There are two things on that question. One, we have an internationally accepted definition of subsidies. It's the WTO definition. It is not just used by the WTO, of which Canada is a member, of course, but also by the OECD in compiling its statistics on fossil fuel subsidies and by the IEA as it compiles its statistics. It's used as an indicator for the sustainable development goal 12.1, which benchmarks international achievement of fossil fuel subsidy reduction. This is an internationally accepted definition. That's one point.
The second point, though, is that I would agree with the sentiment that came out in the last set of discussions. It doesn't matter so much. The really important question is not, is this dollar spent on a subsidy? The really important question is, is this dollar spent in a way that is a good use of public funds? The criterion for that is not the same as whether it's a subsidy or not; the criterion is whether it is in line with our Paris Agreement targets. Is it an efficient use of funds, considering the target? Are there better ways you could use that money and are you contributing to the risk of stranded assets? Those are the kinds of criteria we really need to be worrying about.