House of Commons photo

Track Alexandre

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is quebec.

NDP MP for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2021, with 49% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Criminal Code February 27th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The NDP will also support this bill so it can be referred to committee for study in order to improve it and perhaps correct some of its flaws.

I am personally concerned about the issue of people dealing with degenerative illnesses that affect not the body but rather the spirit or intellect, such as Alzheimer's.

Why would it not be possible for a bill such as this one to provide for the possibility of drafting an advance directive, together with the medical staff, which could be renewed every six months in the case of someone who has already been diagnosed with Alzheimer's?

Business of Supply February 25th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Bloc Québécois supports the general idea. I would have liked their support here in the House, but I understand that we have our differences.

The Conservatives slashed health transfers and the Liberals maintained those cuts, but our parties agree that health transfers need to go up by at least 6%.

Business of Supply February 25th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question.

It is true that having bad teeth is usually the most obvious outward sign that makes it possible to differentiate between social classes. Poor dental health has an impact on every aspect of a person's life. Everyone can understand how that could make it harder for someone to get a job and cause problems in their social and love lives. Let us be frank. In real life, having bad teeth causes problems. People will see the difference and this will create barriers in every aspect of the person's social and socioeconomic life.

Yes, this is a good proposal. We need a tax system that is based on true progressivism to ensure that the wealthiest members of our society are able to help and to pay for the services of those who really need them.

Business of Supply February 25th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his interesting question.

I come from the union and labour relations community, where collective agreements and contracts are renegotiated. One thing is certain: in 100% of the cases, we do not know how the negotiations will end before they begin.

Some provinces would dearly like to see an increase in federal health transfers so that they can provide better services to their residents. Statistics Canada showed that over 35% of Canadians and Quebeckers do not have dental insurance, which means that one in three people in Canada do not have easy access to dental care when they need it.

Some provinces may be more reluctant, which is normal. However, I would like to be able to say that this is the direction that we intend to take and the way we want to take care of people in our provinces and here in Canada.

Business of Supply February 25th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for her inspiring speech, and I look forward to hearing my colleagues' questions very shortly.

I would like to begin by proposing that we remember what our role is as representatives of our constituents. I think our primary focus must always be on trying to create a better, fairer, more progressive world where people can live in dignity, reach their full potential, hold meaningful jobs with good working conditions and have a good quality of life that makes life worth living. We always need to keep in mind that we are here to improve the quality of life of our constituents, to create a world with more justice and dignity for all.

We in Canada are fortunate enough to have had a universal public health care system that is accessible to all for many years. It is an invaluable system that many people fought for, including the NDP, but also members of other political parties. Those people fought to have a system where everyone is treated equally when they become ill. When illness strikes, medical treatment is not provided just because an individual has a credit card or a bank account, but because they are a citizen of a country where a collective decision was made to treat people without discriminating on the basis of money, fortune or wealth.

Unfortunately, our universal public health care system was not accompanied by a universal public pharmacare system. We are the only country in the world where this incongruous situation exists. I believe we will have other discussions about pharmacare, which will greatly improve the lives of Canadians and significantly cut costs.

Our universal public health care system is not perfect. The motion presented today by my party would address one of the problems. At some point, the human body began to be viewed as a puzzle, with some parts being insured and others not. If someone has a heart attack, they get in an ambulance and go to the hospital. If they need bypass surgery, it is covered. If they need open heart surgery, they will get it because the heart is covered by health insurance. If they break a leg climbing a tree and need a cast, the leg is covered. However, if there is a problem in a person's mouth, if they have trouble with their teeth, if they have a cavity or need a root canal, well, good luck. That is not covered. They have to get out their chequebook or credit card.

Our system is flawed. The human body has been separated into various parts that are valued differently for insurance purposes. It is pretty odd. Dental care is extremely important to people. Millions of people in Canada cannot or will not have their dental problems looked after because they cannot afford to. About one in five people in Canada avoids going to the dentist because of cost. Does that make sense to anyone? Can we justify that to the people we represent, to our constituents? I do not think so.

During the last election campaign, I talked about this with people at their homes, in parks and in restaurants. They realized right away that it makes no sense that the quality of care we get for some parts of our bodies, like our mouths and teeth, depends on our wealth and good fortune. We value equality, and that is not equal. As a progressive, that is something I will fight.

As parliamentarians, whether we are in the government or in an opposition party, we have to make choices. From the beginning of the 43rd Parliament, the Liberal Party has made a very clear choice by proposing another tax cut that once again favours the wealthy. This is not the first time, either. The Liberals did the same thing in the last Parliament when they proposed a middle-class tax cut that did not give one cent back to people who earn less than $45,000. For the Liberals, people who earn $35,000 or $40,000 a year are not rich enough to be part of the middle class, so they got nothing. This year, the Liberals are proposing another tax cut which, let's face it, is an expenditure. It is money that is no longer going into the government's coffers. We are missing out on a certain amount of revenue, with no guaranteed results to show for it. We are not guaranteed better services for the public or a better quality of life.

This completely irresponsible tax cut is going to cost us nearly $7 billion. The tax cut that the Liberal government is proposing is worth $6.9 billion, and once again, it will benefit the wealthiest Canadians.

The biggest benefits, which will save people $300 a year or more, are limited to those who earn at least $113,000 a year.

The Liberals are saying that this will save the average family $600 a year. Only individuals who earn at least $143,000 will be eligible for that $600 a year, which is the maximum savings provided by this tax cut. The people in our society who are going to save $600 are the ones who earn nearly $150,000.

Personally, I do not see this as a progressive measure. I do not think it will help those who are struggling and those who are the most disadvantaged.

The NDP put forward a proposal that appears in the motion moved today, specifically, that anyone who earns more than $90,000 a year will not get a tax cut. Like everyone else, the first tax brackets will benefit, but above $90,000, there will be no tax cut. This measure will save Canada $1.6 billion.

It is not very complicated after that. The money that was going to the rich would be transferred to a new public dental care program that will cost between $800 million and $850 million a year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We save twice as much as we need to give additional coverage to 4 million Canadians, to people in the 338 ridings represented here, to people who are suffering and who cannot afford the care they need.

A society has to choose whether to take care of people or to give handouts to the rich. It is important to look at what we are facing today and think about what choice we have to make to help our constituents as much as possible.

We want public dental care to be accessible to people who earn less than $90,000 a year. Let us keep it simple. People who earn $90,000 or more do not get a tax cut, and people who earn less than $90,000 a year have a new social program that will make a real difference in their lives. The program will improve their health and will probably save our health care system money because it will prevent illnesses that can get worse when someone does not have access to care. We need to keep this in mind to ensure we are making the right decision.

Many years ago, we made the good decision to develop a public, universal health care system. It was such a good decision that candidates like Bernie Sanders are desperately trying to institute this system in the United States, knowing that it would be the right thing to do and a positive social change.

Our proposal would cost less than $1 billion a year and would be funded from an irresponsible tax cut that helps only the wealthiest Canadians.

Some people will say this encroaches on provincial jurisdiction. We have heard that one before. Since I am going to be asked the question anyway, I will remind hon. members that we have the principles of the Canada Health Act, that there are health transfers to the provinces and that there will necessarily be negotiations with the provinces to see whether or not they decide to get on board. Then, it might be worthwhile for Quebec to get $250 million to $350 million to allow Quebeckers most in need to receive dental care.

I think a responsible Quebec government is going to sit at the table, like every other province, and look at what can be done.

The Sherbrooke declaration is indeed still part of the NDP platform, and Quebec's right to full compensation would inevitably be included in legislation. However, what we have before us today is not a bill or a federal-provincial negotiation. It is a motion. It is a direction that parliamentarians are giving to the government to tell it that this is important and that it should move in that direction.

I want to reassure everyone. If this works out, it will not be a federal public servant playing around in people's mouths, it will be a dentist, and that dentist will probably be paid and hired by a clinic or hospital in Quebec, if you are a Quebecker.

The Environment February 20th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, last spring, half a million people protested in the streets of Montreal. It was the biggest protest in our history. These people were calling for real action to address the climate crisis. They know that it is urgent that we slash our carbon footprint to prevent an environmental disaster. When the house is ablaze, you have to stop putting wood on the fire.

The Liberals are breaking their promises and have fallen prey to the oil lobby. The Liberals promised to eliminate subsidies to oil companies. Today, a study released by Équiterre—which must be familiar to the Minister of Canadian Heritage—reveals that oil subsidies are still there and were even increased last year. The Liberals are exacerbating the problem. It is time to stop giving gifts to oil companies. It is time to pull the plug on the wasteful spending on Trans Mountain. It is time to reject the LNG and Teck's Frontier projects, which cause pollution. It is the eleventh hour. We should be panicking. We must take action for future generations.

Business of Supply February 20th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which had a strong focus on respect for the law. I have two comments about that.

First, it should be noted that, in the history of Canadian colonialism, the law often gave authority to steal land from indigenous peoples, put indigenous peoples on reserves and take indigenous children away from their families and send them to residential schools. The law also used to prohibit indigenous peoples from having lawyers. We therefore have to be careful when invoking the law, because its past has not always been positive.

Second, with regard to the current situation and respecting the law, does my colleague recognize the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in Delgamuukw, which gives hereditary chiefs legal responsibility for protecting their lands?

Business of Supply February 20th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks. We have essentially the same point of view.

The Conservatives are talking a lot about legality when we know that, historically, with colonialism, legislation has often been used to steal land and violate the rights of indigenous peoples.

I would like to know what she thinks of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that makes hereditary chiefs stewards of the land.

Judges Act February 19th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Enhancing judicial training and knowledge is a step in the right direction.

However, we must not have situations where women are physically unsafe. Sadly, the fact is that, at least 20,000 times a year, Quebec's shelters have to turn away women who need help, because there are not enough beds, because there are no rooms for them. The women must either go back to an unsafe situation or live on the streets.

I would like my colleague to tell me about our underfunded shelters for female victims of violence.

Judges Act February 19th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his speech.

Obviously, the NDP is pleased that Bill C-5 is moving forward. This bill contains some worthwhile measures, such as training to encourage the judiciary to be more aware of all of the complex issues related to sexual assault and sexual violence.

However, I am a bit concerned that we are not taking this further. We also need to implement a social assistance system to help victims of sexual violence. Right now, there are so many women, including in Quebec, who are falling through the cracks.

The Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes in Quebec has indicated that approximately 20,000 requests for emergency shelter from women who want to protect themselves and their children are rejected every year due to lack of space.

It is good that we are providing better training for magistrates and judges, but there are women who need help and they do not have a bed or a room. If they are forced to either return home to a dangerous situation or to be homeless and live on the streets, then we are not much further ahead.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this urgent need in Quebec society.