Thank you so much for the question.
I will certainly echo Mr. Sauvé's emphasis on greater preparedness, especially at the local level. Increasing municipal emergency management capacity through civil society and volunteer organizations, and preparedness at the individual level, the family level and the residential level, are all very important. But I would tell this committee that, even if all of that preparatory activity had occurred, and even if we had large-scale infrastructure mitigation layered on top to reduce disaster impacts, for large-scale events like we're seeing with Fiona at the moment, there is no obvious labour alternative to the Canadian Armed Forces and what they can bring to bear.
It's also important to note what makes Canada a bit unique when compared with such other comparable federal countries as the U.S. and Australia. The Canadian Armed Forces is the one operational player that links municipal, federal and provincial responses. Otherwise, we're very decentralized. If you deploy into a disaster zone anywhere in the country, nine times out of 10 you're going to see a lot of provincial activity with our EM partners. The one player that links all three levels is often those frontline soldiers and their chain of command. There is an operational matrix that the armed forces allows during a large-scale response.
My recommendation to the committee would be that, for large-scale responses, look to how CAF can be supported in terms of their capacity but also their morale. We've heard before that there is maybe a sense of not feeling a ton of motivation for domestic disaster response. As with combat, the will to fight on the humanitarian side will be very important. What is happening to enhance morale on the CAF side? I think the research is quite clear, from the trends from at least 2007 onward, that they will be needed.