Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank each one of you for your contribution.
I agree entirely with your observation, Professor Olson. You pay now or you or you pay later.
It doesn't seem to have sunk into the consciousness of Canadians, and maybe not even into the consciousness of the government, that if you look at the Calgary flood, at the regular Manitoba floods, or at the Don Valley flood, these are massive government payouts, but they're also massive insurance payouts as well. The massive insurance payouts are almost inevitably passed on to your own premiums. Everyone around this table who has an insurance policy is paying for this. In the current political climate, it's very difficult to land that point.
Here's what my curiosity is about. As you've all rightly described, this is tricky public policy. You do one thing and then it has an offset on that, and then on another thing. I do like the idea of Professor Boyce's panel, but it is an incredibly complicated way to go about having what is in effect a green infrastructure plan. In other words, no infrastructure should be built unless the green implications are sorted out.
The three of you, I presume, have done some thinking about this. Let me start with Professor Olson. If you were to have the ability or the pen, if you will, to design a green infrastructure plan for what you've talked about today, what would it look like? Are there other countries that you think do it right or that at least do it better than we do?