Fact sheet
Smaller communities of Quebec Fact sheet
Smaller communities of Quebec

More information

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

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

People living in the smaller communities of Quebec anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (91%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (77%), earthquakes (64%), forest fires or wildfires (63%) and heat waves (61%) as the events most likely to occur within their communities.
Residents of these smaller communities anticipated first turning to the police as an initial source of help and information in the event of rioting or civil unrest (56%), an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (43%) or an industrial or transportation accident (33%) (Table 1.1). In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (62%) or a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (31%), local government was the most commonly anticipated source of help and information for residents.
In the event of an extended power outage lasting 24 hours or longer, people in Quebec’s smaller communities anticipated first turning to their utility company (68%). If faced with an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease, they anticipated first turning to hospitals, clinics, doctors and other medical professionals (79%).

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

Just over one in three (36%) residents of the smaller communities of Quebec had personally experienced a major emergency or disaster within Canada in a community where they were living at the time. Close to two-thirds (63%) of these people had experienced an emergency or a disaster that was significant enough to have resulted in severe disruptions to their daily activities.
Winter storms including blizzards and ice storms (68%) were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster. Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (15%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were the next most commonly experienced emergencies.
Missing work or school (61%) was the most common type of disruption to daily activities endured by victims of emergencies, followed by an inability to use electrical appliances (51%), an inability to use water at home for tasks (48%) and missing appointments or planned activities (44%). More than one-third of victims had to evacuate their homes (37%) and about a quarter were unable to use roads or transportation within their community (23%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Half (51%) of the residents of Quebec’s smaller communities who had experienced major emergencies or disasters were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event. The other half needed more than a week, but most (43%) were able to recover within one week to two months.
Close to two-thirds (63%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event. Family (37%) and local government (26%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were the most common sources of the assistance received.
Nearly half (47%) of the residents of Quebec’s smaller communities who were affected by major emergencies or disasters significant enough to disrupt their regular daily routines endured a loss of property or another financial impact, and one in ten (11%^{Note E: Use with caution}) experienced long-term emotional or psychological consequences. Other types of serious or long term implications, such as physical or health consequences, were rare.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Seven in ten (71%) residents of the smaller communities of Quebec lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} with just over four in ten (43%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). About one in ten (9%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household that had not engaged in any emergency planning activities.
About two-thirds (68%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in the event of an emergency. Four in ten (41%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. Just over one in ten (12%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures set in place.
Most (98%) residents reported that they had a working smoke detector in their home, a majority reported that they had a working fire extinguisher (79%) and less than half (40%) reported that they had a working carbon monoxide detector (Table 1.3). More than a third (37%) of residents stated that they had all three fire safety measures within their household.
Some differences were observed in the number of fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents of smaller communities of Quebec compared to the province as a whole and to residents of Canada’s 10 provinces in general. For example, residents of the smaller communities of Quebec were more likely to have engaged in all four precautionary measures (14%) than were residents of Quebec overall (8%) and Canadians in general (7%). Though the proportion of residents of the smaller communities of Quebec (37%) that had all three fire safety measures within their homes was lower than the national proportion (42%), significantly more residents of the smaller communities had all three measures compared to Quebec residents overall (28%).^{Note 8}^{Note 9}
Residents of smaller communities of Quebec differed from the province in general and Canadians overall in the types of the activities and measures they were involved in. For example, they were less likely to have an emergency exit plan (49%) or a working carbon monoxide detector (40%) when compared to all Canadians in general (60% each), but were more likely to have a designated meeting place (44%) than Quebec residents overall (34%) and Canadians in general (33%). Residents of the smaller communities of Quebec were also more likely to have a working fire extinguisher (79%) than both Quebec residents overall (67%) and Canadian residents in general (66%).

Social networks and sense of belonging

Three in five (61%) people living in the smaller communities of Quebec had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 10} to their community.
The majority (88%) of residents believed the neighbourhood they lived in is a place where neighbours generally help each other.^{Note 11} Of those who did not describe their neighbourhood this way, three-quarters (78%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 12}
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 help for emotional support (62%), if physically injured (58%) or if they had to evacuate their home (54%). In the event of an emergency, less than a quarter of people had such a network for financial support (18%), and one in ten (10%) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 13}
Generally, involvement in social or political activities did not have a significant impact on the level of emergency preparedness of the residents of smaller communities of Quebec (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 smaller communities of 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	31
Police/law enforcement	27
911	19
Extended power outages
Utility company	68
Local government	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Family	6^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	79
911	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
Police/law enforcement	33
911	25
Local government	20
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	62
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	13^{Note E: Use with caution}
Provincial government	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
Police/law enforcement	43
911	24^{Note E: Use with caution}
Local government	9^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	56
911	21^{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, smaller communities of 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), Smaller communities of Quebec, 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	Smaller communities of Quebec	Quebec	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	9^{Note E: Use with caution}	10	8
1 activity	19	22	17
2 activities	28	26	25
3 activities	29	26	27
4 activities	14^{Table 1.2, Note **}	14	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	12^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	17	16
1 measure	18^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	29	27
2 measures	27	28	28
3 measures	27^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	17	20
4 measures	14^{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	17^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	24	14
2 measures	42	42	38
3 measures	37^{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: 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, smaller communities of 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), Smaller communities of Quebec, Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Smaller communities of Quebec	Quebec	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	49^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	44	40	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	44^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	34	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	52	51	55
Household emergency supply kit	58^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	50^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	59
Extra copies of important documents	46^{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}	60	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	59	58	58
Alternate heat source	65^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	48	48
Back-up generator	39^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	22	23
Alternate water source	50^{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	40^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	34	60
Working fire extinguisher	79^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	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, smaller communities of 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 †}	42	41	38
No	40^{Note E: Use with caution}	35^{Note E: Use with caution}	33^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	42	42	39
No	41	38	36
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	44	45	42^{Note E: Use with caution}
No	43	40	35
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	46	43	40
No	40	38	29^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	46	47	39
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	42	36^{Table 1.4, Note *}	33
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	48	37	41
No	41	45	34
^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.

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 1 referrer

Footnote 2.

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 2 referrer

Footnote 3.

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 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% for 'Fire safety measures'.

Return to note 8 referrer

Footnote 9.

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

Return to note 9 referrer

Footnote 10.

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 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

A proportion (19%) 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 11 referrer

Footnote 12.

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 12 referrer

Footnote 13.

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 13 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Smaller communities of Quebec Fact sheet
Smaller communities of 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 sheetSmaller communities of Quebec Fact sheetSmaller communities of 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
Smaller communities of Quebec Fact sheet
Smaller communities of Quebec

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