Independence Without Chaos

How Alberta Could Govern Itself on Day One

When the legal profession talks about the continuity of laws, they are not reaching for an exotic theory or a revolutionary doctrine. They are describing a conservative, time-tested principle of constitutional law that exists for one overriding reason: to prevent chaos when sovereignty changes hands.

It is a doctrine built on prudence, not ideology. And it is precisely why an independent Alberta would not wake up on day one in a legal vacuum.

At its core, continuity of laws means this: when a new state is created, the existing body of law continues to apply unless and until it is lawfully changed by the new sovereign authority. Independence does not erase the legal order. It transfers control over that order.

This principle is not theoretical. It is embedded in British constitutional practice, reflected in international law, and repeatedly applied in real-world cases of state succession. From Ireland to Singapore to dozens of post-colonial states, continuity of laws has been the default mechanism that allows governments, courts, police, businesses, and citizens to carry on without interruption.

For Alberta, the implications are straightforward and highly practical.

On day one of independence, Alberta could simply declare that all existing laws in force immediately prior to independence continue in force, subject to amendment or repeal by the new Alberta Parliament. That single legal act preserves stability while creating full legislative autonomy going forward. Nothing collapses. Nothing freezes. Life goes on.

Take criminal law. There is a persistent myth that independence would leave Alberta without a criminal justice system. That is flatly incorrect. Alberta could adopt the existing Criminal Code as interim law. Police would still enforce it. Courts would still interpret it. Judges would still rely on decades of Canadian case law as persuasive authority. Over time, Alberta could amend, modernize, or replace sections of that code to reflect local priorities. But there is no operational gap.

The same logic applies to civil law and contract law. Every commercial agreement, mortgage, lease, insurance policy, and corporate charter does not suddenly evaporate. They remain valid and enforceable. Courts continue to function. Businesses continue to operate. Investors continue to have legal certainty. This is not just a legal nicety; it is essential for economic continuity and market confidence.

Case law follows the same pattern. Existing judicial precedents would continue to guide Alberta courts, not because Ottawa commands it, but because legal reasoning does not reset at the border. Over time, Alberta appellate courts would develop their own jurisprudence. Canadian Supreme Court decisions would gradually shift from binding authority to persuasive authority, much like UK decisions did in Canada after 1949. The evolution is incremental, not disruptive.

Administrative law works the same way. Regulatory regimes governing energy, environment, labour, transportation, and professional licensing would continue uninterrupted. The same agencies would operate under the same rules on day one. Independence changes who ultimately controls the framework, not whether the framework exists.

Immigration is often cited as another supposed stumbling block. In reality, it is a textbook application of continuity. Alberta could temporarily continue existing immigration rules and enforcement mechanisms while establishing its own citizenship and immigration statutes. Visas, work permits, and residency status would not vanish overnight. Transitional provisions are standard practice and well understood in international law.

Even constitutional structure benefits from continuity. Alberta could adopt an interim constitution that preserves existing democratic institutions, courts, and rights protections while providing a clear roadmap for reform. This avoids rushed constitutional experiments and gives citizens time to debate long-term arrangements calmly and deliberately.

The benefits of this approach are substantial.

First, it provides legal certainty. Citizens know what the law is. Businesses know the rules they are operating under. Courts know how to decide cases. That certainty is the foundation of public trust and economic stability.

Second, it preserves institutional competence. Judges, lawyers, police officers, regulators, and civil servants do not need retraining overnight. They continue doing their jobs using familiar legal tools while adapting gradually to new sovereign authority.

Third, it restores democratic control without forcing immediate disruption. Independence does not mean rewriting everything at once. It means Albertans gain the power to decide what stays, what changes, and what improves, on their own timeline.

Finally, continuity of laws reinforces legitimacy. A state that demonstrates order, restraint, and competence from day one signals seriousness to its own citizens and to the international community. That matters for recognition, trade, diplomacy, and investment.

In short, continuity of laws is the opposite of reckless change. It is the legal expression of common sense. Alberta would not be inventing a new system from scratch. It would inherit its own system, intact, and then gradually refine it to suit its own values and priorities.

Independence, properly managed, is not a leap into the unknown. It is a transfer of authority executed with discipline. Continuity of laws is how responsible states make that transfer work—and how Alberta could function normally on day one, while building something better over time.