Loading…
Loading…
Class 10
Not a class of event but a class of rule: local law or caucus procedure that changes what a crossing can be, or what evidence a crossing leaves behind, in one jurisdiction.
A local rule changes the meaning of an event, never whether it is recorded. Two rules bear directly on classification. Manitoba amended its Legislative Assembly Act in 2006 to require a member who leaves the caucus of the party under which they were elected to sit as an Independent for the remainder of the term, which makes an in-term party-to-party crossing structurally impossible there. At the federal level, the caucus framework adopted in 2015 gives a caucus a recorded vote on expelling a member, which changes the evidence an expulsion leaves behind.
No effect on counting. A jurisdiction with a restrictive rule will show few or no party-to-party events; that is a fact about the law and has to be labelled as such, or it will be read as missing data. Manitoba’s holdings are correspondingly thin, and one of the few records there is the withdrawn 1986 entry described above. The per-jurisdiction figures are published at /coverage rather than written into this page.
Manitoba’s 2006 restriction, and the federal caucus-expulsion framework of 2015
Both rules are recorded in the project research file. Neither is yet stored in the database with a citation to the statute or standing order, so no record relies on them and they are presented here as findings under review rather than as settled law.
documented, not yet in the database
No `event_type` value is reserved for this class yet, so no count can be taken for it. That is the gap, stated.