Britain's Queen Elizabeth proceeds through the Royal Gallery before the State Opening of Parliament in the House of Lords, at the Palace of Westminster in London on May 27, 2015. (Photo: Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters)
Professors claim law is unconstitutionalUniversite Laval law professors Patrick Taillon and Genevieve Motard went to court, claiming the law was unconstitutional. They argued there is no unwritten rule in Canada that makes the British Queen automatically the Queen of Canada, as the federal government asserted. Furthermore, they said any changes to the rules of the monarchy succession necessitate changes to the Canadian Constitution, which would require the consent of the provinces. A Quebec judge sided with the federal government in February. "No amendment to the Constitution is required," Superior Court Justice Claude Bouchard wrote.
Law 'calls into question Canadian independence'Taillon said he has decided to appeal the decision because the law "calls into question Canadian independence." "It also challenges rights acquired with the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982." The British parliament no longer has the power to make laws for Canada and Taillon believes the Superior Court judgment contradicts that.
Taillon says Canada would have two choices if the law is ever struck down. First of all, it could choose to not open the Constitution, thus not honouring its commitment to the Commonwealth and leaving open the possibility Canada could have a monarch other than the one who reigns in Britain. Or Canada could choose to seek the consent of the provinces, which risks triggering a series of constitutional disputes that could last years and be politically destabilizing for the country. "But that might be the occasion to force things through," Taillon said. No date has yet been set for the appeal.
"It also challenges rights acquired with the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982."