Source: The Conversation – Canada
This summer, Canada is once again on fire. Thousands have been evacuated. Smoke drifting south is exacerbating tensions between Canada and the U.S. government. And things are likely to get worse.
The upcoming El Niño might lead to new records in wildfires and disruptive weather in 2027. As the impacts of climate change intensify, the Canadian government has a unique opportunity to transform how the country responds to the new normal of smoke-filled summers, intense heatwaves, all-year flash floods, frequent tornadoes and deep freezes.
Experts warn that change is required. A recent parliamentary committee report and Senate report criticized flaws in Canada’s approach to disaster management. Key concerns include the lack of federal involvement, particularly in disaster prevention and the under-funding of local programs.
Similar issues were raised in a 2008 Senate report on disaster management in Canada, and the 2013 and 2022 Auditor General reports reviewing the federal government’s role in First Nations disaster management. A 2022 review of the federal Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program also found that there needs to be better integration of, and investment in, climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction across federal programs.
In Canada, preventing disasters and responding to them is currently, in theory, a provincial and territorial responsibility. But they generally transfer this responsibility to local authorities, which often lack the necessary authority, administrative tools and resources.
When disasters overwhelm the capacities of cities, provinces and territories, they can call on the Canadian Armed Forces for support. But historically, the federal government’s main role in disaster management has been limited to funding a portion of disaster response and recovery, and ensuring that disaster management services are available for First Nations communities.
Poor co-ordination during disasters
The federal government has announced investments in wildfire response capacity and updated the federal disaster operations centre.
However, Canada’s current approach to disaster management, with 13 government hubs and minimal emphasis on risk mitigation and prevention, is still relatively uncommon. Even Public Safety Canada states that every $1 invested in risk prevention can save between $7 and $13 in disaster response and recovery.
Studies have shown that poor co-ordination during disasters has led to worse outcomes for impacted communities and created lasting tensions between federal and provincial governments in Canada.
For example, B.C.’s Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness has said that recent flooding damage in the Fraser Valley is partly due to a lack of federal involvement following the 2021 floods that killed 1.3 million animals and caused over $8.7 billion in damages.
An after-action report following the 2023 Northwest Territories wildfires found that response times were slower than they should have been and some evacuees were unable to access resources because there were no systems in place for different levels of government to collaborate during a disaster.
Read more:
Canada’s aerial firefighting system is too slow, and front-line communities are paying the price
What is needed?
Across two decades of federally commissioned studies, there are four common ideas that can guide the government:
Fund risk reduction, not reactivity: A new federal structure needs to significantly increase funding for the less glitzy risk mitigation and disaster prevention activities that save lives and property.
Prioritize local needs, knowledge and expertise: Communities, local leaders and organizers have pertinent expertise and capacities and often best understand their territories and needs. Federal structures and programs must therefore direct resources and co-ordinate regional efforts and policy in ways that support communities.
Resource Indigenous communities: Indigenous communities face the highest level of risk and have significant experience managing natural hazards. Programs must facilitate Indigenous people protecting their territories.
Focus on vulnerable groups: Specific communities are underrepresented in Canadian disaster planning, including: immigrants, refugees, unhoused people, the elderly and impoverished remote communities. Targeted interventions must respond to the specific realities of these groups.
Easier said than done. Here’s the paradox: current challenges such as fires, floods and climate disruptions do not respect provincial or even national boundaries. They require attention on a larger scale. But intervention requires action based on the cultural, social, environmental and economic characteristics of specific places. Even though several technical skills are required in this process, governance is the most critical component.
Experts agree that, while national organizations play a crucial role in co-ordinating disaster preparedness and response, they should avoid temptations to dictate what communities need or design one-size-fits-all policies and programs.
What next?
The Canadian government can leverage decades of thorough research and recommendations for policy action. But several questions remain unanswered.
How can partisan politics be kept out of disaster management decision-making in Canada? How to ensure that decisions are guided by science and made by experts with a keen understanding of local and regional needs?
Studies show that political partisanship hinders disaster risk prevention and response. Decisions based on partisan interests, not knowledge, tend to backfire.
How can the federal government address the local versus large-scale paradox? Should a single institution be responsible for the four pillars of disaster management (risk mitigation, disaster preparedness, disaster response and recovery)?
Geopolitical decisions will need to address both environmental and economic concerns at once. They will come with environmental and political costs. Given current tensions with the U.S., how to deal with risks and emergencies that cross borders?
Planning decisions will create winners and losers and will therefore be highly political. Domestic restrictions in land use, residential construction and infrastructure development, for instance, will be controversial. Without safeguards, new codes and regulations might impact housing construction and reduce housing affordability.
Decisions at the international, national and local levels must therefore be based on traditional and scientific knowledge. Building a safer society will have high costs. New federal structures and programs must facilitate an inevitable social debate around disaster prevention and response.
Gonzalo Lizarralde receives funding from several government programs, including SSHRC, FRQSC, FRQNT and Quebec ministries. He is the president of the scientific committee of the Quebec network RIISQ.
Russell Goulet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/30/canadas-government-needs-a-better-role-in-disaster-preparedness/