One suggestion I had given was a motion to declare that the House views prorogation without its consent as an obstruction of the House's ability to conduct business. I use that language because it then raises the issue of a possible contempt motion.
And here, I would become schizophrenic, because I think it's important to have very strong language that ups the ante. I do have a serious hesitation about constructing something where it automatically becomes a matter of confidence, because if the House is going to rule on the government being in contempt of the House, the government, I think, would quite naturally say that this is a matter of confidence. How can the House have confidence in a government that is in contempt of it?
There are two ways around that. One is for the House to further refine this. If it feels that it wants to make prorogation a matter of ordinary business, the House could, as part of the motion, say that “this shall not be a matter of confidence”, that this is very serious, but we're exclusively saying this is not a matter of confidence. That's a two-edged sword as well, but if it's made a matter of confidence, then the government is upping the ante, and it could resign, if it lost the motion, and call an early election.
One of my earlier comments was that the difficulty in making it an automatic confidence issue is that a government could use prorogation, then, as a means to call an early election under the fixed election date legislation.