentals of Emergency Management: Preparedness.
Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications.
Funtowicz, S. & J. Ravetz (2003). Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological
Economics. February. https://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf (last
accessed March 2011).
Government of Canada (2006). Highlights from the Canadian Pandemic
Influenza Plan for the Health Sector: Preparing for an Influenza
Pandemic, The Canadian Health Perspective. http://www.phac-
aspc.gc.ca/cpip-pclcpi/hl-ps/pdf/CPIP-highlights-2006_e.pdf

26
 (last accessed January 2011).
--- (2009). Federal Emergency Response Plan. December, Cat. No.: PS4-
82/2010E-PDF. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/_fl/ferp-eng.pdf
(last accessed January 2011).
--- (2010). Canada's National Disaster Mitigation Strategy.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/ndms/_fl/NDMS_Web_E.pdf (last
accessed January 2011).
--- (2011a). Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives
Reslience Strategy for Canada. January.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/_fl/cbrne-res-strt-eng.pdf
(last accessed January 2011).
--- (2011b). Communications Interoperability Action Plan for Canada. January.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/_fl/cisc-ap-eng.pdf (last accessed
January 2011).
--- (2011c). Communications Interoperability Strategy for Canada. January.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/_fl/cisc-ap-eng.pdf (last accessed
January 2011).
Government of Canada & Ministers Responsible for Emergency Management
(2011). An Emergency Management Framework for Canada: Second
Edition. January. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/_fl/emfrmwrk-
2011-eng.pdf (last accessed January 2011).
Government of Saskatchewan (2006). Business Continuity Management:
Planning Guidelines 2006. 6.1 (March).
http://www.src.sk.ca/images/Business%20Continuity%20Planning%20G
uide%20-%20v%2006%201%20online%20version.pdf
(last accessed January 2011).
GPC Public Affairs (2005). Are Canadians Prepared for an Emergency: An
Analysis of Canadians' Preparedness for Emergency Situtations and
Attitudes Toward Preparing for Them. Final Report to Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness Canada. http://epe.lac-
bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-
ef/public_safety_emergency/2005/2005-1468/2005-1468-e.pdf (last
accessed January 2011).
Haddow, G. D. & J. A. Bullock (2003). Introduction to Emergency
Management. Amsterdam: A. Butterworth Heinemann.
Hiles, A. (2007). The Definitive Handbook of Business Continuity Management,
Second Edition. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Kelman, I. & S. Pooley (2006). Mitigation Saves. Version 9, 10 January 2006.
http://www.ilankelman.org/miscellany/MitigationSaves.rtf (last accessed
March 2011).

27
Mileti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards
in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Ministry of Defence Government of Canada (2010). Global Strategic Trends -
Out to 2040. Strategic Trends Programme, Fourth Edition, Development
Concepts and Doctrine Centre.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D70F2CC7-5673-43AE-BA73-
1F887801266C/0/20100202GST_4_Global_Strategic_Trends_Out_to_2
040UDCDCStrat_Trends_4.pdf (last accessed February 2011).
Moran, R. (2003). Doomsday: End of the World Scenarios. : Alpha, Pearson
Education.
Murphy, B. (2009). Canadian Communities and the Management of Nuclear
Fuel Waste. In Nuclear Fuel Waste Management in Canada: Critical
Issues, Critical Perspectives, eds. D. Durant & G. Fuji Johnson, 189.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
Natural Resources Canada (2004). Climate Change: Impacts and Adaptation, A
Canadian Perspective.
http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/perspective/pdf/report_e.pdf (last accessed
February 2011).
Nelson, B. (2009). Managing Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies: The
Ontario Approach. In Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for
Homeland Security, J.G. Voeller ed. Published Online:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470087923
Nirupama, N. & D. Etkin (2009). Emergency Managers in Ontario: An
Exploratory Study of Their Perspectives. Journal of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management, 6, 1-20.
Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (2002).
The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks - Critical Infrastructure
Protection Lessons Learned. Incident Analysis, IA02-001, September.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/ccirc/_fl/ia02-001-eng.pdf (last
accessed March 2002).
--- (2003). Threats to Canada's Critical Infrastructure. Threat Analysis, TA03-
001. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/ccirc/_fl/ta03-001-eng.pdf
(last accessed March 2011).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003). Emerging
Risks in the 21st Century, An OECD International Futures Project.
September. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/56/19134071.pdf (last
accessed January 2011).
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

28
---. (2007). The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural,
Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. (2010). Emergency Preparedness (EP) Week
2010 Evaluation: Final Report, Prepared for Public Safety Canada. June.
http://www.getprepared.gc.ca/_fl/epwe-essc-2010-eng.pdf (last accessed
January 2011).
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (2004). Critical Information
Infrastructure Accountability in Canada. March 19.
http://www.airdberlis.com/Templates/Articles/articleFiles/453/Critical%
20Information%20Infrastructure%20Accountability%20in%20Canada.p
df (last accessed March 2011).
Public Safety Canada (2009). National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure. Cat.
No.: Ps4-65/2009E-PDF.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/ci/_fl/ntnl-eng.pdf
Public Safety Canada (2010). Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP):
Guidelines. May: Cat. No.: PS4-95/2010E-PDF.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/jepp/_fl/gdlns-eng.pdf (last
accessed January 2011).
Quarterly Tracking Survey (2009). Canadian Small Business Monitor: Quarterly
Tracking Survey - Q3. ed. R. R. AngusReidStrategies, September.
Rees, M. (2003). Our Final Hour: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, New
York.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2007). 2007 Environmental Scan.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/es-ae/2007/enviro-scan-analyse-2007-eng.pdf
(last accessed January 2011).
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (2007). North American
Plan: For Avian and Pandemic Influenza.
http://montebello2007.gc.ca/doc/pandemic_en.pdf (last accessed March
2011).
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (2004). National
Emergencies: Canada's Fragile Front Lines, An Upgrade Strategy.
March, Volume 1, 37th Parliament - 2nd Session.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-
e/rep03mar04vol1-e.pdf (last accessed January 2011).
--- (2008). Emergency Preparedness in Canada. Volume 1, 39th Parliament, 2nd
Session. http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-
e/defe-e/rep-e/rep13aug08Vol1-e.pdf (last accessed January 2011).
Strategic Counsel (2008). Final Report: 72 Hours Advertising Post-campaign
Evaluation. http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-

29
 ef/public_safety_canada/2008/438-07-e/report.pdf (last accessed
Januaray 2011).
Swiss Re (2002). Opportunities and Risks of Climate Change.
http://www.swissre.com/resources/c981a000462ff1898450d4300190b89
f-Klimaaenderung_en.pdf (last accessed February 2011).
--- (2004). The Risk Landscape of the Future.
http://zonecours.hec.ca/documents/H2005-P6-385185.FutureRisks.pdf
(last accessed February 2011).
United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2008). Towards
National Resilience: Good Practices of National Platforms for Disaster
Risk Reduction. United Nations Secretariat of the International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/isdr-publications/16-Towards-
National-Resilience/Towards-National-Resilience.pdf (last accessed
January 2011).
Weisbart, S. (2006). Pandemic: Can the Life Insurance Industry Survive the
Avian Flu?
http://www.birdflumanual.com/resources/Pandemic_Economics/files/ins
uranceInfo.pdf (last accessed March 2011).
Wheaton, E. and V. Wittrock (2005). Print Media Survey of the Western
Canadian Droughts of 2001 and 2002: Impacts and Adaptations.
Prepared for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Saskatchewan Research
Council (SRC) Publication No. 11602-11E03. SRC, Saskatoon, SK.
Wheaton, E., G. Koshida, B. Bonsal, T. Johnston, W. Richards, V. Wittrock.
(2007). May. Agricultural Adaptation to Drought (ADA) in Canada: The
Case of 2001 to 2002. Synthesis Report. Prepared for Government of
Canada‟s Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program.
Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) Publication No. 11927-1E07. 35
pp.World Economic Forum (2011) Global Risks 2011, Sixth Edition.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum
http://riskreport.weforum.org/global-risks-2011.pdf (last accessed
January 2011).
White, G.F., Kates, R.W. and Burton, I. (2001). Knowing Better and Losing
Even More: the use of knowledge in hazards management.
Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions 3(3-4): 81-92.

30