Bernard Deshaies

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

As my colleague from the Reform Party pointed out, an individual armed with a knife broke into the Prime Minister's official residence with disconcerting ease, thereby highlighting the shortcomings of the security system designed to protect the Prime Minister and all other Canadian parliamentary leaders.

How can the Solicitor General explain the fact that an individual was able to break into the Prime Minister's residence so easily, and does this come as a surprise to security officials?

[Intervenor Funding Act, November 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I am pleased to participate in this second reading debate on Bill C-339 proposed by the hon. member for Oxford. I must congratulate him for his goodwill, for trying to enhance democracy here in Canada, so that some groups can give their opinion on environmental matters concerning natural resources.

This Bill C-339 is quite simple. It has virtually only two pages, if we take out the ones containing the terminology and the definitions used in the bill. It establishes the principle that the proponent of a project that requires review and approval under federal legislation, for example, Bill C-56, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and that affects the public interest or the environment, should fund intervenors in public hearings on that project.

On the face of it, we could be in favour of the principle of funding groups who want to participate in public hearings, because often, groups that represent less advantaged people in our society do not have sufficient financial resources to pay for scientific studies, transportation, research studies or efforts needed to prove their good faith. I am thinking here of studies needed, for example, in my region, Abitibi, or in Northern Canada or the Arctic circle, where intervenors certainly do not have sufficient financial resources to pay for their travel and their stay when defending the interests of people they represent.

We have seen in the past citizens who were penalized in their rights because, unlike large businesses or developers, they did not have the financial resources to defend their view on a project. So we are in favour of the principle that proponents pay for administrative costs related to the reviews.

But after examining this bill more thoroughly, we realize that it has a much greater scope than it purports. There are a number of questions. First of all, whether this bill was drafted to complete the program that already exists at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency created under Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

It is clear that the government, by using the procedure suggested in Bill C-339, can save on the funding it now has to provide to groups that are interested in taking part in public environmental hearings. If that is the case, why not simply amend the legislation instead of drafting a whole new bill? It is difficult to determine which agencies will benefit under this program and how proponents will react. And besides, this bill would institutionalize duplication, because provincial governments often already have their own structures for evaluating the projects of proponents.

So why add to the duplication in procedures for analysing the impact of natural resource development on the environment? This bill would create one more commission that would propose further administrative constraints, in addition to the far too numerous existing ones which the industry has criticized as jeopardizing project development and hence employment.

For instance, on October 18, when the mining industry, through its national organization, held its open house, one of its principal demands was that the government streamline the many unwieldy administrative structures restricting the development of this industry.

Bill C-339 would merely create one more administrative level instead of making intervenor funding the responsibility of a decision making level that already exists.

If we look at the two pages in the bill that provide a list of definitions, it is not quite clear what is meant by the term "public interest". In fact, a large number of frivolous interventions could be made claiming a "public interest", which would cause delay and add to the cost to the proponent of studies or the actual project.

The bill would also assist intervenors with a record of responsible representation of a facet of the public interest to put their arguments respecting the project before the approving authority. In this situation, doubt could be cast on the objectivity of the funding panel, which determines the groups to be funded by the proponent.

Clearly, in no case, should the fact of forcing the proponent to provide financial assistance threaten the feasibility of a project. However, it could happen that the proponent is the government itself. This is the case with the Irving Whale .

Thus the SVP group opposed to refloating the Irving Whale , as proposed by the government, receives no assurance from this bill of being considered an organization the federal government does not want to recognize as an intervenor with a record of responsible representation, because the panel is appointed by the government itself.

A question arises: Who benefits from representing these public interest organizations? There is cause for concern that some may find personal interest in the process and will not hesitate to specialize in defending public interest organizations.

The question could arise, for example, during a study on the opening of a new mine, if the representative of a local group, with no expertise, but wishing to protect the environment, and having an opportunity to develop their region through new jobs, ran up against a group like Greenpeace, which could defeat the local group through its expertise and international reputation.

In clause (7)( b ), contrary to what the bill proposes, funding should not be available to cover lawyers' services. The aim of public hearings is to help the government make a public and not a legal decision.

It has generally been observed that, when lawyers represent certain groups, the other witnesses are intimidated and refuse to express their viewpoint. The hearings then take on legal overtones. This opinion is what officials who are used to this sort of hearing have to say.

In clauses 3 and 4, the funding panel should also ensure that studies witnesses want funded have not already been undertaken. For example, the panels set up by the federal environmental assessment review office, if we refer to Bill C-56, which has this instrument already, have many scientific studies done, in addition to having witnesses testify at public hearings.

The witnesses must not be funded for doing the same studies as the panel. Bill C-339 contains no provision for such an eventuality.

In conclusion, we feel this bill has good ideas and that it is innovative, but it also contains a number of serious failings.

It should therefore be amended before submission to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources so that its objective of enabling groups of intervenors to defend their point of view with funding may be possible.

Furthermore, given how open Bill C-339 is in its present form to encroachment on provincial jurisdictions, such as natural resources and the environment, we must vote against it in its present form.

[Mining Industry, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the campaign "mining, an industry to be supported" is moving today to Ottawa. I would like to salute the presence among us of mining industry representatives who have come to see the government in action. Or rather, I should say, in inaction.

The Liberal government had promised to streamline the regulatory maze facing the mining industry. Nothing has been done. The Liberals were committed to improving the flow through share system, but nothing has been done in that area either.

Despite the federal government's inaction, Toronto-based Falconbridge recently announced that $500 million would be invested in Northern Quebec, which will create hundreds of jobs.

The proposed investment shows that the prospect of a Yes vote does not scare investors from the rest of Canada. Better yet, it demonstrates the potential and vitality of the mining sector in Quebec.

Just imagine how this sector will grow once Quebec becomes sovereign.

[Mining Exploration, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is the message I wish to convey today through this motion, which says:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider revitalizing investment in exploration in Canada and in Quebec by providing for fiscal incentives, including flow-through shares.

We have noted for a long time how little mining exploration is done in both Quebec and Canada. Therefore, we must act quickly to revitalize mining exploration throughout this country in order to replenish ore reserves in this industry. This situation is mainly due to the fact that junior mining companies, which underpin mining exploration, cannot raise enough public funds to carry out their exploration work, while major companies, which have the money needed for exploration, spend an increasingly important part of their exploration budget in developing countries.

The advantage is that those countries already have listed minable sites, while Canada offers few new deposits ready for mining. I remind the House that the committee on natural resources held hearings on this matter last fall and made nine recommendations that were supported by all the parties represented on this committee.

Unfortunately, the government decided to disregard all the work done by the committee and all the evidence we heard there. That is how this government operates. It has given the fifth report of the committee entitled "Lifting Canadian Mining Off the Rocks" the following response: "Keeping Canadian Mining on the Rocks".

I doubt that, by rejecting almost all of the recommendations in this report, the ministers, both of finance and of natural resources, were really aware of the true effect of their decisions on mining exploration in Canada and in Quebec.

All the stakeholders in mining exploration are disappointed that this government did not agree with any of their recommendations, that were based on their expertise and knowledge of mining. I would like to remind the government that more than a quarter of Canadian trade is based on the natural resource sector and that it is time that the government saw the mining industry as an important means of ensuring economic development in our society by achieving the national priorities, which are, according to the Liberal government, employment and growth.

Mines that will be closing in a few years as a result of the depletion of their reserves will not be replaced if new sites are not discovered. This will cause major layoffs and will have a very negative impact on the Canadian economy, especially in mining regions, where metal processing, transportation and other infrastructures will be hard hit.

An immediate response is needed if we are to reverse this trend by the year 2000, since it takes five to seven years on average between the discovery of a mine and start up of production. Failing this, the industry will gradually disappear. Renewal of the reserves is urgently needed; the mining industry is facing one of the hardest challenges it has had to deal with in many years.

As a result of the shift of mining investment to other countries, Canada's known mineral reserves have decreased. In 1992, 28 mines closed and only 8 opened. There are many reasons for this, but the trend must be reversed or the industry will be totally gone within twenty years.

Base metal reserves have been decreasing since 1980 and are unlikely to be replaced at an adequate rate in the near future. The industry has done its part. On numerous occasions it has voiced its concerns to the Government of Canada, which rather than facilitating the process of adapting to the new international competition, particularly from third world countries, has in fact added to the problems by allowing the investment climate in the mining sector to deteriorate compared to the competition.

The industry is working hard to ensure its survival. The economic and political context has not kept pace in order to encourage the industry to remain in Canada. Declining mining investments in our country are linked to a number of growing concerns.

To name but a few of those concerns: heavy financial burdens, compared to the countries of the south of course, particularly taxes and charges unrelated to profits; uncertainty and delays in environmental assessment and approval procedures; regulatory overlap between levels of government and between departments, creating needless difficulties; reduced access; uncertainty about tenure of mineral titles; and lastly, increased financial requirements to guarantee restoration.

For there to be any recovery in the mining industry, an incentive plan must be promoted for mining exploration in Canada, similar but better controlled than the one in place in the 1980s.

Even if base metal reserves are in decline, there is still immense geological potential in Canada, Quebec in particular. The recent opening of the Louvicourt Mine in my riding confirms the potential of the mining industry in Quebec and Abitibi and the expertise of those who discovered, developed and financed the mine and those who now operate it.

It also confirms that governments were right to create the flow-through share system, which helped to finance the initial exploration work leading to the discovery of the mine in 1989.

This particular mine, with $300 million invested to bring it to the production stage, will provide more than 350 direct jobs for the next fifteen years at least. It is the result of a joint effort during the eighties by the federal and Quebec governments to encourage mineral exploration on sites of former mines that were no longer in production and thus deemed unlikely to have sufficient potential as a source of major new discoveries.

New technologies and adequate funding were instrumental in discovering this copper, zinc, gold and silver mine, whose mineral extraction capacity is assessed at 4,000 tonnes per day, while recent finds near the site may extend the lifespan of this mine to 25 years. Its potential classifies Louvicourt as a world class mine.

Three more major projects will start up in my region in the next two years, thanks to the same flow-through shares from the eighties, and I am referring to the Grevet, Raglan and Troilus projects. Raglan in northern Quebec is becoming the largest potential site for copper ore in Canada.

The role of mineral exploration is to find other Louvicourts or Raglans. The average lifespan of a mine is about 11 years, and since it takes between five and ten years from the discovery of a mine to the production stage, we must start today to find the mines of the year 2000.

Many world class mines remain to be discovered in Quebec. This is clear from the examples I just mentioned. Only a small portion of Quebec's territory has been developed, and we could discover mines of this calibre, in practically any mining region in Quebec and Canada.

We have the human and technological resources to make further discoveries. For some years, however, the amount of exploration has been insufficient to renew mineral reserves because of competition from those same Third World countries and insufficient levels of public funding. The discovery of new mines is synonymous with economic development.

Louvicourt and Raglan are a clear indication that the federal government should increase tax incentives, already provided by the Quebec government, for preliminary mineral exploration in order to replace base metal reserves which are running out in this country.

The lack of mineral exploration in Canada is particularly disturbing, considering the general uncertainty as to Canada's commitment to encouraging mineral exploration and mining operations within its territory.

The uncertainty rises from the fact that regulations for access to sites are becoming increasingly restrictive, while environmental regulations or criteria are subject to duplication or diverging interpretations. In addition, obtaining an operating permit has become an increasingly lengthy process.

Exploration companies can no longer be sure that their exploration rights automatically include mining rights. The impression is that they have the right to engage in exploration, but until they have spent millions of dollars to identify an economically viable ore body, they do not know whether they will be able to extract ore and under what conditions.

In this context, there are three ways in which we could deal with the problem: re-establish public financing of mining exploration; improve the efficiency of exploration and make Canada more attractive to investors in the mining sector by improving fiscal, environmental and access regulations.

The flow-through share system has shown over the years that, at least in Quebec, it has made a significant contribution to the discovery of a number of mines. If we consider the 26 base metal or precious metal mines that were in production in Quebec in 1994, flow-through shares were either entirely or partly responsible for financing the discovery of 14 of these mines. Still in the case of base or precious metals, this applies to the discovery of nine out of ten mining projects now in the development or pre-production stage.

Considering these discoveries, the flow-through share system has shown it is worthwhile for governments, since it generates major economic spinoffs.

Already in September 1982, a report on the Canadian mineral industry identified five areas of urgency requiring immediate government intervention; there was urgency then, they said. They were: preventing further erosion of Canada's economic competitiveness in certain key areas of mineral production, including those of copper and nickel; halting and reversing the depletion of mineral reserves; finding new ideas and developing technologies, policies and programs to encourage greater efficiency in mining exploration; reversing the apparent trend of mining investors, including Canadian multinationals, to drop Canada in favour of countries in Latin America, Asia or the Pacific and other areas of development in the world where resources are plentiful; and, finally, generally creating a political and regulatory context better suited to maintain industry viability and stimulate investment in mining exploration.

After 13 years of work by various committees on natural resources and others and with similar conclusions for problems which do not seem to have been resolved and after two federal governments, we are at practically the same point, hence the urgency and the need to act.

If Canada remains at the forefront in the metals market, it is due to the low cost of its mining operations attibutable in large measure to the high level of industry productivity.

The Canadian mineral industry therefore managed to increase its productivity significantly through the rationalization necessitated by the recession in the 1980s.

All of the sectors of the mining industry have significantly increased their productivity by adopting new technologies and mining methods, developed, for the most part, in Canada.

We must therefore support the industry's effort so as to avoid a decline in mine reserves and prepare new deposits for mining to replace those that will eventually be used up.

For many years, the Association des prospecteurs du Québec has been calling in vain for three measures that would promote mining exploration: extension of the expenditure period to 12 months in the year following the year in which the equity was raised and harmonization by Ottawa; a federal measure whereby only the capital gain over and above the net purchase cost would be taxable, something the PDAC is also calling for-Quebec already has a similar measure-; and greater deductibility of exploration expenses federally-the rate is currently 100 per cent federally and 175 per cent in Quebec.

Carrying part of work funded in one year over to the next would not mean any additional expense to the public purse.

To administer this measure, the Association des prospecteurs du Québec proposes a trust mechanism under a mandate conferred by the governments on private sector organizations, which would ensure technical and financial expenditures were justified. The users would pay the costs of the trust.

I have just given a long list of measures which would assist the mining industry and which would meet the demands of various groups. Not all are easy to implement in these times of severe government cutbacks.

However, a large number of them would not cost the public anything and could be very profitable in the medium run. The government must learn to distinguish between measures which involve expenditures and measures which yield dividends for the public purse.

It is essential to restore a climate conducive to mining investment in Canada and in Quebec. According to Natural Resources Canada, data dating back to June 1994 indicate that Canada's investment in exploration barely reaches 17 per cent of world spending in that field, while it was 23 per cent in 1991. We have good grounds to believe that within five years, if nothing is done to create a favourable climate for mining investment in Canada, this figure could drop to 10 per cent.

Such data clearly suggest that Canada must do something fast to reverse this trend. The various levels of government will have to work together to improve fiscal and environmental regulations, as well as regulations governing access to land for the mining exploration industry.

The mining industry can still contribute to the economic development of a country, as many South American countries which rely on the expertise and the financing of Canada to develop their economies have discovered. They know how to attract mining and exploration companies.

The present outflow of exploration funds and the selling of our expertise to foreign countries will lead, in Canada in the years to come, to a reduction of employment in the mining industry and in associated industries like transportation, and therefore to a reduction of the share of the mining sector in the Canadian GNP.

I hope that the measures I just proposed, as well as those proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources will be considered and implemented as soon as possible. In Canada and Quebec, we have the mining potential, the technical know-how and the money to allow our mining industry to increase its economic contribution, but the government has to be willing to do its part.

[Mining Exploration, September 29th, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider revitalizing investment in exploration in Canada and in Quebec by providing for fiscal incentives, including flow-through shares.

Mr. Speaker, on June 5, I had the pleasure of speaking to Motion M-292 tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River, which dealt with mining incentives to help the industry replenish its ore reserves quickly enough.

Without consulting each other, my colleague and I tabled in this House similar motions on mining. This shows that there are many stakeholders urging the government and the Minister of Finance to analyze all possible scenarios and to adopt a policy to revitalize mining exploration.

[Quebec Territory, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is very pleased with something said yesterday by the provincial member for Vaudreuil and the leader of the No side, Daniel Johnson. Commenting on the Cree referendum, he again indicated his total agreement with the basic principles of international law and therefore with the position of the sovereignists concerning territorial integrity. He clearly affirmed that Quebec is indivisible.

It is to be hoped that the eminent good sense in his words will reach the ears of his federal counterpart, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, who suggests that the people of West Island and those in West Quebec could hold their own referendum, like the Cree, with a view to breaking up Quebec. Let us be a little more serious here. The Republic of Baie d'Urfé does not seem to us to possess all of

the characteristics required of a state, particularly in international law. Would the Liberal members for Vaudreuil on the two different levels please take the time to get their act together?

[Energy Regulations, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move to streamline administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden".

I think the hon. member's motion is particularly relevant at a time when one of the items on the government's parliamentary agenda is Bill C-62, the Regulatory Efficiency Act, and in fact I hope members of all parties will work together to find an effective way to make regulations flexible and refrain from policies that are counterproductive.

The motion of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia deals indirectly with a set of regulations that are so rigid they often cause more harm than otherwise in the energy sector. The hon. member's motion could also apply to other areas as well and in fact to practically any area of human activity, since almost everything we do is regulated.

This motion also leads us to question the advisability of having so many levels of government, each with their own regulations, federal, provincial and even municipal. All these levels of government have their various departments, each with the authority to veto the other's initiatives, which means that obtaining a single permit may be a very lengthy process. In this respect, the director of a new mining development, the Troilus project north of Chibougamau in Quebec, pointed out in an interview with Radio-Canada that he needed no less than 37 certified permits before he could start his project.

On the basis of his own experience with the Troilus project, he also said in the interview that he realized why Canada now ranked only fifth in the world as a country that was attractive for mining exploration. It was mainly because of its undue regulatory burden. Although he made it clear that he was not in favour of more flexible environmental regulations, he did point out that competition between various levels of government and various departments made the work of developers unnecessarily complex and was not conducive to economic development.

At the federal level, the number of regulations is impressive. It is enough just to flip through the 14,420 pages of the Consolidated Regulations of Canada of 1978 and the 4,277 pages of the Canada Gazette , part II, for 1994 alone.

The regulatory process, which is intended among other things to lighten the legislative process of which it is a part, has had the opposite effect over the years, adding to the number of standards without necessarily improving quality.

There are therefore a growing number of increasingly complex and technical regulations, and this has resulted in a considerably more complicated administrative burden for Canadian taxpayers. It would be appropriate to assess the impact of this situation upon the

competitiveness of Canadian businesses and even upon the Canadian economy as a whole.

I would like to cite one example of a situation in which two legitimate objectives are at cross-purposes in responding to two different safety requirements, the example of an infant crib with a drop side to make it easier for disabled parents to use. Such a crib cannot meet crib safety standards, which require the sides to be fixed, when the side needs to be lowered to ensure safe access for disabled parents. This regulation runs counter to the needs of disabled parents and presents an enormous obstacle for them.

One could readily imagine some mechanism to reconcile these two objectives, if a worthwhile instrument for doing so were created, instead of stupidly allowing the regulations to control the situation.

As the member for the Abitibi region I have often had to intervene in order to help speed up the administrative process for projects held up by the application of outmoded regulations. For example, the Grevet mining project near Quévillon in the Abitibi region had to wait 15 months to obtain environmental approval.

In order to get these approvals, authorizations from the Departments of Environment and Indian Affairs, among others, also had to be obtained, because the area is close to the James Bay reserve and the Cree territory. Here again, we can see that the federal government, by interfering in provincial jurisdictions, is creating overlap that only makes regulations more cumbersome, so that processes needed to administer them are more complex and more confusing.

This is not new, at least for the official opposition, that has spent a lot of its energy trying to make the federal government understand that its policy of centralizing everything too often causes more harm than good.

The oft-requested creation of a single window for permits or any other activity requiring the cooperation of several governments or departments has become more than essential and our economy's viability depends on it.

In the energy sector, the situation is no different. At the national level, a number of major players are involved in the regulatory process and somehow competing with each other. The federal government, through the National Energy Board or Natural Resources Canada, also adopts regulations, thus adding to the competition between federal and provincial environmental agencies.

This undue regulatory burden has a disastrous impact on the energy sector. My colleague from the Reform Party who showed an interest in the vitality of Canada's energy sector and the well-being of his fellow citizens is seeking with his motion to express his concern that regulations are strangling industry and, in turn, all Canadians.

As I too am concerned about the mining industry, I can say that the decline of investments in mining exploration clearly illustrates the disastrous effects of a double, and even triple layer of administration, because the excessive number of regulations is only one of the important factors in the decline of mining investments.

The mining industry is linked to the energy sector because it accounts for close to 13 per cent of the total energy demand of industry in Canada and Quebec, and it is suffering needlessly as a result of this situation. Why does the federal government let this situation, that impacts so negatively on our economy, go on?

Any businessman will tell you that a bad organization makes you lose time and, as you know, time is money, which means that in the end it could have dire consequences for the company. We are not talking about a small business here, but about an industry that accounts for 7 per cent of Canada's and Quebec's GDP or $45 billion each year.

This is far from the single window concept which I talked about earlier and which would allow for the simplification of the administrative process. We know of projects that were approved by the provincial government but rejected by the federal government. Conflicts arise because each level considers itself to be the only one that has the power to regulate.

To conclude on this motion, I would say that we obviously have to rationalize without delay the administrative process and its regulations in the energy sector. Too many agencies, companies and individuals are paying the price of this duplication and these useless conflicts.

The federal government should, in the interest of everyone, simplify its regulations, leave to each level of government its own regulation-making, even if it has to resort to single windows to deliver permits when an act applies to a provincial area of responsibility.

It is a good thing that the rest of Canada has begun to talk about rationalizing the role of each government. In Quebec, we have been asking for that for a long time.

[Quebec Regions, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage showed a lack of respect in this House for Quebec regions by using the expression "reculées", which means out of the way. The words used by the minister clearly show his lack of knowledge regarding Quebec regions, their vitality and their pride. People who live in distant regions, particularly in the Abitibi region, which I represent, cannot accept the message conveyed by the minister that these regions are backward.

The regions form the very core of Quebec's identity, an identity which is promoted on the international scene. To say that these regions are out of the way is to offend hundreds of thousands of Quebecers, particularly when that statement comes from another Quebecer who is supposed to represent them.

I urge the minister to show respect to Quebec regions by retracting the very derogatory comments he made yesterday.

[Mining Industry, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have to deplore the government's inaction regarding the mining industry. In spite of several initiatives on the part of parliamentarians and the natural resources committee, this government never agreed to provide assistance to this major industry which employs tens of thousands of Canadians and Quebecers.

On June 5, I supported the motion put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River to implement a mining incentives program. Instead of taking steps to ensure this industry's viability, the government chose to let the investment climate deteriorate.

We must make sure that our mining sector will be able to develop in the future and continue to create thousands of jobs in Quebec and Canada instead of abroad.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Nunatsiaq. Interestingly enough, there are Crees and Inuit in my riding also and I represent them.

His speech made me wonder about something and, since he is part of the government, maybe he can give me an answer. Transportation subsidies for food and goods destined for the Crees and Inuit, and, in his case, the Inuit in the Northwest Territories, will not increase; some cuts are even planned. There is a high birth rate in those communities; how can these people feed their children adequately?

Transportation subsidies are frozen and since food is often brought in by plane, families go without fresh produce, children do not get the fruits and vegetables necessary to their development. As a member of Parliament, can he explain how his people will find the money necessary for their own development?