It will be a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The proposed amendment is defeated.
Mr. McKay, just before we go to any other possible amendments, I just want to read something, and I may want to consider it for a while.
On page 533 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, by O'Brien and Bosc, it says that an amendment is out of order procedurally if it is irrelevant to the main motion—which is why I ruled your initial proposed motion out of order—but then it also says it's out of order if it raises a question substantially the same as one that's been dealt with before in the same sitting.
I suppose I'm questioning whether just changing the names of ministers is really providing motions that are substantially the same as motions made before, and if you are going to bring forth another similar proposed amendment, I'd like you to explain why this wouldn't apply and why your proposed amendment shouldn't be ruled out of order.