Photo: United Press International · Public domain · file details

Hazen Argue

Life dates: 1921–1991

Legacy leadLiving-person review: Not reviewed — this check has not been runCTF-P-000009

Biography

Hazen Argue was a Canadian politician. He lost the New Democratic Party leadership to Tommy Douglas in 1961, and on February 20, 1962 his recorded affiliation changed from the New Democratic Party to the Liberal Party of Canada. He was appointed to the Senate in 1966 and resigned from it in 1991. The record does not hold his reasons.

Affiliation changes on record

Every event this person is recorded as taking part in, oldest first. Each links to the full record with its sources.

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation → New Democratic Party (1961-08-03)
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.
August 3, 1961
Co-operative Commonwealth FederationToNew Democratic 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.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.
Hazen Argue (1962)
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.
February 20, 1962
New Democratic PartyToLiberal 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.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.

Where they sat

Compiled affiliation spans — “sat as X from then to then”.

No affiliation spans have been compiled for this person yet. That means the compilation has not been done — it does not mean they never sat with a party.

Recorded election results

Election results held in the project’s earlier tables. They are shown because they are real records, and they are not linked to the affiliation events by anything stronger than the person.

Party as recorded	Votes	Vote share	Result
Liberal	not recorded	not recorded	Defeated
CCF	not recorded	not recorded	Elected

Recorded appointments

Recorded outcomes only. An absence here means nothing has been recorded, not that nothing happened, and no causal link to the affiliation change is asserted unless a source establishes one.

Senate appointment
1966-02-01 – 1991-03-01 · Lester B. Pearson
Senate appointment
1966-02-01 – 1991-03-01 · Lester B. Pearson

Loading…

Biography

Affiliation changes on record

Every event this person is recorded as taking part in, oldest first. Each links to the full record with its sources.

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation → New Democratic Party (1961-08-03)

Single sourcePending review

August 3, 1961

Co-operative Commonwealth FederationToNew Democratic 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.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.

Hazen Argue (1962)

UnverifiedLegacy lead

February 20, 1962

New Democratic PartyToLiberal 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.Read from the two affiliation labels this record carries, by the same rule the database applies. It states the direction of the move, not the editorial ruling on how the leg counts.