The answer to your question is that you've summarized it exactly right. It would not wind up gumming up the business of the House.
Also, if the government insisted on trying to push through a set of standing order changes that were opposed by the opposition parties, what would happen? It would be this endless debate, but of course the government wouldn't try this. Since it's obviously pushing against an immovable object, it would recognize that it's necessary instead to go back and compromise on the substance of the standing order changes. That's in fact what would happen.
That is exactly what happened in the example I gave from March 2020. Realizing that their initial proposal to change the Standing Orders would not be met with success, the government House leader at the time, Pablo Rodriguez, stood up and simply asked the Speaker if they could suspend proceedings while the House leaders met to work out changes.
That's what happened. It took all day, but it wasn't endless. It took a day to sort out a very complicated series of changes. They included not just standing order issues but also passing the CERB legislation.
That's what would actually happen. There would be negotiations, I think mostly behind closed doors, with the House leaders, which of course is already part of our routine. Every Tuesday the House leaders meet, or should meet, to discuss all kinds of business that, if conducted in a more formal venue, would otherwise be very time-consuming.