I think there are two parts to that.
On the subsidies side, I think the Americans will try to call anything a subsidy. That's part of the exercise here. I know they have even claimed that one of our youth mentoring programs that gets some government funding is a subsidy. This is what we're dealing with. That's one thing.
On the misinformation campaign, I think there are a few streams here. I think on the misinformation campaign—NRCan is well aware of this—we're seeing some trends in terms of U.S.-funded groups. We can assume the motivation. Is it protecting U.S. industry? I don't think any of us can prove that. There's an uptick in action to stop accessing materials coming from Canada's boreal forest. One bit of the language we're seeing in the trend lines is “stop sourcing in primary forests”. Primary forests are defined as forests that have never been harvested before. We're a young country. We have a lot of them. In the boreal they burn in about 100-year cycles. Now let's talk about the loss of economic opportunity, critical infrastructure, community evacuation, and the carbon impacts of those fires. This whole issue of primary forests and not harvesting in primary forests is ridiculous. The context of that needs to be figured out.
On the other one, Canada doesn't have a deforestation problem. There are deforestation statistics around urban development, agricultural development and those kinds of things, as well as some forestry roads. But for the majority in forestry, it's regenerating and renewing. The deforestation piece doesn't work in Canada. The new term is degradation, which is not globally defined. You are degrading the forest. Well, what does that mean?
These terms on primary forests and degradation are a couple of the emotive, sensational terms that we're seeing in international campaigns against Canadian forestry to try to undermine it. I do know that NRCan is working in a global circle to try to address those two terms, if you will.