Talk:2025 Canadian federal election: Difference between revisions

Dissolution of Parliament

Now that Parliament is dissolved, all the people whose pages described them as incumbent members are no longer so. For the British general election last year I devised this template to put on their pages during the dissolution period as a disclaimer against any inaccuracies this caused, to save us the trouble of going through them all at the beginning (and again at the end) of the campaign. I have now created something similar for the election which is just beginning.

The text can, of course, be centrally updated as necessary at different stages of the election timeline. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard of the idea that incumbencies ends when the writ drops, rather than when the election take place. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

In relation to this topic. Do we declare all fed parties (in their respective infoboxes) as having 'no' seats in the House of Commons? That's how we've got it shown at the House of Commons of Canada page. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The way it has always been in the British constitution (from which Canada's of course evolved), is that there are no incumbent Members of Parliament after dissolution, because it is logically impossible to be an incumbent member of a body which has ceased to exist.

This section of House of Commons Procedure and Practice is a little unclear as to whether that applies in Canada:

Three proclamations are usually issued at the time of dissolution. The first is for the dissolution itself, stating that Parliament is dissolved and declaring that “the Senators and Members of Parliament are discharged from their meeting and attendance”.

With dissolution, all business of the House is terminated. The Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the members of the Board of Internal Economy continue in office for the acquittal of certain administrative duties until they are replaced in a new Parliament.143 For the purposes of certain allowances payable to them, Members of the House of Commons at the time of dissolution are deemed to remain so until the date of the general election.144 Members’ offices, both in Ottawa and in their constituencies, remain open in order to allow Members and their staff to provide services to constituents.

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

In Canada, candidates are still referred to as incumbents in the media during the election campaign. That's what matters here. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Not required currently, Thanks for propose this new thing, Robin :) I am not sure British tradition and I am not going to talk about Canadian traditions, but at least currently HoC website still list 'current member of parliament', see here, and for example, if you click on the first MP's page (also you could see his past and current roles here ), you could see HoC still list his 'Current role' as 'Member of Parliament' (and of course, HoC pages were updated, as all MP's standing committee's role are removed). Haers6120 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Also for the same MP's roles page, we see that at least HoC shows MP's term end/start date based on Federal election date, not the dissolution date. Haers6120 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Returning to this topic

Having found a few more sources, I'm highly skeptical of the idea that members remain incumbent after dissolution.
This House of Commons FAQ document from 2015 says

• • When Parliament is dissolved, every seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant. Those who were previously elected to the House of Commons are no longer Members and, with very limited exceptions, lose all of their parliamentary privileges. The individuals who are standing for re-election do not have the status of “Member of Parliament” during the dissolution period; rather they are “candidates” who are governed by Canada Elections Act.
    

This background paper from 2019 says (in section 5.1.1)

• • After dissolution, and the issue of writs for a general election, there are legally no members of the House of Commons.
    

This publication from the Privy Council office last month says

• • When Parliament is dissolved, members of Parliament formally lose their status as such.

There are some purposes for which the former MPs are treated as if still incumbent, but that does not actually make them so. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do we ignore these vacancies, when an incumbent gets re-elected? GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion previously about whether MPs commence service when they are elected, when they are declared elected, when they take their oaths, when Parliament commences or the date they are considered to be on the payroll. These issues are best discussed in articles about the Canadian parliament. For this article, I suggest we follow what the media say. TFD (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

People's Party in infobox (2025)

I know this has been discussed at length prior to the election and it was concluded that we should include them as major media was all depicting them as a major party in 2021 (which at the time I would've supported). But this time around I have seen literally zero coverage of the PPC in the media. They are being excluded from graphics and debates. Last time they got more votes them the greens so including them made sense, but this time according to polls that seems extremely unlikely. I don't really mind having them included, but given their exclusion so far and the fact they've literally never won a seat and it seems extremely unlikely they ever will, I think we should discuss it again. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I started writing this same thing yesterday, but when I started actually looking at the sources to do a comparison I found that the treatment wasn't very consistent. For example CBC is using an image of the five leaders of the LPC, CPC, NDP, BQ, and Greens (with Pedneault) but without Bernier as an intro graphic to many of their election materials, and the PPC is already complaining that they're not invited to the debates (even though the invitees have not yet been announced). But on the other hand CBC's Poll Tracker and the 338Canada aggregator are both still including PPC in results, and the polling agencies themselves have gone both ways (our own article on polling now has a note that the PPC is sometimes rolled in with "other" standings depending on the pollster). I stopped there and didn't look at other sources because I already wasn't seeing consistency. I think that we're not yet at the point where they should be removed, but I do think we're headed in that direction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I also had a topic that I had begun to type up on this. It went: As a reflection of the reliable sources, and as a living encyclopedia in which consensus can change, I propose removing the PPC from the infobox.

I believe that if we're not "at that point", that we are very close to it. The lack of PPC coverage in RSs is telling. If they had met the 5% threshold in 2021, it'd be a stronger argument to keep right now, but it took a consensus to include then, so this is something that should be revisited sooner than later for 2025. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 23:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait until the election is over to decide? It's only about a month(unlike US elections that are on a fixed schedule) 331dot (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, profanity. Not this again. Just wait a month, people. This is not worth the flood of only-seen-for-this-one-issue editors that will appear if you touch this issue with a ten-foot pole. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe waiting until the debates take place and if they're still generally being excluded then we should too. I've been hearing a lot from other editors recently about how we shouldn't give people/parties undo weight. And if they aren't being covered and have no real influence then I don't think they would have a significant enough weight to include. On the polling front I am skeptical to include the PPC just because 338 and CBC poll tracker have them. In the last election 338 included the Maverick Party, but we never had them in the infobox. Polls like to have lots of parties for more data. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should just wait until the election is over, and results are known. It does looks like the PPC are not going to be at the debates though, for what that is worth.[1][2][3]--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should keep the PPC as long as they continue to win over 1% of the vote and consistently get shown by pollsters. Even if they aren't on par with the Liberals or Tories, they definitely aren't a fringe party like the APP or Libertarians. Also 6 leaders looks better then 5. Carolebax (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Retention of content on Wikipedia is based on coverage by reliable sources. Your personal thresholds of what constitutes "fringe" parties are irrelevant. Yue🌙 02:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Per neutrality, the article should follow what reliable sources do. Let the editors of mainstream news media determine which parties should be included, rather than Wikipedia editors. CBC News Poll Tracker currently includes the PPC.[4] So I would keep it as long as reliable sources do. TFD (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's an indicator: Bernier made a campaign stop in Summerside, PE yesterday. In the headline photo in this CBC article, he is pictured speaking behind one of those microphone stands with spaces for reporters to attach their devices, in which there is one CBC microphone and six empty slots. Nobody else covered it at all, or apparently even showed up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Dropped candidates section

I don't remember a campaign so rife with candidates dropped for bozo eruptions present and past; four in a day might be a record. It might warrant its own section, since it's probably in double digits by now if one counts candidates quietly dropped by their parties after media interviews. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

We should wait to make it a story until reliable sources do. As far as I can tell, news media are reporting on the individual withdrawals, but so far not in a way that suggests that the pattern is unusual and worthy of coverage, at least not yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

We now have a story from the Post about this phenom. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Preston Manning on western separatism

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning published an op-ed this week ([5]) warning of rising separatist sentiment in western Canada, specifically calling out Liberal support in Atlantic Canada as "a vote for Western secession", and advising that whichever new government is formed after this election should work to address Alberta's concerns lest extremist elements seize the opportunity to build separatist support in the surrounding provinces and the territories. Several editors have added the op-ed here as a citation for Preston Manning endorsing Pierre Poilievre, although Manning does not mention Poilievre or the Conservatives even once in the entire thing; independent coverage (such as [6]) is also not describing it as an endorsement, not even close. This should not be added to the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is not an explicit endorsement and support its exclusion. Yue🌙 02:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Endorsements and notability

I see that the endorsement table currently includes an endorsement of the NDP from provincial NDP leader David Eby, and an endorsement of the Conservatives by former Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Last election, there was a consensus not to include endorsements like this, on the grounds that they were expected and thus non-notable. Should we follow that rule here as well? — Kawnhr (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I would support a repeat of such a rule. Yue🌙 02:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can just make that declaration, as much as I would like to. If media are covering party leaders endorsing their own parties, we're pretty much required to follow their lead per NPOV. What we need to do is make sure that all listed endorsements are backed up by a properly independent reliable source to demonstrate notability, not sole-sourced to self-published party press releases and donation appeals. This election is already an oddity with a former NDP leader coming out against the party, the Conservative premier of Ontario being soft on support for the federal party, and whatever it is that the premier of Alberta and the former leader of the Reform party are trying to do in light of the Conservative campaign coming apart at the seams. With that in mind I'd support removing the Harper endorsement sourced only to a fundraising appeal, but Eby has been covered by third party sources and should stay in. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with removing Harper's "endorsement" due to poor sourcing, and keeping David Eby's endorsement since it's both sourced and this election shows no guarentee that provincal premiers will just support their federal party. Wab Kinew, for instance, held meetings with both Singh and Carney during the campaign. EagleBoss (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Undue detail in platforms

The table is a terrible presentation to dump an entire party website into. Let's keep the platform table, for all parties, restricted to those platform planks that get significant independent coverage please. Simonm223 (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

These additions were all included in platform comparisons from the major broadcasters. Each had independent coverage from the media, given none of the parties have posted platforms on the website yet. You should try contributing something rather than restricting contributions out of your false sense of balance. EagleBoss (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Significant coverage doesn't mean a newscaster read the website on-air once. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the edits unless you have a consensus on ignoring reliable sources. EagleBoss (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

No. That's not how this works, particularly not when the questions surround WP:DUE. You are giving undue attention to platform planks of a single party that have not gotten significant coverage. Do not try to edit war them back in. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I have never liked these tables. They're huge and often tough to read, and they just seem undue. Wikipedia is not an election resource; people who want to read the party platforms can go and find them on the party's website, or read the news, or find a comparative tool that I'm sure exists. Some of these proposals might be worth noting if they get significant play in the press (eg: the "barbaric cultural practices tip-line" from 2015 became an issue in the election), but they should be covered in prose, where they can be fully contextualized, rather than tossed in a big table. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I would 100% support getting rid of this table altogether. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree necessarily with removing the party platforms, but in past elections (e.g. 2021) the table of party platforms has been just the titles of their platform publications, not a detailed regurgitation of every leader's meaningless talking points on every issue. Instead, using 2021 as an example again, we have a section similar to "issues on the campaign trail" where the most prominent campaign issues are given a summary treatment of each party's statements on those issues, as covered by reliable sources. That would be a much better way to do things. If we can't tell yet what the major issues are, we really could just go week-by-week until after the election and reorganize it later. But as it stands now I also support removing the entire table - we're not here to publicize any party's platform, not one of them nor all of them at the same time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I would be in favour of your method, in general, I just think the table presentation is simply awful for this information. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Also in favour of removing the table and following the lead of the 2021 page. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree. If there are policy planks that have WP:DUE WEIGHT in reliable sources, we can find a way to write it in prose. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 00:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't really understand the purpose of the table if it's just platform links. Do other commonwealth election pages use tables? A cursory glace of this year's Australian and the last two UK election pages doesn't use tables for this purpose. Any policy is included in a written summary of the campaign. EagleBoss (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Would it really be much different from having a table specifically for slogans? ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 00:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly removed the table. I retained the information that was contained within it as a set of bullets under party headers. This isn't ideal but is, at least, more legible than the table was. Discussion of further changes can, of course, proceed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2025

Campaign section, Endorsements section New endorsement of the Conservative Party of Canada made by Durham Regional Police Association. Source: Oneloneedit (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per the endorsements guideline, we require coverage of endorsements by independent reliable sources to establish notability; an organization posting on its own social media does not demonstrate that the endorsement is notable. If you can add an independent source to cite, please make a new request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Addition for conservative campaign section

in the table on the conservative position on the economy it should mention the capital gains deferal if reinvested in Canada. 207.148.176.47 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Endorsements from bankers

There's a vast list of Conservative endorsements from "public figures" but they appear to all be bank executives sourced to a single article in the Toronto Star. I don't really think a bunch of bank executives who wrote an open letter that got pickup in a single article at a single publication are due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It is undue, especially given how many (possibly all) are longtime Conservative donors. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean I'm willing to kind of shrug at former Conservative PMs who are members of the Conservatives being included as endorsers but, yeah, these aren't public people. They're just retired rich guys. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on the endorsement guidelines, it seems this is a valid list to include in endorsements (or perhaps as a group under 'business associations') - these individuals published these endorsements extensively through several online/print papers (Star, Globe, National Post, etc.) and later on social media. Many are large and well known public figures, i.e., Seymour Schulich and Paul Godfrey, arguably much better known for their work and philanthropy across Canada than people like Drew Dilkens or Caroline Mulroney who are known by more niche groups in Ontario. Canadacanada1 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact that these are just "retired rich guys" doesn't make their endorsement less valid? Seymour Schulich is known across Canada and he bears the name of at least 7 university schools in Canada. Canadacanada1 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I've only heard of Godfrey because of baseball. I've never heard of Schulich because I haven't been to university in twenty years; Mulroney was a provincial cabinet minister, and a name far better known to Canadians. This was a paid advertisement. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

To my point below about the wealthy buying notability. A paid advertisement is absolutely WP:UNDUE no matter how many newspapers these people bought. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I very much dislike the idea that the wealthy can buy notability for their opinions. These are opinions and, as such, WP:DUE is relevant. This is undue. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think what you like or dislike regarding the wealth of the endorser is relevant to what is an endorsement? Because you don't know who Seymour Schulich is, he is therefore not deemed a 'public figure'? Nowhere on WP:DUE does it say that if the public figure happens to be a "retired rich guy" who a Wikipedia editor who hasn't been to university for over 20 years doesn't know, they are therefore inherently not a public figure or well known enough to be included on an endorsement list.

Look here, do you recognize all these names, and do you think 99% of Americans would recognize them? No? Therefore, should the majority of them be deleted?

As Ivanvector said below, I propose using the business association category for the coalition of business leaders "Friends of Free Enterprise" as a bare minimum of recognizing this endorsement. Canadacanada1 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I still think that depending on a paid advertisement is the fundamental definition of WP:UNDUE. Your argument concerning mistakes made on US political articles is uncompelling as other stuff existing in Wikipedia is not a justification for it existing here. If there are non-paid sources commenting on this WP:SKYBLUE endorsement of a bunch of old Tories then the suggestion proposed by Ivanvector is better than listing each name independently but I still think this is cruft. Rich conservatives paid to advertise for the conservative. Not exactly valuable knowledge. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Claiming that a provincial cabinet minister is "known by more niche groups in Ontario" than somebody who sponsors university schools strains credulity. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I doubt the vast majority of Canadians can name a single MPP in Ontario, whereas hundreds of thousands of Canadians have degrees from schools that bear Seymour Schulich’s name and his endorsement carries a lot of significance as he is a huge public figure in the education and business worlds in Canada. My point is that the person who made this topics argument is that because he doesn’t know these people and they happen to be rich, retired, and conservative, there is no validity to their endorsement- which I believe is wrong. Canadacanada1 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You know no students actually care, at all, about which interchangeable rich guy bought the naming rights for the local business faculty building. This is something that is entirely irrelevant outside of the work of advancement departments and the files of the CRA. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

As a former student of one of the Schulich schools, I do care, and I would care if he endorsed any other party, as it is significant. I'm not sure how to get you to understand this, but once again, just become someone is rich and paid for their initial endorsement to be broadcasted rather than making it at a podium doesn't make the person or their endorsement irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, people know who Seymour Schulich, Jay Hennick, and Paul Godfrey are, and their endorsement is absolutely significant as these are public figures. This is stupid, and it seems like the consensus below is that they are public figures and should be included as well. Canadacanada1 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I don’t think any of these individuals have endorsed the conservatives before. It’s make a completely biased assumption that these are all long-term conservative insiders. These are public figures, they are making an endorsement, and it should be included, regardless of the medium, their age, or their beliefs. Canadacanada1 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The Elections Canada Contributions database shows their many donations. Dismissing mentioning the fact that these are longtime donors to the Conservative Party as biased... Well, we're not supposed to get personal. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, not sure how this is relevant... isn't it to be assumed that if someone is endorsing a candidate, they have donated to them? Should we be checking all endorsements? I.e., Mike Myers is likely wealthier than many on the business list and has donated, does that make his endorsement dismissible? Out of curiosity I searched Seymour Schulich's in the database, and he has donated exclusively to the Liberal party except for one year in the past 20... which proves my point exactly?? That the fact that they are making this endorsement is substantial???

This is an unnecessary segue from the fact that regardless of their wealth or method of endorsement, they are still public figures, and they still made a formal endorsement, and therefore should be included. Canadacanada1 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Not all public figures' endorsements are noteworthy. If Paul Martin's chief of staff endorsed Mark Carney, that wouldn't be noteworthy; if he endorsed Pierre Poilievre, it would. If a corporate type with a public history of supporting one political party endorsed the same party, it's not noteworthy.

Just being a public figure isn't on par with being a celebrity. Most of the signatories to this ad don't even rate their own Wikipedia articles, let alone possess celebrity outside their own circle of interest. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If Paul Martin's chief of staff endorsed Mark Carney, and reliable sources treat it as noteworthy, we also would. This same argument already came up for Stephen Harper's endorsement. And whether or not someone making an endorsement has also donated to the candidate/party is entirely irrelevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with your proposal Mason54432 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any way backed by policy that we can exclude this endorsement - endorsements are inherently opinions; our guideline for determining whether or not an opinion is due for inclusion is coverage in reliable sources, and these sources are generally considered reliable. However, this endorsement (which the Toronto Sun explicitly notes is a paid advertisement ([7])) should be noted as an endorsement by the business group that these individuals formed for this purpose; what's WP:UNDUE is taking this singular advertisement as support for a separately identified endorsement from each one of the individuals in the group. It should be noted in the table as an endorsement by "Friends of Free Enterprise" (or whatever they're calling themselves; the original National Post page doesn't load for me), and since we have the sourcing for it we could include a footnote explaining that that group includes people such as so-and-so and whatstheirnames. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Media has not been covering it as an organizational endorsement. The CBC writes "Current and former business executives, including Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa, Canaccord Genuity CEO Dan Daviau and past Scotiabank president Brian Porter, signed the open letter"[8], while The Canadian Press says "The group of more than 30 current and past executives includes Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa, Canaccord Genuity CEO Dan Daviau, former RBC Capital Markets CEO Anthony Fell and former Scotiabank CEO Brian Porter."[9] Neither described it as an endorsement from "Friends of Free Enterprise." Instead they are written to describe individual endorsements. Only the prominent endorsers mentioned in the coverage should be included, but it should be individual entries for each endorsers since this group is of no notoriety or prominence, whereas the individuals are. EagleBoss (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That is entirely undue. It was a single advertisement which they took out together. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It has been covered in reliable sources as endorsements by these prominent individuals. The method of the endorsement and your personal opinion seems quite irrelevant. EagleBoss (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• As long as they merit articles I see no reason not to include their endorsement. Retired bankers have as much a right to make a public endorsement as any other notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, of course. The issue here is whether this group of retired bankers who formed an organization for the purpose of purchasing an advertisement to communicate their collective endorsement constitutes an endorsement by the organization, or separate individual endorsements by some of the named prominent figures who form that organization. The media coverage is that this group made an endorsement, and also here are some prominent individuals who are members of that group. It's very much the same as how an endorsement by the Peel Regional Police Association is not an endorsement by the police nor an endorsement by specific named officers who are members of the association, and an endorsement by the Amalgamated Transit Union is not an endorsement by all transit workers, whether or not some people are mentioned by name in media coverage as supporters of any of the organizations' endorsements. This group made a notable endorsement and coverage of that group's endorsement is WP:DUE; it is WP:UNDUE to also separately list each individual comprising the group as having individually made separate endorsements. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Except the media has not been covering it as an endorsement by the organization "Friends of Free Enterprise." Both the CBC and Canadian Press stories don't even mention the groups name in their stories. Unlike the Peel Regional Police Association or the Amalgamated Transit Union, it's not a notable group. Since it was formed solely to facilitate an endorsement by notable individuals, those identified as prominent in the stories should be the ones listed. EagleBoss (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on the number of new websites and journals that have reported on this, and the discussion, it seems we can conclude:

- Simonm223 and G. Timothy Walton don't agree with these endorsements being included because they don't personally know most of the individuals, the individuals are rich and/or old and/or conservative, or because they have donated to the party (which per my search wasn't even accurate) - none of these reasons being WP:UNDUE and simply being personal dislikes,

- Mason54432, Ivanvector, EagleBoss, and I agree that they should be included due to them being public figures (all meriting their own Wikipedia pages and numerous articles written about them, from reliable and diverse sources), and that the coalition they endorsed under is essentially non-existent and larger publications like the CBC and CP omitted altogether.

I believe it is appropriate to reinstate them as individuals. If there are any more objections, please discuss - if not, I will reverse the edits and add them back. Canadacanada1 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

By your own words, you checked one person, and you're using that and conflation to misrepresent my argument. You appear to suffer from a lack of WP:NPOV in this issue and would do well to read WP:EQ. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Again - the fact that an endorser has donated to any political party is irrelevant to whether they A) are a public figure B) have made a legitimate endorsement that can be sourced reputably. I searched all of the endorsers on Elections Canada and saw only a few donations (many of which to various political parties - all of this is a moot point anyways). Canadacanada1 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The first half-dozen I checked horizontally and the first half-dozen I checked vertically yielded no fewer than eleven donations each; one donor had over 50 donations to the Conservative Party and its associated entities. We're done here. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You misrepresented my opinion here: I don't support listing each individual as a separate endorsement; that's giving undue weight to the individuals based on the available sources. I support including the endorsement of the group, and I also suggested including some of the individuals who sources highlighted were part of the group in a sub-list or footnote. I think Mason54432 agreed with me but the indenting above is confusing matters. You're right that I don't support excluding the endorsement entirely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Canadacanda1 You are misinterpreting my statements. I don't think that paid sources are due inclusion as endorsements. If there are unpaid sources that mention this (and I think reviewing this thread that there are) I will acquiesce to @Ivanvector's suggestion that we bundle them as a single endorsement. I feel listing individual names is grossly undue. One of my alma-maters has one of Schulick's tax write-offs on the side of its business school so I can assure you my opinion on whether notable wealthy people constitute public people does not have to do with personal familiarity but rather with my interpretation of WP:LOWPROFILE and my understanding of how the educational advancement industry works. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector my apologies on the misunderstanding (of both your opinion and the indentations) - this does seem like an appropriate thing to do, and I agree given the fact that more and more outlets and journals are reporting on them as a group.

@G. Timothy Walton, once again, whether they have donated is irrelevant to whether they are public figures and have made endorsements to a party. I searched all 33 individuals, several had not donated to any parties, some only small amounts in the hundreds of dollars, many to several parties and many have not donated in years or decades. This has no relevance to the topic at hand, which is whether they warrant being included as credible endorsers. Canadacanada1 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

So what's the consensus here? Am I good to include Friends of Free Enterprise in Canada as a business association endorsement, using a source from Yahoo! News? Canadacanada1 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Green Party of Canada kicked out of Leaders Debates (4/16/25)

It was announced this morning that the Green Party's invitations for the debates has been rescinded. How should the page be updated? Just the standard "Not Invited" or is there something else that can be used

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leaders-debate-commission-green-party-removed-1.7511447 Johnedits (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It was determined that they did not meet the criteria for inclusion(not running enough candidates). Maybe "disqualified"? 331dot (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to split hairs here: the PPC are "not invited" because they didn't meet the Commission's criteria, and now the Green Party is also "not invited" for the same reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

"Invitation rescinded" seems more accurate. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that the invitation was made and then taken away, if I read this right, due to a decision by the Greens to not run as many candidates as initially they intended. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I still don't think categorizing the not invited parties this specifically in a summary table has encyclopedic merit. The Commission has clear criteria for parties to be invited or not, and the PPC and Greens both did not qualify and were not invited. The issue with timing is explained in prose. But this isn't a hill I'm going to die on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What is the required candidates number? The Bloc are running only seventy-eight. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It is candidates in 90% of ridings (ie 343 x 0.9).[10][11] That comes out to 308.7, so probably 309 when you round up. The Bloc should qualify under the other two criteria 1) having a MP at dissolution, and 2) polling above 4%.[12]--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois qualifies due to polling above 4% nationally. Gust Justice (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)