Talk:Conservative Party of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Senate appointments[edit]

This is going to be a relatively minor matter in the history of this party, as far as I am concerned. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blow-by-blow account of events. If this belongs anywhere, it belongs in an article on the Harper government, not the Conservative Party, because it was Harper as Prime Minister who nominated the new people for appointment, not Harper as leader of the Conservative Party. Comments? Ground Zero | t 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Harper government sections should be expanded and split off into another article. We currently have nearly half nearly half a dozen articles on British premierships and nearly a dozen articles on American presidencies. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty section[edit]

There is no reference to the Conservative Party's position on the issue in this section,only to Stephen Harper's. Is there any evidence that the party has taken a position? I am not aware that this issue has been debated in Parliament since 2003, or the the Harper government has introduced any legislation or motion on the issue. This section only presented a Harper quotation, and then the main argument against capital punishment. I think this should be removed. Ground Zero | t 11:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'm inclined to agree. The Conservative Party has not taken any position on capital punishment; the most that can be said is that some have raised concerns about a hidden agenda on this and similar issues. CJCurrie (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Principles and policies section issues[edit]

I think this section would be more appropriately renamed - "Criticisms of the Conservative Party", as that seems to be the main point of this section. I understand how a number of people disagree with their policies, but that is not the purpose of this article (or at least should be put in their own section called 'criticisms'). This section puts an undue emphasis on certain controversial social issues, and dissenting opinions of the party, rather than what the party actually stands for. Most importantly, after reading through this section as it currently stands, it doesn't clearly state what their principles and policies really are. I think there is a lot of room for improvement here, such as simplifying the section into a couple sentences on their basic beliefs and a point form list of their current policies and goals. I think it should be rewritten in a similar style to competing parties such as the liberals or the NDP. Does anyone else think this is reasonable?Edmoil (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


Most of us would agree that the Conservative Party (at least in its current incarnation) is monarchist. However, I have not found any mention of this in the article. I would even go as far as to say that it is one of the core ideologies of the party. What do you think?--MTLskyline (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it an official policy, and can you cite a reliable source? Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It is listed as one of the party's founding principles (fifth and eighth point). Would their own website be a reliable source? --MTLskyline (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Their website is definitely a reliable source for information on their policies, so yes, I think it should be mentioned (in a neutral fashion, obviously). — CharlieEchoTango — 05:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PrestonManning.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:PrestonManning.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage[edit]

The article implies that the recent issue regarding gay divorce has anything to do at all with the conservative stance on same-sex marriage. This is incorrect as the recent issue didn't actually have anything to do with same-sex marriage, but with "tourism marriage" in general. If a particular type of marriage is illegal in a couple's country of residence, then even if they are allowed to marry in Canada that marriage will not be upheld by the Canadian courts. This is not particular to same-sex marriage. For example the U.S. does not allow first-cousin marriage, while Canada does. If a heterosexual first-cousins couple who lived in the U.S. was married in Canada, then that marriage wold be considered void in Canada as the marriage was not legal in the couple's country of residence. (See here for source]) I therefore think that mentioning the issue under a section dealing with the conservative's view on same-sex marriage creates the misimpression that the issue was an ideologically driven one.NereusAJ (T | C) 06:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much of an issue with how it's currently worded in the article. The Conservative Party didn't have anything to do with the story, but it was indeed in the news thanks to a complete fabrication by The Globe and Mail, and therefore Harper's response is definitely relevant to the article in my opinion. The paragraph is accurate and is an opportunity to reflect Harper's position that he will not reopen the debate, which is important from an encyclopedic point of view (reflecting the Party's position). Though I acknowledge this could be done without mentioning the fabricated story. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what I meant to suggest. The paragraph states that a Justice Department official was of the opinion that the marriage was void. This does create the impression that this decision was motivated ideologically, while it was actually motivated by the legal principle of comity. I think it would be better to simply say something like "After accusations that the conservative party was reversing its policy on same-sex marriage, Harper responded so and so." Furthermore, when the article states that Harper corrected the record it sounds as if Harper contradicted the Justice Department official's claim that the marriage is void. This is wrong. Harper actually stated that he was unfamiliar with the case. He corrected the records only in as far as he refuted claims that the conservative party was reversing its policy. It also implies that the Justice Department official was wrong, which isn't the case. Legally, the official's argument was sound. NereusAJ (T | C) 08:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Fraud in the lead[edit]

I've removed the 'alleged electoral fraud' from the lead. Please gain consensus if it is to be re-posted. There is sufficient coverage in the section below on this subject. Karl 334 TALK to ME 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

History section[edit]

The sections from "2006 general election" through "Third Harper Government" are far too detailed. This is an article about the party, so going into that much detail is hard to justify. There are certainly parts that should be here, but they should only be broad strokes, and details that have to do with the party itself. Aside from pushing this article beyond what it is supposed to be, the extra detail invites additions for ever scandal or press announcement that catches some editor's attention. Can anyone justify keeping the level of detail that is currently there? -Rrius (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Woodworth's abortion private members bill[edit]

An IP editor is trying to add the following:

On March 13, 2012 a committee of Conservative MPs agreed to give Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth a one hour hearing "sometime in April", and a second hour of debate "in late spring or early fall" for his proposal to create a special committee to examine the legal definition of when a fetus becomes a human being.

This inaccurate and inconsequential. The fact is that the Subcommittee Private Members' Business of the Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs are both cross-party committees. It is also the fact that nothing odd happened here. Every time the list of private members' bills and motions to be debated by the Commons is replenished, i.e., when all the old ones have been debated, the subcommittee determines whether any of the bills are nonvotable.[1] This particular bill happened to be in the latest tranche of 15 bills and motions determined to be votable.[2]

There is no reason why the fact that this private member's bill has been introduced or is expected to be debated in April should be in the article. This is article is for information about the party, not a depository for every factlet that pertains to a member of the party. -Rrius (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This bill is directly related to abortion, and is a proposal to open up debate on the issue. As noted directly above this in the article, Prime Minister Harper has previously promised not to open debate on the issue. The fact that the bill was brought forwards by a Conservative MP makes it relevant.
Also, please note that the fact that I am editing from my IP address is irrelevant to the discussion.
First, so what if it is related to abortion? It is a private memebers bill, not a government bill. There is no evidence it is Conservative Party policy; it is Stephen Woodworth policy. This is an article about the party, not the MP. It is absurd to suggest that every bill sponsored by every private member that wins the lucky dip to be debated should be added at its party's article. The fact of this article's debate is relevant at Stephen Woodworth; not here. If Stephen Harper decides to support the bill, or there is a substantial vote by the party to support it at second reading, it should be mentioned. For now, all that has happened is that a private member introduced a bill and it won the lottery for to make it on the Order Paper. That is hardly important for this article. Finally, I never said your IP status was relevant here. If an editor who bothered to register had been involved, I would have used his or her user name. Since you don't have one, I used "IP" as I and many other do regularly. I have no desire to remember or copy and paste your particular IP address, and someone who professes, as you did on my talk page, to have been actively editing here since 2005 should have picked up on that by now. -Rrius (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
ADDITIONAL: If you feel the sentence added to the article misrepresents the reliable and properly cited source, please feel free to contribute to the wording of the sentence.
Done. Since it wasn't a "committee of Conservative MPs", or even a committee with a Conservative majority, that part was wrong, and when edited down to the truth was distracting fluff. It is therefore removed. The only remotely relevant bit is that a Conservative MP will have a bill debated that seeks to create a committee regarding the definition of human life. -Rrius (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the edit to the wording in the sentence. This constructive action on your part has improved the information in the article.
No, it has improved the inaccurate passage you added. It is still not relevant to the article. The point of the section is to discuss the "policies and positions" of the Conservative Party; not the particular positions of individual members. -Rrius (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
ADDITIONAL: Please try and remain civil in your discussion about the article. Your language here is bordering on the offensive, and is at the least condescending.
I feel I am being civil. I haven't called you names or accused you of any of the things I would really like to. As for giving you offense, I don't care. I can't help if your level of sensitivity, which, if you are offended, is rather low. As for condescending, given your deficiencies in even managing to read your source without your own biases flat out changing what it says before it reaches your conscious mind, and given your extraordinary behaviour at my talk page, you may need to be condescended to. -Rrius (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Request For Comment: (Re: Conservative Party Of Canada: Abortion) Does disputed text meet criteria for notability, citation, and relevance. 00:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Dont see how this is notable for this overview party page - not a party bill - its a private member's bill ...not by the party so need to mention it here..we dont mention every bill especially those that have not passed. Moxy (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As previously noted, equating this bill (which is specifically on the topic of abortion) with "every bill" (which may be relevant to a specific subsection or not) is a fallacy of equivocation. The discussion is not about "all bills" or "every other bill", it is about whether or not this bill is notable, properly citated, and relevant. (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry i was not clear - this bill here is not notable in the least bit for this article.Moxy (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is about a Conservative MP's bill advocating abortion debate, and appears in the section on the Conservative Party's stance and actions on Abortion. Please explain how this is not notable. (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because an individual Conservative MP introduces a bill does not mean that the bill reflects Conservative Party policy. The section you refer to is not about what various individual Conservatives believe about abortion. It is about the party's "policy and position" on abortion. Just because a bill is written by a Conservative, it does not mean that the bill is a Conservative Party bill. Mr. Woodworth's bill tells us not a damned thing about Conservative policy; it only tells us what he thinks. Why is this concept so hard for you? -Rrius (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Is not a party bill - this page is about the overall Conservative parties position - not what some lone member is doing. Also this is more of a developing news story then something encyclopedic yet - see WP:NOTNEWSPAPERMoxy (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Blatant case of trying to give undue weight to a topic. This article is about the political party. Also, WP:POV argument that the opinion of a single MP reflects party policy. Should we put on Liberal Party of Canada that Quebec independence is their policy because of Justin Trudeau's comments?
This private members bill deserves no more coverage in this article (or hell, even those about the current government and parliament) than any other private member's bill. It might warrant a mention at Abortion in Canada, but even then, nothing more than a sentence, which inevitably will read: "Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth initiated a debate on when a fetus becomes a person, which was then quickly forgotten about." Resolute 13:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • NO to the addition ofthe proposed text. It is way to specfic for this article. Given it is an IP address and also seems to pretty clearly have some POV it is a definite no in my view. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly should not be in article - whatever I may think of the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, this is clearly a WP:UNDUE violation, and inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No to addition of proposed text. Per comments of Resolute & others, violation of WP:UNDUE.--JayJasper (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Resolute's analysis looks quite right. Lord Roem (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Internal factions - ideology[edit]

Would anyone support an internal factions subheading in the ideology part of the infobox, like the articles Conservative Party (UK), Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States) and Liberal Democrats? There are obviously some people with differing ideas within this party. --Jay942942 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It would always depend on sourcing, but given the long-known existence of terms like "Red Tories", I would say such would be appropriate. The biggest issue would, of course, be finding neutral sources. Resolute 14:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While factions of the Republican Party (United States) certainly embrace right-wing populism, right-libertarianism and social conservatism I disagree strongly that the Conservative Party of Canada embraces these values. The CPC is Stephen Harper and Stephen Harper is the CPC. Under his leadership the Government preserved the basic aspects of the Canadian welfare state (Canada Health Act, subsidized post-secondary education, etc), maintained very high levels of immigration with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and integrating newcomers, and maintained strong opposition to changing Canada's laws with regard to abortion and same-sex marriage. I think the dominant ideology of the CPC is Liberal Conservatism (David Cameron, Theresa May identify as such). Certainly fiscal conservatism, economic liberalism and a decentralized federalism form an important part of the CPC's ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Maxime Bernier is fairly explicitly libertarian, and he came very close to winning the leadership race. Numerous reliable sources have commented on the existence of a libertarian faction. There's also numerous reliable sources that identify a social conservative faction, inherited from the Reform Party and nowadays generally associated with Brad Trost. I agree with Hebhom that a factions subheading is appropriate as these ideologies are not central to the party itself.--Jay942942 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with the idea that the CPC as a whole does not embrace libertarianism and right-wing populism. I support forming a "Factions" headline. Hebhom (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Hebhom

Regressive Conservative Party of Canada[edit]

When I typed in Regressive Conservative Party of Canada it redirects to this article.

Apart from the statement of its redirection, there is no use of the word regressive in this article.

Does this mean that it is the view of the Wikipedia community that this party is a regressive one? (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it means someone thought they were being funny. Cmr08 (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter to me one way or another but obviously someone needs to do something about that redirection in order to remove any hints of political bias against this party. (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The redirect has existed since 2006, so I am not willing to speedy delete it. Also, lack of neutrality is not necessarily a reason to delete a redirect, though this one is obviously used in a POV context. Redirects for discussion would be the ideal venue if someone wishes to take it there. Resolute 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There's WP:RNEUTRAL, which suggests a non-nuterual title should be backed up with sources. But the user who created it is still very active, I'm interested in seeing what he has to say, before nominating it for deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The redirect does look too biased without some kind of reference on this page. My guess is that when I made it seven years ago there was some meme in the media that used the name "Regressive Conservative" in reference to this party often enough to make the redirect useful for people who didn't understand the joke. However, that's not an issue anymore, so I'll speedy delete as an unsourced attack page. If someone comes here with a good reason why it should exist, I'll re-create it. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 05:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is this party listed as centre-right?[edit]

They may want us to believe they are centre-right, but that is not the case. Can we get a non partisan definition based on policy as a guide to the correct terminology?

Actually, review, we don't need a separate analysis, the history of the party including its policies and most of its leadership comes from the Reform party, which is clearly Right-wing and stated their page. Its pretty clear that there has been some partisan adjustments to the CPC page here, including the request that it be reviewed as a talking point, where someone can prevent the change from being seen. The Progressive Conservatives there were centre-right are still around, but the CPC was too far right for them. Read the history.

I dont have tie for a lot right now, but I encourage anyone else to provide sources as well. Here is one that puts the CPC tot he right of centre-right:

brill (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Center-right party[edit]

Numerous sources above. Why is this even being debated? Funny how the SOCIALIST New Democratic Party is listed as Center-left, and not Left-wing. No bias here!

Thismightbezach (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

All of the sources you've given date from before the last election. Since then the party has made dramatic changes in their policy owing to their majority status. A better argument could be made with more recent references. A more clear picture can be deduced after the CPC policy convention has passed and the upcoming throne speech is tabled.

As for the NDP it would seem to be a good time to revisit their position as listed on their page as they are currently going through a policy convention. I do think that centre-left is not very accurate, but I'm sure all can be sorted out once more clear policies are made public. It's tough to have living articles be correct all of the time!

 Zippanova 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it is correct to describe the party as right wing. Its policies are decidedly centre-right. (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be leaning towards centre-right consensus. I tried to make a bold edit here but was reverted asking to take it to talk (but as we can see above, taking it to talk didnt go very far). I provided a number of sources (mostly books by experts) and proposed a compromise solution of "centre-right to right-wing". Is anyone against a compromise solution? Relying only on post-election sources as Zippanova suggested may fall under WP:RECENT. It seems clear to me that at the very least, reliable mainstream sources as well as authors consider them centre-right, and while anecdotal they were always called centre-right by professors in my experience. --Львівське (говорити) 06:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Formerly the Reform Party of Canada"[edit]

I've updated the phrase, "formerly the Reform Party of Canada" to wording which is more historically accurate. The Reform Party was the driving force behind the United Alternative initiative, which was intended to unite like-minded Canadians into a political force capable of forming a government by eliminating vote-splitting.

While Preston Manning and the Reform Party leadership was driving the process, the resulting Canadian Alliance was a brand new political party in its own right. The Reform Party, effectively, merged with the Canadian Alliance in much the same was as the Canadian Alliance ended up merging with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Source? Me. I was there, and I was actively involved in the process. From the official launch of the United Alternative process in London, 1998 through to the eventual announcement of the Reform Party membership's voting to merge with the Canadian Alliance on March 27, 2000. I was in the room at the announcement myself, so my source material is my own personal experience of being there. Scbritton (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Scbritton: I agree with your edit, but you should be clear that you and your personal experiences do not qualify as a reliable source for encyclopedia articles. (See WP:Reliable sources.) Wikipedia policy says in part: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." For future edits, please provides references to such sources. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 09:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think the change I made is significant enough to warrant providing a source, since all it does is add a bit of clarity towards what actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talkcontribs) 13:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Page cleanup suggestion[edit]

This entire page needs a cleanup in my opinion. The polices, history, leadership, etc. of the Conservative Party of Canada, while SIMILAR, are completely separate and unrelated to the polices of the Government of Canada. The Government (which, granted, is led by the leader of the Conservative Party) makes its own policies as a wholly separate entity from the Conservative Party of Canada. The Party is its own corporation whose only official link is the leader. The entire “principles and policies” section should be rewritten to reflect what the Conservative Party’s policy declaration says. Secondly, everything after “The first Harper government” should be moved into its own page.

Perhaps this page can be reduced and we can create a separate page to the effect of “Canadian Governance under Stephen Harper”? Thoughts?Gentek16 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of the historical stuff should be in the Conservatism in Canada page. Also, like you say there's two much overlap between the Conservative government and the actual party policies. And section about principles and policies needs to be completely re-done. The section presently lists government policies, not the party principles as found in its constitution. Jagaer meister (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Any other comments before this is done? Gentek16 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
And hearing none I've taken care of this Gentek16 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This whole thing (and, to be honest, most CanPoli articles from 1993-2006) is a giant mess: Partisan point scoring from 10 years ago, glib and repeated assessments of "vote splitting" with nothing to really back it up, and horserace banter. If anyone wants to work wtih me for a revamp, message me. Knoper (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Principles and policies section is uninformative[edit]

The principles and policies section is a strange mess that talks more about the structure of the party than its beliefs. It reads more like an advertisement and is basically one big weasel word. Can someone address this, preferably rewriting the section as a whole? I think it should be similar to the pages on the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois; a simple list that is a more neutral version of what the parties say on their websites. Mattster3517 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

New Lead![edit]

The lead was short and rather clunky, so the lead has been heavily expanded. Hopefully the "this lead section needs expansion" notice can be deleted in due time. Thanks!AndersenLjundberg (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)AndersenLjundberg 16 May 2015 (5:40 pm) (EST)

Intro: The party's predecessors[edit]

Made a few tweaks to point out that the party has 2 predecessors. The Conservatives/Progressive Conservatives & Reform/Canadian Alliance. The lead needs more work to reflect this fact. Lately, it's been erroneously made to appear as though the party only succeeded the Conservative/Progressive Conservatives. The Reform/Canadian Alliance, has been nearly neglected. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Provincial governments[edit]

An unregistered editor is trying to add bars to indicate that this federal political party controls no provinicial governments. We don't need to state the obvious. It doesn't belong here. Feel free to discuss, but let's leave it out unless there is a consensus here to add it. Ground Zero | t 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Federal parties in Canada are not fully integrated in provincial politics, with the exception of the NDP. The conservatives have no provincial affiliates; while the liberals don't have one in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and the NWT. Canada is not like the US where the GOP and democrats run from the white house to every state legislature. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Kndimov. I have also raised this issue at Talk:Liberal Party of Canada. Ground Zero | t 00:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservative Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Whoever listed factions in the CPC is incorrect. These aren't actual political factions.Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's how it's done on Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States).--Jay942942 (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it shouldn't be, it's certainly not used in that sense in the UK party pages which Canadian parties are more closely patterned after (American party's are structured completely unlike parties in either the UK or Canada). Factions is the wrong word (at least in the formal sense). Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

--Moxy (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Listing "factions" under right libertarianism and social consetvativism is 100% incorrect. The party manifesto voted apon at every conservative convention has been very social conservative (ie, anti-euthanasia, anti-abortion or pro life however your stance, anti-marijuana, ect.) The platform also advocates for libertarians ideals, such as lower taxes and reduced public spending (especially prominent now and durring the Harper administration), so to say it's all "factions" is entirely incorrect. Monarchist45 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


Right now the page is locked because of an edit war over the ideology displayed in the infobox. I would like to find a consensus regarding the ideology of this party so we can get the page unlocked and allow people to constructively editing the rest of the page. I would say the core ideology of the party is Conservatism in Canada, which would be placed in the infobox as Conservatism. I would say some other core ideas of the party that are worthy of inclusion are Economic liberalism, Fiscal conservatism and Constitutional monarchism. I would then go with a Factions subheading, as on Republican Party (United States), which would include ideologies held by sub-groups within the party such as Social conservatism, Libertarianism and whatever else anyone else suggests. There are reliable sources to back up all of these claims, but I would be more than willing to bring some up if there are others disputing my suggestions. What approach do you think should be taken?--Jay942942 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think constitutional monarchism is a core Conservative Party ideology. There are certainly monarchists in the CPC but there are republicans as well. Harper was more of a monarchist than previous Tory leaders (at least since Diefenbaker) but I wouldn't call it central to CPC's programme. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
That is fair, I would be fine with leaving it off.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I would say that Conservatism, Fiscal conservatism, Canadian federalism, and Economic liberalism are the core ideologies of the party. Factions would include Social conservatism, Libertarian conservatism, Liberal conservatism, and Right-wing populism. I think these are the most prominent factions of the party that showed themselves during the recent leadership election. Trost and Lemieux with social conservatism, Bernier with libertarian conservatism, Chong with liberal conservatism, and Leitch with right-wing populism. I am a Conservative party member and well versed in Canadian politics and know the party well. The old PC wing of the party is definitely Centre-right, as seen with Michael Chong, while the old Reform wing is Right-wing, as seen with many of the other candidates for the leadership. The party must be labeled centre-right to right-wing due to the fact that the party encompasses these two factions. Sonicfox44 (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2017 (EST)
I would agree generally, but I think it is important to clarify 'Conservatism in Canada' by using that as the hyperlink rather than the generic 'Conservatism' article, due to the huge differences in the nature of conservatism depending on country. Right-wing populism might be contentious with some but I have no issue with that personally.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the (mis)use of the "factions" section in the US party pages, there are no formal factions in the Conservative party so listing "factions" is simply innaccurate - a faction has some level of organization, even if it's informal and outside of leadership races there really aren't any organized factions. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe the use is in reference to ideological factions, hence why it is under the 'ideology' section of the infobox. Wiktionary defines 'faction' as "A group of people, especially within a political organization, which expresses a shared belief or opinion different from people who are not part of the group" and that's certainly the case here. --Jay942942 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to object and say right-libertarianism is a more appropriate to use rather than libertarian conservative. My two cents though Cowik (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
For the purposes of the infobox I'd say they're pretty interchangeable. Right-libertarianism might be somewhat more accurate as it includes more radical types of libertarian rather than just a small segment of libertarian-leaning right-wingers. I would even be fine with just Libertarianism, since the popular definition of that in Canada is roughly the same as in the United States (right/free market libertarianism).--Jay942942 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I know that news organizations such as the CBC have used that terminology before, be it correct or not. I do know that those are the ideologies that are represented within the party and many sources do confirm this. I would highly suggest that when editing the ideologies section on the page, those ideologies are represented since the CPC is a "big tent" party. Sonicfox44 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2017 (EST)
As the party ideology or as factions of it?--Jay942942 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The thing is these terms are being applied by journalists or other observers on an ad hoc basis, they aren't organic. If there was a self-identfied group of people within the CPC that called itself right-libertarian I'd be more willing to call that a faction but if it's just a term used by media to try to describe different ideological tendencies then less so. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The page is locked, so no one can add or restore material.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The page is locked as we are waiting for you guys to come up with some sort of verification here in the talk page and come to a consensus on what to add.--Moxy (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
We really have to start this conversation because the current page for the CPC is sorely lacking information on ideology and some of the info concerning the political position is inaccurate. Significant parts of t he CPC are much more right-wing than centre-right. Have any of you seen Brad Trost's final speech at the leadership convention? He placed 4th meaning that his constituency is a significant part of the party. Maxime Bernier's economic message is also far more right-wing than centre-right as well and he placed a close 2nd. We must look at the significant parts of the leadership race and look at the ideologies within the party. I strongly believe that what I suggested previously is accurate and the correct ideologies within the CPC Sonicfox44 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2017 (EST)
I agree expansion is needed....but we cant make our own conclusions on perceived positions. We need to regurgitate what reliable sources original research.--Moxy (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC) this source talks about the free enterprise (Fiscal conservatism, economic liberalism) part of the conservative party. this source talks about Maxime Bernier being a libertarian. He himself even describes himself as a moderate libertarian. I would put this down as right-libertarianism. This source talks about the social conservative candidates getting strong support from the membership. These are the core ideologies of the CPC and the sources to prove it. If anyone wants to add sources then that is ok. This is just a start to get us on the path to agreeing on ideologies Sonicfox44 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2017 (EST)

I see the article is sourced to off ed news articles....just horrible ....will search for scholarly publication this weekend.--Moxy (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Conservative Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Conservative Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideological Factions[edit]

Wanted to create a discussion section on Factions in the infobar, since there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus, as the edit is removed without reason or discussion. Without a doubt in my mind, factions should be mentioned next to "Social conservatism" and "Right libertarianism." The Conservative Party in Canada is a Big tent party of politics that are right of centre, meaning differing ideologies are present within the party. These two for example are very differing ideologies and the party itself has never claimed to be fully in support of either of these, though there's strong support for both of these by party MPs and members. An example of the factions within the party can be seen with current leader Andrew Scheer (typically considered part of the social conservative faction) and his competition in the recent leadership election Maxime Bernier (openly part of the Right Libertarian faction of the party). Plus, many sources mention these are factions within the party and other political party Wikipedia pages, for instance the Republican Party (United States) separates and notes the ideological factions of party members in the infobox as to not generalize/oversimplify the party. Spilia4 (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned thanks. In Canada the term "Factions" has a different meaning then the USA....we have regional groups - The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica say.... (The Progressive Conservative Party, similar to the Liberal Party, contained various shades of opinion, and its policies were generally determined by local issues and practical need rather than by ideology ) ........see also Michael Keating; Guy Laforest (2017). Constitutional Politics and the Territorial Question in Canada and the United Kingdom: Federalism and Devolution Compared. Springer. p. 144. ISBN 978-3-319-58074-6.  As for the big tent party best review R. Kenneth Carty (2015). Big Tent Politics: The Liberal Party’s Long Mastery of Canada’s Public Life. UBC Press. ISBN 978-0-7748-3002-7. .....that seen they have been doing much bettter recently J.P. Lewis; Joanna Everitt (2017). The Blueprint: Conservative Parties and their Impact on Canadian Politics. University of Toronto Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-4875-2168-4. --Moxy (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Listing "factions" under right libertarianism and social consetvativism is 100% incorrect. The party manifesto voted apon at every conservative convention has been very social conservative (ie, anti-euthanasia, anti-abortion or pro life however your stance, anti-marijuana, ect.) The platform also advocates for libertarians ideals, such as lower taxes and reduced public spending (especially prominent now and durring the Harper administration). so to say there are "factions" is entirely incorrect Monarchist45 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Maxime Bernier even said he was willing to reopen the abortion debate in Canada, something even Sheer, a right winger with about a 15 year record, said he wouldn't even do. Monarchist45 (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)