Name

There are (at least) three stages. One is the referendum. The second is negotiations. The third is actual independence. The day after a successful referendum, everything legally remains as it was. Alberta is still a province. The Canadian constitution still applies. But Albertans have "repudiated the existing constitutional order." The referendum result has given Alberta a mandate to negotiate its departure from Canada. During these negotiations, Alberta is still a province. The Canadian constitution continues to apply. Everything legally still remains the same. But because Alberta has repudiated the existing constitutional order, the Canadian constitution does not define the scope of the negotiations. The outcome of the negotiations need not conform to what the constitution requires. Everything is on the table. In these negotiations, there will be "no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue." ANY ISSUE. At the moment Alberta actually becomes independent (after the negotiations that lead to Alberta's consensual departure, or following a unilaterial declaration of independence if Canada refuses), the Canadian constitution no longer applies. Alberta will establish its own constitution, governance system, laws and so on. (It may need a transition period to shift from one to the other.) It will be free from Canadian constitutional requirements. After all, it is an independent country. In its new constitutional order, Alberta might choose to keep or adapt some things and discard others. But those will be choices, not requirements (depending also on the outcome of the negotiations).

Essentially, yes. The text of the Constitution does not describe a process for a province to separate. However, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its 1998 reference case about Quebec, described how it could be done. If a province holds a referendum on a clear question supported by a clear majority, it will acquire a mandate to negotiate its departure. The Yes vote in the referendum, the Court said, would amount to a "clear repudiation" of the existing Canadian constitutional order. The province does not acquire a unilateral right to leave on its own terms, the Court said, but nor does the rest of the country have a unilateral right to stop it. The negotiations that follow are political negotiations that have no predetermined outcomes. In those negotiations, the Court said, there would be “no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue.” ANY ISSUE. People like to ask “What if” questions. What if the federal government refuses to negotiate? What if the negotiations do not produce agreement? What if the parties reach a deal but other provinces refuse constitutional amendments to put the deal into effect? We can make educated guesses about some of these, but the reality is that we would be in uncharted territory. We have not been down this road before. No constitutional document describes what happens next. The Supreme Court did not specifically address all the possible permutations. But it did acknowledge that a unilaterial declaration of independence was a possibility. (They emphasized that these are political negotiations that have no legally predetermined outcomes, so don’t come running back to us.) So, no one can be sure. Be skeptical of anyone who claims to know exactly how things will go.