# Three DND Officials Fired



## Old Sweat (15 Oct 2012)

According to this report from the Winnipeg Free Press, three DND civilian senior executives were fired last week. The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

DND fires three civilian execs, including official in charge of pension clawback
By: The Canadian Press 

Posted: 2:10 PM 

OTTAWA - Three mid-level civilian executives at National Defence were inexplicably fired earlier this month, including a director who's been at the centre of a class-action lawsuit that could cost the federal treasury up to $600 million.

Andre Bouchard, Gerry Mahon and Randy Helgason were let go Oct. 3 in what defence sources say was "an attempt to change the direction of each organization."

The dismissals came out of the blue, according to defence insiders.

In the case of Bouchard, president of the Defence Department's insurance program, it came at a critical juncture as the federal government negotiates its way through a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit.

Mahon headed CANEX, the chain of military base retail stores, and Helgason was in charge of personnel support programs.

Their departures were announced internally, but have not been explained, and in each case deputies have been appointed as acting replacements.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2012)

For clarity: none of the three were public servants; all were employed by Canadian Forces Non-Public Funds.


----------



## fraserdw (15 Oct 2012)

Maybe now CANEX will treat Full time reservists like their Reg counterparts.  Nothing pisses me off more than having to get a note from the CO proving I have a job to use CANEX plans, when the 17 year old PAT can charge thousands without a credit check.  My God, may credit score is 20 times better than the average PAT!

oooooohhhhhh!   Bye Bye Ladies, watch the swinging door!


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Oct 2012)

I used to babysit...er...I mean "supervise" PAT/PAR pers and I remember one knucklehead racking up a huge debt at the CANEX and was going for more until I advised them that the individual was pending a 5F release.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Maybe now CANEX will treat Full time reservists like their Reg counterparts.  Nothing pisses me off more than having to get a note from the CO proving I have a job to use CANEX plans, when the 17 year old PAT can charge thousands without a credit check.  My God, may credit score is 20 times better than the average PAT!



They do a credit check on Reg F members, just had one done to buy some furniture...


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Maybe now CANEX will treat Full time reservists like their Reg counterparts.  Nothing pisses me off more than having to get a note from the CO proving I have a job to use CANEX plans, when the 17 year old PAT can charge thousands without a credit check.  My God, may credit score is 20 times better than the average PAT!
> 
> oooooohhhhhh!   Bye Bye Ladies, watch the swinging door!



Would you trust lending a 17 year old thousands of dollars whom only has a part time job where they are required to work  1-  3 hour shift per month?

I believe it's less about singling out reservists and more about ensuring they get their money.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2012)

CANEX has largely outlived its usefulness.  Extending easy credit to young soldiers is not a good thing; and the wide array of commercial goods they're supposed to offer are now cheaper and easier to get via online merchants.

There may be an argument for a limited CANEX presence in remote locations for services like groceries, and support to deployed operations should be a no-fail task, but does the CF need to run general dry goods and grocery stores?


----------



## fraserdw (15 Oct 2012)

Except their biggest defaulters are PATs who are released and CF retirees.  I am neither, what I am saying is that a person should receive credit (or not) based on their credit rating.  Leon's has sold me thousands in furniture in the past decade and never once embarrassed me by asking for a note from my employer.  Canex could have had that business if their business model was not so stupid as to require one certain group to get a note from their employer proving they have a job.  Credit reports tend to tell you if someone has an income or not.  It is interesting that when I pull out the CF retiree ID card, they no longer require a note from my employer yet I do not collect a pension so how does that make me more credit worthy than  being a full time reservist making 80K a year?  The policy is flawed and discriminatory without producing any useful results beyond losing money for the base fund.


----------



## fraserdw (15 Oct 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANEX has largely outlived its usefulness.  Extending easy credit to young soldiers is not a good thing; and the wide array of commercial goods they're supposed to offer are now cheaper and easier to get via online merchants.
> 
> There may be an argument for a limited CANEX presence in remote locations for services like groceries, and support to deployed operations should be a no-fail task, but does the CF need to run general dry goods and grocery stores?



Agreed, I would go one further, let local merchants lease the space and provide the services for profit with a gross profit percentage to support base programs.  Works with bars, realtors and barbers on the base why not retail.


----------



## McG (15 Oct 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANEX has largely outlived its usefulness.


Is it financially selfsustaining?


----------



## fraserdw (15 Oct 2012)

The employees are NPF so I do not think they are in the profit equation, the grounds and building are DND but they pay a nominal fee.  Anyone know the deep dark secrets of CANEX.  All I know is that Generals as shareholders is an urban legend, no self-respecting General would put his money into that!


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANEX has largely outlived its usefulness.  Extending easy credit to young soldiers is not a good thing; and the wide array of commercial goods they're supposed to offer are now cheaper and easier to get via online merchants.



Things may be cheaper online, but what if you don't have the cash on hand? How many 20 year olds do you know have huge savings sitting around to buy a fridge and stove with cash? Just because you don't need the CANEX credit plan doesn't mean its useless, I see it as a great way for young soldiers to build credit.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2012)

There are many other agencies that extend credit.  Should the CF be underwriting car loans as well? Mortgages?

Much of what CANEX offers is not a core requirement - and thus is not something the CF should be in the business of doing.


----------



## buzgo (15 Oct 2012)

The money CANEX generates goes into supporting NPF. Fitness, gyms, sports, recreation, MFRC, messes etc etc etc. 

-- added MFRC to the list.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are many other agencies that extend credit.  Should the CF be underwriting car loans as well? Mortgages?



There's a difference between $6,500 per military member and a $300,000 mortgage. There's a lot of other things that the CF provides that aren't a core requirement to do our jobs, they just make them easier on ourselves and our families. You seem deadset against anything extra, even though at worst it is revenue-neutral and provides an excellent service to soldiers and their families.

Other agencies extend credit to make money off people, CANEX does it to assist in building credit.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Oct 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> when the 17 year old PAT can charge thousands without a credit check.



There is a credit check done all all patrons buying items using the credit plan. All patrons.

If you're going to go on a rants, correct information helps.


----------



## fraserdw (15 Oct 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There is a credit check done all all patrons buying items using the credit plan. All patrons.
> 
> If you're going to go on a rants, correct information helps.



I got a PAT with 6K run up.  Some credit check there, add a car payment, rations and quarters and you got can't make the bills.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Oct 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> I got a PAT with 6K



To be honest, I don't give a shyte. There's a credit check, you were wrong. Next.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The money CANEX generates goes into supporting NPF. Fitness, gyms, sports, recreation, MFRC, messes etc etc etc.
> 
> -- added MFRC to the list.



Core military requirements for fitness and gyms, MFRCs and messes are paid out of public money, transferred to CFPSA, then paid by CFPSA.  Local add-ons may be subsidized by the base out of CANEX profits.

According to their financial statements, for the FY ended 31 March 11, CANEX sold $141M in merchandise, with just over $3M paid out to bases.  However, DND paid $2.5M to CANEX for payroll, travel and supplies.  The value of facilities was not identified or charged to CANEX.

So, essentially, CANEX operates at a loss which is masked by direct and indirect public subsidy.  The "NPF profit sharing" is a hidden public subsidy.


A more narrow focus on remote and deployed locations, together with in increase in renting out facilities at fair market value to third-party providers should be the way forward.  I'm not, however, holding my breath.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Oct 2012)

I have used the Canex plan many times and love that it is an interest free loan.  I'm not sure you would find that anywhere else.  Its great for first time families too, outfitting a home with appliances and such with a interest free loan.


----------



## fraserdw (15 Oct 2012)

The other thing is what does this mean for SISIP?  If they are required to pay out, it could break the bank!  Jacking rates for those you have SISIP, maybe even making them un-competitive against private insurance.  Prehaps forcing the government to bail them out.  It will be interesting to see how the government will handle the pay out.  I assume that these firings are the first part of a multi-prong plan to distance the elected government from the policy.

The next logical step is force repayment through SISIP and put a bunch caveats on the payment, such as no retro-payments for the deceased or their dependents.  There will be all kinds of shades of gray attached to the re-payment policy.


----------



## maniac (16 Oct 2012)

wow,  thanks for getting this back on topic.  I think CANEX hijacked this thread over the important topic of SISIP clawback.  I did learn one thing,  a lot of CANEX haters out there!


----------



## Journeyman (16 Oct 2012)

maniac said:
			
		

> wow,  thanks for getting this back on topic.  I think CANEX hijacked this thread over the important topic of SISIP clawback.



Hardly a hijack. Three were fired: Andre Bouchard was linked to SISIP, Randy Helgason was in charge of personnel support programs, and Gerry Mahon headed CANEX. 

You having an interest in only one aspect of the issue doesn't automatically grant it the status of "important."


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Oct 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You seem deadset against anything extra, even though at worst it is revenue-neutral and provides an excellent service to soldiers and their families.



In times of fiscal restraint, we need to focus on our core business.  I will not trade in training for CANEX niceties.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> In times of fiscal restraint



As we are constantly reminded by Higher HQ.

So what was the issue with these three.....


----------

