I think one of the things we've heard is that in the Canadian context, in order to change those conventions, you need a constitutional amendment. Even that strikes me as odd, because at that point you then have to write into the Constitution things that are not already there. It's not a simple case of amendment. It's actually developing a constitutional mechanism to govern prorogation.
As Monsieur Taillon said, you may be able to change these things because they aren't written and there is a fluidity to those rules, but you can do that only if the people in the positions of leadership—either the Prime Minister or the Governor General himself or herself—see fit to begin behaving in ways that don't conform to the established convention.
What are some of the paths for Parliament to assert a larger role in decisions about prorogation?