Yes. Thank you for the question.
In terms of 2022, we are at $3.1 billion in insured losses for that year, which was the third-highest year on record. Over the last few years, we've been over $2 billion in just what's insured, knowing that people who are in high-risk flood zones actually can't get insurance. What is not insured is three to four times that amount, so the costs are very real.
On the business case for adaptation, Public Safety's figures are three to eight dollars, so that's including the avoided damages. When you include additional benefits, it goes to $13 or $15. Actually, for a project I'm familiar with in Percé, where they did a beach nourishment project to reduce coastal flooding and erosion, the benefit costs were 68:1. With adaptation, there is the cost reduction, but lots of the projects that we're actually putting in place are also to achieve additional objectives. If we value all of those benefits, the business case is very clear, especially if we're actually valuing the services that nature provides, which we're not doing in a routine manner at the moment.
The business case for adaptation is very clear, and the health impacts.... Not to be indelicate, but when people die because of flooding and wildfire, we talk about a few people dying. It's not as many as for extreme heat—619 people—and that was in good conditions, meaning there was no power outage. If there's a power outage during an extreme heat event in Canada, thousands of people will die. We saw, in France, 30,000 people died. This is what we're looking at in the future. We really need to adapt with urgency.