In context, in our view it's important to take a step back and conduct an assessment to figure out where the greater needs are across the country. As I said in the presentation, I'd like to stress, though, that it should be coordinated with two other activities in government. One is the development of a national adaptation strategy. Two, it should be coordinated with the work done by Public Safety Canada, Finance Canada and Natural Resources Canada on a national risk profile. We need to get an understanding of who is most vulnerable to climate risk and we should be reducing their risk accordingly. Therefore, only a national infrastructure assessment that links in to these other two studies will give us the sort of eagle-eyed view of the whole country that we need.
Implicit in my answer is that we believe climate resilience is, of course, the number one issue. Trade corridors are important, of course, and there's enormous demand for broadband in rural and remote communities. We get that. But as insurers, we also believe that due attention needs to be paid to climate risk in this country. Frankly, we have done very, very little collectively to address the issue of our growing climate risk. The amounts that are being allocated in infrastructure programming are too small to meet what the needs are of municipalities across the country.
In short, we believe climate resilience should also be prioritized in programming from Infrastructure Canada. The infrastructure assessment will be key to eliminating that.