Friday Morning Link Blast

Apparently it's been a busy week, as plenty of good material hasn't yet found its way into post form. So here it is for your weekend reading:

- Erin's take on EI improvements is definitely worth a read in pointing out the relative impacts of the proposals made by the opposition parties and the one now likely to be passed.

- One NDP nomination which probably deserves more attention than it's received is that of Jasbir Sandhu in Surrey North. The combination of a riding recently held by the NDP under Penny Priddy and a candidate with a strong public profile would seem to suggest that the seat is once again one of the party's top priorities. And while the Cons will obviously be fighting tooth and nail for every seat possible, the fact that incumbent Dona Cadman has repeatedly broken with her party may make the Cons slightly less eager to defend this seat than those occupied by their less-independent MPs.

- The fact that the Western Climate Initiative - including the governments of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba - has criticized the Cons' attempt to set "intensity" targets rather than actual caps on emissions from the tar sands has received plenty of attention. But the Pembina Institute's framing of the problem is worth emphasizing:

"It's also significant that provinces are once again pointing out the problems that will occur if the federal government sets intensity targets for entire sectors like the oilsands. That would amount to providing a production subsidy to a sector that doesn't need it, and invite retaliation from our trading partners."

- Finally, while the scathing report about the Cons' plan for a more harsh but less effective prison system has received plenty of attention primarily for its similarity to policies which have failed in the U.S., it's worth highlighting what the plan figures to do compared to Canadian standards:

In addition to constructing super prisons and implementing work programs, the program will eliminate gradual release and deny inmates rights that are now entrenched in the Constitution.

Needless to say, that raises a serious question as to whether the Cons have any clue as to the relative importance of constitutional documents and department-level policies. But would it be much of a shock if they're deliberately planning to put programs in place which are unconstitutional now in the hope that court rulings which properly recognize the constitutional rights of inmates will help them rail against judges in the future?