The name under which a member sits changes without the member moving: a caucus renames itself, a party rebrands, or a records system adopts a new label for the same group.
Inclusion rule
Record every leg, flagged as a rename, and hold it out of the headline total by default. A rename is not a decision by the member, and counting it as a crossing inflates every historical total. It has to be stored all the same, because PARLINFO stores it and because a reader reconstructing a member’s affiliation timeline needs the leg for the timeline to be continuous.
Counting rule
Recorded, counted toward neither published figure, and reachable through a filter. A leg is a rename when both of its sides resolve to the same body, however differently the two labels read; where both sides are outside every caucus it is stored separately again, as a change of designation for a member who was already sitting alone. Where a rename is bundled into an episode that also contains a real departure, the legs are split and only the departure is counted.
Worked examples
Seven Bloc Québécois MPs, the Québec debout episode, 2018
Year precision, unresolved. The textbook mixed case: a genuine departure, then successive renamings of the breakaway caucus, then a return. PARLINFO records the legs separately for each of the seven members. Our single year-stamped row cannot yet distinguish them, which is why it stays a lead.
Historical relabelling inside a single party lineage, such as a records system distinguishing a modern Conservative label from a Conservative label used before 1942
Observed in the PARLINFO extract taken by this project. These rows are the main reason a raw transition count from that source overstates a journalist-grade event count.
documented, not yet in the database
What the database holds under this class
359 events currently stored under this class’s event types. Open in the record
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.
Marilyn GladuConservative 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 affiliation8 citations · 8 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000093
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.
Lori IdloutNew Democratic Party→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 · 7 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000122
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.
Matt JenerouxConservative 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-000092
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
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.
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
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.
David EmersonLiberal Party of Canada→ToConservative 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 affiliation3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000073
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.
Belinda StronachConservative 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 affiliation3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000072
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.
Gilles RochProgressive Conservative Party of Manitoba→ToManitoba Liberal PartyTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.
Changed party affiliation3 citations · 3 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000277
CorroboratedVerifiedEvidence: CorroboratedAt least two independent sources support the record, each with a locator. Independent means they do not derive from one another.What you may rely onUsable as a factual statement about the date, the parties and the person. Motive, benefit and causation are never covered by this level, whatever the sources say about them.Editorial status: VerifiedCitable. Check the date precision before writing a day into a sentence, and check the verification level to know which of the two evidentiary standards was met.This record passes the full publication gate.
Frank CalderBritish Columbia New Democratic Party→ToBritish Columbia Social Credit PartyTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.
Changed party affiliation4 citations · 4 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000059
CorroboratedVerifiedEvidence: CorroboratedAt least two independent sources support the record, each with a locator. Independent means they do not derive from one another.What you may rely onUsable as a factual statement about the date, the parties and the person. Motive, benefit and causation are never covered by this level, whatever the sources say about them.Editorial status: VerifiedCitable. Check the date precision before writing a day into a sentence, and check the verification level to know which of the two evidentiary standards was met.This record passes the full publication gate.
Hugh CurtisConservative Party of British Columbia→ToBritish Columbia Social Credit PartyTo another partyWhere the seat went: The seat was carried to another partyBoth sides of the change are parties, and they are different parties. The member sat with one caucus and then sat with another, without the seat being returned to voters in between.What you may rely onThat a party gained a seat it did not win. It says nothing about why: the record separates where a member went from whether they chose to go.How it countsThe direction the floor-crossing total is drawn from, but not the total itself. A small number of legs whose labels read party-to-a-different-party are ruled election-time relabelling, and count toward nothing.
Changed party affiliation1 citations · 1 distinct sourcesCTF-E-000160
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.
Jim QuinnCanadian 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-20260708-DCC6051A
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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