There was no withdrawal. Every time, he refused to withdraw, deliberately saying replace instead. He wasn't going to budge. Not only unparliamentary language but unparliamentary behaviour too.

He did withdraw and then immediately replaced. Of course, had Trudeau actually answered the questions he was being asked, I doubt very much that there would have been an issue.

The next day, PP simply asked and, once again, Trudeau tried to resort to the tactics of the previous day.

Lots of political commentators that, in no way, could be described as being biased towards PP, stated that the Speaker showed bias and shone the light on his conduct, rather than PP's. Oh, and we won't mention that an NDP MP used the exact same language previously and was not removed.

That's pathetic.
If you heard or read the words used you will know that it was the refusal to withdraw that was the problem.
CBC and other media outlets- In the House and repeatedly asked to withdraw and repeatedly refusing to do so?
It appears not, from googling.

I suggest you review the excerpt from YouTube below. I know it won't cause you to change your mind, but he did "withdraw and replace" as I alluded to above. I can't imagine for one minute that Mulcair stated what he did because he is biased towards PP.

Around 40 seconds in. Storm in a teacup.

Well I already heard it previously.
"Mr Speaker, I replace 'wacko' with extremist."
Again he is asked to withdraw it and this time he says he will replace it with radical.
The speaker says he is not asking for him to replace but to "simply withdraw" and he then says he will simply withdraw and replace. It's a continuous description. There is an 'and' there meaning it's not the simple act requested.
Why is that so difficult to understand? He's been asked to withdraw twice and also to simply withdraw. That means nothing else. Just withdraw. No addition, no condition, no explanation, just withdraw it.

And in not backing down he has repeated what the speaker found unacceptable on each of the previous occasions.

OK. Does that make you feel better?

I still believe that Trudeau came out of this with more egg on his face than PP. I still believe that the Speaker's actions were worse than both of theirs. For the avoidance of any doubt, the last two sentences are opinions and I am not asking you to agree with them.

The lot of them are juveniles. Name calling is pathetic behaviour.

And, once again, Jagmeet Singh, now supporting the budget after his performative time to consider it, begs the question: what are he and his party for?

I was pretty appalled by Pierre Poilievre’s response to the assassination attempt.

Conservatives always want penalty by death. It’s not enough to capture the suspect, they take glee in them being murdered in retribution. It’s sad this person is likely to be our next prime minister.

Not to mention it's a suspect shot dead which is not necessarily the guilty party.
I mean just suppose there's one of those "good guys with a gun" who sees what he thinks is a bad guy with a gun (and who might actually be a good guy with a gun seeing another guy who he thinks is bad guy with a gun) and in trying to neutralise the bad guy with a gun, gets mistaken for a bad guy with a gun by police or security detail and they shoot him, the good guy with a gun.

The real bad guy gets away in the mayhem and the good guy is dead and assumed to be the shooter.

Which one of the above applies to the person that shot at Trump?

Quite possibly none but nobody knows now do they?

However, CanadaJimmy was speaking in general terms with the always wanting penalty by death comment. "Always" doesn't apply to this one does it? And neither did my comment about a fairly well known scenario that is often mentioned when the subject of people and guns comes up.

I can't imagine you are unfamiliar with it so it looks like you're just doing your usual thing.

You'll have to explain to me what my "...usual thing..." is in this context.

It appears to me that the shooter intend to kill and did, in fact, kill someone. He may not have killed the person he intended to kill but, as multiple shots were fired, anyone that suggests that the authorities acted inappropriately in the circumstances will need to explain what action they would have taken had they been in charge.

Live by the sword, die by the sword is my opinion on this scenario. I can't see how society would have been better served by the shooter remaining alive and I will leave it for others to explain their view on that particular issue.

The original comment was about Canada's future PM being supportive of "always want(ing) penalty by death. It’s not enough to capture the suspect, they take glee in them being murdered in retribution."
See, that's a general point and not just about this incident. That is the context.
The expressions I used were very obviously about a different scenario than this one. More context for you.

I am 100% sure you are familiar with the pro-guns argument saying a good guy with a gun can shoot a bad guy with a gun and thus stop the bad guy with a gun shooting so many people, or any at all. It's typical for when there is a shooter randomly shooting people.

Clearly that cannot be the case for a shooter hiding out to take aim at a specific target.

I do not believe someone of your intelligence would think I was talking about this particular incident with my use of expressions common to the 'going postal' style shooting so to ask me how it applied to this incident was mischief making.

OK. I don't believe that PP's comments could be interpreted by any rational person as "all murders deserve to be killed" either, as I believe that he was referencing this particular instance and, for example, I have never heard him suggesting that the death penalty is appropriate in Canada either. I fully accept that I may be wrong.