The Role of Leadership in US Business Success

The purpose was to reduce the power imbalance in negotiations between Canadian news publishers and the dominant digital platforms by imposing a negotiated remuneration structure. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the remuneration for used content, forced "final offer arbitration" will occur, which means that an appointed arbitrator will pick between the last offers submitted by each side. If required, the winning party may seek payment in court.In addition, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission would be given new powers to oversee the process by developing an enforceable code of conduct that would guide negotiations, determine which companies the Act applies to, manage complaints, impose penalties for noncompliance, and have regulatory authority over the Act's administration.On the surface, the idea appears appealing. Increase funding for Canadian news providers while limiting the power of disruptive huge internet businesses that have controlled how Canadians acquire their news. So, why does it seem like an imminent disaster?The Act can only succeed if Canadian content is valuable enough to news intermediaries to pay much more for it, and the provisions do not impose unreasonable limits and potentially endless forced compensation.

David killed Goliath because he faced the monster 

on his own terms, from a distance with a slingshot that he was very skilled at wielding. If you believe you can defeat a Canadian David and the Goliaths of Google and Meta, you better have a slingshot and a stone large enough to kill the behemoth.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that "these internet giants' willingness to cut off Canadians' access to local news rather than pay their fair share is a real problem, and they are now resorting to bullying tactics to get their way." "It won't work."Is it bullying or routine business negotiations? The government believed that Canadian content was so vital that they could impose their will and rules on anybody they chose. It is consistent with their repeated political agenda of control and regulation. While the measure is intended to help small outlets stay in business and be fairly compensated, the PBO estimates that around three-quarters of the financial gain will go to media behemoths such as the CBC, Bell, and Rogers/Shaw.Do we really need to focus on raising more money for the CBC? According to Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, "a free and independent press is fundamental to our democracy." The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not independent. It repeatedly demonstrates a bias for the government hand that already feeds it far too well.

Of course, there are feasible alternatives to Bill 

C-18. We might support fair negotiations between huge news organizations and media platforms based on the genuine value and usage of information. This includes the $247 million that Bill C-18 might allocate to Canadian media conglomerates. We may also establish an annual fund to encourage Canadian content and better compensate those whose content is more relevant to Canadians and beyond.The internet media companies may contribute the $89 million expected to flow to print and other small contributors, augmented by higher government tax credits for news media and redirecting of some of the CBC's $1.2 billion in federal financing. According to the Public Policy Forum, such a fund should be handled by a non-profit business that is independent of the federal government.Compensation for print media and tiny sources might be dependent on both a base level of support and the number of clicks on their material. This can be accomplished without the large stick of government control, which has the authority to change rules as it deems suitable. The difficulty of gaming the system by "clickbait" that artificially creates payment views can be overcome by AI analysis of views, most likely using a cheaper algorithm than the $52 million spent to develop the ArriveCan app.The government has backed itself into a political position that is difficult to escape. Rodriguez is currently attempting to reach a deal with Google and Meta. Google is still in talks, although it is unlikely that they will accept the proposal. 

Meta appears to have withdrawn from negotiations

According to Meta, "we have repeatedly shared that in order to comply with Bill C-18 … content from news outlets, including news publishers and broadcasters will no longer be available to people accessing our platforms in Canada." When you present a take it or leave it ultimatum without the leverage to force someone to take it, they will most likely walk away and allow you to suffer the repercussions.Canadian journalists will most likely pay the price for the government's arrogance and error Andrew Coyne was correct when he recently stated in the Globe and Mail that there is a fair likelihood that the next federal election (whenever it occurs) will end in no party holding a majority of House of Commons seats. The Conservative Party has won the popular vote in the last two elections, and recent polling indicates that it is poised to improve its seat count—including a possible plurality of total seats. Coyne also correctly points out that this outcome may result in a constitutional (or at least political) crisis.The risk of a crisis (or at least a period of unrest) appears to be enhanced by the subsequent commentary on Coyne's column. On the one hand, liberal observers would wholeheartedly agree with Coyne's conclusion that the current prime minister should use his incumbency to take the first shot at enacting a throne address and gaining the confidence of the House.