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.
88 events, not people — 0 of 88 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 Withdrawn records are excluded from this listing.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
0 of 128
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.
0 of 128
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.
0 of 128
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.
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 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-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.
Josée VernerNon-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-20171017-E98D436C
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.
David RichardsNon-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-20170928-3C6E2A32
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.
Stephen GreeneNon-affiliated (Independent Reform)→ToNon-affiliatedIndependent throughoutWhere the seat went: Independent on both sides of the changeThe member sat outside every caucus before and after. The designation changed and the member did not.What you may rely onThat no caucus was joined or left. Most of these are changes of wording in the chamber’s own membership record.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On June 1, 2017, in the Senate of Canada, the recorded affiliation of Stephen Greene changes from Non-affiliated (Independent Reform) to Non-affiliated. The event record cites one source, a…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20170601-E3740B32
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.
18 participants named in the recordEvery participant named
Same body renamedWhere the seat went: Both sides are the same body under two namesThe two labels differ but resolve to one party or one group. The name under which the member sat changed; the member did not move.What you may rely onThat nothing was carried anywhere. The leg is kept so that a member’s affiliation timeline stays continuous, which is why it is visible rather than dropped.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On June 1, 2017, in the Senate of Canada, the record groups eighteen changes of affiliation, each from Non-affiliated (Independent Senators Group) to the Independent Senators Group.…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20170601-05F1BD0D
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.
Elaine McCoyNon-affiliated (Independent Senators Group)→ToIndependent Senators GroupSame body renamedWhere the seat went: Both sides are the same body under two namesThe two labels differ but resolve to one party or one group. The name under which the member sat changed; the member did not move.What you may rely onThat nothing was carried anywhere. The leg is kept so that a member’s affiliation timeline stays continuous, which is why it is visible rather than dropped.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On May 31, 2017, in the Senate of Canada, the recorded affiliation of Elaine McCoy changes from Non-affiliated (Independent Senators Group) to the Independent Senators Group. The event…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20170531-0B2FD163
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.
Wanda Thomas BernardNon-affiliated→ToNon-affiliated (Independent Senators Group)Parliamentary 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.
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-20170330-657240CA
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.
Don MeredithNon-affiliated (Independent Senators Group)→ToNon-affiliatedParliamentary 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 March 10, 2017, in the Senate of Canada, the recorded affiliation of Don Meredith changes from Non-affiliated (Independent Senators Group) to Non-affiliated. The event record cites one…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20170310-7997890A
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.
19 participants named in the recordEvery participant named
Independent throughoutWhere the seat went: Independent on both sides of the changeThe member sat outside every caucus before and after. The designation changed and the member did not.What you may rely onThat no caucus was joined or left. Most of these are changes of wording in the chamber’s own membership record.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On June 13, 2016, in the Senate of Canada, the record groups nineteen changes of affiliation, each from Independent to Non-affiliated. Nineteen people are named individually, and the record…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20160613-BFBD92FC
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.
Elaine McCoyIndependent Progressive Conservative→ToIndependentIndependent throughoutWhere the seat went: Independent on both sides of the changeThe member sat outside every caucus before and after. The designation changed and the member did not.What you may rely onThat no caucus was joined or left. Most of these are changes of wording in the chamber’s own membership record.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On February 17, 2016, in the Senate of Canada, the recorded affiliation of Elaine McCoy changes from Independent Progressive Conservative to Independent. The event record cites one source,…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20160217-3088459E
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.
Jean-Guy CarignanIndependent→ToIndependent LiberalIndependent throughoutWhere the seat went: Independent on both sides of the changeThe member sat outside every caucus before and after. The designation changed and the member did not.What you may rely onThat no caucus was joined or left. Most of these are changes of wording in the chamber’s own membership record.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On October 7, 2002, in the House of Commons, the recorded affiliation of Jean-Guy Carignan changes from Independent to Independent Liberal. The event record cites one source, a primary…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20021007-47220E56
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.
Douglas Donald EverettIndependent Liberal→ToIndependentIndependent throughoutWhere the seat went: Independent on both sides of the changeThe member sat outside every caucus before and after. The designation changed and the member did not.What you may rely onThat no caucus was joined or left. Most of these are changes of wording in the chamber’s own membership record.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On December 13, 1990, in the Senate of Canada, the recorded affiliation of Douglas Donald Everett changes from Independent Liberal to Independent. The event record cites one source, a…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-19901213-85DB692B
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.
Joseph Sasseville RoyIndependent Conservative→ToIndependentIndependent throughoutWhere the seat went: Independent on both sides of the changeThe member sat outside every caucus before and after. The designation changed and the member did not.What you may rely onThat no caucus was joined or left. Most of these are changes of wording in the chamber’s own membership record.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On November 4, 1941, in the House of Commons, the recorded affiliation of Joseph Sasseville Roy changes from Independent Conservative to Independent. The event record cites one source, a…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-19411104-38B5406A
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.
Thomas GreenwayIndependent→ToIndependent ConservativeIndependent throughoutWhere the seat went: Independent on both sides of the changeThe member sat outside every caucus before and after. The designation changed and the member did not.What you may rely onThat no caucus was joined or left. Most of these are changes of wording in the chamber’s own membership record.How it countsCounted toward neither total.
On December 16, 1879, in the House of Commons, the recorded affiliation of Thomas Greenway changes from Independent to Independent Conservative. The event record cites one source, a primary…
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-18791216-71FB0283
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.
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.
What you may rely on
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.