Yes. I mean, time allocation would not have come into existence, at least not in its current form, without the use of closure, and closure would not have come into existence without the use of the previous question. As to the previous question, that's something we inherited from the British. I'm not exactly sure when, but we did so pre-Confederation.
Yes, the tendency has been that—and this should surprise nobody—a government is motivated to want to restrict the ability to protract debate when it's finding the debate is too protracted, which, by definition, means at a time when the opposition is attempting to draw out debate.
I've gone to some lengths, both in my remarks in the House and today, to avoid commenting in some sort of general way on the merits of time allocation or closure. I was a deputy government House leader for 10 years, so I was part of a government that used closure and time allocation on occasion, and some would say on more than one occasion, so I'm not trying to do that. However, when it comes to placing further restrictions on the House's ability to debate and conduct business and slow things down for the purpose of giving proper examination, regardless of the partisan stripe of who's in office at that time, that is, I think, not the direction we want to head in.
Everything about our system is designed to allow more debate to occur. That's why we have three readings on legislation. That's why we have committee hearings at which amendments can be suggested. The House essentially divides itself up into smaller bodies so that it can do multiple pieces of business at the same time. That's why we have two houses of Parliament instead of just one. We could be unicameral, as all the provinces are, but I think it's actually wiser to go in the direction that has been employed at our federal level and in all state legislatures in the U.S. and in all state legislatures in Australia with one exception, which is to be bicameral.
In general, being slow and deliberate in your actions is reasonable. There are times when it's okay to move more quickly and to suspend the rules. That happened during COVID, for example. When the House was recalled, there were lengthy, all-day hearings—I think it was on March 20, 2020—on suspending the Standing Orders.
I remember I came to the House intending to deny unanimous consent when I thought that was what was going to happen, but once it became clear there had to be discussions, the government and the opposition parties were able to cobble together something that ultimately was, I think, an improvement over what might initially have gone through.
You can, when there's a need, find a way of getting to these things quickly—maybe somewhat messily, but quickly.