Photo: Manning Centre c/o: Jake Wright · CC BY 2.0 · file details

Deborah C. Grey

Life dates: not recorded

Pending reviewLiving-person review: PendingCTF-P-PLI-E7717154E26B

Biography

The record holds five affiliation changes for Deborah C. Grey, in the House of Commons. On March 27, 2000 the recorded affiliation changes from the Reform Party of Canada to the Canadian Alliance. In July 2001 the recorded affiliation changes from the Canadian Alliance to the Democratic Representative Caucus. On April 10, 2002 the recorded affiliation changes from the Canadian Alliance to Independent. On April 16, 2002 the recorded affiliation changes from Independent to the Canadian Alliance. On December 23, 2003 the recorded affiliation changes from the Canadian Alliance to the Conservative Party of Canada. All of these changes are recorded as legs of a group event. Four of the five event records carry a citation. The other one is a legacy lead with no source cited. These entries record the affiliations and their dates. They do not record why the changes were made, and nothing here should be read as a statement of motive. The record holds no riding, no year of birth and no election result for Deborah C. Grey. This paragraph was assembled by machine from the rows named in it, and is pending review.

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.

Reform Party of Canada → Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (2000-03-27)
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.
March 27, 2000
Reform Party of CanadaToCanadian AllianceTo 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.
~14 Alliance MPs form Democratic Representative Caucus (2001)
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.
2001year only
Canadian AllianceToDemocratic Representative CaucusTo 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.
Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance → Independent (2002-04-10)
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.
April 10, 2002
Canadian AllianceToIndependentTo 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.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.
Independent → Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (2002-04-16)
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.
April 16, 2002
IndependentToCanadian AllianceFrom 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.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.
Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance → Conservative Party of Canada (2003-12-23)
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.
December 23, 2003
Canadian AllianceToConservative 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.

Crossbench episodes

Where this person left a caucus for the crossbench and later joined a party, the two legs are shown as one sequence. The sequence is the story: what separates a member who went to the crossbench, faced the voters and then sat under a new banner from one who joined another caucus without the voters being asked is what happened between these two dates.

Left the caucusApril 10, 2002To 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.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.
Canadian AllianceToIndependent
Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance → Independent (2002-04-10)
Between the two6 daysReturned to the party they had left.
Joined a partyApril 16, 2002From 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.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.
IndependentToCanadian Alliance
Independent → Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (2002-04-16)
Whether a general election fell between these two dates is not shown here
The verdict depends on how complete the record of general elections is for this jurisdiction, and it is incomplete outside the federal series. An election missing from that table is indistinguishable from an election that never happened, so this page reports the question as open rather than answering it from an absence. The database derives it per leg, together with the reason for every verdict it cannot give.

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.

Claims and the sources cited for them

Every statement this record makes is stored as a separate claim with its own review state and its own citations. A claim with no citation is shown as such rather than omitted.

The record holds five affiliation changes for Deborah C. Grey, in the House of Commons. On March 27, 2000 the recorded affiliation changes from the Reform Party of Canada to the Canadian Alliance. In July 2001 the recorded affiliation changes from the Canadian Alliance to the Democratic Representative Caucus. On April 10, 2002 the recorded affiliation changes from the Canadian Alliance to Independent. On April 16, 2002 the recorded affiliation changes from Independent to the Canadian Alliance. On December 23, 2003 the recorded affiliation changes from the Canadian Alliance to the Conservative Party of Canada. All of these changes are recorded as legs of a group event. Four of the five event records carry a citation. The other one is a legacy lead with no source cited. These entries record the affiliations and their dates. They do not record why the changes were made, and nothing here should be read as a statement of motive. The record holds no riding, no year of birth and no election result for Deborah C. Grey. This paragraph was assembled by machine from the rows named in it, and is pending review.
Pending review
Field:
biography
Confidence:
Medium
Signed by:
Official-source deterministic verifier
Assumptions: Machine-assembled from this database’s own rows and from no other source. The text restates, as sentences, the participant rows attached to this record: the affiliation recorded on either side of each change, the date at the precision that row carries, the jurisdiction and chamber, whether the change is filed under a group event, and whether the event record behind it carries a citation. No date is printed finer than the row’s date_precision, so a year-precision row yields a year and never a day. Both languages are composed from the same rows rather than translated from one another. No motive, benefit, causation or characterisation of a person appears, and none may be added under this claim.
Counterarguments: Two limits, stated rather than glossed. First, the prose is only as sound as the rows beneath it: where a party link is wrong the wrong party name is printed, and where an event is a legacy lead the sentence repeats an unverified lead — saying so, but repeating it. Second, restating a thin record fluently can make it read as established; the pending status on this claim, and the sentence inside the text naming the evidence state, are the only things that say otherwise. Four label-to-party mappings were deliberately not printed, because the party row’s name did not exist on the date of the event; the underlying links were left untouched and are still visible on the record.
- PARLINFO — Changes in Political Affiliation (Library of Parliament)
  Library of Parliament / Bibliothèque du Parlement · record CTF-E-PLI-20000327-34F7167B — Chuck Cadman | 2000-03-27 | Reform Party of Canada -> Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance — research/parlinfo-2026-08-31/transitions.csv line 117 · MUL
  Cited here because it is the source already attached to the affiliation event this paragraph restates. It supports the literal affiliation and date only.
  Archived copy — September 1, 2026
  CTF-S-PLI-DATASET-B36D7418 · Reliability tier: primary official · Rights: link only · Accessed: September 1, 2026
- PARLINFO — Changes in Political Affiliation (Library of Parliament)
  Library of Parliament / Bibliothèque du Parlement · record CTF-E-PLI-20020410-250E8D00 — Deborah C. Grey | 2002-04-10 | Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance -> Independent — research/parlinfo-2026-08-31/transitions.csv line 334 · MUL
  Cited here because it is the source already attached to the affiliation event this paragraph restates. It supports the literal affiliation and date only.
  Archived copy — September 1, 2026
  CTF-S-PLI-DATASET-B36D7418 · Reliability tier: primary official · Rights: link only · Accessed: September 1, 2026
- PARLINFO — Changes in Political Affiliation (Library of Parliament)
  Library of Parliament / Bibliothèque du Parlement · record CTF-E-PLI-20020416-C2A83759 — Deborah C. Grey | 2002-04-16 | Independent -> Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance — research/parlinfo-2026-08-31/transitions.csv line 335 · MUL
  Cited here because it is the source already attached to the affiliation event this paragraph restates. It supports the literal affiliation and date only.
  Archived copy — September 1, 2026
  CTF-S-PLI-DATASET-B36D7418 · Reliability tier: primary official · Rights: link only · Accessed: September 1, 2026
- PARLINFO — Changes in Political Affiliation (Library of Parliament)
  Library of Parliament / Bibliothèque du Parlement · record CTF-E-PLI-20031223-088B9B4B — Chuck Cadman | 2003-12-23 | Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance -> Conservative Party of Canada — research/parlinfo-2026-08-31/transitions.csv line 118 · MUL
  Cited here because it is the source already attached to the affiliation event this paragraph restates. It supports the literal affiliation and date only.
  Archived copy — September 1, 2026
  CTF-S-PLI-DATASET-B36D7418 · Reliability tier: primary official · Rights: link only · Accessed: September 1, 2026

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.

Reform Party of Canada → Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (2000-03-27)

Single sourcePending review

March 27, 2000

Reform Party of CanadaToCanadian AllianceTo 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.

~14 Alliance MPs form Democratic Representative Caucus (2001)

UnverifiedLegacy lead

2001year only

Canadian AllianceToDemocratic Representative CaucusTo 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.

Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance → Independent (2002-04-10)

Single sourcePending review

April 10, 2002

Canadian AllianceToIndependentTo 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.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.

Independent → Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (2002-04-16)

Single sourcePending review

April 16, 2002

IndependentToCanadian AllianceFrom 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.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.

Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance → Conservative Party of Canada (2003-12-23)

Single sourcePending review

December 23, 2003

Canadian AllianceToConservative 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.

Crossbench episodes

Left the caucusApril 10, 2002To the crossbench

Canadian AllianceToIndependent

Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance → Independent (2002-04-10)

Between the two6 daysReturned to the party they had left.

Joined a partyApril 16, 2002From the crossbench

IndependentToCanadian Alliance

Independent → Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (2002-04-16)

Claims and the sources cited for them

Every statement this record makes is stored as a separate claim with its own review state and its own citations. A claim with no citation is shown as such rather than omitted.

Pending review

Field:: biography
Confidence:: Medium
Signed by:: Official-source deterministic verifier

Assumptions: Machine-assembled from this database’s own rows and from no other source. The text restates, as sentences, the participant rows attached to this record: the affiliation recorded on either side of each change, the date at the precision that row carries, the jurisdiction and chamber, whether the change is filed under a group event, and whether the event record behind it carries a citation. No date is printed finer than the row’s date_precision, so a year-precision row yields a year and never a day. Both languages are composed from the same rows rather than translated from one another. No motive, benefit, causation or characterisation of a person appears, and none may be added under this claim.

Counterarguments: Two limits, stated rather than glossed. First, the prose is only as sound as the rows beneath it: where a party link is wrong the wrong party name is printed, and where an event is a legacy lead the sentence repeats an unverified lead — saying so, but repeating it. Second, restating a thin record fluently can make it read as established; the pending status on this claim, and the sentence inside the text naming the evidence state, are the only things that say otherwise. Four label-to-party mappings were deliberately not printed, because the party row’s name did not exist on the date of the event; the underlying links were left untouched and are still visible on the record.

PARLINFO — Changes in Political Affiliation (Library of Parliament)
Library of Parliament / Bibliothèque du Parlement · record CTF-E-PLI-20000327-34F7167B — Chuck Cadman | 2000-03-27 | Reform Party of Canada -> Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance — research/parlinfo-2026-08-31/transitions.csv line 117 · MUL
Cited here because it is the source already attached to the affiliation event this paragraph restates. It supports the literal affiliation and date only.
Archived copy — September 1, 2026
CTF-S-PLI-DATASET-B36D7418 · Reliability tier: primary official · Rights: link only · Accessed: September 1, 2026
PARLINFO — Changes in Political Affiliation (Library of Parliament)
Library of Parliament / Bibliothèque du Parlement · record CTF-E-PLI-20020410-250E8D00 — Deborah C. Grey | 2002-04-10 | Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance -> Independent — research/parlinfo-2026-08-31/transitions.csv line 334 · MUL
Cited here because it is the source already attached to the affiliation event this paragraph restates. It supports the literal affiliation and date only.
Archived copy — September 1, 2026
CTF-S-PLI-DATASET-B36D7418 · Reliability tier: primary official · Rights: link only · Accessed: September 1, 2026
PARLINFO — Changes in Political Affiliation (Library of Parliament)
Library of Parliament / Bibliothèque du Parlement · record CTF-E-PLI-20020416-C2A83759 — Deborah C. Grey | 2002-04-16 | Independent -> Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance — research/parlinfo-2026-08-31/transitions.csv line 335 · MUL
Cited here because it is the source already attached to the affiliation event this paragraph restates. It supports the literal affiliation and date only.
Archived copy — September 1, 2026
CTF-S-PLI-DATASET-B36D7418 · Reliability tier: primary official · Rights: link only · Accessed: September 1, 2026
PARLINFO — Changes in Political Affiliation (Library of Parliament)
Library of Parliament / Bibliothèque du Parlement · record CTF-E-PLI-20031223-088B9B4B — Chuck Cadman | 2003-12-23 | Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance -> Conservative Party of Canada — research/parlinfo-2026-08-31/transitions.csv line 118 · MUL
Cited here because it is the source already attached to the affiliation event this paragraph restates. It supports the literal affiliation and date only.
Archived copy — September 1, 2026
CTF-S-PLI-DATASET-B36D7418 · Reliability tier: primary official · Rights: link only · Accessed: September 1, 2026