Thank you very much.
I have a question for Mr. Kovacs. You raised the case of Florida for a moment, which I think has been rather instructive, both for your industry and on the adaptation question.
A number of insurance companies have simply gone out of business or left the state, in terms of insuring certain residential properties, and they've now included some state insurance to cover off some of the higher-risk properties. It's therefore a general public subsidy of a risk taken by a private homeowner, which is an interesting scenario for a Republican governor to undertake.
But allow this. Is there not also a question of where it is that we are building these properties and what risk we are taking in the actual development of our economy? I am thinking of the Lower Mainland in Vancouver and places we know to have a certain climate risk factor to them. It's not terminology that I think we use.
Is your industry doing anything with this on the more progressive side, suggesting to homeowners and businesses—two fronts, two questions here, one to the homeowners in specific terms—that if you build a property in what we consider to be a risky area with respect to climate change, you will be penalized by higher rates? On the business front, to businesses that you believe are susceptible to climate change—the forestry sector and others who don't have a climate change strategy—do you then incorporate some of those influences in the way you set out your terms and policies?