Mr. Speaker, to start with, I would like to tell my colleague from Charlevoix that I am in complete agreement with him, especially on what he said in the conclusion of his speech. Not knowing that he would talk in the House about the workers in Charlevoix, and the relevance of the $2 coin, I will start my speech this way.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the Liberals had given in to the joint demands of the Bloc and of the Reform Party and agreed to an emergency debate on Bosnia, but not before this evening. In spite of the fact that 326 hostages, including 55 Canadians, are being held in Bosnia, that we have learned that the head of Bosnian diplomacy was killed yesterday, that the conflict has led to 200,000 deaths, that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are asking for an emergency debate to be held immediately on a matter of extreme urgency, we are told that there are too many emergencies, too many important debates, such as this one on the $2 coin.
We now know what the priorities of our colleagues opposite are. Canadians soldiers and UN troops have to take a back seat to the debate on the relevance of the $2 coin. In this context, I will be pleased to spend a few minutes discussing whether the $2 bill should be maintained or withdrawn from currency.
First, I would be pleased to provide you with a few facts and figures. Today, in Canada, it costs around $30 million a year to produce, print and issue $2 bills. They have approximately a one year life expectancy, some do not last as long, but the average life expectancy is around one year; as I said, the total cost of producing $2 bills is approximately $30 million.
So, we question and rightfully so-the thinkers and mandarins are probably conducting studies on the subject and they will spend tens of thousands of dollars, maybe millions-whether we should continue this great Canadian tradition of a $2 bill with the Queen's effigy.
A $2 coin could save $250 million over a 20-year period. Therefore, many Canadians will say: "Down with the $2 bill and up with the $2 coin which will make us save $250 million over 20 years". A simple decision.
However, we should go a little deeper and look at more rational arguments. Earlier we were talking about technology. If we do not proceed with a $2 coin will we still have nickels, dimes, quarters and loonies? Why not apply technology to this? Do not try to make us believe in a lot of things which make no sense.
First of all, the Royal Canadian Mint and it alone will save money, not you and me, not the taxpayers, not the merchants and certainly not the people operating vending machines.
There was no lobbying from vending machine manufacturers because the whole thing was obvious. We had estimations based on the same principle as the figures given to us earlier. As the member for Charlevoix said, it is estimated that the $2 coin will necessarily cost vending machine manufacturers around $300 million.
This is an estimate just as our colleagues opposite used the word "estimated" to say that there will be savings of around $250 million. Why an estimate? Because there has been no serious study on a change like the introduction of a $2 coin.
Therefore, I and the Bloc Quebecois propose to abolish the $2 bill or at least to undertake a serious study showing the real savings that could result from the replacement of the $2 bill with a $2 coin.
While bringing these changes to the Canadian monetary system we could take the opportunity to abolish the penny, which costs one and a half cents to produce. There are presently an estimated 10 billion of those coins in circulation. Ten billion one cent coins which cost one and a half cents each to produce. It is important to repeat it. Lets put an end to that waste by eliminating the one cent coin and the two dollar bill. For once the government could recover that money, that is tens of
millions of dollars a year, and put it clearly and totally into a definite policy designed to create jobs and help the poor.
Tens of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars, are currently being cut in transfer payments to provinces and systems such as these will be allowed to continue.
What we are saying is that we will save tens of millions of dollars by abolishing the $2 bills, but instead of losing this amount in overall public spending, we should develop a good framework and put in place a specific program of job creation or assistance to poor people.
In view of the current economic and social situation, we have neither the right nor the means to invest funds in areas such as these, when thousands of our fellow citizens live below the poverty line and destitute people are knocking at our doors every day.
To quote only one example, a lady came to my riding office. This 62-year old lady cannot get old age benefits from the federal government and does not have any salary insurance because she never had a job. Many women of her generation stayed at home, so they are not eligible for salary insurance. So, this woman is getting welfare payments of $642 a month. She came to me asking: "Is there a solution to my problem?" Situations such as these, how many dozens are there in my riding, how many thousands are there in Quebec and in Canada? And here we are discussing changing $2 coins for paper bills. As my colleague for Charlevoix was saying earlier, I think that it is a shame to brag about such things in the House.
Do not tell me that the government has no other possibility or place to spend the savings that could be made, to help people like that woman or thousands of others in our ridings, rather than perpetuating a timeworn system or replace it with a system just as inappropriate, because the $2 coin would be inappropriate. Our American neighbours have no $2 bill, and they are not any worse off for it. The same can be said of other countries. It is a very easy system to understand.
The Royal Canadian Mint-someone talked earlier about the Royal Quebec Mint but there is no such thing-says its position is based on a survey. Before we go to the questions and comments period, it is important to put this survey in its true context. This survey was biased because of the questions it contained. You will ask how it was biased. Simply because it asked people if they were in favour of keeping the $2 bill or if they preferred to save tens of millions of dollars. People were never asked if they were in favour of abolishing the $2 denomination, because the answer was known already. Quebecers are used to biased surveys. They have seen many of them in the past.
People never had a chance to ask themselves if they were for or against the abolition of the $2 denomination. I am convinced that we cannot allow such a waste of public and private money at a time when our society faces serious problems and our country is sick.
My speech is a drop in the ocean of words spoken in this House on this debate. However, it is through such savings that we must show our concern for the population. If we wish to restore people's confidence in politics, politicians and the House of Commons, minor debates that may not seem very important can enable us to save tens of millions of dollars per year, as we have seen in this case, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dollars with one cent coins and two dollar bills, in order to ensure proper redistribution among our businesses, create jobs and help the disadvantaged, as I said earlier.
Concrete examples such as those I just listed would allow us to save millions of dollars and hopefully create thousands of jobs.
In closing, simply eliminating the $2 denomination would save some $30 million a year and the one cent coin, several millions of dollars. In addition, except for children with piggy banks, everyone would be happy not to have these coins in their pockets.