That's a very expansive question. Every performance indicator that's built has flaws.
However, let's start with the fact that there's a daily relationship between a province and the federal government when it comes to the use of the Canadian Armed Forces. The liaison officer sat right beside me in my operations centre in Alberta, and I would only call them when I needed them, and only for specifically why I needed them. In most cases, I never called them at all because I would always use the resources of the province first.
You have to understand that, when you're in a flood, you're probably not having a wildfire. The province has fire attack teams and many resources. I could take those and use them to build sandbags and dikes. I could use the private sector.
If the measure of success of the federal government to the provinces is how many armed forces' members are on the ground, we have the performance indicator wrong, because the federal government brings far more than just the armed forces of Canada. They can help the emergency management organization access provincial boundary types of resources from neighbouring provinces, if they're past the mutual aid agreement of the province next-door. They can bring someone from Quebec to help.
Remember, we have mutual aid agreements in many areas. To use wildfire, for example, there are wildfire attack teams in every province in Canada. There's a central coordinating agency that moves those fire attack teams across our country, without any involvement, until it gets past their capabilities. Ontario will send Alberta their fire attack teams, and Alberta will send them back to Ontario, when each of those provinces experiences that hazard at a different level.
Those types of coordinations exist in the silos, but are linked across all the silos of all the different hazards and all the government agencies.