Most Canadians recognise their homes are at risk from severe weather, but less than half are taking concrete steps to protect themselves, leaving a wide concern-action gap, according to Jocelyn Laflamme (pictured), vice‑president, actuarial services and underwriting at Desjardins General Insurance Group.
“First, I would say it’s pretty good news that they worry,” Laflamme said in an interview with Insurance Business. “Seeing that 68% of them are fully aware that their house could be at risk of severe weather, that’s great news. That’s the first step. You need to know what you might be facing.”
“About 34% take action,” he added. “This means we have work to do.”
Laflamme said the survey points to two main barriers: cost, and a lack of clear guidance. While roughly two‑thirds of respondents cite cost as a limitation, he noted that many also indicate they would be prepared to spend between $1,000 and $5,000 on protective measures if they knew which ones to prioritise. The bigger problem, in his view, is that homeowners don’t know what specific actions to take.
He added that insurers and governments have a shared responsibility to give more concrete direction, tailored to different hazards and regions. Because severe weather risks vary significantly by peril and geography, Laflamme said, homeowners need practical, localised advice rather than generic messages.
Laflamme said regional variations in the survey are relatively modest and not large enough to single out any province as clearly ahead or behind on preparedness. Respondents in Atlantic Canada appear somewhat more likely to have taken action, he noted, but the difference is not dramatic. In Ontario, concern about severe weather runs slightly higher than the national average, yet that heightened worry has not led to a greater share of homeowners taking concrete steps.
“We have to tackle them all the same way, and the differences are mostly peril-specific.”
Laflamme stressed that closing the preparedness gap cannot fall on insurers alone. He defined “we” as a broad coalition that includes insurers, governments, builders and homeowners themselves.
“To me, the key stakeholders are definitely insurers,” he said. “But then, the government, (and I mean all three levels of government), have a role to play through infrastructure to building codes, but also through incentives.”
Laflamme said home builders and contractors also have an important role, both in constructing new properties to higher-resilience standards and in how damaged homes are repaired. He noted that, ideally, those repairs should be carried out in partnership with insurers so that properties are rebuilt in a more resilient way, rather than simply restored to their previous, more vulnerable condition.
“Citizens have a role to play because there is a list of actions they can take individually that also have an impact at the community level,” he said.
Within the insurance sector, Laflamme said, both distribution and claims functions have a role.
Laflamme said insurers, brokers and frontline staff all have a role, both when policies are sold and when claims occur, in advising customers on how to improve resilience. He added that “build back better” options are now common across the industry, allowing damaged properties to be rebuilt to a higher standard after a claim, and described this upgrade capability as a second key contribution insurers can make.
Laflamme also pointed to the limits of what private insurers can do in the highest‑risk areas, especially when it comes to high-risk areas of river flood. In the most exposed parts of the country, he noted, coverage is often no longer provided by the market and major flood losses instead fall to government programs, which may also fund relocations out of unviable zones. “You see government doing this, taking money to move these citizens out of these regions,” he said.
While much of the public debate on preparedness focuses on how authorities and insurers respond once a catastrophe is underway, Laflamme said the findings highlight the need to move resilience measures much earlier in the cycle. In his view, governments, insurers, brokers, builders and homeowners should be concentrating on preventative steps that reduce the scale of damage before storms, floods, or wildfires arrive.
“To me, preparedness is not only about what happens when the event occurs, but also about the actions we take well in advance to prevent and reduce the impact,” he said.
He argued that those long‑term resilience efforts are at least as important as coordinating the immediate response when severe weather hits, and that they should form a central part of any national conversation on risk.
Despite the concern–action gap, Laflamme said he sees reasons for optimism in the survey results.
“There is very encouraging news also in those numbers,” he said. “I would say it’s a good starting point.”
