7.1.8 Emergency Planning & Plan Execution
7.1.8. Emeergency Planning & Plan Execution
Introduction
An essential role of any government is to plan for and act appropriately during times of national or regional emergencies. This function of government has been recognized in Canada for decades, and in the 1950s the federal government established a training college to provide emergency training courses and to foster training and cooperation in emergency situations between federal, provincial, and territorial governments.
Emergency response training is still provided by the federal government through the Canadian Emergency Management College.
On their website, Public Safety Canada states the following:
Natural disasters, pandemics, cyber incidents and terrorism can all cause emergencies in Canada. Emergencies can quickly escalate in scope and severity, cross jurisdictional lines, and take on international dimensions. Emergency management planning can save lives, preserve the environment and protect property by raising the understanding of risks and contributing to a safer, prosperous, sustainable, disaster resistant, and resilient society in Canada.
Emergency management is a core responsibility of the Government of Canada and a collective responsibility of all federal government institutions. This is why Public Safety Canada is taking steps to promote a coordinated approach and more uniform structure to the management of emergencies by providing guidance to federal government institutions on how to develop emergency management plans. A coordinated approach to emergency management planning will strengthen the Government of Canada‘s capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from major disasters and other emergencies.
The “Emergency Management Planning Guide” supports federal institutions in meeting their responsibilities under the Emergency Management Act to prepare and maintain mandate-specific emergency management plans. The Guide provides the framework for federal government institutions to undertake mandate-specific all-hazards risk assessments and planning activities within all four integrated functions of emergency management:
The Government of Canada has a federal policy for emergency management, as set out on the following website:
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/plc-mrgnc-mngmnt/index-en.aspx
According to the federal policy for emergency management:
The federal government is responsible for emergency management at the national level in its exclusive jurisdictions and on lands and properties under federal responsibility. Provincial and territorial governments exercise responsibility for emergency management within their respective jurisdictions except where legislation allows for direct federal intervention or for shared responsibility. If any emergency threatens to overwhelm the resources of a province or territory, federal institutions may respond to the request or if an emergency has a national implication. A provincial request for assistance during an emergency indicates that the province requires federal support to achieve an objective. While the province may indicate the specific resources and capabilities required, in most instances federal departments and agencies will need to define the appropriate response. Federal institutions can also make preparations in advance of anticipated need or request for assistance from a province or territory.
In researching how the provincial governments have integrated their own emergency response programs, a number of provincial programs were reviewed.
The government of Manitoba‘s website includes a copy of The Emergency Measures Act which sets out the responsibilities of the provincial and municipal governments in case of an emergency.
Other provincial governments and territories in Canada have similar legislation to deal with emergencies.
In Ontario, the legislation is called the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act
In Alberta, the legislation is called the Emergency Management Act.
It is imperative, following the implementation of emergency plans during the COVID-19 pandemic, to evaluate the emergency measures undertaken to evaluate their effectiveness in mitigating the risks associated with the COVID-19 outbreak, and to determine whether or not the steps taken actually adhered to the legislation at all levels of government as set out by the various legislations.
To undertake this task, the Commissioners have relied on the testimony of various witnesses who appeared at the hearings.
Testimony Concerning Emergency Planning & Plan Execution During Pandemic
Direct testimony was received from witnesses concerning the actions of the various levels of governments during the COVID-19 emergency or pandemic.
Witnesses included the following:
Lieutenant Colonel David Redman
Canada Deviated from Strategic Pandemic Response
Lt. Col. Redman testified that most provinces and territories in Canada approach emergencies in a similar way. The emergencies measures organizations in Canada are tasked with responding to all manner of emergencies in Canada, while mitigating the effects of the emergency on the totality of Canadians‘ society.
Every province and territory in Canada had a pandemic plan prepared prior to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020.
https://pandemicalternative.org/index.php/resources/11-resource-pandemic-plan
The following was taken from the Pandemic Alternative Website, as presented by Lt. Col. Redman:
Pandemic Plans from around Canada
Pandemic plans listed on the Government of Canada website
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/flu-influenza/pandemic-plans.html
Alberta‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2014)
British Columbia‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2014)
Manitoba‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan
https://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/documents/influenza/Pandemic_Overview.pdf
Newfoundland‘s Pandemic Plan (2007)
https://www.gov.nl.ca/hcs/files/publichealth-pandemic-complete-pandemic-web.pdf
New Brunswick‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2006)
https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ps-sp/pdf/emo/Pandemic_Planning-e.pdf
Northwest Territories‘ Pandemic Guide (2020)
Nova Scotia‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2013)
https://novascotia.ca/dhw/cdpc/documents/Respiratory_Response_Plan_for_Public_Health.pdf
Nunavut‘s Pandemic Path (2020)
https://gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/nunavuts_path_final_framework_-_eng_sm.pdf
Ontario‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2013)
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/emb/pan_flu/pan_flu_plan.aspx
Prince Edward Island‘s Pandemic Plan
Québec‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2006)
https://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/msss/fichiers/2005/05-235-05a.pdf
Saskatchewan‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2009)
https://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/vmd0jm0k.pdf
Yukon Territory‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2020)
https://yukon.ca/sites/yukon.ca/files/cs/cs-yg-pandemic-coordination-plan.pdf
None of the provincial or federal governments fully utilized the recommendations contained in those existing plans.
The COVID-19 pandemic response was flawed from the very beginning in the following ways:
The responses did not take into account the emergency pandemic plans that had already been created;
The overall goal of the pandemic response was incorrect. The stated goal was to “protect the healthcare system.“ A more appropriate goal should have been to minimize the impact of the virus/disease on all of society.
The government did not utilize the preexisting emergency response apparatus that existed at all levels of government. Each province and territory had professional people trained in planning for implementing and monitoring an integrated response to any and all emergency situations.
All emergency responses in Canada are to be under the direct control and supervision of elected officials. During the COVID-19 pandemic, control and authority of all aspects of Canadian society were handed over to non-elected bureaucrats within the healthcare area. These individuals were not elected, and had no substantive actual training in coordinating a response to an emergency situation.
Fear and terror were used to control the population.
The government representatives did not express confidence in their plan, nor did they express an overall plan to the population.
No new surge capacity was constructed within the medical system, and the government took steps to eliminate normal services in order to free up resources. This resulted in lack of medical services for the overall population, including cancellation of care, diagnosis, and treatment of disease and injuries.
A major planning mistake was bringing people infected with COVID-19 into existing hospitals, thereby potentially infecting the entire facility and staff. If COVID-19 had indeed been the deadly pathogen that we were told, separate treatment centres should have been set up to isolate COVID patients from the existing system that was needed to provide general healthcare.
The sharing of resources across jurisdictions is a normal function during emergencies, but this practice was discouraged and demonized during the COVID-19 pandemic. The media used any hint of this to make the case that the healthcare system was overwhelmed.
The government appeared to be unaware of what was going on in the healthcare system and in society overall. The measures that had initially been implemented were not adjusted based on the actual situation being experienced on the ground. An example of this might be that although it was understood as early as March of 2020 that different population groups had different levels of risk and outcomes from COVID-19, resources were expended needlessly in groups that had little or no risk from dying of COVID-19.
Pandemics are “public emergencies,“ not “public health emergencies.“ The Premier of every province should have established a task force made up of major public sector ministries to lead, coordinate, and support the efforts. In no instance should public health have been put in the lead of the emergency plan and its overall execution across the entire society. The coordinating agency EMO (emergency measures organization) should have been in charge of the entire response across all societal sectors, this would have guaranteed a balanced and considered response.
Those who developed and implemented the government response did not fully understand the economic and social impacts of the mitigative measures and attempted to minimize these impacts.
Continuity of all services and businesses should have been a priority, with assistance being provided to those areas which were actually prevented from accomplishing their tasks.
No considerations were given to the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
Government and public health messaging failed to address and manage fear, and instead stoked and inflamed it.
A realistic cost–benefit analysis was never carried out for each of the measures undertaken so that all effects of the proposed measures could be analyzed.
Non-pharmaceutical interventions had previously been studied and most were determined to be non-effective; however, they were implemented without consideration of previous experience or reasons given for why they would be appropriate for this particular pandemic.
No written plans were ever issued by the government or the media to the public so that citizens could make informed decisions.
Government and media collaborated to promote a certain narrative without consideration of the actual known facts and information.
Both the government and media developed a narrative which demonized persons who had tested positive for COVID-19 and/or were demonstrating symptoms of COVID-19.
A recovery plan was never developed or implemented to address the widespread damage that had been done to Canadian society.
Seventy-three per cent of all reported COVID-19 deaths occurred in long-term-care facilities. This is a controlled and contained population which should have effectively been addressed in a focused way.
Medical professionals, who were asked during their testimony, had no training or awareness of any pre-existing influenza pandemic plan.
Conclusions
The Canadian response to the COVID-19 pandemic failed in all major areas of emergency response management.
Emergency response was put in the hands of unelected health officers, and elected officials abrogated their legislated responsibilities.
Emergency response planning and implementation must be carried out from the bottom up, since the circumstances of any emergency vary based on actual conditions on the ground.
Federal authorities implemented emergency plans across the country, as opposed to only providing support to local emergency plans.
Despite the existence of detailed pandemic response plans, the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic ignored most of these pandemic response plans.
Existing emergency measures personnel and procedures were not utilized during the pandemic.
The government pandemic plan did not evaluate the overall collateral effects of the measures implemented.
The pandemic measures imposed by government did not take into account the evolving situation.
Recommendations
Based on the totality of the witness testimony, the following recommendations are presented:
A. Emergency measures organizations (EMOs) must be in charge of planning, implementation, and recovery from any and all “emergencies.“
B. Public health officials should never be put in charge of emergency response. They should be a critical component of the planning but should never be charged with running a response.
C. Emergency Management Act powers must supersede the powers of the various public health officers. The public health officers must come under the authority of the emergency management agencies.
D. Elected officials must remain in charge of all emergency measures.
E. Follow existing emergency plans.
F. Make sure all emergency plans are publicized and the contents well known by stakeholders in all affected areas.
G. Require mandatory training of emergency response personnel.
H. Follow all emergency measures legislation in each jurisdiction.
I. Emergency planning must be driven from the bottom up.
J. Federal government should not be leading emergency response. They should be limited to supporting the requirements of the local authorities.
K. Media and government cannot be allowed to collude to present a pre-approved information campaign.
L. The consultation process should involve the public, and the comprehensive plan to tackle the pandemic emergency should be regularly, consistently, and promptly communicated to the public.
M. In any future emergencies, the government should focus on mitigating public fear and anxiety rather than resorting to fear and terror as a means to secure compliance.
N. Require mandatory cost–benefit analysis of any and all emergency measures considered and/or imposed.
O. Require transparency in decision-making.
P. Support open public discourse, without censorship.
Q. Require a mandatory recovery plan to fix the collateral damage done by the pandemic measures.
R. Require a mitigation plan for all societal damage done by the pandemic measures.
S. Establish regulations to ensure that the elected officials are never sidelined or abrogate their powers to unelected bureaucrats.
T. Commission an independent study which is required to include members of the emergency measures organizations from across Canada.
U. Rebuild emergency response organizations across Canada.
Report Content Reader Page
📄 Note to Readers
The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report.
For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.
