Canada's screen industry needs both Canadian stories and foreign productions

Readers share their opinions on news making the headlines.

David Olive rightly highlights the enormous opportunity for both streaming services and Canadian audiences if foreign streamers contributed their fair share to Canada’s screen industry. One point, however, deserves clarification. The CRTC has not tripled contribution requirements for streamers.

The initial five per cent contribution was always understood by the industry — including the streamers themselves — to be an interim step, not the final rate. Given that Canadian broadcasters invest more than 30 per cent of their revenues in Canadian content, a 15 per cent requirement for foreign streamers is a modest and reasonable step toward a level playing field. Olive also states that Canada’s film and television sector is booming.

This is not entirely accurate. While Hollywood continues to take advantage of Canada’s various incentives, low dollar, and first-class infrastructure and crews to shoot here, the production of Canadian stories is under increasing pressure. That is why the federal government’s $600-million investment is a welcome and necessary lifeline.

But government funding should not replace the sustainable, industry-financed funding framework envisioned by the Online Streaming Act. Canada’s screen industry is strongest when both Canadian stories and the foreign productions shot here grow together. Without that balance, Canada risks becoming little more than a production hub for foreign-owned companies, rather than a country that creates and owns globally successful intellectual property such as “Schitt’s Creek,” “Heated Rivalry,” and countless other Canadian stories.

Reynolds Mastin, President and CEO, Canadian Media Producers Association, Toronto No subsidies! Data centre owners must pay their bills It should be clear to anyone paying attention that these “hyperscale” data centres impose extraordinary demands on water and electrical services — demands that far exceed the capacity of current systems. If we proceed quickly (and recklessly) we will overwhelm both systems, creating shortages for all consumers and driving massive expenditures to increase capacity to support the data centres.

Who will pay for this new infrastructure? We consumers, if our politicians are not diligent. That is certainly what the AI firms expect — a hidden subsidy from all us to their wealthy owners.

Instead, demand that these projects fund the water and electrical capacity they require. (Fund, not own, mind you.) And fund it upfront, not turning on their giant AI cat-video engines until sufficient water and electric capacity on line.

Make the extreme users pay extreme bills to fund the capacity they demand, instead of subsidizing them through the public billing system. John Gavin, Toronto ON When will this government start protecting our future?

After a long-awaited summer finally arriving, I am sitting inside with the windows closed. Why? Heat dome and wildfire smoke.

Climate change is staring us right in the face, but Prime Minister Mark Carney says it’s too expensive for us to meet our emissions targets. We can’t afford to meet our emissions targets, but we can afford $24 billion for submarines and more than $100 billion over ensuing decades for maintenance? We can’t afford to meet our emissions targets, but we can afford $35 billion to build another pipeline to further support the fossil fuel industry?

I have children and grandchildren. When is this government going to make the well-being of future generations a priority? Margaret Bradley, Mississauga, ON I object to paying for fossil fuel infrastructure that will make our cities unlivable Why are we paying fossil fuel companies to build a new pipeline thus hastening dangerous levels of global heating?

Isn’t it aggravating that the public (that’s us!) will cover 90 per cent of the cost of the new pipeline, that’s $33 to $44 billion. We could be funding building retrofits across the country, conversion to electric heating (getting off gas) and funding transit to help get people out of their cars. Prime Minister Mark Carney is not looking at the full costs — nor at the benefits of the alternative plan.

Just imagine the jobs benefits of a mass retrofit plan across the country including employment for youth in their communities. This is the option if the government would fund a Youth Climate Corps and support municipal climate action plans. I object to paying to building fossil fuel infrastructure that will make our cities and our planet unlivable when we could be funding the transition to a livable future instead.

Our current heat wave should be a warning to us all. Lyn Adamson, Toronto Bonnie Crombie has a lot of nerve I don’t live in Mississauga, but if I did I would not be voting for someone like Bonnie Crombie who like Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre not only lost the election but her own riding. What a nerve she has to try to get her old job back after walking away shortly after winning the election as mayor.

I hope the voters see her for what she is an “opportunist.” Dorothy Low, Richmond Hill, ON Questions to ask those running for office as municipal elections loom As we move toward municipal elections this fall those running for office should pause and reflect on the state of the city and what needs to be fixed. Ask, are city services as effective as they could be, are they efficient, and responsive?

Is the city kept clean? Is garbage disposal effective, or is change needed? Is the TTC and the subway operating at acceptable standards?

What about traffic, and co-ordination of road closures with transit closures. Do construction projects meet deadlines, and are they well co-ordinated to reduce gridlock? And then there are encampments, homelessness, and too many mentally ill and drug addicted residents wandering our streets and riding the TTC, invisible to too many.

Candidates should also ponder what municipal bylaws need to be enforced rather than consider adding more to the list of the unenforceable or the ignored. Finally why not consider whether an educational campaign of an ongoing nature that encourages and promotes pro social and positive civic citizenship wouldn’t help in making the city better than it is today. Desmond Pouyat, Toronto