Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan for giving an excellent and very informative speech, as usual. His answers to the questions were equally insightful.
We are here to discuss gas prices, because the situation today is truly troubling, distressing and worrisome for families. One of the reasons we are discussing this issue today, if not the only reason, is President Trump's Iran excursion, to put it politely, which has made the Strait of Hormuz impassable today. Roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and gas transits through the strait and supplies many of our trading partners. This troubling situation is affecting the price of a barrel of oil and has had a knock-on effect on the price at the pump, which recently jumped by $2. We understand why people at home are worried, especially people who have to fill up their cars.
I also recently looked at some data from Statistics Canada on the price of a litre of unleaded gas at a self-service gas station in the Montreal census metropolitan area for the past 20 years, and I adjusted the data to real 2025 dollars. What is surprising is that, in the long term, the price of gas goes up very little on average. Rising gas prices are not the problem.
What we are seeing is that the price of gas goes up and down a lot. We know that households are always vulnerable to price increases and price decreases and that they cannot predict those prices and budget for them, which is what worries me. This happened shortly after the pandemic, when gas prices were almost $2 a litre in today's dollars. The government did not suspend the excise tax on gasoline at the time, mainly because there were no Conservatives ready to cross the floor. There was no need to attract them. It was not that important to the government. That is where we are today. We have a problem with fluctuating gas prices.
I was at committee yesterday with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. We heard from experts who said that, over the years, household incomes and real purchasing power have increased for some but not all households. Roughly 75% or 80% of the wealthiest, or least poor, Canadians have seen their incomes rise, while nearly 20% of people in Quebec and Canada have seen their incomes stagnate. Those 20% are the most vulnerable. There is a double phenomenon happening here. First, we have the poorest people, whose incomes are stagnating, who are faced with significant fluctuations in gas prices but still have to fill up their tanks. Then we have the 80% of people whose incomes have increased, while on average and over the long term, gas prices have remained fairly stable overall.
What is happening with these people, the ones who can cope with these fluctuations? We are in a situation where the number of vehicles is increasing faster than the population and where vehicles' size and fuel consumption have almost doubled over the past 20 or 25 years. Some people with incomes are polluting more and more, yet today, the government is proposing to gift them with a measure made all the worse by what the official opposition is proposing. For people who are less well off, filling up at the gas station puts a strain on their budget.
Obviously, one plus one equals two. As my colleague from Joliette—Manawan has said, the Conservative Party cannot complain endlessly about the deficit, say that the government cannot balance its budget, and call for a return to a balanced budget while also proposing such measures. Just discussing the substance of the motion undermines their own credibility. Today, the government proposed a temporary measure to suspend the excise tax on gas. Will that help the poorest people, who are grappling with higher gas prices? Perhaps. Is this the best measure? Is it sufficiently targeted? Probably not. Is it going to be a very costly way of redistributing a small amount of money to the poorest households? We will have to wait and see.
We will also have to see whether oil companies decide to pass on the tax cut to consumers. When people are forced to use their cars to get to work because they do not have access to public transit and cannot afford small electric vehicles, they are extremely vulnerable in the short term. Their demand for gas is fixed, and they are at the oil companies' mercy. There is nothing in the proposals from either side that would protect these people. It seems like the gas stations were the ones getting a handout today.
The Conservative motion veers back into populism and tries to make people believe that gas prices can be drastically lowered with the snap of a finger. I would urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because we are in a political environment where the Liberal government has turned into a Conservative government. Even the most conservative Conservatives are crossing the floor. They used to table this type of motion to put on a political show, but now, each time they rise to table a motion like this, the government imitates them.
I do not want anyone listening this morning to imagine that the Prime Minister was concerned about households' purchasing power two days ago. He is concerned about getting Conservative members over to his side. Every time he plays this game, every time the government does something the Conservatives have been calling for, people cross the floor. That is why I urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because they are pushing the Liberal government to become increasingly conservative at their own expense.
As I said, this is populist. For months, the Conservatives have been saying that the industrial carbon tax should be eliminated to lower the price at the pump. The governor of the central bank, Mr. Macklem, actually told the committee that this tax mainly applies to imported products and would not have any impact on inflation. He practically had to pound his fist on the table in the middle of the committee meeting to get the message through to the Conservatives that if he wanted to lower the cost of living for households, he would look elsewhere. It is important to note that.
What should be done? Obviously, the focus should be on the households that are the most vulnerable to these fluctuations. That is how a long-term solution will be found. If the government takes temporary measures every time the price of gas fluctuates, instead of adopting long-term measures for the energy transition, the long term will become a long sequence of short-term measures that do not solve the underlying problems, and the most vulnerable households will grow even more vulnerable with every crisis. This is exactly what we are seeing today: a predominance of short‑term policies in Parliament for political gain, though it is true that some households will benefit in this case.
I want to say one thing. The government previously announced a deficit of $80 billion. A few weeks ago, it added a vote‑buying cheque, which it called the grocery rebate, that represents a total of $4 billion to $5 billion. The measure announced today adds $2.5 billion in new spending. No one has any idea how much public money is being spent anymore. Meanwhile, the real purchasing power of households is also being affected by access to health care and access to education services. We need to increase productivity. We need to support the provinces' ability to provide these services and offer preschool, primary, secondary and university education. The provinces are being squeezed.
Funds have been allocated for public transit. However, as my colleague, the transport critic, said several times, the money is stuck in Ottawa. That is part of the long-term solution. We need infrastructure. It is clear from the state of our streets that we have an infrastructure problem. The money needs to be transferred to the provinces. What is the point of lowering the price of gas if cars blow a tire every time people drive down a public road? There is a cost associated with that, which affects households.
I would like to touch on one last thing related to rising gas prices, and that is productivity. Oil and gas are production inputs, and when a shock like the one we are currently experiencing occurs, it has a negative impact on productivity. The Prime Minister and the government keep telling us that we need to increase our productivity. One of the best ways to do that is to stop being so vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices. When oil prices go up, production costs more, we produce less per worker and we are less able to increase wages. That harms investment. The government is in the oil business. Our oil and gas supply is secure. The oil and gas we use is almost exclusively North American. We cannot have a government that talks about productivity and yet continues to make our businesses more vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices.
I think it is high time that this Parliament started thinking about the long term. I was elected nearly five years ago, and I have yet to see that happen.