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, I think that my colleague and I are pretty much on the same wavelength when it comes to a number of things. However, as far as decisions by the government are concerned, we saw that the former Liberal government was steering us toward a green transition. There were investments in the auto industry. Then the government announced that it would be scrapping all of that. Instead, it
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the Bloc Québécois motion that called on the federal government to pay back the $814 million it owes Quebeckers. His colleagues voted against that motion. That seems rather strange to me. If they really want to help Canadians save money and they really want to be fair, then why have they forgotten about Quebeckers? I do not
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not entirely agree with my colleague. In fact, I have the same concern about budgetary matters. It is true that people are struggling to make ends meet. However, the problem is that cutting gas taxes and increasing oil production are counterproductive. This is simply putting things off. The planet will eventually have to be cleaned up because it will no longer be
Mr. Speaker, there is no place in a democracy for a law that does not respect the will of the people as expressed by a majority of 50% plus one vote. There is no place in a democracy for a law that overturns the will of the people by claiming, after the fact, that the question or the result was not clear enough. There is no place in a democracy for a law that flouts the rules of the ballot box
Mr. Speaker, not only does the Clarity Act give the federal government some kind of veto over the wording of the question, as though people are too thick to understand the question, but this undemocratic law also calls into question the principle of majority rule in a democracy. The Liberals want clarity. That is fine, let us be clear then. First, the government that initiates a referendum
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to propose a friendly amendment to Mr. Baber. It's a bit odd to write in a piece of legislation that reasonable hypotheticals can't be considered. I think what he's getting at is that hypothetical scenarios can't be considered. I would agree with that. I would remove the word “reasonable”. Saying that the court “shall not consider reasonable hypotheticals” is
Can we have it in writing, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would simply like to conclude by saying that we had already agreed to do this study in September. I think I said so earlier, but I'm saying it again. I apologize for that. I understand that government bills could be referred to our committee. According to the information I have, there's no rule that we have to give them priority, but I understand that there may be one,
My motion to conduct a study on the judicial appointment system, which had been proposed in April, was adopted in September, and that study was given priority. I understand that we have a full agenda and that bills have to return to the House by certain dates, but I think we can complete that study. The motion I'm talking about proposed that we devote four meetings to it. C‑231 What I propose as