▁professor , ▁both ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁Mon arch ist ▁League ▁of ▁Canada , ▁agreed ▁with ▁the ▁Cab inet ' s ▁argument . ▁He ard ▁stated ▁the ▁Su cc ession ▁to ▁the ▁Th r one ▁Act , ▁ 2 0 1 3 , ▁was ▁actually ▁unnecessary , ▁as ▁Canadian ▁law ▁dict ates ▁that ▁" wh ome ver ▁is ▁the ▁British ▁monarch ▁is ▁[ Can ada ' s ] ▁head ▁of ▁state ." ▁Pel let ier ▁assert ed ▁the ▁bill ▁did ▁not ▁touch ▁upon ▁the ▁constitution al ▁powers ▁of ▁the ▁Office ▁of ▁the ▁Queen ▁and , ▁hence , ▁was ▁not ▁a ▁constitution al ▁am end ment ▁requiring ▁the ▁support ▁of ▁the ▁provincial ▁legisl atures . ▁ ▁Academ ic ▁and ▁media ▁comment ary ▁ ▁In ▁the ▁ 1 9 9 1 ▁publication ▁Constitution al ▁Change ▁in ▁the ▁Commonwealth , ▁author ▁Les lie ▁Z ines ▁referred ▁to ▁the ▁assertion ▁by ▁Peter ▁Hog g ▁that ▁a ▁change ▁to ▁the ▁rules ▁of ▁monarch ical ▁succession ▁in ▁Canada ▁would ▁require ▁a ▁constitution al ▁am end ment ▁according ▁to ▁section ▁ 4 1 ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution ▁Act , ▁ 1 9 8 2 . ▁Z ines ▁also ▁claimed ▁that , ▁though ▁the ▁succession ▁to ▁Canada ' s ▁throne ▁was ▁out lined ▁by ▁common ▁law ▁and ▁the ▁Act ▁of ▁S ett lement ▁ 1 7 0 1 , ▁these ▁were ▁not ▁part ▁of ▁the ▁Canadian ▁constitution , ▁which ▁" does ▁not ▁contain ▁rules ▁for ▁succession ▁to ▁the ▁throne ." ▁Richard ▁Top or os ki , ▁writing ▁three ▁years ▁later ▁for ▁the ▁Mon