In an interview on CBC's Power & Politics show Mike Sullivan, Director of the U.S. Government Accountabilty Office (GAO), discussed costing estimates for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program which Canada is a contributing partner to. His office recently released the latest in a series of reports on the program (PDF). When asked by Evan Soloman for an estimate of where Canada's procurement costs for 65 of the F-35A version of the fighter ought to come in at per aircraft, Sullivan said:

Low 100 probably 110 - 115 million dollars procurement costs... 120 - 125 - 135 million with development costs rolled in. Mike Sullivan, Director of the U.S. Government Accountabilty Office

Earlier in the same segment (video) Laurie Hawn, former fighter pilot and current Conservative member of parliament for Edmonton Centre, continued to spin the position of the Harper government and Department of National Defence who claim the F-35A will cost Canada only $75 million U.S. per aircraft.

The Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) also recently issued a report on the same procurement program (PDF) citing its own estimate of approximately US $128 million.

U.S. Vice Admiral David Venlet, chief of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program office, recently testified before the U.S. Congress that the latest cost estimates for the F35A were on the order of $127 million.

The U.S. GAO has an intimate handle on the JSF program and surely so does the Vice Admiral in charge of it. As one of the bit players in this development and procurement program, Canada has no ability to estimate costs independently of the program office itself.

So why does the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Defense continue to insist that costs will be about half of what the grown ups in the room say they'll be?

While I appreciate Mr. Hawn's service as a pilot in our nation's air force, something tells me he was a better pilot than accountant since he's still alive and kicking. But I wouldn't trust Hawn to do my taxes or run a major government program. Sadly, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence, he actually has a role in running major government programs. Something ought to be done about that.

PS: Watch the segment with Hawn in it. He is rude, insulting, and as it turns out, is dead wrong on the question at hand. Canadians deserve better than this.

Since the election call I've watched coverage of NDP, Liberal and Conservative rallies and at this early stage of the campaign one can point objectively to positives in the performances of all three party leaders. Clearly as the front men in several national campaigns, Layton and Harper have learned and improved from the experience.

But after watching Ignatieff at work in Campaign 2011 his performance thus far, first day aside, has left me the most impressed. Truth be told I'm almost stunned over the dramatic improvement in his ability to make a connection with Canadians.

Yesterday at a rally in Ontario Michael Ignatieff spoke passionately and believably and strummed a number of heart-string chords that I think will resonate with voters if they get the chance to see him speak. In addition he answered the important question "why do you want to be PM" in a way that will work for many Canadians.

Unlike the awkwardly professorial picture we've largely been treated to thus far, Michael Ignatieff on the campaign trail seems far more comfortable in his skin now than he ever has as a politician and far more comfortable at the job than Stephen Harper was in his first few campaigns or even now. Iggy's pitch seems suddenly more approachable, more natural, more believable, and, to me at least, somehow more Canadian.

Conservatives who take an objective look at Ignatieff's performance in the early days of his very first national campaign will probably view him as a serious threat to their aspirations. They've sunk millions into trying to define Michael Ignatieff for two years now yet the Ignatieff on the campaign trail I'm seeing shows that he has what it takes to bust through those Conservative attempts to pre-define him. If Ignatieff is successful at this, much of the Conservative narrative starts to fall apart.

While Iggy's work remains cut out for him, I'm now of the view that he's a real threat to Stephen Harper's Conservatives and that's the first time I've said that about any Liberal leader Harper has faced, including Paul Martin.

I've been an objective observer on the sidelines ever since Stephen Harper forged his immoral "coalition" with David "I'll be Stephen Harper's worst enemy" Emerson back in 2006. Privately in my riding I give my vote and support to the candidate who best deserves it. Publicly, I've preferred to be an objective commentator even though it's been a fairly boring pastime given there's been no serious challenger to Stephen Harper in all these years. My sense in these admittedly early days is that this time the race will be a little more exciting.

Thanks to a surprisingly good early effort by Ignatieff, this campaign just got interesting.