Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate it.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
It is a serious subject that we have here, but a little levity kind of maybe cracks the ice a bit.
I want to approach this a little bit differently but still in the same thread. I want to look at this from the perspective of the taxpayer as the final underwriter for disaster recovery. We should be driving at a model that minimizes the impact on the taxpayer as well as protects the assets, the lives and the livelihoods of citizens and the people at large. It's part of the notion of collective defence, and how we craft that is important. It comes down to risk and risk mitigation, but the measurement of risk is two components: severity versus frequency.
I'm not sure if you've seen it yet, but there was a report put out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I believe, that talked about severity and frequency. Some frequencies are quite flat over time, a flood frequency, for example. Forest fires are a little bit different, but we want to look at the methods and methodologies of digging into that. I want to understand a little bit how both....
You indicated, Mr. DeFazio, that frequency is increasing, but the PBO says maybe not specifically related to floods. What measures do you use to evaluate the frequency of serious events?