France and Québec have sealed alliances in the past to defend the principle of cultural exception. It essentially aims at limiting the effects of globalization within the cultural industry, already under Anglo-Saxon domination. State funding of the film industry has sparked a number of debates within both societies. We shall first identify what triggered these controversies on each side of the Atlantic before turning our attention more closely to the various issues debated in Québec.

It is worth first remembering that, in 2012, the people of both France and Québec rid themselves of right-wing governments and replaced them with centre-right (or left-wing neoliberal) political parties. In both cases, a fierce debate regarding rich tax exiles ensued.

On Monday, the Parti québécois government announced a new mining royalty regime. Its hybrid proposal combines aspects from two types of royalty systems: profit-based and ad valorem royalties. In this blog post, we will demystify these ways of calculating royalties in order to best analyze the government's choice as well as what its implications are.

Let's start with a small yet important clarification: all mining royalty regimes must deal with the cyclical nature of metal markets, which periodically increase and then decrease. When metal prices are high, mining companies naturally tend to generate more profits than when prices are low. These fluctuations obviously affect royalties.

Profit-based royalties

The government of Saskatchewan is currently undertaking a controversial overhaul of the province's labour legislation into the mammoth omnibus Bill 85. But those that might be concerned about the rather rash decision to overturn 107 years of labour legislation in the period of a few months need not worry, because what the Saskatchewan government is actually doing is modernizing our labour laws. That's a relief, "modernizing" has such a new shiny ring to it! Who could be against "modernizing" anything? This legislation must really be cutting-edge stuff, thinking outside the box, labour legislation 2.0 and all that!

True confession time, people.

I commit sociology.

And not just as a one-off.

You might say -- all right, I will say it -- that I'm a repeat offender. In fact, I'm practically addicted. Scarcely a minute can go by without my synapses looking for their next fix.

That might not be a politically correct admission. After all, this is tough-on-crime Canada, where such wanton disregard for Father-Knows-Best-ology and doing the "right" thing (and not in that perilously-close-to-committing-sociology Spike Lee kind of way) seems almost, well, unpatriotic.

All budgets are political in nature, but Ontario's 2013 budget -- tabled by a minority government with a new leader -- stands out as a case in point: it is carefully designed to survive a non-confidence vote.

It extends a few olive branches to the opposition NDP. A promise to reduce auto insurance premiums by 15 per cent. Increases in spending on home care, youth unemployment and infrastructure in rural areas and the north. Restructuring the Employer Health Tax to claw back the small business reduction from large corporations.

It hugs the curvature of tax cuts and low public spending enough to counter opposition Conservative complaints.

How much would you give up to get a university education? For most of us, four years of work, study, investment and anxiety are the costs we are willing to pay to secure the benefits and opportunities of a university degree. But is a university degree worth so much to you that you would allow yourself to be confined in a church basement, cut off from physical contact with friends and family for almost a year of your life all while under constant threat of arrest and deportation? Most of us would balk at such an ordeal, but for two University of Regina students facing deportation orders for their honest mistake of working off-campus at a local Wal-Mart, this is exactly the extent they are willing to go advance their education.

Federal Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver stopped by Montréal on April 11 to promote the tar sands and closed the door to any strict greenhouse gas ceiling. He claimed that, according to scientists, our fears regarding climate change are "exaggerated." He refused to retract his statement the following week before the federal natural resources committee.

Weekends aside, there's still a lot to thank unions for.

Maternity leave top-up. Employment Insurance. Child labour laws.

Numerous studies -- past, and more recent -- have identified the degree to which unions have contributed to more equitable, safer societies, and jobs where the normally stubbornly persistent gender pay gap has been virtually eliminated.

But on the eve of the National Day of Mourning, it's important to address in very concrete terms why unions are so important.

Because they save lives.

There is a nice little story tucked into the pages of Canada's Economic Action Plan 2013. It's a sweet tale of Thomas and Colleen and their two children. (I like to imagine those little stick-figure stickers on the back of their mini-van waving hello to their friends in happy economic-action-plan-land). This story is called "Canadian families keep more of their hard-earned dollars as a result of the government's actions to reduce the tax burden."

On April 23, the Fraser Institute released the annual update of their misleading Consumer Tax Index report. The piece is meant to feed the anti-tax sentiment with numbers sprinkled liberally for their shock value instead of providing any meaningful analysis. Here are some of the main flaws with the report's methodology.