That's an excellent question. It drives at a lot of what I was trying to highlight in my opening statement, which is the need for something else. The CAF cannot be the only response tool we have as a country. We need to do a better job of building up our local capabilities, our humanitarian disaster workforce. Dr. Greaves is right. Resilience starts from the bottom up. You build these local emergency teams. They know the region. They know who's vulnerable. They can respond quickly and that's great. We absolutely need that, but at some point, that local response does exhaust itself, so we need something else.
Right now, it's hard to replicate the hundreds of boots on the ground that the CAF can put on in very quick order, but I would argue that given the CAF's other responsibilities, something else should come probably from the federal level, and it should be able to deploy into the provinces and territories as required. Whether it's a new civilian agency or some other kind of disaster workforce that we can envision, I think that's going to be required. As Dr. Greaves pointed out, there are only more disasters and the kinds of emergencies and severe weather coming down the pike, so moving on this quickly is important.
I will say that national responses are important. The local is absolutely vital. I think of the Australian conversations, and they seem to be a couple of years ahead of us. After their bush fires in 2019-20, they had a large-scale national commission on national natural disasters. One of the things they highlighted was the need for a national response. Australia does have state emergency services that are far more robust than what we have at our provincial and territorial level, but they are overwhelmed, so something more than it was required. A national response was required, and that's the conversation they're having right now. I think it's one that this panel is having as well, so this is very timely in discussion, I think.