There is understandable confusion about what happens to Alberta’s government and laws after a successful independence vote. Cory Morgan’s Western Standard column raises a fair question: what constitution would an independent Alberta actually adopt? Without something concrete to discuss, independence can sound theoretical. But the sequence matters.Albertans are not being asked to approve somebody else’s constitution on October 19. Question 10 asks whether Alberta should remain a province or whether the government should begin the legal process required to hold a binding provincial referendum on independence, as explained by Elections Alberta. A successful October vote therefore does not declare independence. It starts the process toward the decisive referendum.Nor would Alberta suddenly become a different country the next morning. Danielle Smith remains Premier unless she resigns or loses the confidence of the Legislature. The Legislature keeps sitting. Hospitals operate, teachers teach, police enforce the law, judges hear cases, pensions are paid, and businesses continue under the same laws they operated under the day before.That is a central point Dennis Kalma and I have repeatedly tried to explain. The existing Alberta government continues governing while the transition toward independence is negotiated. At the same time, a separate Constitutional Conference begins the work of designing, debating, and eventually presenting a permanent Alberta constitution to the people for approval. Kalma has described that process publicly in his constitutional discussions.Those are two separate jobs. The elected Alberta government negotiates the terms of independence and keeps the province functioning. The Constitutional Conference considers what kind of government should replace the provincial system once Alberta becomes an independent country..If a later binding referendum produces a clear mandate for independence, Canadian constitutional law does not require Alberta to disappear from Canada at midnight. In the Quebec Secession Reference, the Supreme Court held that a clear majority answering a clear question in favour of secession would create democratic legitimacy and an obligation to negotiate. The federal Clarity Act likewise anticipates negotiations on matters such as assets and liabilities, borders, indigenous rights, territorial claims, and minority protections.Those negotiations determine how Alberta leaves Canada. They do not give Ottawa the right to decide what kind of government Albertans establish afterwards.That is where the Constitutional Conference becomes important. Kalma, constitutional scholar Bruce Pardy, and Matthew Rowley have already been presenting substantially different constitutional models at public meetings. Rowley has advocated a modified Westminster system. Kalma favours a constitutional republic with clearly defined powers, referendums, term limits, and stronger institutional checks. Pardy has advanced his “flipped default” concept, under which government possesses only powers explicitly granted to it. Their competing approaches have been presented through the After Yes Alberta public consultation process and discussed in forums such as Jason Lavigne’s coverage.The important point is not which person or organization is right. None of them gets to decide for Alberta. Their proposals are starting points for a much larger public argument. Albertans would decide whether they wanted a republic or constitutional monarchy, a Westminster parliament or a separately elected executive, one legislative chamber or two, stronger property rights, different protections for free speech and due process, new methods of appointing judges, limits on government power, municipal authority, and the treatment of treaty and indigenous obligations.The Alberta Prosperity Project itself says an independent Alberta constitution would likely emerge from a constitutional convention involving broad public consultation and final approval by referendum. That is exactly as it should be..These debates should be vigorous, but they do not have to be settled before Albertans decide whether they want independence. Independence supporters do not need to agree today on every detail of a constitution for a country that does not yet exist. First comes the decision on sovereignty. Then comes the detailed work of designing the permanent state.Once the Constitutional Conference produces a draft, Albertans would debate it, propose changes, and ultimately ratify or reject it. Elections could then be held under whatever constitutional system the public approves. The constitution would not belong to a political party, an advocacy organization, or a constitutional scholar. It would derive its authority from the people.Throughout that transition, continuity must be the governing principle. An independent Alberta does not need to discard the Criminal Code, commercial law, traffic regulations, property law, contracts, or thousands of other existing rules. A continuity-of-laws statute can simply provide that existing Alberta and applicable Canadian laws remain in force until Alberta’s new legislature chooses to amend or repeal them.That makes independence a transition, not a legal cliff. After a successful referendum, almost everything therefore remains the same in the short term. The crucial change is political: Albertans have decided who will make the final decisions from then on..The Alberta Prosperity Project, Dennis Kalma, the UCP, and certainly Ottawa cannot impose a constitution on a newly formed sovereign Alberta. They can all propose ideas, argue their merits, and try to persuade the public. But the final authority must rest with Albertans.A successful referendum is not a leap into chaos. It begins an orderly transition based on continuity of government, continuity of law, and democratic consent. Alberta keeps what works, negotiates the terms of independence, debates its constitutional choices, and deliberately builds its permanent institutions.Then Albertans — and Albertans alone — decide what kind of country they want, what powers their government will possess, and what constitution will govern them.
