Analysis · Reply to a comment · beta

Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Bloc Québécois on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-15

265 words · 15 sentences · 20 clauses

Replying to Jacob Mantle (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I have been troubled by the Bloc’s position, and I am hoping my hon. colleague can help me a little. One of the examples that Bloc members have continually used to defend the removal of the good-faith exemption is the example of Mr. Charkaoui, who quite rightly was condemned for inciting hatred against Jews in Quebec. My colleague spoke about reading the law carefully, and if he were to read the Criminal Code carefully, he would see that this type of activity is already prohibited. It was not because the religious exemption is in the law now that police were prevented from charging. It was that the police chose not to. I am confused about why the Bloc has continually used this example, which has been shown to have nothing to do with the good-faith defence.”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Thanks 5%Claims 88%Procedure 8%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 12 wordsI thank my colleague for his question. He raises a good point.Thanks Claims · 16 wordsThe Adil Charkaoui case shocked everyone in Quebec at the time, and probably everyone across Canada. Procedure · 10 wordsI do not have the text in front of me, ProcedureClaims · 68 wordsbut this individual used biblical texts to say something along the lines of “Lord, eliminate all of Allah’s enemies, spare no one”. It was clearly an incitement to hatred against Jews. However, the Attorney General did not bring any charges in this case.¹ It seems that my colleague has information that I do not have. He seems to know why no charges were brought. I do not know. Procedure · 6 wordsI do know one thing, though.Procedure Claims · 11 wordsI practised law for 30 years before I came to Parliament, ²Partly on pointProcedure · 5 wordsand I know one thing.Procedure Claims · 137 wordsThere are quite a few cases in the Crown prosecutor’s office. Before deciding to assign a case to a lawyer and instructing them to bring charges, the director of the office will assess whether there is a reasonable chance of success or not. They will ask themselves whether they are getting involved in a case that is a non-starter or whether it makes sense. In Charkaoui’s case, if I had been the director of the Crown’s office at the time, with a provision like the one in subsection 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, ³which permits hatred to be spread if it is done in good faith based on a religious text, I would likely have said that my chances of success are virtually nil and I would not have wasted the lawyers’ time on such a case.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 80

5 of 6 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I thank my colleague for his question.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “He raises a good point.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I do not have the text in front of me,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I do know one thing, though.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “and I know one thing.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 96

1 of 6 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the comment put to the member, and the bill under debate.

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “I practised law for 30 years before I came to Parliament,”About the speaker’s own career, offered as background rather than addressing the point.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 deductions are Respect

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 100

0 of 6 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 3

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“the Attorney General did not bring any charges in this case”In the Adil Charkaoui hate-speech case in Quebec, the Attorney General did not bring charges.search
2“I practised law for 30 years before I came to Parliament”Rhéal Éloi Fortin practised law for 30 years before entering Parliament.search
3“a provision like the one in subsection 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code”Subsection 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code provides a defence for statements made in good faith based on a religious text.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20