Yes, the fact that the request was bounded in that way and that there was a commitment for a confidence vote was essential. Had the Prime Minister not made that commitment, I do not think the request should have been granted. Moreover, if, let us suppose, on January 25 the Prime Minister had appeared at Rideau Hall and said that he'd like to extend that prorogation, that he'd like the order to be amended and be granted a longer period of time, the Prime Minister's request in that circumstance would have been illegitimate, inappropriate, and the Governor General should clearly have rejected it and required the House to sit on January 26 as agreed.
On June 10th, 2010. See this statement in context.