As you've heard before, the real stumbling block is the requirement for unanimous consent dealing with amendments to the office of Governor General. There are a number of constitutional scholars who believe that the office of Governor General includes all the powers of the Governor General, so in effect one can't touch the Governor General, and the provinces can't touch the Lieutenant Governor.
I'm not persuaded by this argument because I believe it may be unworkable. The powers of our vice-regal officers are a combination of common law and statutory powers. The normal rule that has been established by the Supreme Court of Canada is that common law prerogative powers can be appealed or amended at any time by ordinary statute. That's a fundamental principle of the British constitutional law that we've adopted.
Before 1982, there was a wide range of legislative changes made to the prerogative powers. It would be an absolute nightmare to actually sort out, across all 11 jurisdictions, which matters are still common law prerogative powers and which have been changed by statutory powers.
And I think it would be very odd to move from a principle that Parliament can at any time legislate on the prerogative powers, to move from that position to one where you need the unanimous consent of 11 legislatures to make any changes to the common law powers. That, to me, turns on its head one of the most basic principles of parliamentary sovereignty over the crown. So I would read the office of Governor General as a very narrow construction, largely relating to the existence and perhaps the appointment of people to that office.