Thank you.
On the question on the clean energy projects that Ms. Glover raised, I was going to raise that question, but perhaps we can have an ongoing dialogue in the future on this. With 90% of the generation in the Yukon being hydro, it seems to me that the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation would be a perfect fit. As a committee, it's something we can have a dialogue on with you to see if there's some way to make it a better fit, but it seems to me to be a perfect fit for energy generation here in the Yukon. That's my perspective.
I want to return to the mineral exploration tax credit and flow-through shares. As people know from the prospectors and developers, it's an annual battle, and I know you want to make it permanent. Every year I've been in Parliament, from the year 2000, we've had this battle.
The challenge is that there are economists across the nation who are very pure and say there shouldn't be any type of flow-through shares or tax credits. There's been an abuse of certain types of tax credits in the past that have been flow-through shares, mainly with the film industry. The Department of Finance is properly going through the tax code and says it wants to make it fair for everyone, lower the overall rates, but remove all the loopholes. Groups that have presented to this committee have said that with respect to the natural resource sector, we should eliminate all subsidies, as they term it, to the oil and gas mining sectors. As a federal government, we should not provide subsidies, as they term it, to your sector.
You've provided some facts on the money you've raised and spent and the benefits to the government. Could you and Ms. Christie tell us the difference on the ground in terms of raising capital at that junior level? What does it means in terms of having these two measures versus not having these two measures?