Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Based on publicly available information — may contain inaccuracies
Business & Financial Interests
Before entering federal politics, Rhéal Éloi Fortin had a career in law. He was reportedly a co-founder and partner at the law firm Fortin, D'Amour, Goyette, located in Saint-Sauveur, Quebec. His professional background is in civil, commercial, and family law.
Key Relationships & Connections
Rhéal Éloi Fortin served as the interim leader of the Bloc Québécois from 2015 to 2017, following the resignation of Gilles Duceppe. In 2018, he became a key figure in a group of seven MPs who left the Bloc caucus due to disagreements with then-leader Martine Ouellet. This group, which included MPs like Louis Plamondon and Luc Thériault, formed a separate parliamentary group called Québec Debout before eventually rejoining the Bloc caucus after Ouellet's departure.
Public Controversies
The most significant public controversy involving Rhéal Éloi Fortin was the 2018 Bloc Québécois leadership crisis. He was one of seven out of ten Bloc MPs who resigned from the party's caucus, citing disagreements with the leadership approach of Martine Ouellet, which they felt was overly focused on Quebec sovereignty at the expense of other federal issues. The MPs sat as independents under the banner of Québec Debout for several months. The situation caused a major internal crisis for the party. Following a leadership review where Martine Ouellet failed to secure sufficient support, she resigned. Subsequently, Fortin and five of the other dissenting MPs rejoined the Bloc Québécois caucus in September 2018.
Where Rhéal Éloi falls on key policy spectrums
Your Money
People & Society
How We're Governed
Land & Community
Rhéal Fortin won with 25,438 votes (43.8%)
Total votes cast: 58,018
How does Rhéal Éloi Fortin's voting record line up with your values?
Mr. Speaker, this bill, and the story and circumstances surrounding it, are moving. There is something special about it. My colleague is right to point that out. It is not often that everyone in this House can agree on something. It does happen, though not often enough for my liking, that we are all able to agree on doing what needs to be done for the benefit of the community as a whole. I will,
Mr. Speaker, I am probably going to repeat some of the things I said in the spring. The reality of legislative life is that we come back to the same bill, work on it and approve it again. As my colleague said earlier, I already spoke to this bill in committee, as well as in the House at second reading. I will now speak to it at third reading. I look forward to passing it. I think we all want it
Mr. Speaker, I think this historical overview of the situation is essential, and my colleague's speech was very informative. Prime Minister That said, am I to understand that the democratic, environmental and labour protection rules adopted by the provinces, as well as all our parliamentary bodies and boards, are so detrimental to the's vision of Canada that they need to be scrapped? Did
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague. We are aware that my colleague's bill does not replace section 430 of the Criminal Code, which already provides for sanctions in this respect. It simply adds mandatory minimum punishments. Personally, I see this as somewhat of a parliamentary supervision of our courts, telling judges that they cannot impose a sentence that is less than the
Mr. Speaker, first of all, mandatory minimum sentences have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, so I think it would be a real shame to try to rerun that failed script. We share the concerns about the issue of hate and preventing people from committing mischief against religious property. I believe I can say that all members of Parliament share that value. We do
No, it's not that long.
Mr. Chang has been “new” for a while, but anyway....
Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand the intention of our colleague, Ms. Kwan. It seems entirely reasonable. However, in this case, the administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction. Yet we're asking the federal justice minister to report on the program's performance in the provinces. I gather that this must be done in consultation with provincial government officials. That
I agree with the amendment, but I disagree with LIB-1. Are you on the amendment?
At the beginning of your presentation, you said that the first question should be: Are you being paid to be here today or not? We often meet people who are full-time employees of organizations. This is probably the most typical form of lobbying we encounter. Are you saying we should consider these people lobbyists and report these meetings?
I apologize for interrupting you, but I only have about a minute of my time left. I understand your analogy of getting a ticket and paying it, but thinking that there will still be more in the future. However, we're talking about lobbying, and you're a lobbyist. You're the head of a lobbying firm. If the Commissioner of Lobbying told you that she was imposing a penalty, regardless of the
Mr. Thurlow, I'll ask you the same question. Do you think she should be required to impose penalties or simply have the power to do so?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on another aspect. We're tightening the criteria for lobbying. Actually, we're not tightening them—we're expanding them to include more activities. In every riding, people often seek out their member of Parliament. People call me at my office every week. Business owners, chambers of commerce and citizens ask what they should do if they haven't received their
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Thurlow, I'd like to pick up where we left off a few moments ago regarding the work of MPs. As an MP, I experience this first-hand. I deal with it constantly. I often think about how this should all be structured. For instance, say someone comes to see me to discuss an issue. It could be a cultural community, an advocacy group or whatever. They ask to meet with me, and
What if it happens?