BC United members moved to the BC Conservatives during the 2023–2024 realignment. Individual crossings and group summaries must be reconciled before reporting a count.
The 2024 election returned 47 NDP MLAs and 44 Conservative MLAs. The Conservatives became the Official Opposition; they did not win government.
Editorial groupings by period. The events shown for an era are those whose recorded date falls inside its years — and most of them are dated only to a year, so an era boundary that falls mid-year cannot be applied precisely. The coverage report counts the year-only records against the total, live.
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.
Bruce BanmanBC United→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.
Changed party affiliation4 citations · 2 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000086
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.
Flordeliz (Gigi) OslerNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230110-49A32E66
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.
Rebecca PattersonNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230112-BB81636A
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.
Margo GreenwoodNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230124-03112229
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.
Sharon BureyNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230221-531A1D13
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.
Andrew CardozoNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230223-D79DDDF1
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.
Han DongLiberal Party of Canada→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230322-6044C380
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.
Colin DeaconIndependent Senators Group→ToCanadian Senators GroupParliamentary 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230711-7E1D6DFD
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.
Michèle AudetteProgressive Senate 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 countsCounted toward neither total.
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230809-A2B29647
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.
Jane MacAdamNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230915-F54EDC54
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.
Iris G. PettenNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20230919-80FF06E2
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.
Paul (PJ) ProsperNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20231108-A74C25C7
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.
Judy A. WhiteNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20231122-C3F1B320
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.
Joan KingstonNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20231214-6ABC4D54
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.
Rodger CuznerNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20231215-70701663
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.
Michèle AudetteNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate GroupParliamentary 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20231227-2C517AE8
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.
6 participants named in the recordPartly 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.
Changed party affiliation4 citations · 4 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000088
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.
Lela EvansNew Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador→ToProgressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and LabradorTo 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.
Changed party affiliation4 citations · 2 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000089
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.
Fred TilleyNova Scotia Liberal Party→ToProgressive Conservative Association of Nova ScotiaTo 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.
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000128
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.
Lorne DoerksonBC United→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.
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000132
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.
Elenore SturkoBC United→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.
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000133
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.
Teresa WatBC United→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.
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000134
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.
Trevor HalfordBC United→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.
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000135
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.
Peter MilobarBC United→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.
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000136
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.
Ian PatonBC United→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.
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000137
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.
Krista RossNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240110-EED35B2B
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.
John M. McNairNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240115-20463692
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.
Réjean AucoinNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240130-05D2063F
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.
Frances LankinIndependent 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 countsCounted toward neither total.
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240206-F4C59F6F
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.
Brendan MaguireNova Scotia Liberal Party→ToProgressive Conservative Association of Nova ScotiaTo 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.
Changed party affiliation3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000087
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.
Marnie McBeanNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240410-69368A87
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.
Toni VaroneNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240418-8DC70F86
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.
Manuelle OudarNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240502-0E5764FD
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 RichardsCanadian 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 countsCounted toward neither total.
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240521-82A0C3D4
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.
Frances LankinNon-affiliated→ToIndependent Senators GroupParliamentary 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240528-C60BA3CA
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 RobinsonNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240603-80C81A14
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.
Mohammad Khair Al ZaibakNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240604-C78954A9
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.
Iris G. PettenIndependent 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 countsCounted toward neither total.
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240905-33E7E983
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Youri ChassinCoalition Avenir Québec→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000283
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.
Pablo RodriguezLiberal Party of Canada→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20240918-166A22BF
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.
Victor BoudreauNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20241016-C2390EF3
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.
Daryl FridhandlerNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20241022-EFF26BDE
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.
Clément GignacProgressive Senate Group→ToCanadian Senators GroupParliamentary 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.
Changed party affiliation2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20241025-E4EA5815
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.
Paulette SeniorNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20241025-4F87A5BA
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.
Tracy MuggliNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20241120-0DE4E18C
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.
Pierre MoreauNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20241121-C068B138
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.
Suze YouanceNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20241127-8A27C91A
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.
Dallas BrodieConservative Party of British Columbia→ToIndependentTo 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.
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000138
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.
Tara ArmstrongConservative Party of British Columbia→ToIndependentTo 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.
Changed party affiliationno cited sourceCTF-E-000139
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.
Allister SuretteNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250212-CC12C052
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.
Todd LewisNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250228-06826E8B
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.
Kristopher WellsNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250304-D5F5391C
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.
Jordan KealyConservative Party of British Columbia→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-NWS-20250307-531BCD4C
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.
Scott SinclairUnited Conservative Party→ToIndependentTo 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.
Expelled from caucus1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-NWS-20250307-710204F3
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.
Nancy Karetak-LindellNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250325-BE9E83EE
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.
Danièle HenkelNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250408-9D96D9C1
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.
Martine HébertNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250409-B55F2A26
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.
Baltej S. DhillonNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250410-51EE7AE9
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.
Peter GuthrieUnited Conservative Party→ToIndependentTo 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.
Expelled from caucus1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-NWS-20250416-822ADF99
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.
Katherine HayNon-affiliated→ToProgressive Senate 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250501-0C5BDF0A
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.
Dawn ArnoldNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250502-D8EBD9F2
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.
Tony InceNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250513-D7DEDB57
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.
Sandra PupatelloNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250520-EC95A8D4
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.
Charles S. AdlerNon-affiliated→ToCanadian 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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250526-55FC0DA8
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→ToConservative Party of CanadaFrom 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250603-F6222C50
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.
Farah MohamedNon-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.
Other affiliation change1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250604-CBF6307E
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.
Dallas BrodieIndependent→ToOneBCFrom 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 2 distinct sourcesCTF-E-NWS-20250609-52EDCBAF
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.
Tara ArmstrongIndependent→ToOneBCFrom 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 2 distinct sourcesCTF-E-NWS-20250609-96D8DA35
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→ToConservative Party of CanadaFrom 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250610-9C661335
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.
Larry W. SmithCanadian Senators Group→ToConservative Party of CanadaParliamentary 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.
Changed party affiliation2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250612-B30985E3
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.
Pierre MoreauProgressive Senate 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 countsCounted toward neither total.
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250718-4404093E
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.
Julie Miville-DechêneIndependent Senators Group→ToProgressive Senate GroupParliamentary 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250801-E8999E6C
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Pierre DufourCoalition Avenir Québec→ToIndependentTo 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.
Expelled from caucus3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000284
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.
Pierre J. DalphondProgressive Senate Group→ToIndependent Senators GroupParliamentary 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.
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250905-FB1046D2
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Maïté Blanchette VézinaCoalition Avenir Québec→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000285
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Elenore SturkoConservative Party of British Columbia→ToIndependentTo 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.
Expelled from caucus2 citations · 2 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000294
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.
Chris ScottProgressive Conservative Party of Ontario→ToIndependentTo 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.
Expelled from caucus1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-NWS-20250922-DF22941F
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.
Pat DuncanIndependent 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 countsCounted toward neither total.
Other affiliation change2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250923-EBC0BD4B
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.
4 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.
Joined a party2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250924-7A5FF61A
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.
Sandra PupatelloCanadian Senators Group→ToGovernment Representative's OfficeParliamentary 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.
Changed party affiliation2 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-PLI-20250924-DED55274
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.
Dawn AndersonProgressive Senate Group→ToConservative Party of CanadaParliamentary 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.
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-NWS-20251009-344096FC
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.
Amelia BoultbeeConservative Party of British Columbia→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 2 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000281
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.
Becky DruhanProgressive Conservative Association of Nova Scotia→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent2 citations · 2 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000279
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Lionel CarmantCoalition Avenir Québec→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000286
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.
Chris d'EntremontConservative Party of Canada→ToLiberal 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.
Changed party affiliation6 citations · 6 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000090
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.
Isabelle PouletCoalition Avenir Québec→ToIndependentTo 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.
Expelled from caucus3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000288
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Vincent MarissalQuébec solidaire→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000289
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Marwah RizqyQuebec Liberal Party→ToIndependentTo 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.
Expelled from caucus3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000290
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Sona Lakhoyan OlivierQuebec Liberal Party→ToIndependentTo 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.
Expelled from caucus3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000291
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.
Michael MaConservative Party of Canada→ToLiberal 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.
Changed party affiliation7 citations · 5 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000091
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.
Tara ArmstrongOneBC→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-NWS-20251216-0E8D755B
Official and independentVerifiedEvidence: Official and independentAn official record — a chamber’s membership record, a members’ profile, a journal or an election authority — and at least one independent account agree on the literal facts.What you may rely onThe highest level the project awards. Usable as a factual statement without attribution to this site, though a citation is appreciated. Still says nothing about why the person moved.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.
Christian DubéCoalition Avenir Québec→ToIndependentTo 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.
Left to sit as an Independent3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000292