Thank you so much.
Professor Russell also stated that he wondered, in his point 13:
What if the Standing Orders of the House were to be changed along the lines of the Layton motion..., but with the Conservatives still opposing the motion? Such an addition to the Standing Orders would surely be as binding on the Prime Minister as all other Standing Orders. Failure of a prime minister to observe the Standing Order could result in a ruling of contempt of Parliament and a defeat of the government on a non-confidence motion. According to constitutional convention, a Governor General would be entitled to dismiss a prime minister who refused to resign after losing a vote of non-confidence.
I think Professor Russell takes the idea of a standing order that would provide the parameters for a prime minister to advise the Governor General to use her authority to prorogue Parliament to the extreme. Others have like you suggested that it's not a bad idea to have something in the Standing Orders, but to do it in such a way that it doesn't bind and put Parliament into an even more conflictual position; to do it in such a way that, either prior to the prorogation, if there were a time limit or a number of days of prior notice—or if that was not followed, then once a new session had resumed—it would allow at that point for Parliament to express its opinion on what had taken place, without necessarily leading to a non-confidence vote.
That is not an either/or; it's not the big bludgeon weapon; it's simply that it would provide an opportunity at some point for Parliament to express its point of view. If such a standing order were adopted, the Speaker would be within his right to request a meeting with the Governor General in order to inform her of the Standing Orders once they had been adopted.