Royalty succession changes unopposed
Tories table bill that would allow girl or boy as heir to throne
The modernization of the monarchy took a step forward Thursday, as the federal government introduced legislation that would change the rules of royal succession and allow Prince William’s firstborn child, be it a boy or girl, to ascend the throne.
The changes to the 300-year-old rules are contained in a two-page bill the Conservatives tabled Thursday that also ends the prohibition on a royal marrying a Roman Catholic. The bill, if passed, would see Canada agree to changes in the British law. It may also trigger some debate about whether the government needs to amend the Constitution to make it happen — a process that would involve the provinces and take months.
“Provinces have been free over a year to signal their opposition to ending this barrier to Catholics being part of the Crown and ending the idea that if Will and Kate’s (the Duchess of Cambridge) first child is a girl, that she shouldn’t be able to ascend to the throne. The idea that ending that practice is opposed by any provinces has not been signalled by any of Canada’s provinces,” Heritage Minister James Moore said.
The New Democrats and Liberals said they have no opposition to the bill.
The bill comes less than two years after the Commonwealth countries, where the Queen is head of state, agreed to changes to reform the monarchy, reforms the Queen herself requested. At the time, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the changes “obvious modernizations” that had “universal agreement” among Commonwealth leaders.
The reforms took on a new urgency when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge married in April 2011. Will and Kate announced late last year that they are expecting their first child in July.
The legislation has been shared with other Commonwealth countries, which led to minor wording changes, according to a senior government official. A government official said that lawyers from the Department of Justice and Privy Council Office were satisfied that assenting to the change in British law didn’t require amending Canadian law because the changes didn’t touch the powers of the Crown enshrined in the Constitution. However, Prof. Philippe Lagasse of the University of Ottawa suggested in a recent article that enabling legislation in Canada might not be straightforward. “A change to the rules of succession necessarily amends the Constitution, whether implicitly or explicitly. The question is whether the federal Parliament alone can do so without consulting the provinces,” Lagasse wrote in the Citizen with co-author James W.J. Bowden.