Bank of Canada cancels $200 banknote idea

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Just read this article on how the BOC has decided not to introduce a $200 banknote due to retailer's objections. This may have been a new Journey series note as it mentions not introducing the note "at this point in time".  Oh well..

"OTTAWA (CP) - The Bank of Canada has withdrawn a proposal to introduce a $200 banknote after a survey of retailers showed strong opposition.... "

...  "the bank does not intend to introduce the $200 denomination at this point in time," ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story.html?id=ddfeb0db-b2a7-4a3d-bc7c-1b0d0db2572f&k=21673

For some reason, the link does not work.  

Here's the cut and paste version:

Central bank halts plans for $200 banknote after retailers object

Dean Beeby, Canadian Press
Published: Saturday, August 19, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - The Bank of Canada has withdrawn a proposal to introduce a $200 banknote after a survey of retailers showed strong opposition.

The central bank has been casting about for a high-denomination replacement for the $1,000 banknote after it ceased to be printed in May 2000 to help thwart money launderers and drug dealers, who prefer large bills.

Canada's highest circulating note is currently the brown $100 bill, featuring a picture of former prime minister Sir Robert Borden and, on the reverse, exploration and innovation themes.

A bank-commissioned survey of 2,000 retailers last December asked whether store owners would accept a circulating $200 bill.

Fifty-nine per cent said they were opposed, with 40 per cent saying they "strongly opposed" any such move.

"There currently exists a significant current of opposition to the introduction of a $200 banknote," concludes a heavily censored report by Toronto-based SES Canada Research Inc., obtained under the Access to Information Act.

The telephone survey taken Dec. 13-22 is considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Opposition was strongest in Quebec, with 70 per cent of retailers giving a thumbs down.

Asked why a $200 bill was not acceptable, retailers answered most often that they feared it would be counterfeited. Others were worried that a customer might clean out all the change in the till after a single transaction.

The fear of counterfeiting came as a surprise to bank officials because since 2002 counterfeiters most often target the $10 and $20 denomination, using cheap but sophisticated colour-copying equipment.

Those two low-denomination bills account for about 82 per cent of all counterfeits passed, with the $100 bill accounting for only about seven per cent.

"There's still a big misconception among the public that higher denomination notes are the main target" of counterfeiters, bank spokeswoman Monica Lamoureux said from Mississauga, Ont.

Even so, "the bank does not intend to introduce the $200 denomination at this point in time," she said.

"Obviously, there was strong opposition to it based on the survey results, so it's not in the works."

Lamoureux said the recent SES survey results were an important consideration in the central bank's decision not to proceed.

No design work for a new bill had been carried out, nor had a proposal gone to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who must approve any new denomination.

The Bank of Canada carries out regular surveys about the confidence Canadians have in their currency. A poll last year suggested that 39 per cent of Canadians expect to receive a counterfeit bill, a big jump from 24 per cent the year before.

The government plans to introduce a revamped $5 bill in November with new security features to make counterfeiting more difficult. Higher denominations have already had makeovers.

Now if the bank of canada had issued a $200 note... what do you suppose they would use for the prefix??? AFA, AAA,

Instead of a $200, they should re-issue the $500!  

Wait a while.  A $200 note will come eventually, along with possible a $500 note and even a $1,000 note.  All we need is for inflation to take its course.  

It'll take a while.  Consider an item that costs $25 today.  Assuming an annual inflation rate of 3.5%, in sixty years that item will cost $197.  At that point, a $200 note will be useful.  Assuming, that is, that the Canadian dollar is still in existence at that point.   :-?

[size=18]Bank of Canada drops plans for $200 bill[/size]
Last Updated Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:59:45 EDT
CBC News
  
The Bank of Canada is abandoning its plan to release a $200 banknote, saying that too many merchants were opposed to the plan.
 
The central bank commissioned a survey of 2,000 retailers last December, asking whether the stores would accept a circulating $200 bill. Fifty-nine per cent said they were opposed, with 40 per cent saying they "strongly opposed" to the idea.
 
The telephone survey is considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
 
Some retailers said they worried that the $200 bill would be counterfeited, while others said the bill would require them to keep an inordinate amount of change in the till.
 
Canada's highest circulating bill is currently the $100 bill. The bank stopped printing the $1,000 bill in May 2000 in an attempt to obstruct money launderers and drug dealers who traditionally favour large bills.
 
The proposal had not been submitted to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.
 
The government plans to roll out a new $5 bill with improved security features on 15 November 2006.
 
With files from the Canadian Press

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/08/19/banknote-canada.html

Now just for fanciful speculation - if they were goint to do a $200 bill, whose portrait would you like to see on the note AND WHY?.

[size=18]Brian Mulroney!!!! [/size]  

We can have REAL funny money!

They could start making $500's again, but that would be borderline blasphemous. (Considering the high reverence we have for them  ).
I would say IF we did have one, it would have to be a great "builder". Someone who has helped form Canadians in away like no other.  The people I am talking about onthis "double portrait" note  is of course Walter and the late Phyllis Gretzky.

In England and Europe, they have major figures like that on notes, perhaps for celebrity appeal, but this idea would not be for that, but more for the contributions for minor sport that the family has made (and ultimately Canadian culture), including the supporting of three brothers who made th NHL, including Wayne of course, with the importance of that focussing on how there is something that can bond all (nearly all) Canadians together ultimately as one family.  With that said, my vote goes to Walter and Phyllis, because due to them, Canadians from coast to coast all have something that they can feel proud and unified about (in the character of hard work leading to incredible success).

If Wayne himself were to be on it, then that would be more like "celebrity appeal" in my opinion, and I think would miss the point on what he signifies to Canadians (at this point in time). Not saying Wayne would be bad on our notes, but rather that it is more important to know where he came from, and the family dedication that it took for him to reach his heights.

I really do think a note like this would be taken seriously and would be respected- even by people who are not really into hockey.

Huds

Now just for fanciful speculation - if they were goint to do a $200 bill, whose portrait would you like to see on the note AND WHY?.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, because by the time a $200 note becomes useful,  our current $5 note will have disappeared!  Using my 3.5% annual inflation rate for 60 years figure from my above post, $5 then will buy what 63¢ does today!

But seriously, if they were going to do an additional note now, it would make sense that it be another prime minister to fit with the current series.  Just about any choice would be controversial, but I'd have to suggest Lester B. Pearson, for winning the nobel peace prize.

I Second that one!  

I would agree with Seth.  Lester B. Pearson would be my first choice.

Hey that sounds pretty good, and I like that reasoning about the $5 becoming worth less due to inflation. I never thought of that angle. So Laurier perhaps, or yes Pearson.
I don't know much about Canadian History (unless it is on paper money) so I would not be the person to suggest any major politically historical figures.

BUT being from Saskatchewan, it is my obligatory duty to suggest
Tommy Douglas since it was his vision that we today call medicare (which makes us definitely Canadian).  Yes, even though it has its current resource problems, the medicare system does effect every single person and family in this country, and is also a huge part of our identity as Canadians.

The Queen should be on any new denomination as she is our Head of State. ( I know there's a thread on this topic)
Mackenzie King should be removed from the 50 and replaced by Tommy Douglas (There's a thread on this too)

What about Alexander Graham Bell?  Banting & Best? (insulin)  James Naismith? (inventor of Basketball)?  

Dean

or Celine Dion, Gordon Lightfoot or Anne Murray!!

I also think that the 200 dollar note would be best with Sir Wilfrid Laurier on it. Also on the back of the note have some cool art like the 1937s.  8-)

I know it sounds like the 1937 1000 dollar bill......

This is a tough topic to cover in a paragraph or two: but I can think of two very important (and often ignored) figures in Canadian history who could  be placed on such a high denominational bill.  I have just finished doing a little research about the union of Upper and Lower Canadas.  Its surprising how Canadians so conveniently forget why we're indeed an independent nation, and not annexed to the US or just a British colony.  Robert Baldwin and Pierre LaFontaine both have statues of their likeness outside the parliament buildings in Ottawa.  Other than that, a few brief footnotes in history books, they're mostly ignored today.

After the hard faught WAR of 1812 (against US aggression), the people of both provinces felt somewhat indebted to the British soldiers who faught/died to win the war.  (We also forget Tecumseh, and other Iroquois leaders who came to the British defense-- mostly out of a last ditch effort to stop US settler expansion/invasion!  And although many Canadians (including the Baldwins) fought in this war, it wasn't until well into it, after General Brock's successes that they joined).  Nevertheless, Britain poured a lot of money and resources into the provinces, and the governors, and subsequent Lt. Governors never let the elected provincial assemblies forget that.  In short, this was a very conservative time, with only very pro-British members of parliament.  Any time the challengers (or Reform party as it was known back then) came into power, the governor, his hand picked senate, and the family compact would veto bills that would propose democratic reforms.  To be a "reformer" was considered in a bad light (often disdainfully referred to as "Republican" or democrat), esp after the failed Rebellion of 1837 (led by the radical reformer William Lyon Mackenzie).  

So while the predecessors of Robert Baldwin and Pierre LaFontaine fought (through proposed legislation) for "responsible government" (or self-government) it was very unpopular to the British authorities (family compact, conservative elements) at the time, and it wasn't until these two gentleman united in spirit, that the whole movement (and a couple of steady governments) actually came into being.  After Lord Durham's report on the problems facing the 2 provinces, and the "union of the Canadas" came about in 1840, subsequent governors (like Elgin) actually assented to the many proposals and bills brought forth by the elected assemblies led by these two men (as solicitors/attorney generals).  Baldwin got the municipal acts put into place, and the two men accomplished enormous institutional/infrastructural changes in order to show the authorities that the provincial politicians could indeed govern themselves.  By teaming up with LaFontaine, Baldwin also showed the British that French Canadians had a voice in Canadian politics, and would be  heard come hell or high water.  While these men and their assistants (ie: Frances Hinks the financial genius) were demonstrating that Canadians could indeed be accountable, competent, and qualified leaders, the Tories were taking note, and adopting similar platforms (seeing how popular this republican/democratic movement was amongst the citizens).  Both LaFontaine and Baldwin are considered the "fathers of confederation" in that they handed the torches to the Tory government headed by MacDonald to give birth to the new nation.

Having a government solely focussed on the needs of the people (rather than on the needs of Britain- from across the Atlantic) seems to be so logical now that its hard to fathom there was a time that was any different.  Pre-confederation Canada became an independent nation with barely a drop of blood spilled (if we don't count the Rebellion of 1837).  However, it was a complex process with a wild and rough frontiere as the context. The population consisted of almost 2/3 Loyalist farmers who moved from the US when Robert's father (William) & grandfather (John Robert) emigrated from Ireland in 1799.  A great deal of time was spent clearing the land, working, and working some more, so its no wonder that resentments to arbitrary/aristocratic rule arose, and it wasn't until the middle 19th century that the people considered themselves Canadian citizens independent (and yet peacefully co-existing) with the super-powers of the United States and Great Britain.

If there were 2 founders of this nation to grace a new note, I'd vote for them.

It’s possible, but necessary?
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review

Kristi Setterington
Thursday August 24, 2006

The people have voiced their opinion and for once, they’ve been heard.

Earlier this week, the Bank of Canada withdrew its proposal to introduce a $200 banknote, after a survey of retailers showed strong opposition.

Really, why do we need a $200 bank note? It isn’t like many of us actually carry cash anymore. Considering how much shoppers rely on their debit and credit cards, it doesn’t seem realistic to introduce any new money at this time.

According to the Interac Association, there were 3.1 billion Interac direct payment transactions in Canada in 2005. The company also stated 86 per cent of Canadians have a banking card and Interac direct payment was used by 46 per cent of Canadians, compared to 28 per cent who used cash.
During a recent telephone survey, retailers expressed concern that accepting a $200 banknote may lead to more counterfeiting. Another concern was that a customer might clean out all the change in the till after a single transaction. All valid points.

Even if you could find a sure proof way of preventing counterfeit bills and if you could ensure that all your change wouldn’t be wiped out, there is still the fact many businesses today don’t even accept $50 or $100 banknotes. It’s probably safe to assume receiving a $200 banknote would be out of the question.

Given the number of debit and credit cards, it’s a real possibility money could one day become obsolete. According to Industry Canada, Canadians use their debit cards millions of times a day. Debit and credit cards are accepted almost everywhere, for almost any purchase, so why do we need to carry around money any more?

On its website, the Interac Association revealed 52 per cent of respondents to a survey it conducted said they prefer to use Interac direct payment at grocery stores, while 45 per cent said they use cards at drugstores and 33 per cent use them at liquor/beer/wine stores.

In fact thanks to automated bank machines, located at more than 51,000 locations throughout Canada, should you ever encounter a moment where you do need cold, hard cash, money is far more accessible than ever before. There is no reason to carry a wallet full of 50s. You can simply slip into your favourite gas station, convenience store, hospital or even your local hockey rink and use an ABM to get any amount of money you need at that moment.

Perhaps when it comes to the topic of money, we should begin a campaign to convince banks to allow for smaller withdrawal amounts from ABMs.

http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/story.php?id=250231

It’s possible, but necessary?
The Woodstock Sentinel-Review
In fact thanks to automated bank machines, located at more than 51,000 locations throughout Canada, should you ever encounter a moment where you do need cold, hard cash, money is far more accessible than ever before. There is no reason to carry a wallet full of 50s. You can simply slip into your favourite gas station, convenience store, hospital or even your local hockey rink and use an ABM to get any amount of money you need at that moment.

Wow, I use my debit card for one thing only:  Get spendable cash from an ATM.  I do use credit cards often, but I have not used my debit card to make a purchase in more then four years!

Reasons I prefer cash transactions over debit:

1) universally accepted (try using a debit card at a garage sale)
2) more convenient
3) quicker transaction at the cash register
4) more secure
5) If the Interac system goes down, I get to go to the front of the line because everyone in front of me was going to pay with debit and had no cash (this has happened more than once!)
6) You get to look for radar notes and other specialties in your change
7) You get to play

www.whereswilly.com[/list]

Death to debit!

 8-)

One major point missed in the list above: TRANSACTION FEES

Many retailers charge a fee to use their Interac system.  Why not pay them with cash?  It's so much faster, (I *hate* waiting in line for people who mess up their pin several times!), and there are no transaction fees!

I say bring on a $200 note.  :-)

Cash is a no-brainer!

koremore

Koremore I am with you 110% I hate waiting in lines where people have to sign or enter pin numbers ahhh it drives me crazy I say the $200 should have come out years ago. Arthur