Also, I was stunned about the “following the events of September 11…” bullshit. Bad things have happened for as long as we’ve walked upright. September 11 is such a copout for bad planning or abuses of civil liberties. Sharing a plan (maybe not the whole plan) with the population is just plain GOOD PLANNING. When the shit hits the fan, I’d sure as hell want to have at least a rough idea of what’s expected of me BEFORE trying to filter through chaos and confusion.

I’m not comfortable placing my family’s safety in the hands of some mystery plan, and hoping that communication doesn’t break down in an emergency.

I was really hoping they would be able to provide at least a skeleton of a plan - who to listen to, where to go first, what to take, where to take it, etc… But, instead it’s “Well, folks, you’re just going to have to trust us and hope nothing breaks down when It Happens” Definitely scary. Because communication never breaks down, especially in a crisis…

As a proud Canadian and a professionally trained and qualified emergency manager, I find these kinds of situations very common in Canada. The situation of fear and knowledge deficites around emergency preparedness and those who claim
safety - in the situations where no disaster event has tested a plan or impacted a program.

How can someone claim success, when there has not really been a stress test of a program?

How do we as Canadians measure our level of emergency preparedness?

How can Municipalities be confident their programs are adequate, when they may have systemic weaknesses which, if brought to awareness, may motivate the administrators to focus on strengthening an emergency management program.

The answer is here, we provide independent objective science based assessments to organizations in Canada.

We have betss tested this in British Columbia, with the most critical government health care servic e delivery agencies.
There s now available a revolutionary tool to strengthen an emergency management program, based on true current best practices, objectively and not emotion.

There exists a science, similar to environmental science that deals with the study of disasters and their impacts of our communities. This has been in evolution since 1916, and the first formal academic program was started by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1982. I have completed a four year disaster science degree, and join the select few people in Canada who have achieved this level of expertise.

How do Mayors or senior administrators measure their program to ensure the public can be confident in the assumptions manse in the program?

What standards are used as a guide for the program developments?

We can determine with a high degree of certainty, using science based analysis, to determine if Calgary(or any municipality, Province) is more close to a Florida or a New Orleans?

If you or your staff are considering running home in a major disaster or emergency, you are not alone. Our recent research has shown that a high degree of Canadian workers are actively planning to - Bolt - home in an emergency.

The mayor and senior administrators, were very confident prior to Katrina, in New Orleans that their communities were adequately prepared, yet they failed to pass an assessment (Similar to CEMP we provide at EMPG INc.) and thus demonstrate with a dramatic result, the failure of some who were not able to comprehend the magnitude of their vulnerability.

Please visit our site,

NOTE: Many of the disasters that occur in Canada, keep repeating the same results as we are not taking seriously the application of what we have already learned from other disaster events. Until the local emergency managers and disaster planners, accept the use of the assessment tools that have been developed, they will never realize the full benefits available to them. If they continue the way that they have - it will take at least 18 years to evolve to the level of development which is available now with the CEMP.

Further: “It is not about testing the local planners for knowledge or skills; it is a common misconception of many planners to avaoid an independent analysis- for fear of being seen as failing their jobs. We have found many times in our work in Canada, that we stress in all our work, that we are looking at systemic weaknesses rather than staff.
The only staff weakness we have remotely detected, may be from a lack of knowledge and understanding of the importance of standards of measure and a clear understanding of the benefits gained from an assessment. These provide fact based data (amunition) to help the sstaff justify and present a persuasive argument for increased resources for development of their program. Many agencies have actually increased their staff as a measure to implement some of their realizations.

“Many emergency coordinators self assess their programs as very good to good. After as little as 1 hour of work with our consultants, these same participants have always commented, “We did not realize how much there is to a complete program!”

I am passionate and want to provide the highest quality of information to you and your local emergency managers.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any quaestions or comments.
Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

Gordon Redmond, B.Sc., ABCP
http://www.empg.ca