That's a good question.
In a lot of crises, you have a number of stages. You have the immediate relief. Take the fires in Fort McMurray. You had to put the fires out, and, by and large, the province dealt with that issue. However, you still have, today, people who don't have houses and whatnot, so registering these people and providing them with immediate financial assistance.... I think an organization like the Red Cross can do this immeasurably better than the Canadian Armed Forces, because it's just not in the CF headspace. Moving firefighting equipment from Quebec to help in Alberta.... The armed forces are going to be able to do this better than the Red Cross or any other organization, because they have the physical assets.
It depends on the particular element you're talking about. One question, earlier, was about the assistance provided in Quebec to long-term care homes. I think, in the very short term, they did not have an alternative, so they used the army. To the extent they used the surgeon general's resources, it made sense, but using infantrymen to work in long-term care homes is not good. It's not good for the long-term care home, and it's not good for the people in the long-term care home.
Using people from the Red Cross or another NGO is immeasurably better, particularly because these people are better prepared, in some ways, than the government. The Red Cross maintains long lists, in all the provinces, of people willing to volunteer—general-purpose volunteers, like I would be, but also trauma surgeons. Using that capability, broadly defined.... They're up next here. I think they're your next witness. It will be interesting to see what they say, but I don't think using the logistical support of the military to move people is going to go away. Old-fashioned manpower, where you just need bodies.... They have the bodies—the more general-purpose bodies.
I'm sorry. That's a long and inadequate answer.