Yes. My understanding is that it can't really be considered as a constitutional convention. Part of the reason I think so is precisely that I've spoken at great length about the issue with Peter Russell. His expertise is second to none in this country, and therefore I defer to him in matters constitutional—although I think it makes sense to view it that way.
One thing it does, and part of what establishing a new cultural of governance is going to require, is precisely motions like this, which, while they do not rise to the level of constitutional conventions, nonetheless, if you will, raise the political price on acting in certain ways. They raise the visibility, first of all, don't they? This is something that was happening under the noses of Canadians for over a century without their knowing it: prorogations, which are a normal part of parliamentary procedure. I think it is a historical step, as it were, in the direction of perhaps establishing a constitutional convention, in that it is now something that it will be much more difficult for this Prime Minister or any other prime minister to do without having to at least rhetorically address the kinds of concerns that are expressed in that motion.