Every affiliation event this project holds, verified and unverified alike. The unit is the event: a caucus that moved together is one row with several participants. Each row states how well dated it is, how well evidenced it is, and whether it meets the publication standard.
33 events, not people — 6 of 33 of the events matching these filters meet the publication standard
This list counts events, not people. A group event is one row here and several people in a person-based tally. Withdrawn records are excluded from this listing. Coverage report
21 of 44
Carried to another party
A seat given to one party at an election, sitting under another party’s banner without an election in between. This is the floor-crossing figure, and it is the only figure that may be published under that name.
13 of 44
Left a caucus for the crossbench
The member left a caucus and sat as an independent. No party gained the seat. This figure has its own headline and is never added to the one beside it — adding the two is the single error this whole classification exists to prevent.
4 of 44
Joined a party from the crossbench
Counted toward neither headline above. The outbound leg of the same episode is already in the crossbench figure, so counting the return as well would count one person twice. Whether the voters were asked in between is the interesting question, and it is answered separately below.
These two figures are never summed. A seat carried to another party and a member who left a caucus for the crossbench are different acts, and a total that merges them answers no question anybody asked.
Measured over the records these filters admit, not over the whole database. The record-wide figures are on the coverage report. This selects RECORDS holding at least one participation of the class asked for, and each matching record still lists all of its people — so a group record where nine members crossed and one left for the crossbench matches either filter, and shows all ten either way. To count acts rather than records, read the figures above, which count people.
Every leg below states where the seat went: to another party, or out of a caucus to the crossbench. The two are counted separately and never share a total. The tally beside each is for the events on this page only, not for the record as a whole.
Nobody has stood behind this record with a citation. It was inherited, or entered from a lead, and it has not been checked against a source.
What you may rely onTreat as a lead, not as a finding. Usable to know where to look; not usable as the basis of a published statement. Expect year-precision dates and unconfirmed party labels.
Editorial status: Legacy leadThe label is a warning, not a formality. Legacy leads are the part of the record most likely to carry a wrong year, a collapsed episode, or a party label that did not exist under that name at the time.
This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Richard NeufeldReform Party of British Columbia→ToBC UnitedTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
In 1997, in British Columbia, the recorded affiliation of Richard Neufeld changes from the Reform Party of British Columbia to BC Liberal. No source is cited for this event record: it is a…
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000175
UnverifiedLegacy leadEvidence: UnverifiedNobody has stood behind this record with a citation. It was inherited, or entered from a lead, and it has not been checked against a source.What you may rely onTreat as a lead, not as a finding. Usable to know where to look; not usable as the basis of a published statement. Expect year-precision dates and unconfirmed party labels.Editorial status: Legacy leadThe label is a warning, not a formality. Legacy leads are the part of the record most likely to carry a wrong year, a collapsed episode, or a party label that did not exist under that name at the time.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
One event in which several members moved together. It counts as ONE event with several participants, never as several separate crossings.
4 participants named in the recordEvery participant named
To another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.
In 1995, in British Columbia, the record groups four changes of affiliation, each from the British Columbia Social Credit Party to the Reform Party of British Columbia. Four people are…
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000174
UnverifiedLegacy leadEvidence: UnverifiedNobody has stood behind this record with a citation. It was inherited, or entered from a lead, and it has not been checked against a source.What you may rely onTreat as a lead, not as a finding. Usable to know where to look; not usable as the basis of a published statement. Expect year-precision dates and unconfirmed party labels.Editorial status: Legacy leadThe label is a warning, not a formality. Legacy leads are the part of the record most likely to carry a wrong year, a collapsed episode, or a party label that did not exist under that name at the time.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
One event in which several members moved together. It counts as ONE event with several participants, never as several separate crossings.
2 participants named in the recordEvery participant named
To another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.
In 1993, in British Columbia, the record groups two changes of affiliation, each from BC Liberal to the Progressive Democratic Alliance. Two people are named individually, and the record…
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000171
UnverifiedLegacy leadEvidence: UnverifiedNobody has stood behind this record with a citation. It was inherited, or entered from a lead, and it has not been checked against a source.What you may rely onTreat as a lead, not as a finding. Usable to know where to look; not usable as the basis of a published statement. Expect year-precision dates and unconfirmed party labels.Editorial status: Legacy leadThe label is a warning, not a formality. Legacy leads are the part of the record most likely to carry a wrong year, a collapsed episode, or a party label that did not exist under that name at the time.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Graham LeaBritish Columbia New Democratic Party→ToConservative Party of British ColumbiaTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
In 1985, in British Columbia, the recorded affiliation of Graham Lea changes from the British Columbia New Democratic Party to the Conservative Party of British Columbia. No source is cited…
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000166
UnverifiedLegacy leadEvidence: UnverifiedNobody has stood behind this record with a citation. It was inherited, or entered from a lead, and it has not been checked against a source.What you may rely onTreat as a lead, not as a finding. Usable to know where to look; not usable as the basis of a published statement. Expect year-precision dates and unconfirmed party labels.Editorial status: Legacy leadThe label is a warning, not a formality. Legacy leads are the part of the record most likely to carry a wrong year, a collapsed episode, or a party label that did not exist under that name at the time.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Al PassarellBritish Columbia New Democratic Party→ToBritish Columbia Social Credit PartyTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
In 1985, in British Columbia, the recorded affiliation of Al Passarell changes from the British Columbia New Democratic Party to the British Columbia Social Credit Party. No source is cited…
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000165
CorroboratedVerifiedEvidence: CorroboratedAt least two independent sources support the record, each with a locator. Independent means they do not derive from one another.What you may rely onUsable as a factual statement about the date, the parties and the person. Motive, benefit and causation are never covered by this level, whatever the sources say about them.Editorial status: VerifiedCitable. Check the date precision before writing a day into a sentence, and check the verification level to know which of the two evidentiary standards was met.This record passes the full publication gate.
One event in which several members moved together. It counts as ONE event with several participants, never as several separate crossings.
3 participants named in the recordEvery participant named
From the crossbenchWhere the seat went: The member left the crossbench for a partyThe return leg: a member sitting outside every caucus joins one. Sometimes the caucus they had left, sometimes another.What you may rely onThat the member ended in a caucus. Whether a general election fell between the departure and this return is the question that separates two very different sequences, and it is answered per leg by `independent_return_intervals`, not by this badge.How it countsCounted toward neither total. The outbound leg of the same episode is already counted as a departure to the crossbench, and adding this one would count a single person twice for one episode.
Garde Gardom, Pat McGeer, and Allan Williams joined Social Credit from Independent status on September 30, 1975. Their earlier May departures from the Liberal caucus remain distinct…
Joined a party1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000161
CorroboratedVerifiedEvidence: CorroboratedAt least two independent sources support the record, each with a locator. Independent means they do not derive from one another.What you may rely onUsable as a factual statement about the date, the parties and the person. Motive, benefit and causation are never covered by this level, whatever the sources say about them.Editorial status: VerifiedCitable. Check the date precision before writing a day into a sentence, and check the verification level to know which of the two evidentiary standards was met.This record passes the full publication gate.
Frank CalderBritish Columbia New Democratic Party→ToBritish Columbia Social Credit PartyTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
The record places Frank Calder’s NDP-to-Social Credit change in 1975. His earlier NDP cabinet service is prior-office history, not an outcome conferred for this change.
Changed party affiliation4 citations · 4 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000059
CorroboratedVerifiedEvidence: CorroboratedAt least two independent sources support the record, each with a locator. Independent means they do not derive from one another.What you may rely onUsable as a factual statement about the date, the parties and the person. Motive, benefit and causation are never covered by this level, whatever the sources say about them.Editorial status: VerifiedCitable. Check the date precision before writing a day into a sentence, and check the verification level to know which of the two evidentiary standards was met.This record passes the full publication gate.
Hugh CurtisConservative Party of British Columbia→ToBritish Columbia Social Credit PartyTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
Hugh Curtis changed from the Progressive Conservatives to Social Credit on October 25, 1974. He won the following general election before entering Cabinet; the sequence does not establish…
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000160
UnverifiedLegacy leadEvidence: UnverifiedNobody has stood behind this record with a citation. It was inherited, or entered from a lead, and it has not been checked against a source.What you may rely onTreat as a lead, not as a finding. Usable to know where to look; not usable as the basis of a published statement. Expect year-precision dates and unconfirmed party labels.Editorial status: Legacy leadThe label is a warning, not a formality. Legacy leads are the part of the record most likely to carry a wrong year, a collapsed episode, or a party label that did not exist under that name at the time.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Tilly RolstonProgressive Conservative Party of British Columbia→ToBritish Columbia Social Credit PartyTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
In 1952, in British Columbia, the recorded affiliation of Tilly Rolston changes from the Progressive Conservative Party of British Columbia to the British Columbia Social Credit Party. No…
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000156
Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.