No, I think the whole point is to draw attention to the undeniable link between climate change and the increased incidence of natural disasters across the country, which have added up to billions and billions of dollars. We have an unfunded liability looming. We don't know when the next one is going to strike, but any kind of forecasting or estimates process or budgeting is out the window if we keep getting hit with these epic events.
Now, I'd like more explanation from the government as to why they wouldn't support commissioning the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is sitting there with the resources and the ability to undertake such a study. Why are we afraid to simply ask him to undertake this study? The advantage of the committee doing it is that then we can call him in to report to the committee on that subject. Any individual could, I suppose, ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine this, but it goes on to the long list of other requests. When a parliamentary committee directs the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do it, it has more weight, and it would go up on the priority list, and it would be done, I think, in a reasonable period of time.
This is information we need to know. We're negligent if we're not planning for climate change events, these natural disasters directly linked to climate change. Other developed nations are folding this into their planning and priorities and estimates process. We don't have any of the groundwork or baseline research done to be able to accommodate this legitimate concern.
I would like the members on the government side to explain to me why they wouldn't want the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine climate change.