Talk:List of federal political parties in Canada/Archive 1

Missing Info
There was a Communist member of parliament in the late 40s & 50s. I believe he was caught up in the USSR embassy spy scandal of the 50s. Not a "United Farms/Labours/Workers Type Party" but a real deal Communist Party of Canada member. 70.71.69.221 (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Green Party Double-Listing
The Green Party of Canada is listed both as represented & on the list of 'Other Parties Recognized', implying non-representation. I'm not the one to know if the Canadian Green Party currently has parliamentarians in the house of commons, but someone who does know should fix this. Giovnni (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be fixed now. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unregister Active Parties that not listed in article
There is a new unregister party called the "Truth and Freedom Party of Canada" - perhaps we should add this to the active unregister party list? http://www.truthandfreedompartyofcanada.ca/ REDSoC (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also "Peace and ecology party of Canada" http://www.peaceandecology.org/ REDSoC (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ontario Party of Canada
Missing is the former "The Ontario Party of Canada" Party. Although they have lost their ability (Currently, February 2010), they have an active Article on Wikipedia.

Ontario Party of Canada

Ontario Party of Canada WikiArticle

Can the Main WebPage be updated in the near future or does it need my input to do so and prevent Vandalisim if changed? Talk.. Richard416282 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pirate Party of Canada
Someone added PPCA to the group of registered party by election Canada - until the party gets officially register it belongs to the unregistered section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.54.43 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to it's page. It is now registered so I have included it again. Outback the koala (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not according to Election Canada http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false Do appropriate research before jumping to conclusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.253.183 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's eligible to be registered, that's different than being unregistered. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But its not registered, to be officially registered - it has to fill out the requirements. PPCA still needs to run 1 candidate to be officially recognized as a party, otherwise, its unregistered. There is a difference between being registered and unregistered http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false PPCA needs to be on the registered list in order to be registered, being eligible isn't the same thing. One the PPCA is officially registered, then it can be added with the other parties that are officially register —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.9.70 (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1 candidate requirement is only a formality. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

United Colors of Benneton
Is this spam? Its "listed in Historical parties that have won seats in Parliament". This must be spam. adouglass (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Sounds fake to me. WP:link goes to unrelated page.. Outback the koala (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pirate Party of Canada
The Pirate Party of Canada is eligible to be registered by Elections Canada but has to run 1 candidate in the next election. Should they be under the registered parties section of the list? --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why the PPCA isn't in the officially registered section in Election Canada, they are eligible, but not registered. I understand the trivialities of one more requirement to accomplish - but its black and white, either they are officially registered (which they are not) or not (in this case, they are eligible). http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false I'm not trying to be mean, but there is a difference between registered and eligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.9.70 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the first and best policy that would apply. Also the current saying of it not being registered is not neutral, because it is eligible for registration. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough in its current state. Though it not the right term to use "neutral" when it comes to yes-or-no type situation74.216.9.70 (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But does it have to be in bold? Why not underlined and un-bold like the other titles in the article? Having it in bold is not neutral because it emphasizing it more then others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winitoba (talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've shortened the title because it seems quite excessive when the tiles goes on for almost 2 sentences.Winitoba (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I guess thats fine. I'm ok with it in this form also. Outback the koala (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have requested semi-page protection since a few anonymous users keep changing the status of the party on this list. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Picture on this page is bias
The picture itself, its name and the description is painfully bias to the Canadian left wing, the whole description is a huge rant about the conservatives comparing them to George Bush (are you serious?), also the conservatives on the ballot is scratched off the pad, this doesn't belong on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.119.252 (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The politically biased rant used to describe the image has been removed at its source (wikicommoms). The article looks better with an image than without one, so until a better usable image is located, I support the inclusion of the image within the article. Inniverse (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Clean up
I removed some titles under "unregister party believe to be active in recent years" that includes absurd party, extreme wrestling party and Alberta party because they have dissolve, their website is defunct and no record of any activities of either parties for almost 7 years.74.216.0.40 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.46.16 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I also remove the lemon party (last known activity in 2003) as well as the Socialist Party of Canada (last activity is recorded in 1925, other than that, no real pulse from the SPC).74.216.0.40 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this removal. These parties were in fact not active. Thank You 74.216.0.40. Outback the koala (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

De-registered
Newfoundland Labrador Party of Canada has been de-registered by Election Canada - so I remove them from the list of registered party and move them to the 'unregistered but active in recent years'.74.216.15.16 (talk) http://elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.15.16 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Party of Canada
This party is garnering quite a bit of attention: http://www.onlineparty.ca/ http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2010/21/c4423.html http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5213 http://thenextweb.com/ca/2010/10/03/online-party-of-canada-wants-to-shake-up-democracy/ http://www.nexttree.ca/blog/the-online-party-of-canada-launches-website-with-nexttree/ http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Internet+based+political+party+trying+make+splash/3717138/story.html http://walkersunknownthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/10/online-party-of-canada-further-analysis.html http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Online-Party-Canada-Radically-Different-Political-Organization-has-Launched-Ambitious-1328653.htm http://www.frommybottomstep.com/2010/09/13/the-online-party-of-canada/ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_201010/ai_n55446879/

There are countless articles on google, just type in "Online Party of Canada" - according to one of the articles, they already have near 500 members (only need 250 members to register) so I'm not sure how close they are to be register. I'm going to put OPC under "unregister party believe to be active in recent years". 74.216.8.97 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove Online Party of Canada from the list of "unregister party believe to be active" without providing reasons. I have provided sources as my reason for including them in the list - and I expect whoever removing OPC to do the same (provide reason why they are to be remove). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.8.95 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I did not see these sources before now. I do not know why the article Online Party of Canada does not exist by now. Ok, I willing to bite that this party exists and is real. Before now, I had not seen any sources. I'll get to work on creating a page and I won't keep removing it. Outback the koala (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh ok no problem then, there are many more sources available on the web for OPC - I just didn't list them all.74.216.8.95 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

All this shows is that some dude is trying to start a party. It doesn't show notability. In-line citations are required. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Google News has 0 results. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not know how to do in-line citations so you'll have to show me how. You can in-line citations for me if you want. Google news isn't the only source of information - hence the sources that I have provided does prove notability from various sources (especially from the Vancouver Sun and others). You shouldn't remove other people's work without providing sufficient reason why you did so.74.216.37.246 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITE - In line citations are your friend. To add them in the basic sense next to Online Party of Canada on the list, you would add, for example. If you want to get fancier check out Template:Cite web. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The link for Online Party of Canada currently goes off of Wikipedia to their official page. It's the only link to do so. There seems to be no Wikipedia article on them. Darkpoet (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideology mistakes
First of all the Conservative Party of Canada isn't "conservative-leaning", it IS conservative. As a matter of fact neo-conservatism has actually long been an influential school of thought with the party leadership and rank and file.

Secondly the Liberal Party of Canada may have centre-left tendencies at times, it has a centre-left faction, but it is NOT "left of centre". That means Leftwing!

That is purely subjective: it depends on how you define the centre. In Toronto, the Liberals may be centre-left, but in the West they are left of centre (especially recently they have moved left). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.232.41 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Most Communist MPs
This article suggests there were 3 Communist MPs in 1945. Dorise Nielsen had been elected in 1940, Fred Rose in 1942. Who was the third? Only Rose was reelected that year. Geoff K. (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wexit Canada
It's not a registered party. Should it be on this list? Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not if it's not recognized! Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there could be a section or separate page for the unregistered parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.229.139 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is now a registered party. I have added it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Still listed under eligible. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that has undone my edit and removed Wexit.  On closer inspection of the Elections Canada website it appears they are listed in a separate section "eligible". Apparently, while they have satisfied all of the criteria to run candidates in an election, they are only an "eligible" party because there has not been an election for them to run in yet.  They formed after the Elecion 43.  You can read more about the registered/eligible distinction here or here.  The fact that they could not possibly be a "registered" party because no federal election has been held since they became eligible is a lousy reason to exclude them from the list. They have met all the criteria to be a party and are eligible for "registered" party status when an election does take place.  In those circumstances they should be included, unless we are going to start a separate table for the "eligible" parties.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that Parti Patriote, another eligible party, is already included. I will add Free Party Canada, which is the other eligible party.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I had removed all the non-registered parties including Parti Patriote. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, at the time of my comment Parti Patriote was already included and seems to have been for several months. I note you removed it after my comment.  It seems to have been added by 74.216.251.77 in December and as far as I can tell remained since then until you removed it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, because they're not registered, I removed Parti Patriote & Wexit Canada. They're both only eligible to be registered. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, they can't be registered because no federal election has yet taken place. People's Party was listed before they had run in an election. Why are you dictating that parties can only be included in this list AFTER they have run in an election.  They have become eligible to run candidates in an election.  That is what the article says.  I am happy to discuss whether there should be a seperate section for parties that have satified the registration requirements but not yet run in an election.  Removal and ignoring them completely is not WP:NPOV however.  I would ask you respond to these points, failing which I will be reverting your edit.  It is not helpful for you to continue to revert these edits without responding.  It is even less helpful to accuse me of vandalism on my talk page.  I look forward to an actual response.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * I have added a footnote explaining and linking to the definition of eligible parties. This is a good faith WP:NPOV solution. I hope editors will not remove these parties again without discussion here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not good faith if you don't wait for everyone to chime in. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Again I revered for re-adding parties that are NOT registered. If they have to wait for an election, so be it. I would be open to a separate section for parties that are only eligible to be registered. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not own this article. The edit I made, noted that they were eligible and the language preceding the table also noted that it included eligible parties.  Your approach here is not very helpful and whether you intend to be so or not, it is disruptive.  It is not WP:NPOV to remove any mention of parties that have completed "all legal requirements to register aside from running in an election" (which has not occurred yet) and are listed on the Elections Canada website as being eligible to contest elections.  Your opposition to their inclusion with these distinctions being well noted in the article is rather WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviour. Desist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Eligible Parties
I remain of the view that Eligible Parties should be listed in the Current parties table. Despite the discussion above, I am yet to hear a reason they should not be included besides "they are not registered". That overlooks the fact that they can't be until there is an election, and that we seem to have included eligible parties before, like People's Party of Canada before it had contested elections. Some if not all eligible parties should be mentioned in this article. For example, Wexit Canada which is eligible federally, and "registered" in its provincial form in British Columbia and Saskatchewan where the provincial elections authorities do not require a party to have contested an election before it can be called "registered". This distinction seems to be a lousy one to exclude parties from the Current parties table, as it would deny any party regardless of support, polling, etc, if it has not previously contested an election. It would refuse to acknowledge the existence of new parties for readers until after the fact. It is particularly lousy when we note the distinction in a footnote. In any event, if we are going to maintain this lousy distinction, we should then have a sub-section/table of the eligible parties. I would propose it look something like this:


 * Eligible Parties have applied to Elections Canada and met all of the legal requirements to be registered, other than running a candidate at a general election or by-election. Such parties are eligible to run candidates in federal elections but will not be considered "registered" by Elections Canada until they have contested an election. As of March 2020, the following are eligible parties:


 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Colspan="2"| Name ! Founded ! class="unsortable"| ! class="unsortable"| Leader ! Political position

Parti Libre Canada
 * Free Party Canada
 * style="text-align:right;"| 2019
 * Mr. Michel Leclerc
 * Mr. Michel Leclerc

Patriot Party
 * Parti Patriote
 * style="text-align:right;"| 2019
 * Quebec Nationalism, Right-wing populism, Quebec Sovereignty
 * Donald Proulx
 * Right Wing


 * Wexit Canada
 * style="text-align:right;"| 2020
 * Western separatism, Conservatism, right-wing populism
 * Peter Downing
 * Right wing
 * }
 * }

I look forward to a constructive and substantive discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You could probably do without the party colours column, otherwise, it looks good. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the colours are likely unnessisary. Without them it would look something like this:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Colspan="2"| Name ! Founded ! class="unsortable"| ! class="unsortable"| Leader ! Political position Parti Libre Canada Patriot Party
 * Free Party Canada
 * Free Party Canada
 * style="text-align:right;"| 2019
 * Mr. Michel Leclerc
 * Parti Patriote
 * Parti Patriote
 * Parti Patriote
 * Parti Patriote
 * style="text-align:right;"| 2019
 * Quebec Nationalism, Right-wing populism, Quebec Sovereignty
 * Donald Proulx
 * Right Wing
 * Wexit Canada
 * style="text-align:right;"| 2020
 * Western separatism, Conservatism, right-wing populism
 * Peter Downing
 * Right wing
 * }
 * I will leave off the wiki-link to Parti Patriote as that seems to redirect to the historical and now defunct Parti canadien.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * }
 * I will leave off the wiki-link to Parti Patriote as that seems to redirect to the historical and now defunct Parti canadien.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Date formats
The date formats in references are mixed but in the running prose, it is and has consistently been MDY. If there's no objection, I will apply that date format across the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)