The potential of entrepreneurial initiatives in health care.

For the past fifteen years, increases in health care spending have outpaced the growth of the Canadian economy. As a result, this spending takes up an increasing share of government budgets. The share of provincial and territorial program spending taken up by health care expenditures reached 37.7% in 2010. Not all sources of increased spending should be viewed as problems, of course. New medical technologies, for instance, even if sometimes quite expensive, can provide valuable services, and perhaps reduce other costs.

Quebec's Strategy for Entrepreneurship.

The debate over online privacy.

Unionization and collective bargaining in the public sector are relatively recent phenomena, essentially dating back to the second half of the 20th century. In Canada, only 12% of public-sector employees were unionized in 1960, compared to 70% today. In the United States, during the same period, the public-sector unionization rate went from 11% to 36%. In Quebec, the right to collective bargaining was granted to public-sector employees in 1944 (the right to strike came later, in 1964) and to civil servants in 1965. Among U.S. states, it is Wisconsin that was the first to grant collective bargaining rights to certain public-sector employees in 1959. Today, some thirty U.S. states allow collective bargaining with public-sector unions.

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

Union organizations are private organizations, but their financing relies on an indirect power to tax known as the Rand formula. They also enjoy various tax breaks, like a tax credit for union dues, a tax exemption for strike pay as well as tax credits for contributions to labour-sponsored funds. Despite these quasi-public financing prerogatives, Quebec union organizations generally do not exhibit financial transparency and have very few obligations in this regard.

The special privileges enjoyed by unions.

Taxing junk food to prevent and fight obesity.

The promotional activities of pharmaceutical companies are regularly the target of criticism. Certain commentators imply that these businesses as a group devote too many resources to the promotion of their products, at the expense of their investments in research and development (R&D). Others maintain that these promotional activities alter the prescribing habits of doctors, which leads to a needless or even harmful rise in the consumption of drugs. Do these criticisms stand up to scrutiny?