I guess I'd respond in a couple of ways.
First, it ends up benefiting primarily the large broadcasters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that 75% of the money goes to the radio and television broadcasters, largely based on the way it was structured. It went outside of the QCJO framework that we have around the labour journalism tax credit, and that ensured that broadcasters, which are dominated by a handful of large players in Canada, would be the major beneficiaries.
Personally, I think it was a mistake. At a minimum, if the goal was to support the core or what we would think of as newspapers or digital publishers, that's where the focus of the legislation ought to have been.
I think there is an answer to your question of why. I think part of the answer to the why is that many of the online news organizations weren't heard. They were oftentimes not given opportunities or when they were—whether at this committee or, frankly, at the Senate—at times they were disrespected.
I can recall that one of the largest of the independents that is operating in many Ontario communities, Village Media, appeared before the Senate. Their CEO, Jeff Elgie, was asked by Senator Harder if he was happy to see newspapers closing because then they could scoop up some of the staff and enter into these new markets.
The idea that online news entities somehow celebrate or welcome the prospect of the challenges that are being faced is such a total misread of where things are at. What we've seen in the recent months is everyone from Village Media to Narcity, to a whole range of players, basically screaming that this is causing enormous harm. They're saying that, at a minimum, surely we need some sort of deal with Google, because otherwise the effects will be catastrophic. One would hope that will ultimately lead everybody to find some kind of compromise on this.
The harm here has been very real. It was not just predictable; it was predicted.