No, of course not. People in northern Ontario will put their $2 coins in their piggybank or in another box, I imagine. That is one way. We have responsible people who are listening, people who know about these things, who are professionals and who know that cornerstores and shops will have to spend $100 and $150 to buy another cash register. This is another $75 million people will have to spend. And who is going to pay? The consumer, Mr. Speaker. You and me and the people watching us on television. They are going to have to pay. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Eventually, we will also have to change the parking meters, as the hon. member pointed out earlier, and all types of vending machines.
There are administration costs and conversion costs. Costs the government did not take the trouble to calculate, because it could not care less.
As for the cost of handling coins as opposed to bills, for example, the representative for Canada's grocers explained that to us. I think the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior was there, and if he was, he was not listening, because the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester were there, and they will be able to confirm this: introducing the new coin will cost more and it will be heavier to carry. We will have to pay someone to count the coins. There are additional costs. In his own store, he figured that introducing the new $2 coin would cost him between $10,000 and $15,000 in administration and conversion costs. And if we multiply this by 500,000 stores, it starts to add up, and quite a bit. Millions of dollars consumers will have to pay.
When the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior tells me the government will save $250 million by introducing the $2 coin, I think he is pretty gullible.
Because, in the end, who is going to pay for it? Consumers will pay two or three times more. It is too bad, because the saving we are talking about is the one the Royal Canadian Mint could theoretically make. This is the only saving we are talking about. There is no mention of all the costs that will be generated by the issue of this coin. Even here, when we look at the savings mentioned by the member for Cochrane-Superior of $250 million over 20 years-not $250 million next year-they amount to $12 million a year over 20 years. We realize that the issue of the $2 coin will cost industry and the Royal Canadian Mint dearly, because, for the Mint, it will mean producing these coins, which cost a lot more to produce than a bank note.
A $2 bill costs six cents to produce. A $2 coin costs 16 cents. In the first few years, it will cost the government and the Mint a lot. The government will have to borrow money to produce the coin. The $250 million will not be saved in the first year. The savings will be made over the long term. The turning point will come after five, six or seven years. Over time, the value of money changes. You know just as well as I do that saving a million dollars today is not the same as saving a million dollars twenty years from now, because the million in 20 years will not be worth the same as this year's million. That is a fact.
So, when the government and the member for Cochrane-Superior tell me we will be saving $254 million over 20 years, when 20 years have passed we will realize we have not saved a cent. We will, however, have forced industry, business, companies, corner stores, the IGA and everyone affected by the issue of the $2 coin to spend money immediately, next year, after the coin is issued. They will have to pay right away. Consumers are going to have to pay up front for this change.
The most absurd thing about this bill is that, as the member indicated in his presentation, the time is near when the money of the future, electronic money, will be introduced. He seemed to want to say that it did not matter. After all, we will continue to have coins, hard cash.
But if the government had taken the trouble to read up on the magnitude of the current currency revolution, it would realize that indeed times are changing. Many changes are already under way. The government does not really have to impose more costly changes that will ultimately be for nothing when, in five years perhaps, coins will be replaced with chip cards. A few days ago, on June 19, 1995, La Presse was reporting what a smart wallet the chip card was.
It was introduced in Canada on May 12 by the Royal Bank and a few other institutions under the name MONDEX. Let me read you part of the article: "A plastic card containing a microchip, the MONDEX wallet can be refilled at automatic teller machines and through certain telephones. The MONDEX package also includes an electronic safe about the size of an electronic memo pad. This safe can interface with a bank account through telephone circuits. It allows the chip card to be refilled without having to use communications channels. It will be widely available this summer".
This is taking place in Canada. The article goes on to describe how the introduction of electronic money will revolutionize the way we pay for what we buy. It is already in use in Europe. In France, money is no longer used to pay for telephone calls; they have been using cards for over ten years. In my riding, I can even pay for my newspaper with my card. The technology exists, here in Canada as well. But, apparently, government members do not read papers or magazines.
MONDEX. There a lengthy article on the subject in the June 12 issue of Business Week . That is quite recent. It is the feature article of this issue entitled The Future''. They refer to MONDEX asa new kind of electronic money known as E money'', adding that: ``Digital money is the ultimate and inevitable medium of exchange for an increasingly wired world''.
Earlier, I got the impression from the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior that he could see into the future and predict that coins will always be used, that there will always be a need for our $2 coins. It seems that others have a different opinion. It is possible that we will use less real money, that we will replace it with "E money", electronic money, and that may be happening very soon.
According to the experts who wrote the article, it could happen within the next five years. The "E money" revolution could take place that soon. This does not surprise me. In our rapidly changing world, the idea of using an electronic card to replace money does not surprise me. In fact, I would not be surprised if we more or less stopped using money, and if most people were to start using cards.
Ten or fifteen years ago, who would have thought that the use of credit cards would become so widespread? If people had been told then that, five or ten years later, they would use credit cards to pay in any hotel or store, they would not have believed that.
Sometimes, we have to open our eyes and ears to see and to understand. The government has obviously not done that in this case. We are about to enter an era which will see the introduction of a new form of money. According to experts, electronic money is definitely the way of the future, and it is also what businesspeople, merchants, bankers, corner store owners and grocery owners want.
Even if it may cost them more, they are prepared to invest in this new system, because it reduces their handling costs and their losses, it eliminates fraud and NSF cheques, it simplifies the system, and it is also a step in the right direction.
Business people are ready to invest in such a system, but not one of them supports the issuance of a $2 coin. As the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior knows, all the witnesses and all the business people who appeared before the committee were against this measure.
However, since the government will go ahead with it anyway, these business people have asked for at least a year to find new cash registers. It takes some time to change 500,000 cash registers as well as all the vending machines.
This bill provides for the issuance of a $2 coin by January 1996, which is just a few months away. The bill has not been passed yet, but the Royal Canadian Mint has already called for bids to produce the $2 metal coin.
The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior may deny it, but on May 31, 1995, the Ottawa Citizen ran as a headline Government calls standards for two dollar coin''. It is written in black and white. Another headline readIndustry seeks help with coin flip''. All the same, the government has already received several bids. We called and were told that the bids must be in by October 31, 1995.
If we need to take another five minutes to try to hammer some sense into these people, we will do it. We will at least take the time to explain these things that the government members unfortunately still do not understand.
Again, the government has called for bids to produce the $2 coin. It wants to start production on October 1, 1995, in a few months, and start distribution on January 1, 1996. This is fast, very fast.
All those affected by this measure say that things should not go so fast, that they do not totally agree with the introduction of the new $2 coin, that they want a year to adjust. But the government is not listening and still wants to go ahead with this initiative.
What is troubling me is that there are no solid arguments justifying the introduction of a $2 coin. The savings that will result from the introduction of this new coin are not a sure thing. We cannot say that savings will be achieved when we know that adjusting to the new coin will cost our industries money and that, ultimately, these costs will be passed on to the consumers.
Is this a good time to introduce a $2 coin? The government has not taken the time to consider the alternatives. Domtar, which produces our present $2 bill, has proposed to make it more durable. Right now, the life span of the bill is said to be only a year. Domtar has offered to produce a bill that could last up to three years, which would represent considerable savings. The government has not considered this alternative.
There are also other alternatives that it has not considered, such as maintaining the status quo or even eliminating the $2 bill. If the government really wanted to save money, eliminating the $2 bill would be a good way of doing it. It would not cost anything.
The government could really save money. Industries, tuck shops, municipalities would not have to adapt to a $2 coin. This is an alternative. I am not saying that it is the solution, but why rush? Why not wait a certain time, one or two years, and see how the electronic card is being integrated into people's lives? The elimination of the $2 denomination could be considered. It could always be put back in circulation later on if needed, but why now and why so fast?
The government is incredibly irresponsible because, really, nothing truly justifies a new $2 coin. If this government were really serious about saving money, I could suggest to the public works minister several ways to achieve real savings. He could have saved $300 million right off the bat this year by eliminating ACOA. This is $300 million he gives to industries. He could have supported, for instance, bills to give people in his own department the right to speak up and disclose abuses, which are numerous.
The member for Cochrane-Superior is well aware of this. The government has no control over contracting out. The government is wasting billions of dollars. But the minister will not support such bills, and yet they would be real money savers. This Minister of Public Works has also made the news with some ill considered projects, and occasionally some almost shady deals.
He had a wall, the famous Dingwall that cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars, built on a campus in his riding in Cape Breton. That was part of a $600,000 envelope squandered. I could give examples of the considerable sums of money wasted by the Minister of Public Works.
Examples of questionable spending involving the Minister of Public Works are legion and involve millions of dollars. The member for Cochrane-Superior has just said that this is a minister interested in savings. I have my doubts. This cannot be the main reason for presenting this bill with such haste, when the people actually affected by the introduction of a $2 coin want at least a year to prepare for the transition.
I would not give you $2 for this bill. In conclusion, I would say that the MP's role is often an empty one. Here we all are debating, giving speeches and arguing as reasonably as possible, but we know that the power rests with the people across the way and power often has a dulling effect. It also corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely; power just corrupts. We have examples of this. If we had the time and if it was worth the trouble to list the instances of corruption, we would do it, but I would rather conclude my comments on Bill C-82 by saying that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the government saving money. But we are in favour of real savings. We have suggested all kinds of ways for the government to really save money, from taxing family trusts to taxing banks. We have also made many suggestions to the Minister of Public Works regarding how he could reduce wastage of all kinds. We from the Bloc want savings. On this point, we agree. But, there is no proof that Bill C-82 will really create savings. On the contrary, it will be costly to business and consumers. People are not prepared.
There already are some 40 to 50 million $1 coins which are out of circulation. We could easily encourage the circulation of loonies which are not being used. We would have preferred that the government consider at least delaying this bill and doing its job, which is to consult with the public and to think of alternatives, such as eliminating the $2 denomination. I am not saying that this is the best option, but they could at least consider it, because there are apparently more savings to be had by dropping this denomination then by issuing a new $2 coin. They could even decide to keep up the status quo.
There are at least a few alternatives worth examining, which the government did not take the time to do. Once again, the government is not doing its job, it did not take the time to consult the public, it did not listen to the concerns and worries of the business community, it does not really have any solid arguments for introducing Bill C-82 and certainly has no solid arguments for doing it so quickly.
That is why the Bloc opposes Bill C-82.
