There is a risk that this scenario will cause problems. In the other cases I have in mind, that correspond to the most recent instances dealing with the electoral system—and much longer ago, with prohibition—the reason why a referendum was decided on was precisely because the parties were unable to arrive at an internal consensus, for the “yes” or the “no”.
One tactic that is good policy was for people to say that if it was impossible to find unity within their ranks, it was better to put the question to the voters. In that case, I think doing it simultaneously does not cause a lot of problems because there is a campaign held. In Ontario and British Columbia, when there were referendums on the electoral system, all the politicians spread the word: they agreed not to tell the voters that they supported the system. I think the vast majority of candidates or sitting members were not very enthusiastic about the electoral system proposed. So there was a kind of self-censorship order. They decided it would be preferable not to come out in favour of the existing system to avoid voters reacting the opposite way and saying to themselves that it was probably a good idea after all. You are undoubtedly familiar with this kind of knee-jerk opposition. In other words, the problem you refer to does not arise if the parties are not clearly in favour of the “yes” or the “no” in a referendum.
In the other case, I think you have identified a very good argument, that it may not be wise, in terms of public policy, to do it that way.
As to your question about how to distinguish between the expenses, it all depends on the type of campaign you have. If you say offhand, on television or radio or in an interview with the local paper, that you support the “yes” or the “no”, that is not an election expense. It is if you start printing advertising or incurring expenses that it could become problematic.
Myself, I think it is possible, in accounting terms, to distinguish between referendum spending and election spending. I know it may be a little labour-intensive, but that can also be true sometimes in an election under the existing rules, when it comes to dividing up national expenses and local expenses. You see the difference. The fact is that it is done. The act provides for it.
Have I answered your question?