The birth of a Prince rather than a Princess of Cambridge allowed Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government to dodge an immediate Constitutional controversy, but the fundamental issues facing the Canadian federation which he has assiduously avoided remain just below the surface.  The birth of a female heir would have created a situation in which a subsequent younger brother would have had a superior claim to be head of state of Canada when his sister became monarch in London.  The royal birth removes the saliency but not the constitutional and political reality of the situation. In fact, this circumvention of the formal amendment process, if left unaddressed by the Supreme Court, creates a dangerous stealth precedent that may invite future mischief.While the person of Elizabeth II, the Queen of England, serves as the official head of state of Canada, she does so, not as Queen of England, but as wearer of the so-called Maple Crown in her separate and distinct capacity as Queen of Canada.  Therein lays the controversy.  In 2011, the sixteen countries which share the person of Elizabeth II as their head of state agreed in Perth, Australia to certain changes in the succession to the British monarchy required by the Statute of Westminster, chief among them the removal of the preference to male offspring for those born after October 2011.  In 2013 the British Parliament codified these changes in the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013.  The controversy concerns the effect of this British act in Canada.In the spring of 2013 the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper quietly pushed through a bill by the Canadian Parliament called “An Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the Succession to the Throne.”  The key word here is “assenting” as the bill merely rubberstamped the legislation passed by the British Parliament in London.  The Harper government has essentially taken the legal position that since succession to the throne of Canada is not spelled out in the Constitution Act (1982) that Canadian succession is therefore the same as the person who wears the British crown.  In actuality, however, the legislative sleight of hand was dictated by a desire to avoid a controversy with Quebec, which tends to favor abolition of the monarchy altogether.  A similar situation was faced by the government of Australia whose State of Queensland had balked at the new law of succession when it was asked for its consent.While in a commanding political position on the issue, the Harper administration seems to be treading on very weak ground constitutionally.  The Statute of Westminster of 1931 did call for the assent to changes in the laws of succession by each of the Dominion countries which at that time shared a monarch wearing a single, indivisible crown.  However, in 1982 Canada ceased to be a Dominion of the United Kingdom when it repatriated its Constitution and since at least 1953 when Elizabeth II was declared Queen of Canada the Maple Crown has constituted its own distinct office.  The Canada Act of 1982 clearly states that no act of the British Parliament passed after adoption of the Constitution Act has any effect in Canada.  Section 41 of the Constitution Act clearly states that changes to the “Office of the Queen” require not only the consent of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament but each of the provinces.  Harper's legal argument comes down to the view that succession does not pertain to the “powers and privileges” of that Office and therefore do not require such an amending process.  Describing the Canadian bill as a “shoddy arrangement” which “de-patriated” the Canadian Constitution Anne Twomey, a Constitutional expert at the University of Sydney, has opined that the legislation is either “constitutionally invalid” or “completely ineffective.”  In the United States, by contrast, there have been two Constitutional amendments (the 22nd and 25th) dealing with the succession of the American head of state, as mere legislation would in that circumstance be clearly invalid and ineffective.Two Constitutional lawyers from the University of Laval have challenged the parliamentary act for want of provincial consent as well as on the less certain ground that the provision of the new succession law allowing the monarch to marry a Roman Catholic  but not be a Roman Catholic violates the freedom of religion in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the same time another court case was just recently filed in Ontario by certain immigrant groups who object to the oath required of new citizens to declare loyalty to “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors” which also dovetails back to succession itself as a constitutional issue.Meanwhile, the Harper administration has also been floating ideas for reforming or abolishing the Canadian Senate.  Their approach involves, once again,  doing an end run around the full amending process of the Constitution so as to avoid having to gain the consent of all of the provinces as that would place the issue of Quebec at center stage. One can clearly understand why PM Harper wishes to implement his designs with the least amount of friction and to avoid a major crisis, but a Constitution is a Constitution.  The birth of a baby boy on July 22, 2013 allowed the can to be kicked to another day, but the fundamental issues facing the Canadian federation cannot be avoided forever.David W. Wise, a resident of Annapolis, Maryland, is a businessman who publishes frequently on international affairs.  He is an MALD graduate of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies.