Fact sheet
Community of Québec (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Québec (CMA), Quebec

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of Québec was collected through the Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada (SEPR).^{Note 2} This fact sheet presents information on the risk awareness and level of emergency preparedness of the residents of Québec, which could help improve the understanding of community resilience in the event of an emergency.^{Note 3}^{Note 4}

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

The majority (89%) of residents of the community of Québec believed winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (84%) and earthquakes (73%) were the most likely emergency-type events to occur within their community.
In the event of an extended power outage, residents most commonly anticipated first turning to their utility company (66%), to hospitals, clinics, doctors or other medical professionals (60%) in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease, and to local government (50%) in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (Table 1.1). If faced with an industrial or transportation accident (32%) or a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (27%), residents of the community of Québec most commonly anticipated calling 911 for initial help and information. In the event of an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (49%) or rioting or civil unrest (49%), law enforcement was most commonly anticipated to be the first source of help and information.

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 5}

One in three (32%) residents of the community of Québec has faced a major emergency or disaster within Canada in a community where they were living at the time, and about half (52%) of these people experienced severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result.
Winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms were the emergencies or disasters most commonly experienced by residents of Québec (48%), followed by extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (17%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and floods (13%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing work or school (58%), the inability to use electrical appliances (53%) and missing an appointment or a planned activity (47%). More severe disruptions included the inability to use roads or transportation within the community (38%^{Note E: Use with caution}), experienced by nearly two out of five people faced with an emergency or disaster, as well as home evacuations (21%^{Note E: Use with caution}), experienced by approximately one in five residents.
Seven in ten (70%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within five days of the event: 22%^{Note E: Use with caution} within 24 hours, 27%^{Note E: Use with caution} in one to two days and 21%^{Note E: Use with caution} in three to five days.
Less than half (47%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from family members (51%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and neighbours (20%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
More than a quarter (27%^{Note E: Use with caution}) of residents of the community of Québec who experienced major emergencies or disasters that were significant enough to disrupt their regular daily routines endured a loss of property or another financial impact as a result.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of residents of the community of Québec lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} with one-third (34%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). More than one in ten (13%) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
Less than half (45%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency. Among them were those who had three or four such measures, representing 19% of residents of the community of Québec. One in five (19%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
The majority (99%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and seven in ten (71%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Just over one in four (27%) people stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Less than one-quarter (22%) of residents reported that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
The number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents of the community of Québec were often significantly different from both residents of the province of Quebec as a whole and from Canadians residing in the 10 provinces. For example, people living in the community of Québec were less likely to have engaged in all four precautionary measures (4%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and all three fire safety measures (22%) when compared to the province as a whole (8% and 28%, respectively), and when compared to Canadians (7% and 42%, respectively).^{Note 8}
With the exception of being more likely to have a working fire extinguisher (71%) or a working smoke detector (99%) when compared to Canadians across all the provinces (66% and 98%, respectively), residents of the community of Québec were often less likely to have engaged in several other emergency planning activities or precautionary measures when compared to Canadians more broadly.

Social networks and sense of belonging

Less than half (44%) of residents of the community of Québec had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
Three-quarters (76%) of residents described the neighbourhood they lived in as a place where neighbours generally help each other.^{Note 10} Of those who did not describe their neighbourhood this way, most (80%)^{Note 11} still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.
About half of residents had a large network of support in the event of an emergency or disaster, with more than five people to turn to for emotional support (57%), for help if physically injured (53%) as well as in case of a home evacuation (46%). However, only about one in six people had such a large network of support if financial help was needed (17%), and about one in ten (11%) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
The social and political involvement of residents of the community of Québec generally did not have a significant impact on their level of emergency preparedness (Table 1.4).

Data tables

Table 1.1
Most commonly anticipated sources of initial help and information, by type of emergency or disaster, residents of Québec, Quebec, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of Most commonly anticipated sources of initial help and information. The information is grouped by Most common sources of initial help and information by type of emergency or disaster (appearing as row headers), percent (appearing as column headers).
Most common sources of initial help and information by type of emergency or disaster	percent
Weather-related emergency or natural disaster
911	27
Police/law enforcement	23
Local government	21
Extended power outages
Utility company	66
News- Radio	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Family	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	60
911	13^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	10^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
911	32
Police/law enforcement	31
First responders	14
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	50
News- Internet	10^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	9^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
Police/law enforcement	49
911	28
News- Television	14^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	49
911	27
News- Television	14^{Note E: Use with caution}
^E use with caution Note: Respondents who perceived their community was at risk for any form of emergency or disaster were then asked where they would turn to first for information or assistance in the event of the perceived emergency or disaster. Respondents could provide more than one response. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014.

Table 1.2
Number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents, community of Québec, Quebec, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of Number of emergency planning activities. The information is grouped by Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents (appearing as row headers), Community of Québec , Province of Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Community of Québec	Province of Quebec	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	13^{Table 1.2, Note **}	10	8
1 activity	21	22	17
2 activities	30^{Table 1.2, Note **}	26	25
3 activities	20^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	26	27
4 activities	14^{Table 1.2, Note **}	14	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	19	17	16
1 measure	34^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	29	27
2 measures	26	28	28
3 measures	15^{Table 1.2, Note **}	17	20
4 measures	4^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	8	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}^{Table 1.2, Note 2}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	22^{Table 1.2, Note **}	24	14
2 measures	51^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	42	38
3 measures	22^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	28	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Table 1.2, Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.2, note referrer Table 1.2, Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.2, note * referrer Table 1.2, Note 1. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Canada'. Return to Table 1.2, note 1 referrer Table 1.2, Note 2. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Province of Quebec'. Return to Table 1.2, note 2 referrer Note: Responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents. Emergency planning activities include: an emergency exit plan, an emergency supply kit, photocopies/electronic copies of important documents and a list of emergency contact numbers. Precautionary measures include: a battery-operated or wind-up radio, an alternative heat source, a back-up generator and an alternative water source. Fire safety measures include a working smoke detector, a working carbon monoxide detector and a working fire extinguisher. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014.

Table 1.3
Planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures residents engaged in, community of Québec, Quebec, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of Planning activities. The information is grouped by Residents whose households were involved in the following: (appearing as row headers), Community of Québec , Province of Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Community of Québec	Province of Quebec	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	40^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	46	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	39	40	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	22^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	34	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	48^{Table 1.3, Note **}	51	55
Household emergency supply kit	45	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	49^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	59
Extra copies of important documents	44^{Table 1.3, Note **}	47	53
List of emergency contact numbers	68	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	52	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	58	58	58
Alternate heat source	43	48	48
Back-up generator	14^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	22	23
Alternate water source	34^{Table 1.3, Note **}	38	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	19	20	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	99^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	98	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	27^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	34	60
Working fire extinguisher	71^{Table 1.3, Note **}	67	66
Table 1.3, Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.3, note referrer Table 1.3, Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.3, note * referrer Table 1.3, Note 1. Percentage based only on those indicating that they have an emergency exit plan. Return to Table 1.3, note 1 referrer Table 1.3, Note 2. Excludes Canadians living in single-person households. Return to Table 1.3, note 2 referrer Table 1.3, Note 3. Excludes those who reported that they lived in a household that did not have a vehicle. Return to Table 1.3, note 3 referrer Table 1.3, Note 4. Percentage based only on those indicating that they or someone in their household has special medical needs. Return to Table 1.3, note 4 referrer Table 1.3, Note 5. 'Other precautionary measures' include having an escape/rescue plan for pets, extra supply of fuel, checking and replenishing emergency supplies, and keeping exits clear. Return to Table 1.3, note 5 referrer Note: Responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014.

Table 1.4
High or moderately high levels of emergency planning, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents, by social and political involvement, community of Québec, Quebec, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of High or moderately high levels of emergency planning. The information is grouped by Social and political involvement (appearing as row headers), Percentage of residents who had high or moderately high levels of..., Planning activities, Precautionary measures and Fire safety measures, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Social and political involvement	Percentage of residents who had high or moderately high levels of...
	Planning activities	Precautionary measures	Fire safety measures
	percent
Engagement in political activities^{Table 1.4, Note 1}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	32	20	23
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	40^{Note E: Use with caution}	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	36	24	26
No^{Table 1.4, Note 8}	28	9^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}	16^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	41	23^{Note E: Use with caution}	31^{Note E: Use with caution}
No	32	19	21
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	39	19	20
No	30	20	25
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	34	18	22
No	34	20	23
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	38	22	23
No	31	17	23
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Table 1.4, Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.4, note * referrer Table 1.4, Note † reference category Return to Table 1.4, note † referrer Table 1.4, Note 1. Includes individuals over the age of 17 years who are eligible to vote, and who have participated in or volunteered for political parties or events in the past 12 months, including municipal, provincial, or federal elections, or expressed views on political or social issues through signing a petition, contacting news agencies or politicians, or attended a meeting involving social or community issues. Return to Table 1.4, note 1 referrer Table 1.4, Note 2. Civic engagement measures individuals over the age of 17 years who were involved in a recreational group or organization in the past 12 months, and includes engagement in political activities. A 'high level' is defined as having been involved in at least 4 activities in the past 12 months. Return to Table 1.4, note 2 referrer Table 1.4, Note 3. A 'high level of social support' is defined as having five or more people whom that individual could turn to for help in an emergency if they are physically injured, require emotional support, shelter, and/or financial assistance. Return to Table 1.4, note 3 referrer Table 1.4, Note 4. A 'strong sense of belonging to community' is rating one's own sense of belonging to their community as a 4 or a 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents "very weak" and 5 "very strong". Return to Table 1.4, note 4 referrer Table 1.4, Note 5. 'High neighbourhood trust' is rating one's own trust in the people in one's neighbourhood as 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents "cannot be trusted at all" and 5 represents "can be trusted a lot", as well as having a response of "very likely" when asked about the likelihood of someone in their neighbourhood returning a lost wallet or purse containing two hundred dollars with the money still inside. Return to Table 1.4, note 5 referrer Table 1.4, Note 6. A 'high level of self-efficacy' is derived from having a high self-rating on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for the following three categories: an ability to think clearly and solve day-to-day problems, to handle unexpected and difficult problems, and to figure out what to do if faced with an emergency situation. Return to Table 1.4, note 6 referrer Table 1.4, Note 7. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Planning activities'. Return to Table 1.4, note 7 referrer Table 1.4, Note 8. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to Table 1.4, note 8 referrer Note: Responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents. Households with ‘moderately high’ or ‘high’ levels of emergency planning engaged in 3 or 4 of the following: having an exit plan, an emergency supply kit, extra copies of important documents and an emergency contact list. 'Moderately high' or 'high' levels of precautionary measures include having 3 or 4 of the following: a wind-up or battery operated radio, a back-up generator, an alternate source of heat and additional water. 'Moderately high' or 'high' levels of fire safety measure include having all 3 of the following: a working smoke detector, a working fire extinguisher, and a working carbon monoxide detector. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014.

Notes

^E use with caution

Footnote 1.

A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) or a Census Agglomeration (CA) is formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centred on a population centre (known as the core). A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more must live in the core. A CA must have a core population of at least 10,000. To be included in the CMA or CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the core as measured by commuting flows derived from census data.

Return to note 1 referrer

Footnote 2.

The target population for the SEPR included all persons 15 years of age or older, residing in households in Canada’s 10 provinces, excluding full-time residents of institutions (e.g. nursing homes, group homes, hospitals).

Return to note 2 referrer

Footnote 3.

The SEPR covers three types of communities: Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), Census Agglomerations (CAs) with population greater than 50,000, and ‘smaller communities’ which include CAs with population 50,000 or less and those areas that fall outside of CMAs and CAs. All CMAs and CAs (with population greater than 50,000) were included in the SEPR. A sample of households were selected from smaller communities within each province to represent all households within the province in similar communities. Additional information on the SEPR and its sampling methodology can be found in the ‘Survey description’ section.

Return to note 3 referrer

Footnote 4.

Throughout this fact sheet, responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents.

Return to note 4 referrer

Footnote 5.

This section focuses on personal experiences with emergencies or disasters that happened in Canada, in a community where the person was living at the time, and was significant enough to severely interrupt the individual’s regular daily activities.

Return to note 5 referrer

Footnote 6.

Emergency planning activities include: having an emergency exit plan, a household emergency supply kit, extra copies of important documents and an emergency contact list.

Return to note 6 referrer

Footnote 7.

Precautionary measures include: having a wind-up or battery-operated radio, an alternate heat source such as a non-electric stove or heater, or a wood-burning fireplace, a back-up generator and an alternative water source such as a well, tank or litres of stored water.

Return to note 7 referrer

Footnote 8.

Unless otherwise specified, differences are statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Return to note 8 referrer

Footnote 9.

A 'strong sense of belonging to community' is rating one's own sense of belonging to their community as a 4 or a 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents "very weak" and 5 "very strong".

Return to note 9 referrer

Footnote 10.

A proportion (6%) of respondents were not asked questions regarding neighbourhood helpfulness in the event of an emergency and as such these cases are not included in the analysis on neighbourhood helpfulness in general or in the event of an emergency.

Return to note 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about whether their neighbourhood is a place where neighbours would help each other if there is an emergency.

Return to note 11 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Québec (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Québec (CMA), Quebec

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 5}

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Social networks and sense of belonging

Data tables

Notes

Fact sheetCommunity of Québec (CMA), Quebec Fact sheetCommunity of Québec (CMA), Quebec

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Social networks and sense of belonging

Data tables

Notes

Note of appreciation

Standards of service to the public

Copyright

Fact sheet
Community of Québec (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Québec (CMA), Quebec

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 5}