This comes across as sour grapes from the guy who wrote this. The compromise came Michael, and you were fear mongering this whole time.

That's funny, this appears to be legislation working, not being "salvaged".

"Salvaging" 🤔

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.