Debates of May 29th, 1995

Business Development Bank Of Canada Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Defer until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The House resumed from May 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Royal Canadian Mint Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When we last examined Bill C-82, there were 12 minutes remaining to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak to Bill C-82, a bill that would see the Canadian Mint issue a new coin for use by Canadians. This would be a $2 coin to replace a $2 bill.

There apparently was a survey done by the mint that stated that Canadians would support converting the $2 bill to a $2 coin. It also stated that if this was implemented it would save Canadian taxpayers $250 million. It may seem odd that perhaps Reform would oppose a cost saving measure, but I do not think the whole story was told when this survey was implemented. It almost seemed like a bit of a fixed survey. Obviously the $2 bill is costing Canadian taxpayers because of its short shelf life. However, there were a lot of questions that were not asked in the survey such as whether Canadians are in favour of having a $2 denomination at all. Do we need a $2 denomination? In fact if we were to remove the $2 bill and not replace it with a $2 coin we would save even more dollars. However, I do not believe that option was included in the survey the mint used.

I think it is important that we not let this thing quickly slip through but that we do point out that perhaps there were some flaws in the survey and we do need to consider this matter a little further.

Before I get into this, it does surprise me that this is a high priority on the government's legislative agenda, that we are talking about the minting of a $2 coin. The House denied unanimous consent to debate the Bosnia situation. I guess the government members felt that the debate of a $2 coin was more important than our concern for our peacekeepers in Bosnia, because this is on the Order Paper and we are debating it now rather than debating the work of our peacekeepers in that very ugly situation.

One would have thought the government would have hurried the drunk defence bill through committee and to the floor of the House so we could debate that. There are several justice bills that the government tabled months and months ago. However, it seems to be willing to let them lay dormant until the very end of the session. It must want to just ram this legislation through at the end of the session to try to avoid public exposure to its bills.

Here we are today, very near the end of the month of May with just a few sitting days left and we are debating the minting of a $2 coin. I wonder what Canadians think of the Liberal government's priorities in this case. One would think that it would be more important to be talking about balancing a budget than creating new coins. This is just more money to go into the hole with. It is really strange that we are debating the minting of a $2 coin.

There has been lots of discussion as to what will be on this coin. I may get to that later in my speech. However, I do want to talk a bit about the survey the Royal Canadian Mint submitted. Approximately 80 per cent of respondents in the survey favoured the introduction of a $2 coin to replace the $2 bill. However, as I said, this result was achieved only after telling Canadians that they would be saved $250 million of their own taxpayers' money.

The Reform Party is not questioning the fact that the government will save the $250 million, which is over 20 years by the way, but we are having a problem with the Liberal government not taking the time to examine particularly what the cost would be to the private sector. At odd times the government pays lip service to the private sector and says it is supportive of the private sector. But when the rubber hits the road, actions always speak louder than words. Here we go again: the Liberal government is making a proposition that will cost the private sector a big bundle of their own cash.

My colleague from Elk Island outlined many of the different groups that were not consulted in this survey and that had opposition to the bill. The vending machine operators will take the brunt of the cost. It is vending machine operators who are dependent on coinage in their machines. The conversion of existing vending machines to accept the new $2 coins could cost up to $800 per machine. That is an additional cost to the private sector, small business.

What will it do with these added costs? Will it swallow them and see lost profit? I doubt it very much. Business is usually a little smarter than that. It will more than likely pass that cost on to the consumer. It will come out of the same old pocket again. The consumer taxpayer will be paying not only for the minting of this coin but the additional cost passed on by the vendors.

It is interesting to note that soft drink manufacturers such as Pepsi and Coca Cola are furious about the changes. Vending machine operators have still not converted all of their machines to accept the loonie. It has been eight years since the loonie was introduced. We still do not have all the vending machines accepting loonies and now we are talking about minting a $2 coin and all of the vending machines have to be adjusted to accept the new coinage.

The Canadian Banking Association has concerns. I know there is a member on the other side who was involved with the Canadian Banking Association. It has some real problems with issuing the new $2 coin. It estimates that right now it has

between 30 and 50 million surplus loonies in its vaults. That is a lot of money. If those are recirculated perhaps we would not need a $2 minted coin.

Heather Sinclair, president of the Canadian Banking Association, suggested recirculation of the surplus loonies would provide all the coins needed during the removal of the $2 bill from circulation. We may be able to save Canadian taxpayers much more than $250 million if we take a longer look at this and do the right thing. The cost of this survey was approximately $20,000. It seems a shame to spend $20,000 on a survey that was incomplete and perhaps leads us to the wrong conclusions.

In the survey the mint also asked what 10 themes Canadians would prefer on the tail side of the coin. That is an interesting question to ask Canadians. I can imagine some of the answers. I imagine dead politicians were on the list, perhaps heroes, wildlife, landscapes. I wonder if anyone suggested putting Brian Mulroney's picture on the $2 coin. Nobody would use it in that case. It would be a symbol of bad luck, bad taste and would settle the matter right there and the coin would not be issued.

It seems the government wants to mint a new $2 coin and that this bill will follow the usual passage through the various stages. The Liberals will line up and like little voting machines they will vote for this piece of legislation without giving it very much consideration and we will have a $2 coin.

A number of groups have proposed designs for the new $2 coin. Some of them are rather plausible and certainly have some credibility. Others we kind of smile at a little and say we doubt very much whether Canadians would want that image stamped on to the new $2 coin. Apparently Glendon, Alberta has proposed the new coin take on the likeness of the town's symbol, a giant perogie on a giant fork. That would be great. We also have a big oil can in the town of Rocanville, Saskatchewan. I do not know if it has submitted that but it would be another worthy suggestion. There is the Ukrainian Easter egg from Vegreville. I am sure if we had the former finance minister with us that would be his suggestion.

I thought of a great Canadian symbol, probably the greatest symbol we have of a white elephant in Canada, the Mirabel airport. I do not know how we would stamp Mirabel airport on a $2 coin, but I am sure our former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, would be very happy to see that stamped on a $2 coin in memory of his great project, probably the most under used airport in Canada.

We know the minister of public works is looking at a number of plausible suggestions for design on his coin. Perhaps the minister would want a dingy on it. Perhaps the minister of fisheries would want a turbot on it. If it were a turbot we would have to make sure it was not a small one. I am sure the minister would insist on a sexually mature turbot. That would be only reasonable.

We know the Liberal government is to implement this new design. It is very unlikely it will change its mind. It seems to be bent on minting a new $2 coin. I thought in all seriousness, if the House goes against my wishes and decides to mint a new $2 coin without looking further at the cost perhaps it would be time to have a prairie symbol stamped on a coin. The prairies have often been overlooked and they have much to contribute to the national perspective. We have contributed a great amount of money to the national economy, as my hon. colleague from Lethbridge has said. Canadians hold the prairies in high esteem and it is only fitting the new $2 coin, if it is passed by the House, be stamped with a prairie symbol.

I am sure even hon. colleagues from Ontario and Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and our western maritime province in the north realize they have had their fair share of symbols stamped on our currency. Perhaps it would be time to show some more recognition to the prairie region.

I have a proposal for the new coin. It is in the image of a white tailed deer. These deer are common species on the prairies. They are one of the primary game animals of the region. They are still plentiful across the prairies and can be found in northern Ontario and northern Quebec.

They are beautiful animals. They are enjoyed by sportsmen, by shutterbugs, by artists and by nature lovers alike. They are synonymous with Canadian history and the development of the prairie region. They helped sustain our aboriginal peoples long before white man even discovered the prairie region.

They were important to the pioneers who settled the area in the late 19th century. They are very much an appreciated species on the prairies.

White tailed deer hunting brings more money into Saskatchewan than any other hunting or fishing activity. The Saskatchewan ministry of the environment and resource management calculates $800,000 per year is put into provincial coffers alone from the sale of deer licences and a further $3 million is brought into the province each year by out of province and out of country hunters.

In 1993 a constituent of mine, Mr. Milo Hansen of Biggar, Saskatchewan, a progressive community in the Kindersley-Lloydminister constituency, was fortunate enough to shoot the world record white tailed buck. The old record was set in Nebraska in 1914.

That is an incredible accomplishment on the part of Mr. Hansen. It has become famous in my part of the world and it needs some national exposure. Since the Hansen buck was taken, hunting activity in the area has increased and more American hunters are coming to Canada.

A new $2 coin featuring the Hansen buck would be a fitting way to commemorate this internationally acclaimed achievement of my constituent.

Here are some historical reasons why a prairie symbol should adorn the new coin. While other parts of Canada have been represented on our coins in the past, none have strictly represented the prairies. For example, the maple leaf on the penny and the beaver on the nickel represent central Canada for the main part. The sailing ship on the dime, the beautiful and famous Bluenose , represents the Atlantic region. The moose on the quarter and the loon on the dollar represent the Canadian shield in the north. Putting a prairie symbol on the new $2 coin would create a regional balance on our nation's coins.

I understand the mint has done some public consultation about the nature of the new coin and I trust the continuing tradition of representing Canadian wildlife remains a popular option. I assure the House that the town of Biggar, Saskatchewan is supporting this proposal, as are many other Saskatchewan and prairie members of Parliament.

The Hansen buck is truly a great Canadian achievement and therefore I propose the new coin be designed in the image of a white tailed deer as nearly as possible in the minting of coins to the actual Hansen buck. I have a poster of it in my office. If any members would like to see this beautiful animal they are more than welcome to stop by. I would be very happy and very proud to show them how beautiful this specimen is.

I have been a bit facetious in some of my remarks about some of the potential images that could go on the coin. Probably we should not even mint the coin unless we are absolutely sure Canadians understand all the alternatives.

If that does not happen, if that dialogue is not permitted, if the mint goes ahead with this plan after it is approved by the House I would ask the House and the mint, the department of public works, to give serious consideration first and foremost to a prairie symbol being on the coin. Second, if it pleases Canadians, members of the House and the mint, and I hope it would, I ask they give serious consideration to stamping an image of the Hansen buck on the new $2 coin.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

First of all, I would like to remind him that during the last election campaign and in our red book we undertook to reduce the deficit, and we believe that by introducing this new $2 coin we will realize some extremely interesting profits on the order of $250 million.

I am a little confused because, since their arrival in the House, the members of the Reform Party have repeatedly told us that we must make cuts in every way possible and now what do I hear but this member and the member for Elk Island telling us "yes, but". The member for Elk Island actually said that the Reform Party would go so far as to vote against the bill. I can hardly believe my ears, and I would like some further explanation from my colleague.

As for vending machines, it should be pointed out that operators will not be obliged to conform immediately to the new legislation and adjust to the new coinage.

It should also be said that vending machine operators will undoubtedly take the opportunity to increase their profits, since this $2 coin will make it possible to offer complete meals, that is meals that will cost a bit more. With the new technology, it will be possible to have hot meals, just as it will be possible to have larger refrigerated meals.

I ask my colleague, in all fairness to the Canadian men and women listening to us, to comment on what I have just said.

I would also like to say that during the survey done with respect to this $2 coin, Canadians were split almost equally in their response to the first question concerning their wish to have such a coin. In response to the second question, which pointed out that there would be savings of $250 million over twenty years, the percentage in favour rose sharply to 79 per cent. I would like my colleague's comments on this matter.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I took a stab at answering that question in my speech but I would be happy to review some of those facts with the hon. member.

As I said in my speech, all the options were not considered in that survey. We really should have asked Canadians whether they felt there should be a $2 currency at all. Maybe we should eliminate the $2 bill, which is very expenses, and not replace it with a $2 coin. Perhaps in five years with inflation having done its thing there would be a recommendation for a $5 coin. Then we would have to revamp all the vending machines, mint a new coin and go through the procedure once again.

We should be talking how we can save Canadian taxpayers the most money. I suggest in that consideration we look at whether there should be a $2 currency period, coin or bill. If it were determined we do not need that it would save much more than $250 million. That is what I was trying to get across to hon. members on the other side, had they been listening a little more closely.

Another thing we should be looking at is whether we still need the penny in Canada. Pennies are extremely expensive. We have been minting pennies because people hoard them. Pennies are put into jars and never get back into circulation. It is even worse

than the loonie which apparently is being stored in bank vaults. There are millions of them.

Request For Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, forgive me for interrupting the answer. Of course, the hon. member will have the floor when we have finished.

Earlier today we had a request from the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Roberval and I am prepared to make my ruling in the application for an emergency debate.

I have listened carefully to the application of the hon. members for Red Deer and Roberval under Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate on the current crisis in Bosnia-Hercegovina. I have decided that the two applications do meet the exigencies stipulated in Standing Order 52. Consequently a debate will take place this day at 8 p.m.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There have been conversations among the parties in the House in anticipation of the ruling of the Speaker. I think you would find unanimous consent that the debate commence at 6.30 p.m. rather than 8 p.m. and that the debate finish at 10.30 p.m. rather than at midnight. The effect would be to have the usual four hours for the emergency debate but to allow for the debate to proceed immediately after adjournment at 6.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to offer that to the House, I believe you would find in the spirit of co-operation that such an agreement has been made among the parties and you would find consent to commence the debate at the time I have just suggested and to end it accordingly.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, you have heard the explanation of the government whip. Is there unanimous agreement that the debate do begin at 6.30 p.m. and terminate at 10.30 p.m. this day?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Royal Canadian Mint Act

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the penny in answering the hon. member's question. I suggested we should view whether or not we need the penny in circulation because it is of an extremely high cost to Canadians because they hoard them.

The real problem why we need the penny is rather ironic. It is because we have the GST which adds 7 per cent to everything. The Liberals promised to do away with the GST. I am sure that retailers and businesses across the country would be happy to deal in increments of 5 cents and we could do away with the penny. But how do they not charge GST on 39 cents or 59 cents of goods? If the government had kept its promise to eliminate the GST, perhaps we could be talking about not only doing away with the $2 currency but doing away with the penny as well and saving considerably more than $250 million for Canadian taxpayers and consumers.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a bimetallic $2 coin requires new technology. My opinion is it would be a terrific advantage. The Royal Canadian Mint and Canadian suppliers are working together to compete for foreign production contracts for bimetallic coins.

I would be interested to hear from the hon. member about the advantages and the source of revenue this might provide.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow the question but I missed a little bit of it there.

It seemed to me that the hon. member was talking about the opportunities to market the minting of coins which would stimulate jobs and would have some economic spinoff. Certainly, if we can do that internationally that is fine. If the Mexicans want to mint a new peso and they ask us to provide the technology, that is wonderful. If we can have a long term plan to improve the minting of our own Canadian coin that would be wonderful.

However, there are flaws with this survey. It states that there are two main concerns with the implementation of the $2 coin. First, it seems as though there is no overall strategy with regard to our currency. We are talking about different weights and the

fact that we may have to re-mint all of our coins. Why are we going to implement a new $2 coin and then find out that we have to change our loonie, quarter, nickel and dime because the weights are not right?

It is going to be a cruel joke on Canadian business. Certainly it will be a cruel joke on those who are manufacturing vending machines because they are going to have to refit those machines annually or every two or three years. It is just not well thought out. We also have to consider the cost to the Canadian consumer which would be immense, far more than $250 million and far more than any economic stimulus generated by the minting of new coins in Canada.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act.

Allow me to begin my speech with a digression. I am making my comments in the House of Commons today as the Bloc Quebecois' deputy critic for Government Services and Public Works; the Bloc Quebecois' main critic for this department is the hon. member for Québec-Est, Jean-Paul Marchand.

As deputy critic and member for Charlevoix, it is my pleasure to take the floor regarding this bill. I may be present in the House today, but my thoughts are elsewhere. In my riding, workers are threatened by the closure of employment centres in La Malbaie, Forestville and Baie-Comeau. I am also thinking of all of the problems associated with unemployment in my riding, which affect all workers, unemployed persons and welfare recipients in the RCM of Charlevoix East and West.

The parliamentary secretary may feel that this has no bearing on the bill. If he lets me continue, he will realize that what the people of Charlevoix want is to work in order to have money in their pockets, whether it be in the form of a bill or a coin. This is a superficial issue and, in my opinion, discussing whether the denomination is made of paper or another material is a waste of time: the people of Charlevoix are concerned with working and earning money.

I would also like to remind the parliamentary secretary of what he mentioned earlier to the Reform member regarding the red book, and I would ask him to reread the three little words which got the government elected: "jobs, jobs, jobs". Closing employment centres, declaring the employees of manpower centres surplus and determining unemployment zones will not stimulate local economies.

If this legislation is passed, the two dollar bill will be replaced by a two dollar coin at the beginning of 1996. All two dollar bills will be returned to the Bank of Canada for disposal. The federal government can only introduce this new two dollar coin if it obtains Parliament's approval, since the proportion of nickel, bronze and aluminum in this new coin is not specified in Part II of the schedule to the Royal Canadian Mint Act.

If Part II of the schedule to the Royal Canadian Mint Act already specified the coin's composition, the government would not be required to obtain Parliament's approval prior to minting it.

The government's main argument in an effort to get the House to adopt the bill is that the introduction of a $2 coin will generate savings of approximately $250 million over 20 years. They do say every little bit counts, but, taken over 20 years, this amount is almost negligible compared with the amount of the deficit.

In its information paper, the Royal Canadian Mint states that the introduction of a $2 coin, which, in passing, will be larger and heavier than the $1 coin, serves the needs of business. They should have said, "some businesses", because not all business people look kindly on this bill. The proof lies in the fact that the federal government had to conduct two surveys of businesses and consumers, since the results of the first survey were not in favour of introducing the $2 coin.

The surveys were done by the Environics firm. It surveyed 1,020 people in Sherbrooke, Toronto and Calgary-far too few in my estimation. The first survey revealed strong opposition of 46 per cent and weak support of 50 per cent. In the second survey, they let it be known that the federal government would save $250 million over 20 years. The government's project then received the approval of 80 per cent of respondents.

Clearly the Royal Canadian Mint wanted immediate public support for the introduction of a $2 coin. Further on in the report, we note that some survey respondents felt that any saving made by introducing a $2 coin would be offset by the start up costs of producing the new coin and that jobs would be lost in the pulp and paper industry as a result.

The government report also indicates, and I quote: "The introduction of the $1 coin was accompanied by increased use of the $2 bill, indicating that the public might resist the introduction of a $2 coin".

Given that the trial coin chosen for the new $2 coin is heavier and larger than the loonie, I am sure the public will not support the introduction of such a coin.

Here is a surprising point about the survey questions. At no point did the Environics survey include a question about completely eliminating the $2 denomination. It is a bit odd, is it not? Instead of introducing a $2 coin, the federal government should simply eliminate the bill and the $2 denomination and encourage people to use the loonie more.

Many countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, have never had a $2 denomination or have simply done away with it. So, we can certainly do without it.

This is how the federal government could make real savings. There would be no new coin to strike nor new bills to print for the Royal Canadian Mint. There would be no expense for retailers. And, finally, better use would be made of the $1 coins. The Canadian Bankers' Association speaking on behalf of the financial institutions, has reached the same conclusion. What is more, many retailers' and consumers' associations have no official position on Bill C-82, quite simply because they do not know the government is preparing to introduce a $2 coin. They have heard nothing about it and are surprised to discover that the bill has gone so far.

Once again, the government seems to be trying to pull the wool over our eyes, if I may say so. If it had really wanted to take the pulse of the nation, it would have launched an information campaign on the possibility of legislating the replacement of the $2 bill by a $2 coin. The response to such proposed legislation would certainly have been negative. People are still having a hard time accepting the loonie, and eight years later, the government wants to burden their pockets with yet another coin.

Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services would have had us believe, last week, the $1 coin is not as popular as the government would like it to be. The proof is that more than 50 million $1 coins lay dormant in the vaults of Canadian banks. According to its own management, the Royal Canadian Mint must manufacture 1.25 times more $1 coins than it did $1 bills, because people empty their pockets, stockpile the coins at home, and then deposit them inn their bank or credit union account. It is estimated that there are around $10 million worth of $1 coins in Canadians' piggy banks. This is really incredible. Subsequently, financial institutions must store these coins in their vaults. I have trouble imagining the amount of space necessary to store all these coins and the personnel required to handle this job.

Moreover, I would like to point out to my colleagues that financial institutions do not earn interest on the coins they have in their vaults, which translates into lost revenues for them, and that they cannot return them to the Bank of Canada. It does not take back uncirculated coins, and banks and credit unions will have to manage their own stock of coins.

Although the government is anticipating savings of $250 million over 20 years, one should not forget that there are costs associated with the introduction of this new coin. We only have to think of all the cash registers, the vending machines, the parking meters, and the laundromat machines, and other automated dispensers of all kinds which will have to be modified in order to accept this new coin.

The government estimates that it will cost $25 million to modify vending machines. Owners, for their part, will have had to modify their machines twice in less than 10 years since, as you may recall, the federal government introduced the $1 coin-also known as the loonie-eight years ago. And if that was not enough, the government now wants to alter the composition of the penny, the nickel, the dime, the quarter and the fifty cent coin to make them lighter. This will entail the additional cost of altering vending machines so that they can take all Canadian coins whatever their composition. In addition, the alloy used for the penny would be of much lower quality than the current version. This will result in premature rusting of the coin.

Who will pay for all these changes? You and I, Mr. Speaker, along with all Quebecers and Canadians. The items now available for $1.75 or $1.90 from vending machines will cost $2 tomorrow, as happened after the $1 coin was introduced, when the cost of items formerly priced at 80 or 90 cents quickly rose to $1. This point was also raised by the people polled by Environics. As usual, the government passes the cost of the changes on to retailers, who can only pass it on to their customers.

In conclusion, I suggest that the federal government should launch a publicity campaign aimed at finding out the opinion of the Canadian people on this issue. However, the government must play fair and promote all possible alternatives, that is, to issue a new $2 coin, keep the $2 bill or simply eliminate the $2 denomination.

I am sure that, in the end, the people would choose to abolish the $2 denomination in order to achieve greater savings in the short, medium and long term. Finally, with the developments in debit card technology, people will see a gradual reduction in the number of bills and coins in circulation, as they are being replaced with electronic money.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague from Charlevoix said, and I note that he recognizes that substantial savings, to the tune of $250 million, will be made.

Must I point out at this time that, if this measure were also applied to the penny, nickel, dime, quarter and 50 cent coin, we would save an extra $500 million? That is a rather significant amount.

I must say that the technological know-how gained while producing this new $2 coin will certainly be used in the future for other Canadian coins and, as a bonus, we can export this technology anywhere in the world for a profit.

Although my hon. colleague from Charlevoix did not refer to it specifically, I would like to address the initial remarks made by the public works critic, my hon. colleague for Québec-Est, who put forward extremely alarmist figures in his remarks, stating that it would cost coin-operated vending machine operators approximately $400 million to adjust to the introduction of the new $2 coin. I am sure that my hon. colleague from Charlevoix, who just spoke in support of his colleague from Québec-Est, will be able to explain to this House and to all Canadians where this $400 million figure comes from, so as to not scare people needlessly.

Vending machine operators will have a full year after this bill receives royal assent to adjust. Even then, they will not be required to do so. We must always bear in mind that any vending machine operator who decides to raise his prices will have to hold up to the competition.

I would like my hon. colleague from Charlevoix to comment on these two points, explaining where this $400 million figure comes from and whether competition should continue to come into play with respect to vending machines.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, it goes without saying that we support the idea of saving money; the government mentioned the figure of $250 million over a 20-year period by replacing two dollar bills with two dollar coins. True, the coin would last much longer; but there are costs involved in issuing such a new coin. The government does not need to issue another coin; it should simply abolish that denomination.

If the two dollar bill is replaced by a two dollar coin, it will result in savings of $250 million over 20 years, but how much would be saved if we issued more two dollar bills?

In reference to the figure of $400 million mentioned in the speech made on Friday by the Bloc critic, the hon. member for Québec-Est, Jean-Paul Marchand, it may be that I am missing some element, but I said that, in my opinion, it would be possible to save $25 million, in the short term.

I challenge anyone in this House to tell me just how much, give or take two dollars, it would cost the municipalities to make the necessary changes to their parking meters, not to mention such other items as vending machines. What would be the costs of such changes?

I doubt anyone here can provide such an accurate figure. However, before passing such legislation, we have to take a look at the costs involved for those who own vending machines. These costs will also be passed on to consumers. Indeed, consumers always end up footing the bill.

In conclusion, the government should seriously consider abolishing the two dollar denomination. This would help circulate the $10 billion in one dollar coins which are currently unused and kept in Canadian banks. The minute people have a couple of one dollar coins in their pocket, they exchange them for a two dollar bill, because they find these coins to be cumbersome.

Indeed, when we have a few of these coins, we quickly exchange them for bills. Consequently, if you add an even heavier and more cumbersome two dollar coin, you will create a problem for everyone, and that becomes a real nuisance.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member. It would seem to me that if someone gets $4 in change, four loonies would certainly be heavier than two $2 coins, so I am having difficulty understanding that argument.

Has the hon. member taken into consideration in any of his numbers the value of the new technology and the advantages we as Canadians could receive from exporting such technology?

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I explained that earlier. Consumers are turning increasingly to electronic money, to cards from various financial institutions. We must get used to this technology. But I think that the purpose of today's debate is not to determine whether four loonies weigh more than two $2 coins. Let us get real.

We are ready to help the government reduce the deficit, and we are ready to eliminate the $2 denomination, and I am convinced that, in the interest of eliminating the deficit, the Canadian public will certainly agree. The loonie which was put into circulation eight years ago, can be used for a much longer period of time that the dollar bill it replaced. If we did away with the $2 denomination, the loonie could be used more effectively.

The United States and Great Britain have eliminated the $1 coin and the $2 bill and the two pound note. Let us follow their lead and we might save even more that what we are now contemplating. The government just decided one day to issue a $2 bill and today finds itself wondering whether this denomination continues to serve any purpose.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Charlevoix for taking such a responsible stance. He demonstrated, for example, that we in this House are reduced to discussing bills of this kind which are of little or no importance. This bill does not really create savings, will actually cost consumers money and, to top it off, does not even create any jobs. I agree that we should use more of our time to debate bills that are much more serious than this one.

I would also like to ask my colleague, if you will allow me Mr. Speaker, if in effect he can see any good in this bill? Regarding

the $400 million he mentioned, we calculated that business people are going to have to buy new cash registers, that municipalities may have to install new parking meters and that all vending machines will have to be recalibrated and changed. This will cost the private sector a lot of money and consumers will ultimately foot the bill.

The consumer will be the one who pays. In fact, the only party that this bill will help is the Royal Canadian Mint. So I ask my colleague for Charlevoix if he can see anything good about this bill.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec-Est for his question. It has enabled me to digress and say that, this afternoon, I felt I was wasting my time in the House. I would have preferred to be in the riding of Charlevoix, working with the people there who are threatened with losing their jobs and who will be declared redundant as the result of the Axworthy reform.

I think we are wasting our time discussing such a trivial matter as the introduction of a $2 coin. We are not talking about the real problems of the economy. We are going to create problems. The purpose of government is to resolve problems, not to create them.

I am a bit embarrassed knowing that, in my riding of Charlevoix, the unemployed have mobilized to combat the Axworthy reform. Some of them are now on welfare. As I was saying, as far as paying for groceries is concerned, it makes little difference whether $2 is a bill or a coin; the main thing is to have some money. People are willing to work to earn some money.