Okay. In Standing Order 52(9), we get to that. This deals with the emergency debates. We're dealing with emergency debates in the House of Commons:
If the Speaker is satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed, the motion shall stand over until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on that day, provided that the Speaker, at his or her discretion, may direct that the motion shall be set down for consideration on the following sitting day at an hour specified by the Speaker.
The Speaker has discretion. The Speaker is the representative of the consensus of the House. Looking back here, the Speaker loses that discretion.
Under the heading of “Take-note Debates” is Standing Order 53.1:
(1) A Minister of the Crown, following consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, may propose a motion at any time, to be decided without debate or amendment, setting out the subject-matter and designating a day on which a take-note debate shall take place, provided that the motion may not be proposed less than forty-eight hours before the said debate is to begin.
(2) A take-note debate ordered by the House pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order shall begin at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and any proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be suspended on that day.
(3) The rules to apply to a debate under the present Standing Order shall be those applied during a Committee of the Whole except that:
It lists the distinctions between that and the standing order. Again, you see this reflected despite the fact that there was consensus against government motion number six....You see this change moving from motion number six to Minister Chagger's discussion paper. After we've all just discussed the importance of consensus and working together, we see something that was rejected a year ago was brought back. In all fairness to Minister Chagger, it hadn't been discussed in-between, so maybe this was the way of bringing it back for potential discussion because maybe this was not the point on which motion number six was rejected. There was no discussion in-between. The government didn't float any balloons, ask questions, or raise things at House leaders meetings. It just came forward now with a tight timeline, which is fitting a pattern of the government dragging its heels and then suddenly declaring this a crisis that must be dealt with instantly through a suspension of the normal practices of the House. That's problematic.
The next thing here in motion number six was, proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38—