▁by ▁it ▁when ▁law ▁and ▁she ▁stated ▁both ▁that ▁the ▁Canadian ▁bill ▁was ▁in effect ive ▁and ▁the ▁government ' s ▁methods ▁amount ed ▁to ▁a ▁" de - pat ri ation ▁of ▁the ▁Canadian ▁constitution ". ▁ ▁A ▁Queen ' s ▁University ▁professor ▁of ▁law , ▁Mark ▁Wal ters , ▁supported ▁the ▁government ' s ▁position , ▁agree ing ▁that ▁Canada ▁has ▁no ▁laws ▁of ▁succession , ▁since ▁the ▁pre am ble ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution ▁Act ▁ 1 8 6 7 ▁( which ▁states : ▁" Where as ▁the ▁Provin ces ▁of ▁Canada , ▁Nova ▁Scot ia , ▁and ▁New ▁Brun sw ick ▁have ▁expressed ▁their ▁Des ire ▁to ▁be ▁feder ally ▁un ited ▁into ▁One ▁Domin ion ▁under ▁the ▁Crown ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁Kingdom ▁of ▁Great ▁Britain ▁and ▁Ireland ▁[ s ic ], ▁with ▁a ▁Constitution ▁similar ▁in ▁Princi ple ▁to ▁that ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁Kingdom ") ▁should ▁be ▁interpreted ▁as ▁meaning ▁Canada ▁must ▁always ▁have ▁as ▁its ▁monarch ▁the ▁same ▁person ▁as ▁is ▁monarch ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁Kingdom ▁of ▁Great ▁Britain ▁and ▁Northern ▁Ireland . ▁He ▁concluded ▁that , ▁though ▁" it ▁makes ▁sense ▁for ▁the ▁Canadian ▁Parliament ▁to ▁comp ly ▁with ▁the ▁convention ▁that ▁it ▁recogn izes ▁[ that ▁its ▁consent ▁be ▁granted ▁to ▁a ▁change ▁by ▁Britain ▁to ▁its ▁royal ▁succession ▁laws ] ", ▁the ▁Su cc ession ▁to ▁the ▁Th r one ▁Act ▁ 2 0 1 3 ▁is ▁not ▁necessary , ▁since ▁it ▁" is ▁not ▁required ▁by , ▁and ▁will ▁have ▁no ▁effect ▁upon ,