As the dust settles from Tuesday’s press conference, Premier Danielle Smith’s emphatic denial of any conflict of interest regarding her husband’s advisory role on provincial business initiatives raises more questions than it answers.
“There’s no conflict of interest,” Smith insisted when I asked about her husband David Moretta’s participation in meetings with potential investors in Alberta’s hydrogen sector. The Premier maintained this position despite growing concerns about the ethical boundaries in play.
For those who’ve watched Alberta politics unfold over recent months, this latest controversy adds another layer to the complex relationship between personal connections and government business under the current administration.
Let’s break this down: Moretta, who has no official government position, participated in meetings with Energy Minister Brian Jean and potential investors from Korea. Though unpaid for this role, the mere presence of the Premier’s spouse in discussions that could potentially shape provincial economic policy has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum.
The Premier framed her husband’s involvement as simply that of a supportive spouse, likening it to accompanying her to various functions. “When I have a spouse event, he comes with me. When we have investors coming to town, he’ll often join me for dinner,” Smith explained, characterizing these interactions as routine protocol rather than substantive policy discussions.
However, Rachel Notley, Leader of the Opposition, sees a troubling pattern forming. “This is yet another example of the Premier’s casual approach to conflicts of interest,” Notley told reporters yesterday. She pointed to existing concerns about Smith’s previous intervention in Alberta Health Services contracts and questioned whether proper ethical walls exist between the Premier’s personal relationships and government business.
Ethics experts across Canada have weighed in on the controversy. Dr. Lori Williams, political scientist at Mount Royal University, noted that “the appearance of conflict matters almost as much as actual conflict in maintaining public trust in government.” Williams suggested that even informal advisory roles by immediate family members warrant clear disclosure and boundaries.
The Premier’s office later clarified that Moretta has no formal advisory role on hydrogen investments or any other government file. Still, the distinction between formal and informal influence remains murky in the court of public opinion.
This controversy emerges against the backdrop of Alberta’s aggressive pursuit of hydrogen development as part of its economic diversification strategy. The province has staked significant political capital on becoming a hydrogen production hub, with the government announcing a $20 million investment in hydrogen infrastructure earlier this year.
Smith defended her husband’s presence in these meetings as beneficial, citing his business background and network. “David has extensive experience in business development that predates our relationship,” she stated, suggesting his insights were valuable even in an unofficial capacity.
The situation highlights the often blurry lines between personal relationships and government functions in provincial politics. While no laws appear to have been broken, political analysts suggest that transparency should be paramount when family members participate in discussions that could influence government policy or investment decisions.
For everyday Calgarians watching this unfold, the central question isn’t necessarily about technical violations of ethics codes, but about whether government business is being conducted with appropriate boundaries and transparency.
As Alberta continues pursuing major investments in emerging sectors like hydrogen, maintaining clear ethical guidelines around who advises government – officially or unofficially – will remain crucial to preserving public confidence in these initiatives.
The Premier’s office has promised additional clarification on protocols for spouse involvement in government business meetings, though no timeline has been provided for when such guidelines might be made public.
For now, Smith remains steadfast that no conflict exists, but as we’ve seen repeatedly in Alberta politics, perception often proves just as politically significant as reality.
