Know nothing about business -- ok, sure. Supply chain and source of funds matter. Netflix, a foreign company, funding a Canadian production is still arguably something that'd fall into the foreign-made content bucket. Specifically, it would fall into that bucket because we're loosely discussing cutting American influence on Canadian content/media -- you can't take their money to make shows, if you're cutting ties, so shows like North of North and other "Netflix" content would face more uncertain futures. It's a valid criticism. Sorta like, if you're trying to excise American influences from your day to day, you'd avoid McDonalds -- even though the staff working there are generally Canadians. Or if you saw a show funded by China, made by Canadian chinese people, supporting China's government values within a Canadian context, you likely wouldn't think it Canadian / free from undue foreign influence.

Shows 'showing' in multiple countries doesn't make them mainstream -- it's difficult to define what is mainstream these days, given how segmented the viewing markets are, and how captive audiences are to the 'one new show' that shows up on their streams that week. Viewership stats would count, especially if they broke down demographic splits, but those are very hard to come by -- they're also not very 'organic'. In the 'old days', shows that were / are mainstream are things that got discussed at the office -- Seinfeld, Friends in the 90s were frequently brought up. Shows that have themes, characters and plots that can cut across demographic segments and foster small talk banter in an office between the 50 year old accounting clerk and the 20 year old newbie. Some shows get brought up these days too -- but typically not shows like the ones you're listing. Likely partly because they are niche demographic areas that cannot be discussed openly without members outside that niche being accused of this or that.

In regards to banks selling payment networks -- you do understand that banks / financial institutions are regulated entities, with the Federal Government regulating banks, and the Provincial Government regulating Credit Unions. These organisations generally can't do shit without clearing it with regulators, without clearing it with the government. Things like their Deposit insurance require them to obey the governments demands -- the Credit Unions in BC have basically all been getting forced to merge by the government, for example. Like "Why didn't Canada have the same sub prime mortgage nightmare as the USA in 2008?" --> Because the banks werent allowed to do subprime mortgages, because the government told them what they could, and couldn't, do. I may know nothing about business according to you, but I do know how that industry generally works.

As for Alberta, YOU may think one way or another about their premier. But they're holding a fuckin referendum on sovereignty, at a ridiculous point in time. With their government having basically leaned on the scales the whole way to make it happen. And the province still, on aggregate, supports conservatives like PP, and support Danielle Smith's party over the competition. So, you know, broaden your scope a little, think outside your own little bloody box, and see what's going on with others in the province. They have a traitor leader, and they still support her. They still go along with her various bullshit initiatives.

And lastly, if you can't understand that a reduction in product options is a reduction in the general standard of living, I think this conversation is at its end. You're arguing against what's essentially a self-proving statement, Fewer choices/options is practically part of the definition of a lower standard of living. You're either failing to grasp basic concepts, or you're intentionally just trolling / trying to pick fights and be anal about stupid shit. Neither possibility is particularly interesting, nor enticing to prolong this further.