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.
32 events, not people — 1 of 32 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 Withdrawn records are excluded from this listing.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
3 of 53
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.
6 of 53
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.
1 of 53
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.
Evidence: Single sourceOne source supports the record, with a locator, and it has been read. No second source has confirmed it independently.What you may rely onUsable with the source named in your own copy. Where the single source is a news report, the risk is that the report itself was the origin of a later chain of repetition.Editorial status: Pending reviewRead the attached sources yourself. What is pending is our judgement, not necessarily the evidence.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Marty DeaconNon-affiliated→ToIndependent Senators GroupParliamentary groupRuled an appointment onboardingWhere the seat went: A parliamentary group is on one side of the change or on bothA parliamentary group is not a party and not the crossbench. It contests no election and holds no seat that voters awarded — the Senate has organised around groups rather than parties since 2016 — so moving into one carries no seat anywhere, and moving out of one is not a withdrawal to sit alone.What you may rely onThat the change involved a group rather than a party. Most such legs are in the Senate; the ones in an elected chamber are listed for review, because a breakaway group of sitting members is a closer thing to a crossing than a Senate group change is.How it countsCounted toward neither total.How the record counts it: Ruled an appointment onboardingThe ruling stored on this leg is not the one its two labels imply, and the ruling is what any published figure follows. The commonest reason is that the label changed at a general election, so the voters were asked and nothing was carried anywhere; the other is that no ruling has been made yet, which is not the same as none being needed.
Classified as appointment onboarding, not a floor crossing: this is the earliest Senate affiliation change this database records for this senator, a first move out of non-affiliated status…
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20180228-2BFA2234
Single sourcePending reviewEvidence: Single sourceOne source supports the record, with a locator, and it has been read. No second source has confirmed it independently.What you may rely onUsable with the source named in your own copy. Where the single source is a news report, the risk is that the report itself was the origin of a later chain of repetition.Editorial status: Pending reviewRead the attached sources yourself. What is pending is our judgement, not necessarily the evidence.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.
6 participants named in the recordHead count confirmed editorially: 7Partly named
Parliamentary groupWhere the seat went: A parliamentary group is on one side of the change or on bothA parliamentary group is not a party and not the crossbench. It contests no election and holds no seat that voters awarded — the Senate has organised around groups rather than parties since 2016 — so moving into one carries no seat anywhere, and moving out of one is not a withdrawal to sit alone.What you may rely onThat the change involved a group rather than a party. Most such legs are in the Senate; the ones in an elected chamber are listed for review, because a breakaway group of sitting members is a closer thing to a crossing than a Senate group change is.How it counts
On February 28, 2018, in the House of Commons, the record groups six changes of affiliation, each from the Bloc Québécois to the Groupe parlementaire québécois. Six people are named…
Changed party affiliation2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20180228-E23BB728
Single sourcePending reviewEvidence: Single sourceOne source supports the record, with a locator, and it has been read. No second source has confirmed it independently.What you may rely onUsable with the source named in your own copy. Where the single source is a news report, the risk is that the report itself was the origin of a later chain of repetition.Editorial status: Pending reviewRead the attached sources yourself. What is pending is our judgement, not necessarily the evidence.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Robert BlackNon-affiliated→ToIndependent Senators GroupParliamentary groupRuled an appointment onboardingWhere the seat went: A parliamentary group is on one side of the change or on bothA parliamentary group is not a party and not the crossbench. It contests no election and holds no seat that voters awarded — the Senate has organised around groups rather than parties since 2016 — so moving into one carries no seat anywhere, and moving out of one is not a withdrawal to sit alone.What you may rely on
Classified as appointment onboarding, not a floor crossing: this is the earliest Senate affiliation change this database records for this senator, a first move out of non-affiliated status…
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20180228-EA334CD9
Single sourcePending reviewEvidence: Single sourceOne source supports the record, with a locator, and it has been read. No second source has confirmed it independently.What you may rely onUsable with the source named in your own copy. Where the single source is a news report, the risk is that the report itself was the origin of a later chain of repetition.Editorial status: Pending reviewRead the attached sources yourself. What is pending is our judgement, not necessarily the evidence.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Mary Jane McCallumNon-affiliated→ToIndependent Senators GroupParliamentary groupRuled an appointment onboardingWhere the seat went: A parliamentary group is on one side of the change or on bothA parliamentary group is not a party and not the crossbench. It contests no election and holds no seat that voters awarded — the Senate has organised around groups rather than parties since 2016 — so moving into one carries no seat anywhere, and moving out of one is not a withdrawal to sit alone.What you may rely on
Classified as appointment onboarding, not a floor crossing: this is the earliest Senate affiliation change this database records for this senator, a first move out of non-affiliated status…
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20180207-4A41A3A5
Single sourcePending reviewEvidence: Single sourceOne source supports the record, with a locator, and it has been read. No second source has confirmed it independently.What you may rely onUsable with the source named in your own copy. Where the single source is a news report, the risk is that the report itself was the origin of a later chain of repetition.Editorial status: Pending reviewRead the attached sources yourself. What is pending is our judgement, not necessarily the evidence.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Mary CoyleNon-affiliated→ToIndependent Senators GroupParliamentary groupRuled an appointment onboardingWhere the seat went: A parliamentary group is on one side of the change or on bothA parliamentary group is not a party and not the crossbench. It contests no election and holds no seat that voters awarded — the Senate has organised around groups rather than parties since 2016 — so moving into one carries no seat anywhere, and moving out of one is not a withdrawal to sit alone.What you may rely on
Classified as appointment onboarding, not a floor crossing: this is the earliest Senate affiliation change this database records for this senator, a first move out of non-affiliated status…
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20180207-2830003B
Single sourcePending reviewEvidence: Single sourceOne source supports the record, with a locator, and it has been read. No second source has confirmed it independently.What you may rely onUsable with the source named in your own copy. Where the single source is a news report, the risk is that the report itself was the origin of a later chain of repetition.Editorial status: Pending reviewRead the attached sources yourself. What is pending is our judgement, not necessarily the evidence.This record does NOT pass the publication gate and is not publishable as verified fact.
Lynn BeyakConservative Party of Canada→ToNon-affiliatedTo the crossbenchWhere the seat went: The member left a caucus and sat as an independentThe change begins at a party and ends outside every caucus. No party gained the seat. A designation such as “Independent Liberal” or “(Not in Caucus)” is on this side of the line: it describes an alignment, not a caucus membership.What you may rely onWhere the member sat afterwards, and only that. Whether they walked out or were expelled is `voluntary_status`, which is recorded separately and reads unknown on most legs; /coverage has the live share.How it countsCounted as its own figure and never added to the floor-crossing total. They are different acts, and a single number that merged them could not answer either question.
On January 5, 2018, in the Senate of Canada, the recorded affiliation of Lynn Beyak changes from the Conservative Party of Canada to Non-affiliated. The event record cites one source, a…
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20180105-BFAE3D5F
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.
7 participants named in the recordEvery participant named
Parliamentary groupWhere the seat went: A parliamentary group is on one side of the change or on bothA parliamentary group is not a party and not the crossbench. It contests no election and holds no seat that voters awarded — the Senate has organised around groups rather than parties since 2016 — so moving into one carries no seat anywhere, and moving out of one is not a withdrawal to sit alone.What you may rely onThat the change involved a group rather than a party. Most such legs are in the Senate; the ones in an elected chamber are listed for review, because a breakaway group of sitting members is a closer thing to a crossing than a Senate group change is.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
In 2018, in the House of Commons, the record groups seven changes of affiliation, each from the Bloc Québécois to the Groupe parlementaire québécois. Seven people are named individually,…
Changed party affiliation14 citations · 8 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000220
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.
Maxime BernierConservative Party of Canada→ToPeople’s Party of CanadaTo 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 2018, in the House of Commons, the recorded affiliation of Maxime Bernier changes from the Conservative Party of Canada to the People’s Party of Canada. The event record cites two…
Changed party affiliation4 citations · 2 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000081
Counted toward neither total.
That the change involved a group rather than a party. Most such legs are in the Senate; the ones in an elected chamber are listed for review, because a breakaway group of sitting members is a closer thing to a crossing than a Senate group change is.
How it counts
Counted toward neither total.
How the record counts it: Ruled an appointment onboardingThe ruling stored on this leg is not the one its two labels imply, and the ruling is what any published figure follows. The commonest reason is that the label changed at a general election, so the voters were asked and nothing was carried anywhere; the other is that no ruling has been made yet, which is not the same as none being needed.
That the change involved a group rather than a party. Most such legs are in the Senate; the ones in an elected chamber are listed for review, because a breakaway group of sitting members is a closer thing to a crossing than a Senate group change is.
How it counts
Counted toward neither total.
How the record counts it: Ruled an appointment onboardingThe ruling stored on this leg is not the one its two labels imply, and the ruling is what any published figure follows. The commonest reason is that the label changed at a general election, so the voters were asked and nothing was carried anywhere; the other is that no ruling has been made yet, which is not the same as none being needed.
That the change involved a group rather than a party. Most such legs are in the Senate; the ones in an elected chamber are listed for review, because a breakaway group of sitting members is a closer thing to a crossing than a Senate group change is.
How it counts
Counted toward neither total.
How the record counts it: Ruled an appointment onboardingThe ruling stored on this leg is not the one its two labels imply, and the ruling is what any published figure follows. The commonest reason is that the label changed at a general election, so the voters were asked and nothing was carried anywhere; the other is that no ruling has been made yet, which is not the same as none being needed.