Questions Passed as Orders for Returns  With regard to government expenditures related to preparations for committee appearances by ministers, government officials, or representatives of any government department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, or for appearances by any former official, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) date of the committee appearance, (v) name and title of the individual or individuals appearing at committee, (vi) name of the committee, (vii) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid)?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns  With regard to government dealings with Pollara Strategic Insights (PSI) since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all contracts signed between government departments and agencies and PSI, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid), (v) topics of research or polling covered by the contract, if applicable; (b) what are the details of each poll conducted by PSI for the government, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) questions asked, (iii) results; and (c) what are the details of all meetings held between government officials, ministers or ministerial staff and PSI owner Don Guy, including, for each, the (i) list of attendees, (ii) date, (iii) location, (iv) purpose of the meeting?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns  With regard to government dealings with economists Jim Stanford, Andrew Sharpe, Mostafa Askari, Mel Cappe, Marc Lévesque formerly of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, Don Drummond, Kevin Milligan, Stephen Gordon, Andrew Leach, Paul Beaudry, Pierre Fortin, and Mike Moffat, since November 4, 2015: (a) which of the economists above have received government contracts; (b) what are the details of all contracts with these economists, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which it was awarded (sole-sourced versus or competitive bid); (c) what are the details of all grants or contributions issued to these economists, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of the grant or contribution; and (d) which of these economists have received an Order in Council appointment from the government or have served on any type of government advisory body since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) name of the individual, (ii) body or organization for which they were appointed or served, (iii) position, (iv) start and end dates?

Privilege  Madam Speaker, I think the question is a very important one. I do not stand here as myself; I stand here as the voice of those who sent me here, as does every member of the chamber. What an idea it is that the Speaker would in fact be engaging in partisan preferences in the House and not enforcing the rules as they are set out to ensure fair play, not ensuring that all members are treated equally and not ensuring that the procedures are conducted in such a way that we can be sure as to what the voices of Canadians are and what the outcomes are in terms of both.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, there have been many times. I have played a number of sports, and from time to time players get frustrated with the referee. I have been there and done that. When a call comes in the player's favour, they are happy, but when it does not, of course they claim that the referee is favouring the other side.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, it is absolutely clear that nearly half of the members of the House have already called for the Speaker to step down. Last time, following the video and all of the evidence that was provided to the NDP, the New Democrats said, yes, what the Speaker did was wrong, and, based on the information, they believed that the Speaker just did not know what his role should be.

Privilege  I will tell you.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, the majority of my speaking time was spent explaining why. The evidence mounted even before the Speaker had taken the Speaker's chair. It is not a crime for somebody who has a very robust partisan political history to get elected. Many of us do. The issue is that the Speaker has continued his aggressive partisan behaviour throughout his time in the House of Commons, and everybody knows about it.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I move: That the Speaker's ongoing and repetitive partisan conduct outside of the Chamber is a betrayal of the traditions and expectations of his office and a breach of the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities, all of which this House judges to be a serious contempt and, therefore, declares that the office of Speaker shall be vacated effective immediately before the hour of meeting on the next Monday the House sits following the day this resolution is adopted and directs that the election of a Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2), shall be the first order of business at that Monday's sitting of the House.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, we would request a vote.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege, and I regret having to do that. I am raising this question of privilege today on yet another instance of public display of partisanship on the part of our Speaker, following the promotion of a Liberal Party of Canada event with the Speaker as a featured guest, combined with very partisan, inflammatory language bashing the official opposition, the Conservative Party.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1  Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The bill before us is a combination of the worst features of Liberal budgets over the past nine years. It is more out-of-control spending, more massive deficits, higher debt, higher interest payments and more waste.

Persons with Disabilities  Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for unanimous consent from the House for a take-note debate on the drug decriminalization policy and toxic drug overdoses to be held later today.

2020 Shootings in Nova Scotia  Mr. Speaker, in the past, you have ruled that false titles for individual members must not be used in the House, and you have ruled that those need to be immediately withdrawn. Today, during question period, the member for Milton used a false title. You ruled, correctly, as you have consistently, that the member needed to withdraw that immediately.

2020 Shootings in Nova Scotia  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for North Island—Powell River did not immediately withdraw her comments, and she was sanctioned for the remainder of the day. There is an inconsistency in the rulings in the House. That member was not offered a half an hour to decide whether they would withdraw.