Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with the careful and pedantic argument presented here. However, having said that, I will recap what I left as a comment there.
If one wishes to claim that Stephen Harper still technically had the confidence of Parliament while asking for his prorogation, then -- by the same logic -- one would have to accept that he similarly had that confidence before dumping the country into that last snap election. After all, he had not lost a single vote of confidence. In fact:
On Sept. 7, 2008, Prime Minister Harper advised the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and she accepted that advice. There had not been a non-confidence vote. In fact, there had been no vote at all, as Parliament was not even sitting.
And yet, if memory serves, before calling that election, Stephen the Corpulent could be heard pissing and mewling all over Canadian media about how an election was essential given that the Stephen Harper Party of Canada had lost the confidence of the House. What a fascinating double standard.
And, just to clarify, I'm not accusing Jennifer of a double standard. I'm simply pointing out how two very different (and mutually exclusive) arguments have been used at very different times, both for the benefit of the CPoC. And I'm a little surprised that no one else noticed that.