Referring to the provincial government’s $4 million campaign in the referendum, NDP leader Naheed Nenshi said, “If this were a regular election, that kind of government spending would be illegal.”

With months of demanding that the premier take a solid stance on the unity issue, Nenshi is implying the solid stance is unethical to the point of infringing on legality.

Nenshi is correct in pointing out that this isn’t a regular election. It is a government-put referendum on government-drafted questions. Smith said the quiet part in the spring: they are “government-sponsored questions,” and she would not be “a bystander.” That is the actual design. Attack the design. Do not pretend the Election Act already forbids what the Referendum Act process was built to allow.

Go Ad Free

The opposition leader tries to play both sides in calling Smith a “separatist of convenience,” then attacks the premier when a tangible campaign against the independence side in the referendum is held.

If the premier is a secret separatist, the independence side of the campaign doesn’t see it. In these ads, the independence side says the opposite. Tanya Clemons (Let Alberta Decide) said the government picked an answer and is spending public money to promote it instead of staying neutral.

Elected governments have large communications departments, and funds are regularly spent on public relations campaigns to promote legislative efforts on their part. The referendum, which is packed with non-binding questions, is a legislative pitch rather than something as legally binding as a general election.

It is fair to question whether or not the government spending and lack of neutrality in the referendum is ethical or necessary. It isn’t fair or reasonable to imply it may press the limits of the law, however.