Sadly, the more I look the more unseemly evidence of collusion I find.

Wendy Cukier is the head of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control. A professor at Ryerson University, Ms. Cukier has managed to spin her original experience in IT into policy consulting related to firearms and small arms controls. I’ll ignore the obvious non-sequitur of an IT prof speaking to matters best left to sociologists and criminologists. Its too easy a target, forgive the pun.

Wendy’s “Coalition” is fairly hard to pin down. Over the years many groups have been, or were claimed to have been members. Perhaps that’s why the Coalition for Gun Control website doesn’t actually list any coalition members. In any case, I did find this letter, penned by Wendy and sent to the Ottawa Valley Daily Observer in which she says,

Coalition for Gun Control supporters include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canada Safety Council, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the victims of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre and the Dawson Gun Control Committee, the YWCA of Canada as well as over 300 provincial and local organizations who are united in opposing any efforts to water down the legislation.

Now, that’s a fairly long list. It contains the usual suspects, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP). The CACP, you’ll recall, received over $100,000 from CGI Group – the company with contracts for supporting the IT infrastructure of the Firearms Registry.

Another CGC frequent flier is the Canada Safety Council. Its past president, Emile Therien, has written extensively for the need for stricter gun control – in some cases copying Ms. Cukier’s letters virtually word-for-word in his submissions to the press.

So, it comes as a surprise that I find the RCMP giving the Canada Safety Council over $100,000 to help “educate” firearms owners.

According to the RCMP website. the Canada Safety Council received $55,000 on April 6, 2009.

Recipient:	Canada Safety Council
Location:	Ottawa, Ont.
Date:	2009-04-06
Value:	$55,000.00
Type:	Project Funding Agreement under: “contributions to the provinces and territories and to aboriginal and other communities and organizations (not for profit) for the Canadian Firearms Program”.
Purpose:	To cover the costs for the development of public service announcements, safety tips, news releases and print materials in support of a firearms safety public awareness campaign.

And another $55,000, in a seperate disclosure, but part of the same program:

Recipient Name:	Canada Safety Council
Location:	Ottawa, Ont.
Date:	2009-02-10
Value:	$110,000.00
Type:	Contribution
Purpose:	To cover the costs for the development of public service announcements, safety tips, news releases and print materials in support of a firearms safety public awareness campaign.
Comments:	Multi-year award ending in 2009- 2010.  Belated disclosure – This award should have been reported as part of the 4th Quarter of 2008-2009. This entry reflects an increase of $55,000 to the value of an award previously disclosed for the 1st Quarter of 2009-2010.

It bears repeating: the RCMP  has given the Canada Safety Council – which is a member of the Coalition for Gun Control, and for all intents and purposes would rather no one had guns -over $100,000 to create “firearms safety” awareness campaign.

How much of that money made it back to the CGC and Wendy Cukier? We’ll never know.

So, along with telling its own members to keep quiet on the usefulness, or uselessness, of the registry senior RCMP management has basically given money allocated to the Canadian Firearms Program to a group with close ties to the Coalition for Gun Control. The Coalition, in turn, lobbies the Federal Government for tighter gun controls, the continuation of the Firearms Registry, and increased spending on the Canadian Firearms Program.

Isn’t that convenient?

There has been considerable press given to the intervention in the C-391 debate by the CACP, CAPB and CPA and over how “police” from coast to coast to coast support the usefulness of the long gun registry.

But what would you say if police were actually being muzzled?

First, lets review.

On May 4th, Senior Deputy Commissioner William Sweeney and Chief Superintendent Marty Cheliak of the RCMP appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to defend the embattled long-gun registry and oppose Bill C-391.

Their support of the registry was joined by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP), The Canadian Association of Police Boards (CAPB), and the Canadian Police Association (CPA). On May 5th, the CACP, CAPB, and CPA issues a joint statement on C-391 and the long-gun registry, along with a breakdown of the top 10 “myths” regarding the Canadian Firearms Program.

The join statement begins (emphasis mine):

Representing the police boards, police officers and police leaders from across Canada, the CAPB, CPA and CACP are working collaboratively to prevent violent incidents related to firearms.

Their position, however, was not new. In April Toronto Police Services Chief, and head of the CACP, William Blair issued a statement that began (again, emphasis mine):

Police in Canada are united on the absolute importance of retaining the Firearms Registry. There are a few police officers blind to the information that keeps them and their colleagues safe. There is a police chief or two who may not be well informed about the real value of the registry.  They are very rare exceptions.

The theme of police support was included in their “myths” document, which is also published on the TPS-hosted site www.truthsandmyths.ca, where the 6th myth reads:

myth: Police don’t support the CFP.   truth:  Police support the registration of all firearms in Canada.

But is that true? We’ll probably never know because on May 5th – the same day the CACP et al were telling us how police supported the registry – senior RCMP staff was instructing rank and file members to keep their yaps shut (presumably, if they know what’s good for them.)

Dr. Tasleem Budhwani, the Executive Assistant at the Office of the RCMP Director General sent out the following email to all commanding officers:

Hope you are all well.

Please find attached the following:

- a Letter forwarded on behalf of D/Commr. Killam
- a Joint Statement on Firearms from the Canadian Association of Police Boards (CAPB), the Canadian Police Association (CPA), and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP)
- a Statement from the President of CACP
- a Document outlining the top 10 Myths about the Canadian Firearms Program produced by the CAPB

Take care,
Tasleem

Dr. Tasleem Budhwani
Executive Assistant/Adjointe exécutif
Office of the Director General / Bureau du directeur général
Canadian Firearms Program / Programme canadien des armes à feu
Royal Canadian Mounted Police / Gendarmerie royale du Canada
(613) 843- 3693

Attached were a number of PDFs including a copy of Chief Blair’s April statement, the CACP/CAPB/CPA Joint Statement, the Myths/Truths document and  an internal memo from Deputy Commissioner T. G. Killam.

In his letter D/Commr. Killam clearly states the RCMP position on the firearms registry:

The RCMP position is, and always has been, that the services provided by the CFP, including the registration and licensing of all firearms, are valuable resources for all law enforcement, nationally and internationally. The registration of all firearms enables individual accountability, promotes safety and life-saving measures, and is a pro-active investigative tool in assisting law enforcement.

Then he tells all the detachment commanders to pass the position paper and CACP/CPA/CAPB propaganda to all RCMP employees and, finally, “asks” that everyone refrain from offering personal opinions:

This information should be disseminated to all your employees for their information. I would ask that you please refrain from providing any personal opinions [...]

Now, I don’t know about you but I’m fairly sure when your boss “asks” that you “please refrain” from doing something he’s not “asking”. So, in other words, Deputy Commissioner Killam has instructed – in a signed internal memo – RCMP members to refrain from providing their own opinions on the firearms registry all while senior RCMP brass and organizations like the CACP claim that they represent the almost unanimous voice of Canadian police officers.

Now ask yourself. If you were a mountie would you risk being moved to a detachment in Lac-La-Middle-Of-Nowhere, Northern Manitoba for speaking your mind? I know I wouldn’t.

So the RCMP has successfully silenced any dissenting voices from within the ranks. One wonders if police officers working for the Toronto Police Service have received similar memos?

Just how many police officers have been silenced?

UPDATE #1 (May 13, 11:33AM) – I have had a few members contact me indicating they’d like to share their opinion but feel constrained by the obvious intimidation from management. If you’re a serving member you can contact me at rcmpspeakout@rafaelgomez.com for instructions on how to submit your opinion anonymously.

Update #2 (May 13, 2:30PM) - I just had someone send me this link to D/Comm Killam’s BIO on the RCMP site. This probably shouldn’t come as a surprise (emphasis mine):

In June 2008, Mr. Killam was appointed Deputy Commissioner, Policing Support Services (PSS). As the Deputy Commissioner of PSS, Mr. Killam is responsible for the business lines of Technical Operations, the Chief Information Officers’ sector, Criminal Intelligence, and the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program – all of which provide support to front line police operations throughout the RCMP.

I have, however, been following C-391, a private members’ bill to scrap the wasteful gun registry, fairly closely. It passed first and second readings fairly easily, moving on to committee. Mark Holland, the liberal critic on the committee has done his best to scuttle the fair deliberation of the act by purposefully omitting supporters of C-391 from the proposed list of witnesses. In fact, his original witness list had only 4 witnesses in favor of C-391 and dozens that didn’t.

The latest bit of political trickery is a bit much though.

Today Canadian Association of Police Chiefs President and Toronto Police Service Chief Bill Blair led a press conference in which the CACP, together with the Canadian Association of Police Boards (CAPB) and the Canadian Police Association (CPA), officially endorsed the registry.

This probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. After all, according to the Globe and Mail the CACP received some $100,000+ from CGI Group (the company responsible for managing the Registry’s IT infrastructure) which was used to buy – of all things – concert tickets:

Dr. Jones and the members of the ethics committee were in Montreal in August for two days of meetings around the CACP’s annual conference when they learned about Taser’s sponsorship and that of others, including a joint Bell Mobility-CGI-Group Techna donation of $115,000, which went toward the purchase of 1,000 tickets at $215 each to a Celine Dion concert on Aug. 25.

Of course, the CACP missed that little “truth” in their list of important facts Canadians apparently needed to know. They also failed to mention that their own ethics director quit in August of 2009 over donations like the one from CGI and others from the likes of Tazer.

Instead the CACP has setup a website called “truthsandmyths.ca” where they make a rather amateurish attempt at dispelling what they think are the “myths” that surround the registry. In reality, most of their talking points are half-truths, if not outright lies, designed to fool people who don’t know anything about guns, the registry, or the web of laws that govern firearms in Canada.

Now, that is bad enough.

But here’s the kicker. If you’re in Ontario you probably helped pay for this poorly executed bit of propaganda.

A quick query to the CIRA whois engine gives us this:

Domain name:		truthsandmyths.ca
Domain name status:		EXIST
Domain number:		3412626
Approval date:		2010/04/15
Renewal date:		2011/04/15
Updated date:		2010/04/15
Registrar name:		easyDNS Technologies Inc.
Registrar number:		88
Registrant name:		Toronto Police Service
Registrant number:		53968
Registrant description:		Police Services for the City of Toronto
Administrative contact
Name:		Pedja Ljubomirovic
Job title:		Webmaster
Postal address:		Toronto Police Service 40 College Street Toronto ON M5G 2J3 Canada
Phone:		+1 (416) 808-7106
Fax:		+1 (416) 808-7102
Email:		pedja.ljubomirovic@torontopolice.on.ca
Technical contact
Name:		Pedja Ljubomirovic
Job title:		Webmaster
Postal address:		Toronto Police Service 40 College Street Toronto ON M5G 2J3 Canada
Phone:		+1 (416) 808-7106
Fax:		+1 (416) 808-7102
Email:		pedja.ljubomirovic@torontopolice.on.ca

So, the website isn’t owned or run by the CACP – a lobby group – but instead by the Toronto Police Service. That’s right, taxpayer funded TPS is hosting the site – and providing the webmaster.

Now, I’m no expert on the Police Services Act but I’m pretty sure the following sections might apply:

46. No municipal police officer shall engage in political activity, except as the regulations permit. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 46.

and

49. (1) A member of a police force shall not engage in any activity,

(a) that interferes with or influences adversely the performance of his or her duties as a member of a police force, or is likely to do so;

(b) that places him or her in a position of conflict of interest, or is likely to do so;

(c) that would otherwise constitute full-time employment for another person; or

(d) in which he or she has an advantage derived from employment as a member of a police force. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 49 (1).

Now, maybe if Dr. Jones, the CACP’s ethics chair, hadn’t quit last year he might be able to explain to Bill Blair whether or not its a conflict of interest to have a TPS employee setup a website lobbying in favor of a registry that is run by a company that gives the organization you’re the president of some $115,000 dollars as “donations”. Obviously such a complex ethical question would take someone with a PHD to figure out.

I wonder if the folks on the Police Services Board know their already tight budget is being wasted by Chief Blair to support the registry so the CACP can keep buying its members tickets to see Celine Dion?

Update #1:

Welcome to all the readers from SDA.

Update #2 (May 6, 2010 @ 12:30pm EDT):

I decided to do a little more digging.

www.TruthsandMyths.ca is a CNAME record that resolves to truthsandmyths.ca @ 216.201.96.75. That IP is part of the netblock reserved for Korax Inc., a web-hosting provider located in Burlington, Ontario.

Domain	Type	Class	TTL	Answer
truthsandmyths.ca.	A	IN	10800	216.201.96.75

Hop	T1	T2	T3	Best	Graph	IP	Hostname	Dist	TTL	Ctry	Time
1	1	1	*	0.4 ms		174.133.202.225 AS21844 THEPLANET-AS	e1.ca.85ae.static.theplanet.com.		255	US	Unix: 16:11:40.392
2	0	3	*	0.4 ms [+0ms]		74.55.252.121 AS21844 THEPLANET-AS	po10.dsr02.hstntx2.theplanet.com.	0 miles [+0]	254	US	Unix: 16:11:40.418
3	0	0	*	0.4 ms [+0ms]		74.55.252.37 AS21844 THEPLANET-AS	5-4.ibr01.hstntx2.theplanet.com.	0 miles [+0]	62	US	[Router did not respond]
4	1	1	*	1.0 ms [+0ms]		64.214.196.57 AS3549 GBLX	tengigabitethernet2-3.ar2.hou1.gblx.net.	0 miles [+0]	252	US	Unix: 16:11:40.503
5	46	*	*	46 ms [+45ms]		64.208.110.98 AS3549 GBLX	cogent-1.ar1.atl2.gblx.net.	0 miles [+0]	246	US	[Router did not respond]
6	47	*	*	47 ms [+0ms]		154.54.6.113 AS174 COGENT	te7-4.mpd02.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com.	0 miles [+0]	245	US	[Router did not respond]
7	62	52	*	52 ms [+5ms]		154.54.29.86 AS174 COGENT	te0-2-0-7.mpd22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com.	0 miles [+0]	245	US	[Router did not respond]
8	60	*	*	60 ms [+7ms]		154.54.6.181 AS174 COGENT	te4-8.mpd01.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com.	0 miles [+0]	245	US	[Router did not respond]
9	*	*	*	60 ms [+0ms]		[Unknown]	[Unknown - Firewall did not respond]	0 miles [+0]
10	60	60	*	60 ms [+0ms]		216.201.96.75 AS18650 KORAX	[Reached Destination]vsd3.korax.net.	-1 miles [+0]	52	CA	[Router did not respond

A quick trip to domaintools.com’s Reverse IP Lookup tool shows us that there are only 4 sites hosted on vsd3.korax.net – the other three:

Cpmp.ca, Torontopolice.ca, and Torontopolice.on.ca.

Now, CMPM.ca seems to resolve to a placeholder but its obvious the other two sites belong to the Toronto Police Service. So, is this a co-located server owned by the TPS? Is it a server they’re leasing? Or is it a shared server that just “happens” to be running the TPS’s site?

In any case its pretty clear whose footing the bill for mythsandtruths.ca – Toronto taxpayers.

In a final bit of irony, Toronto happens to be a bandwidth hub chock-a-block with ISPs and hosting providers. Odd that the TPS had to go outside of the city to host their site.

The Globe and Mail reported on Saturday that Ignatieff is taking umbrage with the latest CPC commercial attacking him for planning a “reckless coalition” in order to seize power if the Liberals don’t win the election. Ignatieff told the Globe:

The Liberal Party would not agree to a coalition. In January, we did not support a coalition. And we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow.

and:

I have a certain credibility on the coalition issue. I could be standing here as the prime minister of Canada. I turned it down. We turned it down in January,

Now, I’m far from being a “political strategist” but it certainly seems to me to be a bad idea to tell everyone how against forming a coalition you were earlier in the year when in reality you were all over the news telling people how you supported and/or wanted to lead it. I mean, you would think somewhere in the bowels of Liberal Party HQ someone might consider doing a quick search on YouTube before sending the leader out to deny his part in the coalition.

If they had they’d probably find these…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iILxBcUAFRM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ixesac2IRM

… among many other videos showing Michael Ignatieff suggesting the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition was the next best thing since sliced bread.

I appreciate the world of politics is usually full of spin, but it takes either a spectacular amount of bravery or a stunning level of stupidity to tell a bold-faced lie and hope no one notices.

Ms. May received a boost in the 2008 election when then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion agreed not to run a candidate in the same riding. Of course, this wasn’t must of a sacrifice for the Liberals since Elizabeth May decided to run in Central Nova – the riding held by Peter McKay and a Conservative party stronghold. It wasn’t much of a surprise, then, that she lost by some 6,000 votes.

At first blush it would appear like an exercise of pure ego that Ms. May would choose to run in a riding that consistently votes Conservative, that was held by a Conservative MP and cabinet minister.

And it seems Ms. May hasn’t learned.

Saanich-Gulf Islands is currently held by Conservative minister of state for sport Gary Lunn. In the last federal election Mr. Lunn received just over 21,000 more votes than the Green Party candidate. Ms. May would have to pick up over four times as many votes as 2008 candidate Andrew Lewis to win the riding.

It seems odd that the leader of a “federal party” – and I use the term loosely since they have never actually won a riding – would run in an unwinnable riding instead of choosing a relatively “safe” riding. It would certainly seem foolish if Stephen Harper ran in the Liberal strongholds of Toronto or Montreal, if Michael Ignatieff ran anywhere west of Ontario. How well would Gilles Duceppe do in Newfoundland?

Of course, I’m working from the assumption Ms. May actually has a chance of being elected.

But does she?

In the 2008 election the Green Party won 6.8% of the national vote – that’s even less than the 10% garnered by the Bloc, and they only ran in Quebec.

Realistically, Elizabeth May is unlikely to win in any riding.

And if that is the case, why not run in an unwinnable riding? Certainly, in the last election it allowed Ms. May to claim she “fought the good fight”. After all, who can blame her for losing against an incumbent MP and Government Minister? And if you can’t blame her, you can’t replace her.

It’s a cushy gig after all.

And then there’s also the temporary ego boost of taking on “the big guys” which must make the otherwise dull existence in the foothills of parliament partially bearable for a party in waiting like the Greens.

Indeed, the only press coverage Elizabeth May managed to get was during the election. Granted, much of that was questioning why she would run in Central Nova…

In any case, it looks like this election will be just as bumpy. If anything, it will be much worse.

The Liberals are holding a nomination for the riding, as are the NDP. This means Ms. May won’t be getting a free ride from Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals this time around.

She’s not even getting a free ride from her own party from the looks of it. Stuart Hertzog, an environmental and social justice activist and website publisher from Victoria, B.C., will contest the nomination.

But that’s not all. According to the Toronto Star, Mr. Hertzog…

…has also filed a complaint with Elections Canada accusing the Greens of pouring central money into the local riding association to support the May campaign and take away his fair chance at a fight.

“I don’t believe I can compete on a level playing field,” Hertzog said in an interview last week.

He originally decided to put his name forward in the Vancouver Island constituency to protest against what he described as an anti-democratic shift in the party from the grassroots to the leader and executive, but May said her willingness to fight him proves him wrong.

Now, in a complaint Hertzog said he filed Thursday, he alleges the party’s federal council illegally transferred $62,000 from a special fund it set up to get May elected — after it decided this spring that winning a seat for the leader would be the priority in the next campaign — to the electoral district association, and that it is being used to finance the nomination campaign.

So, Elizabeth May will go into this election with no free ride from the Liberals, a contested nomination, facing a complaint to Elections Canada, and in a riding that has elected Conservative Gary Lunn in the last 5 elections.

Quixote would be proud.

According to a CTV News article, in a speech Tuesday to the Liberal caucus, Ignatieff said Harper’s time as prime minister, “is over.”

The real question is whether or not Ignatieff can convince Canadians that he is acting in the country’s best interests.

First, Liberals must contend with the fact that Michael Ignatieff was installed as party leader after an internal putsch against Stephane Dion. The Conservatives, NDP and Bloc can all argue their leaders were democratically elected, not appointed by a cabal of party elites.

Next, Liberals must contend with the fact that Michael Ignatieff has spent most of his adult life outside of Canada. Hand in hand with his extended absence is the number of shock inducing sound bites his opponents have dug up – from suggesting that the Canadian flag appears like a beer label, to his assertion that he can always go back to teaching at Harvard if Canadian’s don’t make him Prime Minister.

Then there is his age. At 62 Ignatieff is getting long in the tooth. A number of Liberals have suggested that if Ignatieff wants to be PM he is running out of time. And that may well be part of the reason he’s so desperate to bring down the government after a summer of being Mr. Invisible.

To compound the Liberal’s problems their timing might be off. High profile Liberals have spent the past two days telling anyone who will listen that they will not support the Conservative government, under any circumstances and a number of Liberals have suggested that the October opposition day would be a perfect time to move non-confidence.

But it appears that the Conservatives may put a money bill on the table as soon as the house resumes sitting. In fact, it appears the Conservatives are planning on tabling a ways-and-means motion which will include the popular Home Renovation Tax Credit which hasn’t made it into law yet.

It seems, then, that the first test of the Liberal’s resolve to bring down the government will be to kill the implementation of a tax credit millions of Canadians are counting on to help defray the cost of renovations they have already finished.

All this might lead Canadians to believe Liberal fortunes were bleak – a party adrift without a clear policy and languishing in the polls, headed by an appointed leader who has returned to Canada after a 30-year absence, and forcing the country into a second election in under a year – and they’d be right.

In fact, it gets worse.

Even Liberals think Ignatieff is committing political suicide.

Don Martin, writing in the National Post, quotes a Liberal insider as saying:

Wanna hear my analogy to this mess? The car is ready and moving forward. Unfortunately there’s a cliff straight ahead. But the real problem is that the driver is accelerating because he thinks he can jump the canyon.

Indeed. On the one hand Canadians have Stephen Harper and the CPC. They have managed to weather the financial crisis, have implemented a good number of their election promises, and have been doing a good job at running the country. On the other hand they have Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party. They continue to exude the arrogant notion that they are Canada’s “natural ruling party” all the while being unapologetic about plunging the country into a second $300-million election in less than year.

Ignatieff may find he’s actually playing a game of Russian Roulette, and it’s a game he appears to be destined to lose.

Now, with their popularity lagging in the polls and the economy starting to turn around the Liberals are finding themselves with a shrinking list of reasons to force and election. That’s probably why Ignatieff is now telling anyone who will listen that the Conservative government is on “life support” and that the Liberals are going to pull the plug.

CTV News is reporting:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s main task today: turn the doves in his caucus into hawks, and set forth a plan to take down the Tory government in the fall.

“We’ve kept this government on life support for 10 months,” Ignatieff said during a summer caucus retreat in Sudbury, Ont. on Monday, noting his party supported the Tories’ recession budget last January despite major reservations.

“But in June I made it clear that in a whole number of areas, the government’s performance was letting Canada down and it hasn’t got better over the summer.”

In reality, since the last election the Liberals – first with Dion and the ill-fated coalition between the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP, to Ignatieff – have been stalking the Conservative government with a pillow waiting for a chance to smother the government into another election.

It’s fairly clear the only “platform” the Liberals have is “get back into power” and they don’t seem to care how many $300-million kicks at the can it will take. The Liberals aren’t even ashamed to point that out – with a number of insiders indicating much of the weeks meetings are being dedicated to when to force an election.

I guess they can worry about policy later.

Recently Michael Ignatieff told Le Devoir, a French-language newspaper, that “an election would not create instability.”

The Toronto Sun is reporting that Conservatives are lashing out at the Liberals over the suggestion. Frankly, it shouldn’t just be the Conservatives.

We’re in the midst of a recession – one we’re only starting to recover from. Still, Ignatieff had the following to say:

But now, we are in a different situation. We can have an election without threatening anything whatsoever. We could even say it would be good for the country.

Without threatening anything whatsoever? Does Ignatieff really believe proroguing Parliament, stopping all the work committees are doing, killing any bills on the table, and throwing the country into another $200-300 million dollar election wouldn’t threaten anything?

In reality an election now will delay things by months – first there has to be an election, ministers need to be named and sworn, MPs need to get settled in their offices, etc.

What’s the point? The polls certainly suggest another Conservative minority.

But I guess when you’re the “natural governing party” you’ll use any excuse to try and claw your way back into power. I mean, if the Liberals just force enough election maybe – just maybe – they can be in charge again.

So what has Michael Ignatieff done this summer? Well… he gave up his European vacation.

According to the Globe and Mail:

Liberals defend Mr. Ignatieff, saying he has been touring the country, meeting the grassroots. As well, he did not take his usual holiday in Europe, spending time instead in Ottawa in July, working on his speeches and his platform.

Indeed. While Canadians across the country are tightening their belts and stretching their dollars further in an effort to weather the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression it seems that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s biggest sacrifice was passing on his “usual” holiday in Europe.

Usual vacation. As in customary. As opposed to say, “once in a lifetime” or “special” or “we’ve saved up for a few years and are finally going on” vacation.

And then Liberals wonder why people think Ignatieff is “out of touch” with Canadians.

Much of the speculation over whether or not there will be an election hinges on the fact that the Liberals still seem to lack a cohesive strategy or message.  Clearly it would be in the Liberals’ best interests to have a clearly defined platform before launching an election campaign. Time is running out, however, if they plan on attacking the Conservatives on the economy. During the past year its been fairly clear that the Liberals have relished in every stock market dip, business closure, and release of job loss numbers.

Things get worse for the Liberals.

They lack a clear message, they’re losing an easy point to attack the Conservatives, and they have a leader that’s starting to look as ineffective as Stephane Dion.

I’ve seen a number of articles refer to Ignatieff as the invisible man. And it’s not hard to see why. He’s spent the summer, ostensibly, meeting with grassroots Liberals. However, the only press coverage regarding his coast-to-coast trip related to complaints his handlers have prevented many Liberal organizers they didn’t think were “important enough” from meeting Iggy.

Ignatieff was touted as being an internationally celebrated intellectual.

So far I don’t see it. He’s failed to define himself to Canadians, failed to come up with anything resembling a party platform – other than suggesting 9 weeks of work should be enough to entitle you to a year of EI – and failed to stand up in the house.

If anything, he’s turning out to be just like the last “intellectual” leader he replaced.