This is really crucial and a great way to follow-up the last question, because the next thing we should say, after we talk about how we can spend extra money, is how can we change the money that we're already spending, right? It doesn't necessarily need to cost a ton more money.
In terms of the language of efficient and inefficient subsidies, that's not terminology that we used in the assessment intentionally. Efficiency is in relation to what the goals of the subsidy are, right? We emphasized the goals in our analysis. Of course, there are designs of efficient and inefficient ways to achieve a given goal, but that was really dealt with in other parts of the assessment.
What we found crucial to identify was the difference between incentivizing production without explicit measures to enhance the stewardship or sustainability of that production to continually enhance—not just to set a low baseline—versus subsidies that either intentionally directly target those kinds of stewardship activities and a transformation towards, for example, a clean energy economy, or ones that require, as part of an enhancement of production, that stewardship be a part of the package.
That's my understanding of what Canada committed to previously, which was to phase out fossil fuel subsidies—not to phase out inefficient ones, but to phase out production-enhancing ones. But perhaps I have that wrong.