According to the author, the policy was bad because...

1. He estimates the benefits of Bill C-18 as "only" $50 million
2. It was unnerving because "months of uncertainty [...] could have been avoided" (guess who benefits from all the drama?)
3. It's barely at break-even (point number 1 again) because Google will supposedly cancel $100 MM from the Showcase program, which is unrelated?
4. "The government was ultimately able to strike deal largely by changing the law [...] After claiming for months that it would not get involved in negotiations" lmao okay this is the worst one because it's a plain lie

‎

So the bill is bad because the government was able to strike a deal, which is what the author is saying it should have done anyway, and the problem is that the government said "it would not negotiate" - it never said that, it has been in negotiations since always. What is this garbage level of journalism? Geez, it's only outdone by the braindead comments.