SoVote

Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Rivière-du-Nord
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 68%
Expenses Last Quarter: $105,330.31

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Feb/29/24 2:40:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing. The Liberals want secularism to be odourless, colourless and tasteless. They want Quebeckers to adopt a secularism that means nothing and is inconsequential. However, the separation of church and state does mean something. It means that every single person's beliefs and non-beliefs will never interfere in their interactions with the state. That is the purpose of Bill 21, and it has real implications that may require the use of the notwithstanding clause. The Court of Appeal recognized that. Will the government acknowledge that the use of the notwithstanding clause in the case of Bill 21 is not only constitutional, but entirely legitimate?

109 words

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Sep/18/23 1:25:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I would also be happy to work with him and anyone from the third opposition party who is on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who will be studying this bill with us. To answer his question, yes, the process will go quickly, but we are not going to botch the job. It must be done right. I want to look at it. As I said, I have concerns about certain aspects of the bill from a constitutional perspective, such as the fact that, if someone has previously been charged with certain offences, that could be held against them at a bail hearing, even if they were acquitted. That is a bit questionable, in my view. I am not saying no to this bill, but it is not an automatic yes. We will need to look at it properly.

148 words

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Sep/18/23 1:23:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Mr. Speaker, it was I who said the words quoted by my colleague, whom I salute and also respect very much. I freely admit that it was me, but I was not talking about the list at that time. We were talking about the definition. We said that it was a good idea for the bill to define what was being prohibited. The government cannot just prohibit whatever it wants. It must be specific. We wanted the bill to be even clearer. We were against the list. We worked so hard. Again, it was my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia who was working on it. It is a good thing she was there. Otherwise, if we had had to rely on our Conservative colleagues, Bill C-21 would have passed as is or would simply been defeated. That said, I will come back to the bill. I am not surprised that the Conservatives are opposed to it. The Conservatives are against reintegration and rehabilitation. We have heard it many times. We saw it in committee, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for example, which I have sat on for some time. They are against that and, as I said earlier, they are against anything that does not come from their leader. I will not dwell on that too much. I just want to reiterate that this bill is essential and that the issue of its constitutional validity will probably be raised in committee. Then we will see whether the bill has to be amended, but, yes, we will work to make sure it is passed quickly and comes into force as soon as possible. We need it, just as we need judges. I look forward to hearing the new Minister of Justice tell me, before Christmas, that he has filled all those positions.

313 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Feb/9/23 12:17:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is pertinent, as always. She is right. This touches a bit on what my colleague across the way was asking a few moments ago. Should the federal government stand idly by? If the federal government is not satisfied with its own legislation, it can amend it or propose to amend it. The Constitution Act, 1982, can be amended. We realize that it would be a complicated process, but it can be amended. If the government is unhappy with the way it is currently written, it can propose constitutional talks. Let us see what the provinces have to say. We will see whether or not there would be changes and, if so, what those changes would be. One thing is certain: This legislation was meant to lock us in, despite the fact that we did not agree to it. Do not push an interpretation that defies logic, because that goes against what the Supreme Court of Canada said, against what Trudeau senior said at the time, and against common sense.

181 words

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Oct/25/22 4:41:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It may be that seven out of 10 countries are run by constitutional monarchies, but that number is of no importance, in my opinion. It does not matter to me if the other seven out of 10 countries are right or wrong, nor does it matter if nine or 10 countries are right or wrong. What bothers me is that we are here to represent peoples and nations that operate within a federation that is itself subject to a foreign monarch. I cannot stand that. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish, regardless of how things are done elsewhere. We are capable of governing ourselves, and I am sure all Canadians can do that. I guarantee that Quebeckers can. We can get along well enough to manage all kinds of issues. The one thing we do not need is a foreign monarch's stamp of approval on our laws.

164 words

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Rhéal Éloi Fortin