Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleagues for their earlier speeches.
I am a little baffled because they seem to know how we are going to vote before we do.
We are being thorough. We have taken part in parliamentary committees, pushed for witnesses to be called and pushed to ensure that we understand exactly what we are voting on and have all the facts before us. I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed because, beyond our ideological preconceptions—it is true that we have different values—there is a reason why, at some point, we decide to put our face on an election sign of a certain colour, whether it be pale blue, dark blue, red or whatever else. Our values inevitably shape how we interpret the facts, and that can lead us to support different policies. However, we cannot each have our own version of reality. We must begin with the same facts and the same rigorous analysis. From there, we can apply our respective principles and values and potentially arrive at different conclusions. In my view, that is precisely the purpose of parliamentary debate. It serves as a forum to express our interpretation of the facts at our disposal.
The reality of this bill is that we have no facts. We know what the facts are in foreign jurisdictions. In many ways, the Americans' situation is actually comparable to ours because we are among the two or three countries in the world that have lower taxes on gasoline and diesel. We know that when certain American states removed or reduced the excise tax, a significant portion of the tax cut did not end up in the pockets of consumers and families. We agree that the purpose of this bill is not to help the distribution chain, but to help families. That was the justification that the Minister of Finance gave. The Minister of Finance said that there are two ways to help families: the excise tax, which is temporary, and the new groceries credit, which is the GST credit that was renamed because it obviously is no longer really a GST credit. The goal is to help families.
It is important to rely on facts. Personally, I am deeply convinced that no one here today is rising, as the Conservatives are saying, to say that they would like the cost of living to increase for households. No one here thinks that we should not ease the pressure on household finances. No one here thinks that we need fewer jobs, less growth and less wealth and that it should be redistributed less effectively. I do not think that view exists. The issue is the methodology.
What methodology does this bill actually propose?
First, it would reduce the excise tax by four cents for diesel and 10¢ for gasoline. Let us consider the four cents for diesel. A number of events have affected the retail diesel market. First, there was the crisis in Ukraine. For our farmers, there was also the issue of fertilizer that came up at the time. It was very difficult for them. Then there is the Strait of Hormuz involving our friend President Trump, as if he had not already done enough. A four-cent reduction is fairly minor when the supply chain is considered. What we are really talking about is relief for people who drive personal trucks. We voted in favour of that. At the time, the Bloc Québécois supported it. That is why, when I listen to my Conservative colleagues, I wonder if they believe that the Earth is flat. We voted for it. We believed that the situation was urgent, that the measure might not have been perfectly targeted and that we did not necessarily know the impact, but that, at that time, it could be implemented quickly and provide some relief. We voted in favour of that motion. I do not recall them applauding that or coming over to congratulate the Bloc Québécois. Nevertheless, we voted in favour of it.
As the summer came to a close, we were presented with a notice of ways and means motion and told that it had to be debated in the House. I have no problem with that. It is the Minister of Finance's prerogative to introduce a tax bill, but we said we needed witnesses to appear before the committee. We needed to know the facts of the matter.
I especially wanted to hear from people at the Department of Finance, which is filled with top-notch economists, people I knew in my previous professional life, who are very familiar with the issue. Although many variables affect the price of diesel, there are statistical methods we can use to determine, possibly not very accurately, whether this fairly considerable 10¢ reduction in the excise tax is actually ending up in consumers' pockets. We insisted on hearing from witnesses, but there have been very few.
We are talking about billions of dollars in spending and, today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer updated her projections. She said that things were not going well and that the deficits would be even larger than expected over the next few years. We have not seen the November 5 budget yet, so we will see what happens. However, all other things being equal, the deficit forecast will be $3 billion to $4 billion more per year than previously projected. Four billion dollars is the cost of the measure we have before us, when we combine the spring version with the one we have here. I realize that, in the grand scheme of things, this is not very much money as a percentage of the government's revenue and spending, but given the size of our deficits, it becomes marginally significant when the government is constantly adding measures.
I thought it was a good idea to hear from witnesses. I thought the right place to try to find out whether the policy was working was in committee. The study was rushed through in two hours. We heard from the minister and just three witnesses. What is more, the minister showed up at the committee meeting with an infographic. I do not know whether my colleagues knew what it was, and there are people on the Hill who are watching, so I am almost embarrassed to mention it. The minister had a sheet of printer paper covered in little coloured bubbles: an infographic.
We asked whether he had done any studies, whether he had checked if this was going into taxpayers' pockets. Nothing could prove that we are in favour of helping taxpayers more than the fact that we asked the minister whether he is sure that when 10¢ is taken off the excise tax, those 10¢ go into the pocket of the person who needs to use their car to go to work in the morning. There is no way in the world we could show more consideration for the person who needs to use their car.
The minister showed us an infographic with little bubbles. In a condescending tone, he told us we should include it in the householder mailings we send to our constituents and show them the measures the government is taking. He had an infographic, but we asked the minister if he had done any studies. Obviously, some portion of the excise tax cut went into people's pockets. Retailers do not keep 100% of the excise tax. However, we want to know whether 95% went into people's pockets or whether it was 90% or 85%. Was it two-thirds, as it is in some parts of the United States? Is it less than that, as was the case in Quebec during the Jacques Parizeau days, for example, when it did not have much of an impact? The minister's response was that he had an infographic. Let us take a moment to reflect on what the minister thinks of the parliamentary process. He showed up with a brochure, like kids going door-to-door to sell chocolate. It was pretty much on the same level.
Afterwards, I told the minister that we still needed to know that. Anyone can go watch the recording. The minister told me that the average person at home knows full well that the 10¢ savings on gas went back into consumers' pockets, just like the four-cent savings on diesel, and that people are fully capable of doing the math with pen and paper at home. That is what Canada's Minister of Finance, the minister of a G7 country, told us.
Let me go back to my premise. No one here in the House wants consumers to not get a break. All we want is to ensure that taxpayers' money is managed properly. If the goal is to put money back in families' pockets, it seems logical that we should try to find out whether it is in fact ending up in families' pockets.
We made proposals. Once again, people are saying that we want to reinstate the tax, and so on. We made proposals. I said this earlier in my question. This has been going on since the war in Ukraine began. It is not the first time. First, we saw significant inflation in the supply chain during the pandemic. That took a toll. Interest rates went up for people who had bought homes. All too often, they had variable-rate mortgages even when rates could not go any lower. These people may have made a mistake, but it hit them hard.
There was the war in Ukraine. That had an impact on our farmers when it came to fertilizer. At the time, the government had imposed sanctions on fertilizer coming into the country. We had to fight to ensure there would be no sanctions on fertilizer that local farmers had already purchased before the war in Ukraine broke out. We succeeded. Back then, the government was somewhat receptive to our concerns. It was a minority government. Let us hope for another.
We came up with a proposal. The idea was to prevent inflation in fuel costs from working its way into the supply chain. How do we do that? We make sure it is not embedded in the inputs at every stage of production. There are special tax provisions for people who work in transportation—taxi services, para transit and freight transportation—and for farmers. Anyone who represents an agricultural riding knows that.
As members know, farm diesel is a different colour. The same goes for heating oil. There are different tax rules that apply. This takes pressure off the supply chain as a whole. This increase in diesel does not influence the Bank of Canada's decision. The inflation that the Bank of Canada uses to determine whether to raise rates excludes energy and food, for which prices are determined internationally. Monetary policy has no impact on that. The government needs to make sure that the increase does not affect grocery bills or cans of food. Incidentally, my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources talked about peas earlier, but he did not know that a combine harvester is not used to pick peas. He gave an example earlier, but someone should have told him that combine harvesters are not used to produce canned vegetables. We will forgive him for that, as he was overcome with emotion. Anyway, what we want is to make sure that this does not result in inflation.
That is what the Bank of Canada is telling us. When the Governor of the Bank of Canada testified before the Standing Committee on Finance, he told us that they were waiting to see whether the oil price shock would last so long that inflation, which is not included in the index used to set monetary policy, would end up affecting food prices. There is a possibility that it might happen after this bill expires in the third quarter of 2027. There is good reason to believe that this is not the right approach and that it does not help enough people. While it may help a few people, it costs too much and misses the mark. Those are the questions we have been wondering about.
We are here to vote on a bill that is going to cost billions of dollars, and its impact on redistribution is unknown. We know what impact it will have on public finances. Now people are accusing us of wanting to raise taxes.
The riding I represent, Mirabel, is an agricultural riding. People know that I keep a pair of boots in the trunk of my car. They know that I visit farms and that I know our farmers by name. This proposal to take the pressure off them and ensure that diesel price increases do not end up in supply chains has a trickle-down effect and also meets a number of environmental objectives at the pump.
It is important to understand how taxes work. If I ever go back to teaching economics, I am going to use my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources's speech to show my students what not to say.
Diesel and gas consumers are people who are dependent on diesel and gas in the very short term. When there is an oil crisis, people are not going to change their vehicle or heating system right away, but they might do so down the road. They are not going to replace their combine harvesters or other machinery with more fuel-efficient models. People are going to continue to buy gas and diesel because they need to get around and keep their businesses running. In the short and medium terms, oil and gas consumers are very dependent.
Demand is barely affected by price. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources said as much. When it is time to harvest, it is time to harvest. Farmers need to fill up their tanks. Producers and distributors know, just as the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources does, that farmers need diesel.
Does the government really believe that suspending the excise tax, which amounts to a savings of just four or five cents per litre, means it can tell farmers that they are getting a gift because the price has gone down by four cents? They have no choice but to fill their tanks. Diesel suppliers will do what they have always done. They will lower prices for two or three days because they do not want to end up on the front page of the Journal de Montréal. They do not want to be seen as the bad guys. They will lower prices for two days, but once the news cycle moves on, they will raise prices again.
I asked the minister if any studies had been done and if anyone knew that it was working. These are legitimate questions. The minister told me that we did know because the price dropped by 10¢ on the first day. When was this policy implemented? It was in June, 120 days ago. It seems as though the minister does not care about the other 119 days. He cares about the first day, but not the other 119 days, when it is no longer news and once the policy has been implemented. There is still some uncertainty in market signals. Prices are fluctuating. The Americans are causing trouble in the Strait of Hormuz. The price is going up. Oil companies know full well that no one can say where the price increase is coming from, so they are pocketing the savings from the excise tax. I would like someone to explain how that helps consumers.
Someone will say that, basically, if the excise tax is reduced, the 10¢ can be split between consumers and retailers. Maybe retailers need a little help, too. Some fuel retailers might be having a bad year. They are business owners, and maybe they need help. If the minister's goal is to help gas retailers, he should say so.
When I am out and about in my riding, I do what everyone else does. I see businesses; I see farmers; I see people who have to travel back and forth a lot between Mirabel and Saint‑Jérôme or Mirabel and Montreal. They have to put gas in their cars. No one tells me that we should be helping the Ultramar on the corner or that we absolutely need to drive along Curé-Labelle—Highway 117—and help gas retailers. I have not heard any such thing, not once. That is the fear, though.
We heard from witnesses in committee. Generally speaking, they told us that the government should help households with the cost of living. I agree, but this situation calls for more targeted measures. The witnesses told us that temporary measures like this one always become permanent. Other provinces have done it. I believe Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador have done it.
I am not a big fan of Milton Friedman, but he said nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
Back then, Milton Friedman was talking about tax increases, but the same applies to tax cuts. We must not imagine that once we have lowered taxes once, twice or three times, people will not be angry when we raise them again. We cannot tell Canadians and Quebeckers that it will be temporary. That will not fly.
If we want to do this, then we need to help families. How should we go about it? We should use the GST credit. It is targeted, has the same criteria as family benefits, takes into account the number of children, and is means tested.
In Quebec, there is the solidarity tax credit, which is refundable. It even takes into account additional criteria, such as living in a rural or remote area. Gas retailers would have kept some of that money for themselves, but this way, it is used to help families directly. That is one way of doing it.
What is more, it helps people who do not have a car. There are people who do not have cars. Some people are being hit so hard by the cost of living crisis that they no longer have a car. Will this measure help them, or would they be helped by a broader, more targeted measure? That is a question worth asking. People who do not have a car also need to eat, and they are also grappling with the rising cost of groceries. These people need help too. That is one of the things we need to think about, among many.
I will say it again. I think this is the fifth speech I have given on this subject. I did two the first time. We are now at third reading.
Regarding inflation, over the past 15 to 20 years, the price of gas has fluctuated a lot, but it has generally followed the same trend. When we factor in inflation, it has gone up. That is called the nominal price. We see the price going up. When we remove inflation, the price does not change, but it fluctuates a lot. Yes, it fluctuates a lot, while the purchasing power of the wealthiest 80% of Canadians has increased significantly.
There are two things going on here. The wealthiest 80% of people have bigger cars. The number of cars on the road, including in Montreal, is growing faster than the population. That is what is happening. Among the bottom 20% are people on tight budgets. When the price fluctuates, when the price goes from $1.60 to $1.80, those folks stop eating. They stop taking their kids to activities. They stop going to the movies. They stop spending in other sectors of the economy. That is 20% of the population. Those are the facts. I looked at the data sets. I calculated that. That is what Luc Godbout is telling us. That is what Antoine Genest-Grégoire is telling us. That is what experience tells us needs to be done. We need to help these people.
Instead of helping 100% of people with assistance, 30% of which goes into the pockets of oil companies, why not take the same amount of money and use it to help five times as many people who are genuinely struggling? In the meantime, why not implement the measures proposed by the Bloc to mitigate the impact of rising fuel prices on the entire supply chain over the longer term? That is the Bloc's proposal.
The Conservatives delivered 10-minute speeches. Maybe they should have taken 20 minutes instead. If they think the Bloc is in favour of taxing people and increasing the cost of living and against providing assistance, then I think some people are having issues hearing the interpretation.
I will say it again: The government needs facts and data to back up its decision to introduce a policy like this and renew it a second time.
I seriously think that the Department of Finance did the analysis, because there are some excellent people in that department. The reason we do not know what percentage of the savings was pocketed by producers is because they know the answer and did not want it published.
