My answer is that I think in this matter we should have faith in our fundamental system of government and in the role of the crown and the Governor General. I think if Parliament speaks clearly and without ambiguity, without weasel words, without conditions and without such penalties that raise questions of doubt and complexity into it, and says that when a vote of confidence is before the House, you shall not prorogue in any circumstances, period--in clear language similar to what you find in this constitutional language that I referred to--then I would be quite surprised if the Governor General permitted that to happen. That being so, it would have the power of convention, and I think the role that you should end up in is that no prime minister would do it because they would know with considerable certainty that it would not work. And if it did work, then what we would have learned is that the step we had taken wasn't sufficiently powerful, and there would be plenty of precedent in parliamentary history for a House in such circumstances to then take stronger and stronger measures.
But begin with the principles, and begin by speaking clearly, and then see if practice tells you that you haven't been strong enough.