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

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of Montréal 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 Montréal, 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

Winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (90%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (81%) and heat waves (64%) were named by residents of Montréal as the most likely emergency-type events to occur within their community.
Residents anticipated turning to their local government (24%) or to the police (24%) in the event of a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (Table 1.1). Similarly, in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food, local government (55%) was the most anticipated source of initial help and information.
In the event of rioting or civil unrest (52%) or an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (45%), the police were commonly reported as the source of initial help and information for residents. If faced with an industrial or transportation accident, people in Montréal anticipated calling 911 first for help or information (27%), while hospitals, clinics, doctors and other medical professionals (57%) were the most commonly anticipated sources of initial help and information in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease. In the event of an extended power outage, residents anticipated first turning to their utility company (64%).

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

More than half (55%) of the residents of Montréal had faced a major emergency or disaster within Canada in a community where they were living at the time. For most (79%), it led to severe disruptions to their daily activities.
Most (83%) residents were faced with winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms, followed by extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (11%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and floods (5%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Some of the most commonly experienced disruptions to daily activities endured by victims of major emergencies or disasters included missing work or school (66%), the inability to use electrical appliances (65%) and missing appointments or planned activities (54%). More severe disruptions included home evacuations, experienced by about half (52%) of those faced with an emergency, as well as an inability to use roads or transportation within the community, experienced by one in five victims (20%).
Half (51%) of residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event. Most of the remaining half (46%) recovered in less than two months after the event.
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of victims received help during or immediately following the emergency, most often from a family member (50%).
Close to half (45%) of residents of Montréal who had experienced major emergencies or disasters that were severe enough to disrupt their regular daily routines endured a loss of property or another financial impact, while one in ten (10%^{Note E: Use with caution}) reported long-term emotional or psychological consequences.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of residents of Montréal lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} with four in ten residents (41%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in ten (10%) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
Just over two in five (44%) residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency, and less than one in five (16%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. One in five (20%) lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
Most (97%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and six in ten (59%) reported living in a home with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Three in ten (31%) stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector within their household.^{Note 8} Nearly a quarter (23%) of residents reported that they had implemented all three fire safety measures in their homes.^{Note 9}
The number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures implemented by residents of Montréal often differed significantly from the behaviours of residents of Quebec in general, as well as from residents of Canada’s 10 provinces overall. For example, the proportion of Montréal residents who had engaged in all four planning activities (14%) was significantly lower than the national proportion (19%).^{Note 10} Significantly fewer residents of Montréal had all three fire safety measures within their homes (23%) compared to residents of Quebec (28%) in general and Canada overall (42%).^{Note 11} Montréal residents were more likely (20%) than people in the province as a whole (17%) and all Canadians in general (16%) to have no precautionary measures set in place for an emergency.
In terms of the types of activities and measures residents were involved in, some differences included having a household emergency supply kit, having an alternate water source and having a working carbon monoxide detector, which were all less common among Montréal residents (42%, 32% and 31%, respectively)^{Note 12} compared to Quebec residents overall (47%, 38% and 34%, respectively) and Canadians in general (47%, 43% and 60%, respectively).

Social networks and sense of belonging

About four in ten (43%) residents in Montréal had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 13} to their community.
The majority (78%) of residents believed the neighbourhood they lived in was a place where neighbours generally help each other.^{Note 14} Of those who did not describe their neighbourhood as a generally helpful place, three-quarters (74%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 15}
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 (53%) and if physically injured (48%). Two in five residents had such a network of support in case of a home evacuation (40%)^{Note 16} and 15% had a large support network if financial help was needed. However, 12% of respondents reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 17}
High levels of sense of belonging, self-efficacy and neighbourhood trust, social support as well as involvement in political activities were sometimes associated with a higher 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 Montréal, 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
Local government	24
Police/law enforcement	24
911	22
Extended power outages
Utility company	64
Local government	8^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	6^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	57
News- Internet	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
911	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
911	27
Police/law enforcement	25
Local government	19
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	55
911	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
Police/law enforcement	45
911	30
News- Television	10^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	52
911	23
News- Internet	9^{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 Montréal, 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), Montréal, 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	Montréal	Quebec	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	10	10	8
1 activity	23^{Table 1.2, Note **}	22	17
2 activities	23^{Table 1.2, Note *}	26	25
3 activities	27	26	27
4 activities	14^{Table 1.2, Note **}	14	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	20^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	17	16
1 measure	33^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	29	27
2 measures	28	28	28
3 measures	11^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	17	20
4 measures	5^{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}^,^{Table 1.2, Note 3}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	29^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	24	14
2 measures	40	42	38
3 measures	23^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	28	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note * referrer Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note referrer Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note * referrer 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 Note 2. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Quebec'. Return to table 1.2, note 2 referrer Note 3. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Montréal'. Return to table 1.2, note 3 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 Montréal, 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), Montréal, Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Montréal	Quebec	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	46^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	37^{Table 1.3, Note **}	40	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	29^{Table 1.3, Note *}	34	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	53	51	55
Household emergency supply kit	42^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	43^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	46	59
Extra copies of important documents	50	47	53
List of emergency contact numbers	68	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	64	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	57	58	58
Alternate heat source	40^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	48	48
Back-up generator	16^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	22	23
Alternate water source	32^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	38	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	19	20	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	97	98	98
Working carbon monoxide detector^{Table 1.3, Note 6}	31^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	34	60
Working fire extinguisher	59^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	67	66
Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note referrer Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Note 1. Percentage based only on those indicating that they have an emergency exit plan. Return to table 1.3, note 1 referrer Note 2. Excludes Canadians living in single-person households. Return to table 1.3, note 2 referrer 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 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 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 6. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Montréal'. Return to table 1.3, note 6 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 Montréal, 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 †}	41	20	25
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	40^{Note E: Use with caution}	Note F: too unreliable to be published	15^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	44	20	27
No	36	15	20
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 7}^,^{Table 1.4, Note †}	53	17^{Note E: Use with caution}	43
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	39	17	19^{Table 1.4, Note *}
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	45	17	28
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	36	16	18^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	45	21	32
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	38	15	19^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	45	20	28
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	37	14	19^{Table 1.4, Note *}
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Note † reference category Return to table 1.4, note † referrer Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.4, note * referrer 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 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 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 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 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 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 Note 7. 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 7 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.

Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about a working carbon monoxide detector.

Return to note 8 referrer

Footnote 9.

Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Fire safety measures'.

Return to note 9 referrer

Footnote 10.

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

Return to note 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Fire safety measures'.

Return to note 11 referrer

Footnote 12.

Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about a working carbon monoxide detector.

Return to note 12 referrer

Footnote 13.

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 13 referrer

Footnote 14.

A proportion (15%) 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 14 referrer

Footnote 15.

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 15 referrer

Footnote 16.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about the number of people they could turn to for help in case of home evacuation.

Return to note 16 referrer

Footnote 17.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about the number of people they could turn to for help if financial support is needed.

Return to note 17 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Montréal (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Montréal (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 Montréal (CMA), Quebec Fact sheetCommunity of Montréal (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 Montréal (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Montréal (CMA), Quebec

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