Evaluation of the Humanitarian Workforce Program

Background

Emergency management in Canada is a shared responsibility among local, provincial, territorial, and federal jurisdictions. When an emergency, such as a natural disaster, public health crisis, or other event that threatens the health, safety, security or well-being of a community, escalates beyond provincial and territorial (PT) capabilities, PTs can seek assistance from the federal government. This can be in the form of financial support, both during and after the event, or resources to assist in disaster response and recovery. A Request for Federal Assistance (RFA) is used to seek operational resources to support a response to an event (see Annex A).

The Humanitarian Workforce (HWF) program, launched in June 2021 and currently set to end in March 2026, aims to build a scalable civilian workforce that can be rapidly deployed in response to large-scale emergencies. The HWF program can support PTs by funding non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that provide a highly skilled and qualified group of volunteer emergency responders and emergency management professionals.

There are currently five NGOs included in the HWF program. The Canadian Red Cross, The Salvation Army, the Search and Rescue Volunteer Association of Canada (SARVAC), and St. John Ambulance have been funded under the program since its inception, and Team Rubicon Canada was later included in 2024.

HWF funding is provided to these organizations through contribution agreements under two streams.

• Stream 1 (Capacity-Building) supports NGOs in capacity-building to recruit, train and build their response teams.
• Stream 2 (Deployment Activities) provides funding to eligible NGOs for deployments in response to RFAs from PTs.

During a response to a large-scale emergency, the NGOs can manage emergency evacuation centres, clean up public and private property, and assist individuals and families returning home following an evacuation, among other activities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, NGOs (primarily the Canadian Red Cross) provided surge health and emergency management services.

Engagement Purpose and Methodology

The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the HWF program. The evaluation covered the period from program inception in June 2021 to fiscal year 2024-2025 and includes some data on Stream 2 projects between April 2025 and August 2025. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results.

Interviews

Twenty-one interviews with 27 individuals were conducted. These interviews included Public Safety Canada (PS) staff, funding recipients, and representatives from some provinces.

Literature and Program Document Review

A document review was conducted using relevant data and documents from program and policy areas in the Emergency Management and Programs Branch. A literature review on the impact of climate change on natural disasters in Canada was conducted.

Performance and Financial Data

Available performance data from Departmental Results Reports and program financial data were analysed.

Limitations

While the evaluation team reached out to all PTs through the Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Management (SOREM) table, no interviews were conducted with territorial representatives. It would have benefitted the evaluation to have had that perspective as it may have differed from that of provincial representatives.

Findings

Continued Need

From pandemics to natural disasters

In Canada, temperatures are rising twice as fast as the global average, and up to four times faster in the North. Higher temperatures are driving more frequent and intense weather events that affect our physical environment, and pose real and increasing risks to the health and well-being of Canadians, our communities and our ways of life, including Indigenous ways of life.

Data from the Canadian Disaster Database shows that the average annual number of disasters per decade in Canada has steadily increased from an average of 10 disasters annually between 1970 and 1979 to an average of 17 disasters annually between 2010 and 2019.

Figure 1: Image description

The bar graph displays the number of disasters annually between 1970 and 2022. The trend line shows a gradual increase in the average number of disasters over time from approximately 10 disasters annually to 17 disasters annually.

• In 1970 there were 6 disasters.
• In 1971 there were 11 disasters.
• In 1972 there were 7 disasters.
• In 1973 there were 8 disasters.
• In 1974 there were 13 disasters.
• In 1975 there were 10 disasters.
• In 1976 there were 11 disasters.
• In 1977 there were 5 disasters.
• In 1978 there were 12 disasters.
• In 1979 there were 19 disasters.
• In 1980 there were 7 disasters.
• In 1981 there were 10 disasters.
• In 1982 there were 10 disasters.
• In 1983 there were 17 disasters.
• In 1984 there were 17 disasters.
• In 1985 there were 8 disasters.
• In 1986 there were 16 disasters.
• In 1987 there were 9 disasters.
• In 1988 there were 13 disasters.
• In 1989 there were 15 disasters.
• In 1990 there were 12 disasters.
• In 1991 there were 16 disasters.
• In 1992 there were 16 disasters.
• In 1993 there were 11 disasters.
• In 1994 there were 15 disasters.
• In 1995 there were 20 disasters.
• In 1996 there were 19 disasters.
• In 1997 there were 12 disasters.
• In 1998 there were 13 disasters.
• In 1999 there were 28 disasters.
• In 2000 there were 10 disasters.
• In 2001 there were 8 disasters.
• In 2002 there were 14 disasters.
• In 2003 there were 18 disasters.
• In 2004 there were 12 disasters.
• In 2005 there were 20 disasters.
• In 2006 there were 18 disasters.
• In 2007 there were 26 disasters.
• In 2008 there were 42 disasters.
• In 2009 there were 21 disasters.
• In 2010 there were 28 disasters.
• In 2011 there were 17 disasters.
• In 2012 there were 21 disasters.
• In 2013 there were 10 disasters.
• In 2014 there were 11 disasters.
• In 2015 there were 15 disasters.
• In 2016 there were 29 disasters.
• In 2017 there were 15 disasters.
• In 2018 there were 17 disasters.
• In 2019 there were 10 disasters.
• In 2020 there were 9 disasters.
• In 2021 there were 15 disasters.
• In 2022 there were 11 disasters.

Not only is the annual average number of disasters increasing, but the cost of these disasters is growing as their severity increases. In previous decades the cost of weather-related disasters was roughly equivalent to one per cent of Canada's annual gross domestic product growth, but in the last decade this has risen to between five and six per cent.

Every region across Canada has been impacted by varying large-scale emergencies in recent years, from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to climate-related events. As climate change makes weather patterns more extreme and volatile, disasters are becoming more frequent and more expensive. These events are straining readiness and response capacities, including those of NGOs and PTs. While the HWF program was primarily created to offer support to provinces and territories during the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus of the program has shifted to providing support in response to all-hazard events, including natural disasters.

With the number of natural disasters increasing over time, there has also been an increase in the number of RFAs. Prior to 2020, there were approximately 5 to 10 RFAs submitted annually, but this number rose sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between January 2020 and August 2025, the Government of Canada responded to 267 RFAs, including 150 related to the pandemic. Some of these RFAs were extensions of original requests, so they do not represent the number of disasters.

Figure 2: Image description

The line graph shows the number of requests for federal assistance (RFAs) submitted between January 2020 and March 2025.

• Between January 2020 and March 2021 there were 65 RFAs submitted.
• During fiscal year 2021 to 2022 there were 121 RFAs submitted.
• During fiscal year 2022 to 2023 there were 24 RFAs submitted.
• During fiscal year 2023 to 2024 there were 25 RFAs submitted.
• During fiscal year 2024 to 2025 there were 14 RFAs submitted.
• Between April 1, 2025 and August 31, 2025 there were 18 RFAs submitted.

The number of RFAs per fiscal year has dropped significantly post-pandemic, but remains higher than pre-pandemic.

In response to these RFAs, there were 23 HWF deployment projects funded by PS to support PTs between June 2021 and August 2025. In some cases, more than one deployment project supported a single RFA (e.g., there were four deployment projects for different NGOs to support wildfire response efforts in Newfoundland in 2024). Over one third of the COVID-19 pandemic related RFAs from PTs since 2020 were supported by funding from the HWF program.

Supporting PTs during emergencies

In the event of a large-scale emergency, there are a number of ways that the federal government can offer support to PTs when their resources have been exhausted.

The Humanitarian Workforce Program

Created out of a need driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supporting a Humanitarian Workforce to Respond to COVID-19 and Other Large-Scale Emergencies program was announced in the 2020 Fall Economic Statement. Prior to the establishment of the program, there was funding to support the Canadian Red Cross' response to emergencies, but in 2021, the program was established and other NGOs were included.

The HWF program offers an alternative to calling on the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) for support during large-scale emergencies by providing funding for trained humanitarian workforce staff and volunteers. PS can fund NGOs to provide response support when the technical skills and resources of the CAF are not required.

"The HWF program gives predictability, consistency, and reliability in our emergency management system." – Funding Recipient

Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Program

In addition to the operational resources provided by the HWF program, the federal government can provide financial support through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) program to PT governments for response and recovery costs from large-scale disasters caused by natural hazards. It is available when the response and recovery from an emergency reaches a certain financial threshold, which varies by population and is adjusted annually for inflation. In order to access the DFAA, PTs must submit a request for financial assistance.

There is some overlap between the DFAA and the HWF program with respect to response activities that are eligible to be funded by the federal government. PTs may choose to enter into bilateral agreements with NGOs for response purposes, similar to what would be funded through the HWF program, and later claim those costs under the DFAA program. Additionally, while the HWF program is typically for response, in some cases it has been used to also provide support during recovery.

Despite the overlap, there is little to no risk that costs will be claimed through multiple programs as activities are only eligible under the HWF program if the NGO does not expect to be reimbursed by any provincial or territorial government or the federal government under other programs. Any duplication is further mitigated through internal PS review processes that include consultation if there are any concerns of overlap.

On April 1, 2025, updates to the DFAA came into effect. This modernization includes strategic investments in disaster mitigation, risk reduction incentives to encourage pre-disaster planning, expanded support to help those experiencing significant disaster impacts, and increased efficiency in administration. There are now five funding streams available through the DFFA, including response, homes and small businesses, restoring resilient infrastructure, relief and recovery supports, and disaster mitigation.

The DFAA is designed to support PTs with distinct, large-scale disasters, where costs would otherwise place a significant burden on the PT economy and exceed what they might reasonably be expected to fully bear on their own. The program is not intended to cover small-scale events, even when they occur frequently. As a result, the linking of separate events into a single request is no longer generally permitted. For example, prior to the modernization of the DFAA, PTs were able to submit a request for damages incurred during a fire season, now, the response to individual fires needs to meet the financial threshold in order to receive federal support.

The Canadian Armed Forces

The CAF has historically been called upon to provide support when local and PT capacities are overwhelmed and an RFA is made. The National Defence Act outlines the circumstances under which the CAF may be authorized to provide assistance in a domestic emergency. It is understood that help provided by the CAF should always be considered as a last resort.

Despite this, the CAF has been increasingly relied upon to assist with RFAs. Between 2010 and 2023, the CAF responded to domestic natural disasters 50 times, once in 2010, increasing annually to eight times in 2023. This is likely to continue in the future with the more frequent occurrence of climate related crises. The CAF also responded to 118 PT requests for assistance related to the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2022.

These requests come with high costs. The CAF's operation to assist during floods, forest fires, hurricanes and other natural disasters, named Operation LENTUS, incurred $17.5 million in incremental costs between 2017 and 2019. While calculating the costs incurred is challenging, it has been estimated that the cost to deploy the CAF to support a domestic emergency breaks down to roughly $80,000 per day in incremental costs for the CAF (e.g., for personnel, equipment, procurement). This cost may increase, as it was announced in August 2025 that CAF members directly assisting Canadians by providing disaster relief will receive an additional $45 per day. In comparison, it has been estimated that NGOs and provincial, territorial and municipal organizations can respond for less than $5,000 a day for tasks that do not require the CAF's technical capabilities, such as incident and some forms of debris management.

Other programs that support emergencies

In addition to the federal resources that can be used to respond to an RFA, there are other programs that can offer support in response to large-scale emergencies.

Donation matching efforts in response to domestic emergencies

On an ad hoc basis, the Government of Canada, through PS, matches donations to charitable organizations in response to certain large-scale domestic disasters. As donation matching can provide funding to the NGOs that are funded under the HWF program, in particular the Canadian Red Cross, there is a potential for overlap. In order to mitigate potential duplication, PS ensures due diligence when reviewing applications.

Other government departments

Some federal departments and agencies are responsible for emergency management when it relates to the areas within their jurisdiction. This includes, but is not limited to, reserves, federal correctional institutions, and federal lands, such as the border and national parks. While federal departments can submit an RFA when they require additional support, the HWF program cannot be activated in response to these requests. This is because a transfer payment program, the mechanism used to fund the NGOs, cannot be used for the purposes of acquiring goods or services where the Government of Canada receives a direct benefit. This includes funding activities that the federal government itself has a legal obligation to deliver.

To be prepared for an emergency response, other government departments fund NGOs, similar to the HWF program. Activities funded by another department are not eligible for funding under the HWF program. However, one key informant noted that there is some duplication and overlap among federal departments who have similar agreements with NGOs, particularly Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), leading to some challenges understanding what is being funded by whom.

PS has made efforts to have Deputy-level conversations across departments about common needs and the types of engagements other departments have with the same NGOs to ensure there is limited overlap or duplication and that activities can be streamlined where appropriate.

While not directly linked to NGO capacity, many key informants questioned why federal departments cannot access resources through the HWF program. In its current format, the program cannot be used to support other federal departments during an emergency because it is a transfer payment program. However, finding a way to use the capacity of the program to provide NGO support during an emergency response, could be beneficial as other departments may not have their own pre-determined mechanism for supporting deployment efforts and this could create efficiencies across government. For example, the HWF program could fund NGOs to support: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada during an arrival of a large number of migrants; ISC as they support Indigenous people on reserves during natural disasters; or, the Canada Border Services Agency in providing care for people at the border.

Provincial programs

In recent years, three provinces have established initiatives that support their civilian response capacity to respond during emergency situations and extreme weather events. These initiatives include Ontario Corps, the Nova Scotia Guard, and the Réserve d'intervention d'urgence en sécurité civile in Québec.

These initiatives are made up of volunteers and paid personnel who are ready to be called on to help municipalities when needed. Some also include the participation of NGOs funded under the HWF program. While similar to the HWF program, these provincial initiatives help ensure the provinces have capacity to address emergencies within their jurisdictions. Should their capacity be exhausted, federal support through the HWF program may be required.

Capacity-Building

Stream 1 funded projects

Overall, there have been ten funding agreements for capacity-building projects during three rounds of funding. Funding was given in 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and for projects between 2023-2024 and 2025-2026.

Under the HWF program, PS committed funding to all five NGOs for capacity-building projects: $109 million to the Canadian Red Cross, $31.4 million to St. John Ambulance, $18.7 million to The Salvation Army, $8 million to SARVAC, and $2.5 million to Team Rubicon Canada.

The Stream 1 (Capacity-Building) funding has enabled NGOs to recruit and train response teams, purchase equipment and supplies, strengthen governance, and adapt their protocols and procedures to address the needs of specific communities, including vulnerable populations. These projects have contributed to system-wide capacity, enabling NGOs to enter into hundreds of bilateral agreements with all orders of government, including directly with PTs, bolstering their ability to respond and delaying or preventing their need for federal assistance.

The capacity that has been built includes enhanced volunteer roster management, equipment, training and exercises, as well as the ability to hire paid staff who were responsible for the design and implementation of these enhancements.

Volunteer roster management: Four NGOs indicated that the Stream 1 funding allowed them to hire staff who were crucial to building capacity, allowing for logistical and operational enhancements such as developing and improving deployment protocols, establishing a communication system, and implementing a data management system. The hired staff also allowed standing capacity and readiness to be improved.

One NGO indicated that they were able to increase their volunteer roster from between 1,000 and 1,500 individuals to nearly 5,000.

Equipment: One NGO was able to purchase mobile response units and feeding supplies such as food and beverage containers, allowing them to have equipment ready to deploy during emergencies.

Training and Exercises: Several NGOs indicated that capacity-building funding gave them the opportunity to conduct training and exercises to enhance first aid skills, including psychosocial first aid skills, initiate train the trainer sessions, and prepare staff and volunteers for deployment, including to remote environments.

Exercises brought the different NGOs together with PTs to build capacity.

With the unpredictable nature of emergencies and the increasing length of the wildfire and flood seasons, having a standing capacity that is trained and ready to provide support is critical. Without the funding provided through the program, the standing capacity of the NGOs would not be as robust. The enhanced capacity of the NGOs can be used to support PTs in their response to emergencies through bilateral agreements, potentially alleviating the need to call on the federal government for additional support.

Benefits of enhanced capacity

The enhanced capacity has resulted in several benefits, including increased collaboration, particularly among NGOs, during disaster response events.

Increased capacity within the NGOs has led to enhanced relationships. It has allowed for increased collaboration between governmental and non-governmental organizations which has improved overall coordination during disaster response.

Increased capacity has also allowed for the NGOs involved in the HWF program to meet with each other monthly to share information and coordinate where necessary. This increased collaboration has resulted in NGOs having a better understanding of each other's capabilities, allowing for effective coordination during deployments.

Performance data from Departmental Results Reports shows that the HWF program aims to have at least 3,800 individuals trained to perform humanitarian workforce functions each year. In 2021-2022, there were 2,500 individuals trained. In 2022-2023, there were 2,900 individuals trained and in 2023-2024, there were over 8,000 individuals trained, with over 1,000 recruited under the program during that fiscal year.

The capacity-building that the HWF program supported extends beyond HWF program funded responses. Enhanced relationships that were a result of HWF capacity-building funding have led to increased collaboration among NGOs and supported a variety of responses, not just those where an RFA is made. For example, the Canadian Red Cross sent some of their equipment to support Team Rubicon Canada during a non-HWF deployment, and the NGOs are working together on a pooled volunteer insurance system to leverage an economy of scale.

Deployment Activities

Stream 2 funded projects

COVID-19 deployments

Between 2021 and 2022, all 14 of the funded deployment projects were related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Canadian Red Cross provided support for 13 of them and SARVAC provided support for the other project. Four of these deployment projects took place in the Northwest Territories, two in Nova Scotia, two in Ontario and one each in Alberta, Manitoba, Nunavut, PEI, Saskatchewan and Yukon.

Ten of the projects provided surge support for health facilities such as nurses and doctors for ICUs and acute care, as well as staff for vaccinations, contact tracing, and testing. Personnel supported logistical tasks at vaccination clinics such as greeting patients, supervising post-vaccination waiting rooms, and sanitation. The other two projects involved epidemic prevention and control assessments, in which teams reviewed a centre's protocols and provided recommendations to enhance infection prevention and control measures. This also involved training on prevention, containment and mitigation. All 14 projects met their intended objectives.

Wildfire deployments

Stream 2 funding, while available to support responses to all-hazard events, has only been used for wildfires in recent years. While there were no funded deployment projects in 2023, there were five in 2024 and, as of August 31, 2025, four in 2025. Six of these projects supported responses to wildfires in Newfoundland and Labrador, two in Manitoba, and one in Alberta.

There were a variety of activities that the NGOs supported during these deployment projects, including the implementation of evacuation centres, providing information and referrals to evacuees, offering emergency social services, deploying personnel and/or equipment, and offering leadership and coordination. One project involved Team Rubicon Canada sifting and sorting in homes and buildings that were destroyed during the Jasper wildfires.

Capacity-building benefits deployments

The increased collaboration among NGOs, brought about by the capacity-building funding, has resulted in stronger response efforts during deployments. This is in large part because of the enhanced relationships and increased capacity for collaboration and information sharing.

For example, during the wildfire evacuations in Labrador City in 2024, the four funded NGOs were well coordinated, each providing their own niche services, but having a singular view of the event. The NGOs worked together to set up congregate shelters and provide lodging and meals for staff and volunteers onsite from other organizations.

HWF Program Support to the Labrador City Wildfire Evacuations

On July 12, 2024, the Newfoundland and Labrador government issued an evacuation order for Labrador City due to a wildfire that had the potential to quickly grow and spread.

The Canadian Red Cross was initially activated under a bilateral arrangement with the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development to provide support for up to 11,000 evacuees. This included setting up evacuation centres, registering evacuees, providing reception and information sharing services, and distributing financial assistance. St. John Ambulance also participated in situational awareness meetings.

When the extent of the event became clearer, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, put forward an RFA to support the evacuation sites.

In response to the RFA, the Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, The Salvation Army and SARVAC submitted applications to the HWF program and were approved to receive funding for the provision of support. With four NGOs involved in the response, the Canadian Red Cross provided coordination and operational leadership, in addition to their other response duties. Acting as the interagency coordination leader, the Canadian Red Cross aimed to reduce duplication and address gaps.

Each NGO was responsible for a specific area of the response.

In addition to coordination and leadership, the Canadian Red Cross set up the shelters and provided cots, blankets and pillows, registered evacuees, provided information, and aimed to reduce the mental health impacts for evacuees.

St. John Ambulance provided medical first response, as well as psychosocial support through their therapy dog program.

The Salvation Army was responsible for providing food services at the evacuation sites.

SARVAC was engaged to provide shelter security and general labour, including coordinating individual needs of evacuees, administrative duties, cleaning, entry control, and security and logistics.

Areas for Improvement

Looking to international allies

A report, Providing Aid to the Civil Power: Disaster Relief and the Canadian Armed Forces' Domestic Operations, released in June 2024, includes a recommendation that the Government of Canada consider investing in a professional and permanent disaster management workforce that could be quickly mobilized and deployed to disaster zones for response and recovery efforts. The aim of this workforce would be to reduce reliance on the CAF and improve preparedness across the country.

In an effort to advance Canada's response efforts, PS held pan-Canadian engagement sessions with a broad range of emergency management partners and stakeholders. While Canada has a number of mechanisms in place to respond to large-scale emergencies, including the HWF program, more could be done and looking to international allies may be useful in informing future initiatives. Countries have different ways of engaging the civilian workforce during emergencies.

• The German Federal Agency for Technical Relief is a centralized approach to civilian response with a strong emphasis on volunteer engagement, coordinated with a large-scale capability led at the national level. In June 2024, the German Federal Agency for Technical Relief reported that there were 85,000 trained volunteers, including about 15,000 youth volunteers. In contrast, there were only 10,000 paid staff.
• The United States has a large civilian response capability, including capacity maintained by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA also funds training for community-level preparedness capabilities.
• Other national governments, such as in Australia and New Zealand, oversee or fund civilian response capabilities. In some cases, capabilities are also maintained at the state or local level, with the national government focusing on coordination and building national capabilities.
• In the United Kingdom, similar to Canada's approach with the HWF program, the national government provides support and supplements local efforts through resources and coordination, when required.

PS has met with international partners to learn from their experiences in leveraging non-military actors to build a robust civilian response capacity. However, these countries have different systems of government and as a witness at the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence indicated, due to differences in land and population sizes, what works well in other countries such as Germany and the United States, may not be effective in Canada.

Mapping needs and available capacity

The Canadian Core Capabilities List

The Canadian Core Capabilities List is a list of 38 emergency management capabilities endorsed by SOREM in 2019. This list supports initiatives which advance the Emergency Management Strategy for Canada: Toward a Resilient 2030, which was approved by federal, provincial and territorial ministers in 2022. The list of capabilities can be found in Annex B.

While some of the emergency management capabilities from the Canadian Core Capabilities list were assessed in the initial program applications for the NGOs, a systematic approach to mapping NGO capabilities against this list has not yet been completed. Similarly, any further capabilities developed through program funding have not been mapped at this time. In general, the NGOs have capacity in some or all of the following areas:

• public health and emergency medical activities
• emergency operational coordination
• emergency logistics
• emergency social services, such as lodging, food, clothing, personal services, reception centres
• emergency management training and education
• psychosocial health support
• disaster search and rescue
• specialized flooding response support
• support to socially or economically marginalized communities, Indigenous peoples or diverse ethno-cultural communities

Recent reviews have indicated that there is a need for a better understanding of emergency management and response resources in Canada. One of the recommendations of the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence's 2024 report was to conduct a national review of emergency management planning and response capacity, in partnership with PTs, to better understand what resources are available to be used during a large-scale emergency.

Additionally, a lessons learned exercise undertaken following the 2024 wildfire season identified areas that could help improve similar endeavours in the future. This includes the development of a whole-of-society inventory of capabilities.

Internal, PT and NGO key informants also identified a need to assess and document what capabilities are required now and in the future, as well as what is currently available, using the Canadian Core Capabilities List as a potential guide.

Using the Canadian Core Capabilities List, the Government of Canada, in collaboration with PTs, developed a comprehensive assessment of the risks and capabilities across Canada to identify gaps and inform strategic planning. The information gathered during this exercise could be used to better understand NGO capacity and related gaps.

NGO capabilities were initially assessed to determine their eligibility under the program and an HWF NGO Capabilities Playbook, listing the resources of each NGO, was developed to support the coordination and mobilization of resources. However, NGO capacity is not mapped against the Canadian Core Capabilities List, making it challenging to identify gaps.

Awareness of the HWF Program

PS has been working to ensure that partners and stakeholders are aware of the role of the HWF program. There have been presentations by NGOs and discussions at SOREM meetings as well as meetings of the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Emergency Management. Some recent RFAs have specifically requested the HWF program for support, indicating that awareness of the program may be increasing.

However, there were mixed reports of awareness among PTs, with some key informants indicating that they believe PTs are very aware of the program, especially those who have benefited from it, but others indicated that awareness and understanding of how to access and use the program may be poor among PTs. Some PTs indicated that they required more information about how the program interacts with their existing relationships with NGOs.

It was noted that outreach at the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) and similar levels may not always translate to awareness among those working in the emergency management offices who make decisions about how to respond to emergencies.

Supporting Marginalized Populations

Gender-based Analysis Plus considerations

While emergency events affect all Canadians, there is a disproportionate impact on specific demographic groups due to their increased vulnerability. Severe emergency events frequently exacerbate underlying inequalities, in part because socially marginalized populations are often concentrated in environmentally exposed areas. There is also an intersection between social factors (e.g., poverty and age) and increased reliance on social service organizations.

Some of the populations most impacted by large-scale emergencies include:

• Indigenous peoples, who are often disproportionally affected by climate-change disasters such as floods and wildfires;
• Visible minorities who face existing health inequities that are strongly influenced by social and economic factors, such as income, education, employment and housing;
• Women, who tend to experience vulnerabilities in society due to factors such as having a lower economic status than men, extensive domestic and childcare responsibilities and, in particular, women who are pregnant, single mothers, have many dependents, and/or are experiencing abuse and isolation; and
• Seniors who are at increased risk for severe health outcomes and who may have mobility challenges that make urgent evacuations more difficult.

NGOs are aware of the importance of supporting vulnerable and marginalized populations and are engaging in activities accordingly. Some specific efforts by NGOs to ensure that needs are met and that barriers to participation are addressed include:

• Offering cultural sensitivity training for their members;
• Working with local organizations to address language barriers;
• Providing food truck menus that meet different dietary and cultural needs; and,
• Delivering training to their members to address equity, diversity and inclusion issues.

Much of the work that organizations are doing is geared toward supporting Indigenous populations. Organizations have hired Indigenous specialists, are working with Indigenous leadership to create inclusive governance structures, and are providing training activities for staff and volunteers on Indigenous cultural sensitivity. One organization established an Indigenous Peoples Advisory Circle to inform their work.

Going forward, NGOs have indicated that they could recruit a more diverse base of staff and volunteers, hire more Indigenous consultants, and review the ways they work with certain communities to continue to enhance capacity.

Challenges collecting demographic data

There have been challenges systematically collecting demographic data to better understand how marginalized communities are supported during an emergency response. Of the 19 Stream 2 projects between June 2021 and December 2024, only two (11%) reported collecting population-level demographic data. Sixteen of the projects did not collect this data and information was not available for one of the projects.

In the early phases of the program, data collection was quite limited, as the nature of data to be gathered or how it could be gathered was unclear to the NGOs. More recently, PS has worked with the NGOs to discuss which data could be collected, what collection methods could be used, and how vulnerable communities could be engaged in its collection. Still, challenges remain as NGOs report that it is not always appropriate to gather this type of data while helping people in vulnerable or stressful situations during a large-scale emergency.

Some ideas for understanding the impact of a response on vulnerable populations, when demographic data cannot be collected, include the use of alternative metrics, such as whether supports are systematically available, whether relevant factors are considered in program design, and whether any escalations or complaints indicate that needs have not been met.

While there have been challenges systematically collecting demographic data, key informants shared anecdotally that the needs of marginalized communities are being considered and addressed during emergency responses, particularly the needs of Indigenous communities. Some organizations reported having Indigenous community responders that deploy with every team and act as a liaison. NGOs are also engaged with local leaders and organizations to better understand the communities they serve, in an effort to ensure their needs are being met.

Efficiency

Program spending

The current funding allocation is appropriate for the program in its present state. The total planned spending from 2021-2022 to 2024-2025 was $156.7 million and the total spent was $150.9 million (96%), with a variance of $5.8 million (4%). Over the four fiscal years, the percentage of the planned budget spent ranged from 87% to 102%. Detailed financial data can be found in Annex C.

Since 2021, there have been 10 Stream 1 (Capacity-Building) projects funded for approximately $169.8 million and 19 Stream 2 (Deployment Activities) projects funded for approximately $14 million. Stream 1 funding includes planned amounts for 2025-2026.

While additional funding was not required, internal reallocation exercises would have been considered to support additional deployments if necessary.

Addressing administrative delays and strengthening communication

While the HWF program was not designed to replace responses by local jurisdictions, but rather to provide surge support when required, there is still a perception among some key informants that it takes too long for the NGOs to be deployed during an emergency.

There may be value in considering whether contribution agreements are the best funding mechanism for the program. While contribution agreements work well for the capacity-building stream, they may not be appropriate for deployment activities. Key informants suggested that instead of a contribution agreement to support a deployment, other options could be explored to support an easier activation and additional oversight during the response.

Changes to governance

The governance structure for the HWF program is responsible for approving funding requests for Stream 1 and Stream 2 funding. In addition to the relevant program areas within PS, the Deputy Minister's Emergency Management Committee (DM-EMC) has been involved in decision making.

DM-EMC membership includes: PS, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Department of National Defence and the CAF, Justice Canada, the Privy Council Office, and the Treasury Board Secretariat. It is supported by an ADM-level committee, which, during an emergency response, is the ADM Crisis Cell.

At the outset of the program, funding for Steam 1 and Stream 2 applications went through the following process for approval:

• An initial review is conducted by PS, who assesses for completeness, provides a challenge function, and consults with other relevant departments.
• A review and recommendation for approval by the DM-EMC.
• The final funding decision is made by the Minister responsible for emergency management or the Deputy Minister of PS, as a delegate.

Key informants outlined several challenges with the original governance model, indicating that it was inefficient, resulting in lengthy approval processes that were challenging during an emergency response and delayed capacity-building projects. It was difficult for DM-EMC members to provide meaningful approval for deployment proposals given the very short turnaround required.

Given these challenges, changes were made to the approvals for stream 2 projects which streamlined the overall process. In 2024, the governance of the program, specific to the approval of proposals, was adjusted to allow the Deputy Minister of PS to approve proposals without engaging DM-EMC.

This change has the potential to alleviate delays and increase efficiency, streamlining the overall approval process and allowing PS to engage DM-EMC on more strategic discussions, when needed. As the 2025 disaster season was ongoing during the time of the evaluation, this was not assessed.

Conclusions

Given the increasing frequency, severity and complexity of natural disasters due to climate change, as well as their impact throughout Canada, and the potential for public health crises and other events that threaten the health, safety, security or well-being of a community, there is a need for the HWF program, or other comparable civilian response initiative. NGOs have reported that there would be a significant gap without the HWF program.

The HWF program offers an alternative to the CAF for certain forms of support when PTs require assistance from the federal government in managing a large-scale emergency. This is advantageous as the cost to deploy the CAF for these activities is significantly higher than the cost to deploy an NGO.

The Stream 1 (Capacity-Building) projects allowed NGOs to build standing capacity that can be used for the HWF program as well as to support PTs directly.

NGOs have been deployed under Stream 2 (Deployment Activities) in order to support jurisdictions when PT capacity is overwhelmed. During the period assessed, there were 23 deployment projects. This includes 14 COVID-19 projects and nine deployments for wildfire events in Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba and Alberta. The capacity enhanced through Stream 1 resulted in increased collaboration among NGOs, which led to stronger, more effective response efforts.

Overall, the program is providing a baseline level of readiness that is needed to quickly deploy during an emergency. It offers funding support that can be used to deploy resources across Canada, as well as long-term surge support during lengthy events.

Some areas of improvement for the program were identified. Addressing these could improve efficiency and make responses to emergencies more effective.

• Canada does not currently maintain a comprehensive inventory of response capabilities that can be leveraged during emergencies and could benefit from a deeper understanding of available human and material resources. This could potentially include mapping current capacity to the Canadian Core Capabilities List.
• Key informants indicated that administrative delays related to contribution agreements are slowing down the deployment of staff and volunteers during emergency responses. While efficiencies gained through changes to the approval process might reduce or eliminate these delays, it may be worthwhile exploring different funding mechanisms. While grant and contribution agreements work well for the capacity-building stream, they may not be appropriate for deployments.
• Continuing to work to improve awareness of the HWF program among PTs could be beneficial, including improving awareness of how to access and use the program.
• Finding a way to leverage the program's capacity to support the needs of other federal departments during emergency response, could be beneficial, finding efficiencies and potential cost savings across departments.

The design of the HWF program takes into account the needs of marginalized populations to ensure that the specific needs of socially, culturally, and economically marginalized groups and communities are met during an emergency response, but there have been challenges systematically collecting demographic data and measuring impact.

Current levels of funding are appropriate and changes to the approval process made in 2024 streamlined the overall process and increased efficiency.

Recommendations

The Assistant Deputy Ministers of the Emergency Management and Programs Branch, should:

• Map the capacity funded under the HWF program, by building on the existing PS assessments of Canadian Core Capabilities, to identify any ongoing gaps that exist to effectively address the evolving risk landscape and to inform future programming decisions.
• Propose options to strengthen the availability and deployment of non-military capabilities for domestic emergencies, with consideration given to the federal government's overall role and responsibilities for emergency management.

Management Action Plan

Annex A

Emergency Management in Canada

The Emergency Management Act and the Emergency Management Framework for Canada outline how all areas of society, including different levels of government, can work together to enhance resilience and respond to emergencies.

If a PT determines that an emergency exceeds their capacity and resources to respond, they can seek assistance from the federal government to fill the gaps. An RFA is the formalization of a request to the federal government to provide support in response to an emergency such as a natural disaster, national security incident, or pandemic, like COVID-19.

RFAs can also be submitted by federal government departments that require assistance, however, the HWF program cannot be used to offer support as other federal departments are unable to benefit from a transfer payment program.

An RFA can be straightforward or complex. RFAs can include support for operational coordination; emergency evacuation, transportation and logistics; specialized response resources for wildfires, flooding, hurricanes and other extreme weather events; and emergency public health, medical and social services.

When an RFA is submitted the Government Operations Centre within PS is responsible for managing the response. The process is outlined below.

• An RFA is submitted by a PT or other government department;
• The RFA Secretariat in the Government Operations Centre evaluates and prioritizes the request, working with the PT to understand their needs;
• The Government Operations Centre convenes a consultation with implicated departments;
• The RFA is reviewed and the most suitable resources to meet the need are selected;
• The Government Operations Centre then works with the PT and supporting resources to ensure the needs are met

Annex B

Annex C

Date modified:

2026-03-26