To start with the second question, then, I think the term in clause 3--if I can look at the exact word--is “entities”, rather than “stakeholders”. When I read that, I think entities means stakeholders. I'm not quibbling over words, but when I read that it means, to me, municipalities, it means non-governmental agencies, it means private industry, and critical infrastructure. It means all of those. Whether it's stakeholders or whether it's entities I would leave up to the drafters and to you people, but to my mind, that's what that means.
In regard to your earlier points, when we talk about the terms “mitigation” and “prevention”, you can either drive them apart or you can use them simultaneously. There are subtle differences within the industry between mitigation and prevention, but essentially, for the purposes of the discussion today, when we talk about mitigation we mean prevention. And we agree that Katrina is an excellent example.
Mr. Sanderson can talk about the great success story of mitigation when we talk about the water diversion system around Winnipeg. Some of the work that has been done on the west coast, I'm sure you're aware, includes...for example, when one worries about earthquakes, then you incorporate mitigation into the building code. You build buildings that are safer and withstand shocks to a greater amount. There are many other things you can do as well, but it's that type of action, in fact, that is being discussed and is being taken.
Can there and should there be more mitigation done? Absolutely. We need to look at flood plains. We need to look at the risk of severe storms on the east coast, earthquakes on the west coast, tsunamis on both coasts.