I will quickly comment on those two points.
With respect to the last point, I said that it was necessary to limit the discretionary powers of the Governor General. Faced with a Prime Minister who had the confidence of the members, the Governor General had no choice but to prorogue Parliament. She might have been forced into it or agreed reluctantly. But she did not have a choice, and that is the reason I think we are now discussing possible amendments. To prevent such a situation from happening again.
As for the first point, the problem for the Governor General was knowing whether the Prime Minister still had the confidence of Parliament. There are two possible interpretations. Some say that in order to establish that the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of Parliament, there must be a vote in the House to that effect. Others say that other pieces of information are sufficient to prove that the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of Parliament: letters, parliamentary debates and so forth.
In the midst of such a controversy, I would have recommended that the Governor General wait, given the fact that a confidence vote was going to be held soon. Obviously, she did not do what I would have recommended.
I would have expected her to tell the Prime Minister that he was serving as acting prime minister, pending a new confidence vote. She did not do that, given that a Supreme Court judge was appointed during prorogation, as were some senators, something that an interim government cannot do.