I mean, the one wrinkle is this, is that a lot of these groups are struggling to get even close to that $607,000 mark.

I think the thing that adds into the complexity, and I think what is surprising or confusing to people outside of Alberta who are watching, is that the rules also prevent the federal parties and the federal government from really becoming involved.

And people like Corey Tanik, who is a very prominent conservative strategist, just say anything.

It's absurd that it makes no sense.

And in no way should the federal government not have equal weighting to the provincial government in a campaign on the future of Canada.

But these are the rules that Alberta has set and the federal government has so far decided to operate within them.

And what that means is that if...

This may be a simple question, but why does it matter if a campaign has raised more money? What does it represent for, I guess, the message and what it means for the referendum question?

What are the big takeaways, um, you know, from what happened this weekend in terms of what we know about why things went south?

Well, when you take it from the prime minister's perspective, he says that it went south, that he walked away from the table and called the negotiators back because while Ottawa had accepted agreement in principle on sort of Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, the more they probed to get details and hammer out the fine print of that agreement in principle, the l- the worse the deal looked, and that because of that, he decided to walk away from the table.

Um, I think that there, though, is still a lot of questions because it's not a characterization that the Americans fully agree with.

And when you ...

Based on our reporting and the reporting from CBC, there's lots of questions on whether that Wednesday deal was also a good deal and how he would've been able to sell that for Canadians.

I think that the position from the prime minister's office and from the federal government was this was sort of the best option because it would lead to stability with the US, lead to stability with our trading partner, and also give Canada the best market access of all other countries, and that is a huge selling point for Canadian economy, Canadian businesses as they try to attract investment.

Uh, but politically, it was very hard to see how he would've sold even that initial deal on Wednesday.

So do several of his cabinet members.

What have they said?

said?The premiers have given us the most concrete information so far about what we know for sure Canada will make as concessions, and that is that the Prime Minister asked the premiers to put the American alcohol back on the shelves in the stores where it had been banned in places like the East Coast, Ontario, Quebec, and BC, and also that, um, the Prime Minister asked the premiers to end their provincial procurement policies that explicitly, um, targeted or banned American companies from participating in those procurement deals.

So those are two concrete examples of what the US has asked for in return from Canada.

And what's interesting here is that depending on how you look at this deal, Canada could be making concessions and more concessions, because you can look at the concessions the United States is making in two ways.

Yes, we are hearing that the US will lower the tariffs it imposed last year on those key sectors, metals, autos, and lumber, though we don't know by- to what extent and if it will be on all of those sectors.

But at the same time, Canada is conceding as well by accepting a certain level of tariff, and that is a completely different dynamic than you would've ever expected before two years ago.

If somebody had told you two years ago or earlier that we would be ever in an environment where Canada was agreeing to 10% or 15% tariffs on key exports, people would've laughed at you.

Mm-hmm.

And that presents an interesting dilemma of sorts for those provinces, Marika.

It does.

It also, it's so fascinating how big a deal booze has become in these trade talks.

I think, David, when the bans were put in place about a year and a half ago, almost two years ago, nobody expected booze to become the key issue in these trade talks, but it has taken on a symbolic meaning well beyond its commercial value in this trade war.

And So it does give the premiers some cards, but I'll note that the premiers who have the booze bans that are the most sort of noteworthy, BC, Ontario, and Quebec, are also the premiers who face the harshest punishment in these new rounds of tariffs if they come in.

And so the premiers have all said they will only put booze back on the shelves if Canada gets a good deal that addresses not just autos, but also lumber, steel and aluminum.

So it's not just that some deals can come into place and others left on the side.

I wonder what you think we have learned about whether Canada does in fact have leverage on what and how is that playing out?