ICYMI - Diane Francis: Unnecessary delays to Bill C-18 are causing harm
The carnage to the news industry is global and is due to the fact that the world’s digital giants — notably Google and Meta — republish or link to articles that they earn advertising revenue from, but don’t spend money creating.Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the Financial Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.By clicking on the sign up button you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
The Australians took on Google and Facebook and won. Their pioneering “News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code”the country’s publishers. Google and Meta have paid 30 media companies around AU$200 million in royalties for their content over the past year, preventing closures, layoffs and consolidations in the media industry.
Canada Latest News, Canada Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Diane Francis: Unnecessary delays to Bill C-18 are causing harmBill C\u002D18 is being slowed down by those who want it to finance tiny, often questionable startups, writes Diane Francis. Read more.
Read more »
Diane Francis: Unnecessary delays to Bill C-18 are causing harmBill C\u002D18 is being slowed down by those who want it to finance tiny, often questionable startups, writes Diane Francis. Read more.
Read more »
How to fix the Senate's procedure and practiceParliamentary procedure and practice are of course intended to ensure a fair and orderly transaction of Senate business. But well-designed procedural rules and practices can also increase Senators’ effectiveness and efficiency. In this column, I’ll offer a few suggestions for modernizing the Senate’s procedure and practice. The second reading stage of a bill is traditionally the first chance for Senators to discuss the bill. It is the stage where a legislative body decides whether the principle or purpose of the bill merits a thorough clause-by-clause consideration with the possibility of improving it through amendments. That stage makes sense when the House is considering a government or a private member’s bill. The minister or private member sponsoring the bill must convince the Commons that the bill warrants further study instead of immediate rejection. But if the Senate’s mission is to act as a House of legislative revision instead of as a little duplicate of the House, it would never think of rejecting a government bill before sending it to committee for detailed examination and possible amendment. I suggest that it would waste less of the Senate’s time if a government bill received from the House were sent directly to committee for detailed examination without a second reading debate. Senate committees are already celebrated for their thorough study of bills referred to them. Committee study should be the Senate’s first step in examining government bills and not the second step as it is now. The only bills from the House that Senators should want to scrutinize carefully before authorizing a more detailed committee study are private members’ bills. Even after adoption by the House of Commons, private members’ bills may not be supported by the government and thus not be taken into consideration by voters at the next election. Moreover, private members’ bills are not given the same degree of scrutiny by the Commons as government bills are. Why does a government b
Read more »
'Hands off the Greenbelt’ rallies in OntarioProtestors all across the province demanded to repeal Bill 23, saying the housing bill would destroy the Greenbelt.
Read more »
Alberta changing sovereignty bill to reverse provision giving cabinet unchecked powerSmith told a radio talk show Saturday that her sovereignty bill was never supposed to give cabinet such sweeping authority, and says her government wants to…
Read more »