Liberal MP Yvonne Jones mistakenly forgot to vote for a private member’s bill calling for a national dementia strategy Wednesday evening, causing the bill to falter after weeks of lobbying by the bill’s sponsor, NDP MP Claude Gravelle.

Jones, the MP for Labrador, meant to support Gravelle’s bill but didn’t stand up from her chair in the House of Commons when her name was called by the Speaker, her office said upon reviewing a video of the vote.

“I’m really not sure what happened there,” said Christian Von Donat, an assistant for Jones. “It looks like she didn’t vote mistakenly on this.”

Jones’ office said earlier House clerks accidentally recorded her as having not voted when in fact she had stood up. In the video posted to Parliament’s online archives, Jones appears to be working on an iPad when her turn to vote comes up. The vote ended 140 to 139 against the bill.

Gravelle, who had been pushing other parties to support C-356 for the past month, was expecting Jones to vote onside.

“I had a commitment from the health critic that they would all support the bill,” said Gravelle, referring to Liberal MP Hedy Fry. “It’s odd.”

Jones’ mistake wasn’t the only hiccup in Gravelle’s plan to have C-356 pass second reading and head for committee. A change of heart by Conservative backbencher MP Joe Preston during the vote also downed the bill.

Preston had initially voted for the bill when the Speaker asked for those who support it to rise. But on the next go around for those against, Preston voted a second time. In clarifying his double-vote, he finally voted against.

Gravelle, who introduced the bill to first reading in March, blamed Health Minister Rona Ambrose for breaking a deal that required Gravelle to amend the bill in exchange for having the government’s front bench — ministers and parliamentary secretaries — vote in support.

Instead of a national dementia strategy, the bill would instead call for a pan-Canadian strategy so that it would mimic Health Canada’s own branding for its dementia and Alzheimer’s policies. Ambrose also wanted any reference to an arm’s-length advisory body scrubbed from the bill, since expenses for the experts’ work would have to be paid, said Gravelle.

In an email response about the deal, Ambrose’s office didn’t acknowledge it. But a spokesperson did say the government’s opposition had to do with several items, including the procedural aftermath of having to get authority for funding in a private member’s bill, known as a royal recommendation.

“We acknowledge that Mr. Gravelle was well intentioned with this bill,” wrote Michael Bolkenius, a spokesperson for Ambrose, in an email. “Unfortunately there are a number of areas where it infringes on provincial jurisdiction over healthcare delivery.”

“It would be inappropriate to bring down federal legislation in an area where we already have good cooperation with the provinces,” he said.

Conservatives backbenchers were permitted to vote freely by the party. But the eight MPs who did support the NDP bill weren’t enough to save it from dying.

“It’s a very unfortunate thing,” said Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, who supported Gravelle.

Several of the MPs who voted for C-356 told iPolitics they supported the bill because it could be fixed by further amendments at committee.

“You can sort out the overlap (with the provinces),” said Vellacott. “And if we’re doing some of this stuff, why can’t we support this bill?”

In a tie vote, House Speaker Andrew Scheer would have had to decide its fate, said Vellacott. Precedence in this case would have meant Scheer couldn’t have ended debate on the bill, and would have instead sent it to committee, he said.