I definitely agree with the principle of increasing Parliament's authority and limiting that of the executive. Mr. Savoie and many other students have written books and done studies that are very convincing on the phenomenon and the fact that this parliamentary system, within its British context, is the subject of a power struggle in every country where it exists. It has to do with issues that go well beyond the issue of prorogation.
In my view, it starts with adduction—where we are today. The power of Parliament, of the House of Commons, to choose who represents the government and who does not is its most important power. If the prorogation mechanism can be used to undermine the notion of confidence, all the other battles you are talking about—those involving information and the openness of the government, the tendency to minimize the importance of the law, Parliament's failure to make regulations that are increasingly important, the fact that the Cabinet is not a true cabinet—will be lost if the main battle is lost, the fundamental battle for a responsible government where elected representatives decide right from the start who represents the government. So it is important to win that battle. There will be a lot of work to do after that, but the most important thing is to win the main battle; it is the one that matters most. If that can be won, it is full steam ahead.
Furthermore, you suggested that it was fundamentally impossible to impose any enforceable rules without amending the Constitution, and that is true. However, our political tradition confers a lot of power to political conventions. I do not think these are pre-revolutionary circumstances we are dealing with, but we did learn a lesson in December 2008: that the House of Commons needs to strengthen its authority.
So it would be good to do what we are discussing at the moment; it would set the right tone. We would win the series; there would be other battles, of course, but it would be a good start.