In 1992, that flexibility did mean that everyone got what they wanted. In 1992, Quebeckers were convinced that their approach was preferable. That is the approach that won out. I think there was also another reason.
Politics is funny: you never know exactly where you are going to end up. When the decision was made to consult people by referendum, the belief in the Canadian political class was that it was going to be a cakewalk. There were no speeches from Mr. Trudeau or tape recorded late-night indiscretions from certain people. So they were sure it would pass. I also think that people in the federal government told themselves they had to be careful, if the referendum was held in Quebec under a law that in fact allowed people to spend what they wanted and it passed, the losers would say it was illegitimate. While if the referendum took place under a much more stringent law in that regard, the result would have to be accepted by the losers.
In fact, that isn't how it happened, but personally, I didn't have the impression that money played a very big role in that regard. I know there are cases… Sometimes the one who spends the most wins, that can't be denied. What I dispute, however, personally, is the idea that all you have to do to win is spend money. I think I have seen otherwise.