Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Quebec Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of Ottawa–Gatineau 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 Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part), which could help improve the understanding of community resilience in the event of an emergency.^{Note 3}^{Note 4}^{Note 5}

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

Most (93%) people in Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) to be the most likely events to occur within their community. Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (81%), earthquakes (77%) and heatwaves (71%) followed as the emergency-type events likely to occur within the community.
Residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) anticipated turning to their local government as an initial source of help and information in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (59%) or a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (32%) (Table 1.1). Calling 911 for help and information was the most commonly anticipated initial reaction in the event of an industrial or transportation accident (33%) or if faced with an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (27%). In the event of rioting or civil unrest, residents anticipated first turning to the police (44%). If faced with an extended power outage, residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) would turn to their utility company first (66%) and to hospitals, clinics, doctors and other medical professionals (58%) in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease.

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 6}

More than half (54%) of the residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) had experienced a major emergency or disaster within Canada in a community where they were living at the time. Of those who were faced with a major emergency or disaster, about two-thirds (68%) experienced severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result.
Winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster (74%), followed by power outages (12%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Victims of major emergencies or disasters most commonly experienced an inability to use electrical appliances (70%) or missing work or school (65%). More severe disruptions included home evacuations, experienced by about four in ten victims (39%), and the inability to use roads or transportation within the community, experienced by about one-quarter of people faced with an emergency (24%).
Half (51%) of the residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) who had experienced a major emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within a week of the event, and about four in ten (43%) recovered within one to less than four weeks.
Two-thirds (66%) of residents who experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event. Family members (48%) were the most common source of assistance, followed by friends (22%^{Note E: Use with caution}), neighbours (18%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and local government (13%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Two in five (40%) people in Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) who had experienced major emergencies or disasters severe enough to disrupt their regular daily routines endured a loss of property or another financial impact as a result. Other forms of long-term impacts, such as emotional or psychological consequences (7%^{Note E: Use with caution}), were not as commonly experienced.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Seven in ten (71%) people in Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 7} with four in ten (42%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). About one in ten (9%) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
More than half (54%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 8} taken in case of an emergency. Just over one-quarter of residents (28%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. One in ten (11%) residents lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
Most (98%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and nearly two-thirds (64%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Less than half (43%) of residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their home. Three in ten (31%) reported that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.^{Note 9}
Generally, the number of activities or measures that residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) were engaged in did not significantly differ from the province as a whole, though there were some differences when compared to residents of Canada’s 10 provinces overall. For example, the proportion of Ottawa–Gatineau residents (Quebec part) who reported having all three fire safety measures within their homes were significantly lower than the proportion of Canadians (31% versus 42%).^{Note 10}^{Note 11}
A few differences in the types of activities and measures implemented in case of an emergency were significant when residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) were compared to all residents of Quebec as well as to Canadians overall. For example, the proportion of Ottawa–Gatineau residents (Quebec part) who had an alternate water source (51%) was significantly higher than of those living in Quebec in general (38%) as well as of residents of Canada overall (43%). Although the proportion of Ottawa–Gatineau residents (Quebec part) who had a working carbon monoxide detector (43%) was lower than the overall Canadian proportion (60%), it was higher than the proportion reported by Quebec residents in general (34%).

Social networks and sense of belonging

Less than half (43%) of residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 12} to their community.
Most (79%) residents described the neighbourhood they lived in as a place where neighbours generally help each other.^{Note 13}^{Note 14} Of those who did not describe their neighbourhood this way, more than two-thirds (68%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 15}
More than 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 (63%), for help if physically injured (60%) as well as in case of a home evacuation (53%). One in four (24%) people had such a large network of support if financial help was needed, and about one in ten (9%) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 16}
High levels of self-efficacy and neighbourhood trust were often 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 Ottawa–Gatineau, 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	32
911	22
Police/law enforcement	16
Extended power outages
Utility company	66
Local government	12
News- Radio	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	58
News- Internet	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
911	33
Police/law enforcement	23
Local government	19
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	59
News- Internet	9^{Note E: Use with caution}
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	8^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
911	27
News- Internet	14^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	44
911	24
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 Ottawa–Gatineau, 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), Ottawa–Gatineau, 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	Ottawa–Gatineau	Quebec	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	9	10	8
1 activity	18	22	17
2 activities	29	26	25
3 activities	27	26	27
4 activities	15^{Table 1.2, Note **}	14	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	11^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	17	16
1 measure	33^{Table 1.2, Note **}	29	27
2 measures	26	28	28
3 measures	18	17	20
4 measures	10^{Note E: Use with caution}	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	20^{Table 1.2, Note **}	24	14
2 measures	41	42	38
3 measures	31^{Table 1.2, Note **}	28	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published 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 'Ottawa–Gatineau'. 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 Ottawa–Gatineau, 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), Ottawa–Gatineau, Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Ottawa–Gatineau	Quebec	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	50^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	45	40	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	34	34	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	50	51	55
Household emergency supply kit	51	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	49^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	59
Extra copies of important documents	47^{Table 1.3, Note **}	47	53
List of emergency contact numbers	69	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	55	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	61	58	58
Alternate heat source	46	48	48
Back-up generator	21	22	23
Alternate water source	51^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	38	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	22	20	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	98	98	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	43^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	34	60
Working fire extinguisher	64	67	66
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: 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 Ottawa–Gatineau, 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 †}	40	27	30
No	44	32^{Note E: Use with caution}	29^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	39	25	33
No	44	32	26
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	50	27^{Note E: Use with caution}	41
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	39	29	28
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	45	29	33
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	39	28	30
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	42	36	35
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	41	24^{Table 1.4, Note *}	29
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	49	31	40
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	35^{Table 1.4, Note *}	26	25^{Table 1.4, Note *}
^E use with caution Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.4, note * referrer Note † reference category 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.

The Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) of Ottawa–Gatineau crosses the provincial boundaries of Ontario and Quebec. This fact sheet only covers the Quebec part of this CMA. Information on the Ontario part of this CMA can be found in the fact sheet “Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario”.

Return to note 4 referrer

Footnote 5.

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 5 referrer

Footnote 6.

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 6 referrer

Footnote 7.

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 7 referrer

Footnote 8.

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 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.

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 12 referrer

Footnote 13.

A proportion (17%) 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 13 referrer

Footnote 14.

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

Return to note 14 referrer

Footnote 15.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were equal to 25% 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 if financial support is needed.

Return to note 16 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec

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

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 6}

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Social networks and sense of belonging

Data tables

Notes

Fact sheetCommunity of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec Fact sheetCommunity of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec

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

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 6

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 Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 6}