The Constitution? Unborn Queens? Fascinating stuff (do not insert a “said no one, ever” after that please).
The scene unfolds thusly: Parliament recently approved a gender equity bill as regards which unelected English aristocrat may reign over us (such progressive times in which we live), that met little controversy or opposition – or even much reflection on what an independent country is doing suckling from the symbolic teat of a defunct empire.
The problem, according to a case presented out of Quebec by lawyer André Binette, is that passing a law abolishing primogeniture adds up to a Constitutional amendment, that requires provincial consents – and these processes were not followed.
The interesting point here to me (more than provincial relationships with the Crown, though that is of course a critical part of all this) is that the government’s argument seems to be that there are no changes to the nature of the “office of the Crown” proposed in this legislation – and Binette’s argument is that the person IS the office. You cannot change the process for nominating the person without proposing a change to the office.
I ain’t no constitutional lawyer (newsflash), but I think this makes things very interesting, and very problematic, for monarchists. If government gets its way, would it not set a precedent that, so long as the Office of the Crown retains its constitutional function, personnel changes within that office can be agreed within Parliament and without the provinces and without opening the Constitution? Could we not then decide in the HoC to effectively elect or appoint Canadian office holders to the position without a Constitutional amendment? Making our GGs our kings or queens, in one fell swoop?
If the answer to that is yes, then for once in my little old life, I’d like to see the government get its way on this.
Filed under: Politics, babies, governor general, monarchy, primogeniture, quebec, queen, rob nicholson
Polygonic 
It is highly likely that if the act ever got to the Supreme Court it would be declared unconstitutional. However, the only ones likely to have standing to challenge the act is the provinces, the monarch themselves, or maybe their heirs. It also does not not establish precedent as no court has ruled on it (in the same way creating a law legalizing slavery doesn’t create a precedent by virtue of going unchallenged for a long time..