# Retired general claims $72K in moving expenses (CTV)



## civmick

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ctv-exclusive-retired-general-claimed-72k-in-expenses-for-move-within-ottawa-1.1688678


> One of Canada’s most high-profile military leaders claimed more than $72,000 in expenses, including real estate fees, for a move from his Ottawa home to another residence in the city after he retired, CTV News has learned.
> 
> Documents obtained by CTV News show retired general Andrew Leslie, who once led Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, claimed the expenses for a move in 2012.
> 
> Leslie retired from the military in 2011, but members of the Canadian Forces are entitled to expense one last move after they retire.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

So the story here is that LGen Leslie took the final move that all CF members are entitled to upon release from the CF (assuming they serve long enough to qualify). Do I have that about right?

 :


----------



## Goose15

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So the story here is that LGen Leslie took the final move that all CF members are entitled to upon release from the CF (assuming they serve long enough to qualify). Do I have that about right?
> 
> :



What are the conditions on this "one last move"? I am not familiar with this policy.


----------



## Journeyman

Goose15 said:
			
		

> What are the conditions on this "one last move"? I am not familiar with this policy.


You're not even through the recruiting process....._sigh_


I'm going to introduce you to a phrase you will hear at Recruit School......
*"Wait for it!"*


----------



## Goose15

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You're not even through the recruiting process....._sigh_
> 
> 
> I'm going to introduce you to a phrase you will hear at Recruit School......
> *"Wait for it!"*



You are correct in that :nod:

I simply enjoy obtaining knowledge and I was quite unaware of this policy. I am simply interested in how it works. Would be interested even if I was not in the reciting process 

Edit to add: I have tried searching for it but no combination of key words is acquiring pertinent results.


----------



## V_I_Lenin

If I might quote David Dingwall...

"I'm entitled to my entitlments"


----------



## armyvern

mark-space said:
			
		

> If I might quote David Dingwall...
> 
> "I'm entitled to my entitlments"



Utter tripe.  Their expert is Stven Staples --- that should tell you something.  Once again, the MSM is attempting to put the government in bad light by creating a scandal out of _nothing_.

Each and every member of the CAF is entitled to a final move upon retirement; this means you too. There are very legitimate reasons for that. Bonified Service Requirements being only one of them.

Think about it: you enrol in Halifax, NS. At retirement, you are posted in butt-fuck nowhere Wainwright, Alberta.  YOU are entitled to have the government move you to the location you are going to settle in.  They will pay the cost of that final move up to what it would cost them to move you from that last posting (Wainwright) back to Halifax, NS (pace of enrolment).  If you enrolled in Halifax and your final posting is in Gagetown, NB but you want to retire in Victoria, BC ... they would only contribute/pay up to what it would cost to move you from Gagetown (your final posting) to Halifax (your place of enrolment).

Otherwise, you'd have a tonne of persons who volunteered to serve their country all over this nation, stuck in whatever location they happened to have been posted to by their government when they hit retirement.  Imagine stuck in Goose Bay, Wainwrong or XXX forvever after you retired simply because your government posted you there ... not because you moved there by choice.


----------



## vonGarvin

[Edit to note that I deleted a portion of this post]


And if Mr. Leslie decided to move to say Victoria, his expenses would have been in the hundreds of thousands.  Maybe the counter spin is that if the policy is reversed, then some poor corporal in Cold Lake AB is going to be stuck there, forcing him to busk his way back to e.g. Quebec....


----------



## McG

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Utter tripe.  Their expert is Stven Staples --- that should tell you something.





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> I read the magic word ("Staples") and since I knew they weren't talking about a retail outlet, I stopped reading.


Ad hominem against public figures has gotten the site in legal troubles before.  You can have your opinion of the author, but please focus your comments on the content of the article.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I read the article, the issue isn't whether he was entitled to move, it's whether he should be entitled to move four minutes down the road as he moved from one house to another in the same city.  He didn't break any rules but the optics just look bad.  All CF members are entitled to their entitlements though so it really should be a non-story.  Pisses me off that we have former officers like Pat Strogran calling him out when attacking this could affect everyone in the CF.


----------



## George Wallace

There may be a problem with this when the mention is made of "four minute down the road".  When a member qualifies for a paid move at the end of their service, there are regulations that dictate minimum and maximum distances that a cost move can be made.  The question that has been raised in the comments to this article included one that raised this factoid: 



> Under the Integrated Relocation Directives of the Department of National Defence, Officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces are entitled to a relocation within 2 years following retirement, providing the move/relocation is not less than 40 kilometres between the old residence and new residence. This is not about the costs associated to the relocation, but, whether a relocation under 40 Km meets the DND Integrated Relocation Directives Entitlements for approval.



If there was an abuse here, then there is a problem.  If there was no abuse of this regulation, this is a non-news event.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...
> If there was an abuse here, then there is a problem.  If there was no abuse of this regulation, this is a non-news event.



Exactly.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There may be a problem with this when the mention is made of "four minute down the road".  When a member qualifies for a paid move at the end of their service, there are regulations that dictate minimum and maximum distances that a cost move can be made.  The question that has been raised in the comments to this article included one that raised this factoid:
> 
> If there was an abuse here, then there is a problem.  If there was no abuse of this regulation, this is a non-news event.



ack George thanks for that tidbit


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Goose15 said:
			
		

> I simply enjoy obtaining knowledge and I was quite unaware of this policy.



http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch14.page


----------



## Goose15

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch14.page



Thank you sir!


----------



## Occam

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There may be a problem with this when the mention is made of "four minute down the road".  When a member qualifies for a paid move at the end of their service, there are regulations that dictate minimum and maximum distances that a cost move can be made.  The question that has been raised in the comments to this article included one that raised this factoid:
> 
> If there was an abuse here, then there is a problem.  If there was no abuse of this regulation, this is a non-news event.



As long as you have more than 10 years of service, or are being released under a 3(b), you're entitled to a move anywhere in Canada.  There are no minimum distance requirements on a move to IPR.  The 40 km minimum requirement only kicks in for members posted from one place of duty to another place of duty.


----------



## Transporter

I've read Chap 14 of the Relocation Directive and it makes no mention of final IPR location having to be a minimum distance from current employment location. Part 14.3 states that entitlements for IPR move are basically the same as for any other move with some restrictions on things like HHT and HEA (IPR locn must be >40Kms for both). Thus, unless he claimed something that's expressly forbidden in these limitations, he should be G2G.

That said, I can see how the optics still look bad to those who are not in the know, but selling a house valued at over $1M alone would account for most of what his IPR move cost - and that's something I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of CF pers will never have to do in their lifetime.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch14.page



Thank you for that link.  It qualifies many of the posts that followed.

It really doesn't matter on what rank a member retires at after over ten years of service; according to the directive any move will be a fairly expensive cost.  Movers are not cheap.  Realtors (X2) are not cheap.   Lawyers and Legal Fees (both ends of move) are not cheap.  Hotel accommodations are/may be involved.   Temporary storage may be involved.  Contracts for cleaners may be involved.  Building Inspector fees most likely are an additional cost.  Travel costs, even for a short distance are involved.  I am quite sure that the expense of $72K for this move, can easily be matched by dozens or more moves made by other members of the CAF on Release after twenty or more years of service.   The longer the member serves the more they accumulate in property and the larger their family may become.   It is only common sense that their last moves may be expensive.  Perhaps the author of this article is on a "witch hunt" looking for some sensationalism to promote their own agenda......or they just have no common sense.


----------



## Occam

To give you some context, I just did my IPR move in August 2013 - it was 35 km door-to-door, the house at origin sold at $342K, we had no unusual move-related costs like boats or trailers - and the total cost of the move came out to approx $25,500.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I was posted last APS to a new geographical location inside the same province.  We bought a new home, stayed in hotels, had cleaners in at the residence we vacated, got misc expenses, put my posting allowance into a spousal RRSP, had lawyers fees paid for, home inspections, deed transfers etc.

How come **I** never made it into the news dammit?   :tempertantrum:


----------



## 4Feathers

Or perhaps this whole thing was just orchestrated as a PR stunt before the TB cuts or modifies yet another one of our benefits.  IR benefits and severance pay come to mind....


----------



## Transporter

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I was posted last APS to a new geographical location inside the same province.  We bought a new home, stayed in hotels, had cleaners in at the residence we vacated, got misc expenses, put my posting allowance into a spousal RRSP, had lawyers fees paid for, home inspections, deed transfers etc.
> 
> How come **I** never made it into the news dammit?   :tempertantrum:


 You did... you're not getting any new airplanes  ;D


----------



## Transporter

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Or perhaps this whole thing was just orchestrated as a PR stunt before the TB cuts or modifies yet another one of our benefits.  IR benefits and severance pay come to mind....


 And don't forget about pension contribution increases as well as PSHCP premium increases in retirement... to name a few more.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Transporter said:
			
		

> You did... you're not getting any new airplanes  ;D



Well played!!!  :blotto:


----------



## George Wallace

Transporter said:
			
		

> And don't forget about pension contribution increases as well as PSHCP premium increases in retirement... to name a few more.



The Pension claw back at age 65 really gets my goat.

Now back to the optics of a $72K moving expense.


----------



## Monsoon

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Or perhaps this whole thing was just orchestrated as a PR stunt before the TB cuts or modifies yet another one of our benefits.  IR benefits and severance pay come to mind....


I think this is considerably more about sending a nice little "welcome to politics" message to the future Liberal candidate in Ottawa-Orleans. If he thought he was going to run on the strength of his leaked cost-cutting report, he's going to be doing so on a back foot now.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thank you for that link.  It qualifies many of the posts that followed.
> 
> It really doesn't matter on what rank a member retires at after over ten years of service; according to the directive any move will be a fairly expensive cost.  Movers are not cheap.  Realtors (X2) are not cheap.   Lawyers and Legal Fees (both ends of move) are not cheap.  Hotel accommodations are/may be involved.   Temporary storage may be involved.  Contracts for cleaners may be involved.  Building Inspector fees most likely are an additional cost.  Travel costs, even for a short distance are involved.  I am quite sure that the expense of $72K for this move, can easily be matched by dozens or more moves made by other members of the CAF on Release after twenty or more years of service.   The longer the member serves the more they accumulate in property and the larger their family may become.   It is only common sense that their last moves may be expensive.  Perhaps the author of this article is on a "witch hunt" looking for some sensationalism to promote their own agenda......or they just have no common sense.




I think anyone who follows my ramblings here on Army.ca will acknowledge that I'm no great fan of journalism, _per se_, nor for that matter of many journalists. (There are a couple of exceptions.) 

But, in all fairness, _journalism_ is a highly competitive business and journalists are under constant pressure to find "news" and LGen (ret'd) Leslie, by making himself a public, *political* personality is "newsworthy" when his private affairs _appear_ to be "out of line" with the experiences of many Canadians.

Mr Staples' comments simply affirm that he is trying to exploit LGen (ret'd) Leslie's wholly legitimate financial entitlements for his (Staples') own anti-military agenda. But, rest assured, the Conservative election campaign _War Room_ will recycle this as part of a campaign to paint M. Trudeau and his advisors as self-indulgent "children of privilege" who bill charities for speaking fees and the taxpayers for local moves. It will be shabby and dishonest but we all know, by now, that negative advertising works in politics.

Finally, there has been for a generation now, a new _model_ for journalism:







and







Edit: format


----------



## Transporter

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I think this is considerably more about sending a nice little "welcome to politics" message to the future Liberal candidate in Ottawa-Orleans. If he thought he was going to run on the strength of his leaked cost-cutting report, he's going to be doing so on a back foot now.


 Agreed. Why else would anyone be looking into his expense claims?


----------



## Alberta Bound

The CFIRP Directive only distinguishes certain benefits for retirement as not being allowed on a move under 40 kms to my understanding. I believe that is that only the HHT/DIT and HEA are not authorized. Besides that what Gen Leslie did was within policy. Although CRA have in the past ruled that retirement moves under 40 kms are a taxable benefit. So he may end up having to pay the taxman something.

The only thing I see Gen Leslie doing wrong was quoting the RCMP as getting the same benefit. A small misconception. A number of years ago the RCMP IRP Directive was changed to disallow benefits for retirement moves under 40 kms and/or if a member had never transferred from their engagement location. This was due to a news story about a large number of our civilian members (not PSs) and even a couple regular members getting retirement moves in and around their engagement location (Ottawa-Gatineau especially) without ever having had to take a transfer to a new posting during their service.


----------



## Old Sweat

It also seems to me that Gen Leslie joined the army in Ottawa. He was a Arty RESO Phase 1 student in Gagetown in 1977 when I was CIG at the school. I believe he was attending U of O and was affiliated with the 30th Fd. 

Edit to add: This is confirmed by his on line biography from the RCA Museum:

http://www.rcamuseum.com/English/Great%20Gunners/lesliea.htm


----------



## DAA

Yes, he did start his CF career as a Reservist.

He did nothing more than any other retiring CF member does when claiming the benefits of an IPR, which are very unique to the CF and a few other OGD's (ie; RCMP).  Of note, the CF does NOT administer the benefits associated with Relocation.  This is done through contract with the current service provider, Brookefield Relocation Services.  The CF merely develops the policy and Brookefield is responsible to implement/administer it in conjunction with the individual's relocation needs.

A move to an IPR location which is under 40km, does include the"limitation of benefits" of some benefits but not that many.

So while $72K may seem like an extraordinarily large sum, the payment of those funds would have been made by Brookefield Relocation Services based on existant policy and not by someone in the CF.


----------



## pbi

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .. But, rest assured, the Conservative election campaign _War Room_ will recycle this as part of a campaign to paint M. Trudeau and his advisors as self-indulgent "children of privilege" who bill charities for speaking fees and the taxpayers for local moves. It will be shabby and dishonest but we all know, by now, that negative advertising works in politics.



And herein, IMHO, lies a certain danger of "collateral damage" if the issue of CAF compensation and benefits becomes a political football. Whether or not Leslie is an aspiring Liberal politician isn't really the point. The point is that his benefits legitimately accrued to him as a result of fulfilling a contract he signed with the Crown (and, by extension, the Govt of Canada). The Tories singling these out to attack the Liberals might have unintended consequences for the CAF: most Canadians could only dream of such benefits.

Hopefully the result will not be further penny-pinching driven by "optics".


----------



## DAA

pbi said:
			
		

> And herein, IMHO, lies a certain danger of "collateral damage" if the issue of CAF compensation and benefits becomes a political football. Whether or not Leslie is an aspiring Liberal politician isn't really the point. The point is that his benefits legitimately accrued to him as a result of fulfilling a contract he signed with the Crown (and, by extension, the Govt of Canada). The Tories singling these out to attack the Liberals might have unintended consequences for the CAF: most Canadians could only dream of such benefits.
> 
> Hopefully the result will not be further penny-pinching driven by "optics".



I believe that the "optics" are already there and the issue was under the micro-scope last year.  Rumblings were that the policy was going to be changed last Aug or Sep but now that we are 6 months beyond that date, something happened to squash things and leave it be.

Like mentioned previously, now that this benefit has become a potential "lightening rod", all we can do is wait and see if it get's struck.


----------



## PuckChaser

DAA said:
			
		

> So while $72K may seem like an extraordinarily large sum, the payment of those funds would have been made by Brookefield Relocation Services based on existant policy and not by someone in the CF.



I'm curious as to how much of that cost is to pay the moving company. That's got to be a significant portion of it, especially if he's got a large amount of items in a large home. Full day pack, full day load, full day unload, etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

DAA said:
			
		

> So while $72K may seem like an extraordinarily large sum, the payment of those funds would have been made by Brookefield Relocation Services based on existant policy and not by someone in the CF.



And payouts/benefits based on approved TB policy.

Must be a slow news day.  "Retired General moves IAW Treasury Board Policy, along with XXXX other Reg Force members who retired in that fiscal year."

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Monsoon

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Must be a slow news day.  "Retired General moves IAW Treasury Board Policy, along with XXXX other Reg Force members who retired in that fiscal year."


How many of those members loudly championed defence administration cost savings in a report they compiled and then leaked prior to retiring to go into politics? Somewhat fewer.

I agree that what he did was entirely legal and that he was indeed "entitled to his entitlements". The question of whether or not it was _wise_ given his desire to go into politics as a defence overhead-cutter is another question. If he had retired to private rather than public life there's no question we wouldn't be hearing about this now.


----------



## MilEME09

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> How many of those members loudly championed defence administration cost savings in a report they compiled and then leaked prior to retiring to go into politics? Somewhat fewer.
> 
> I agree that what he did was entirely legal and that he was indeed "entitled to his entitlements". The question of whether or not it was _wise_ given his desire to go into politics as a defence overhead-cutter is another question. If he had retired to private rather than public life there's no question we wouldn't be hearing about this now.



I cant help but immediately think of the CPC smeer campaign beginning with this, CTV is now reporting the defense minister has ordered an investigation into his claim because he was apparently moving "just down the street" he is a liberal so of course the CPC will want to take him down. I personally want to see Leslie get elected, not in a sitting liberal government, but i think he would be good at keeping DND on its toes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I cant help but immediately think of the CPC smeer campaign beginning with this, CTV is now reporting the defense minister has ordered an investigation into his claim because he was apparently moving "just down the street" he is a liberal so of course the CPC will want to take him down.



I guess they are then also investigating every person in the BRS organization that had anything to do with that file #.  Someone approved the payments, just like any other move.


----------



## DAA

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I guess they are then also investigating every person in the BRS organization that had anything to do with that file #.  Someone approved the payments, just like any other move.



That's the key!  At the end of the day, the move is "contracted out", so the CF has little if any say on what is or what isn't paid to the member, so long as it falls within the policy guidelines which are sanctioned by Treasury Board.

Very few will know the exact details and I am slightly concerned with the fact that CTV has this kind of "personal" information, especially when the matter is administered by an outside/contracted service provided.

Makes me wonder how secure the information in my own personal previous relocation file is?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And payouts/benefits based on approved TB policy.
> 
> Must be a slow news day.  "Retired General moves IAW Treasury Board Policy, along with XXXX other Reg Force members who retired in that fiscal year."
> 
> :Tin-Foil-Hat:





			
				DAA said:
			
		

> .... At the end of the day, the move is "contracted out", so the CF has little if any say on what is or what isn't paid to the member, so long as it falls within the policy guidelines which are sanctioned by Treasury Board.
> 
> Very few will know the exact details and I am slightly concerned with the fact that CTV has this kind of "personal" information, especially when the matter is administered by an outside/contracted service provided.
> 
> Makes me wonder how secure the information in my own personal previous relocation file is?


Someone should tell the Minister - this, from CTV .....


> Canada’s minister of national defence says his department intends to examine the “grossly excessive” expenses claimed by a former top-ranking general for a move from his Ottawa home to another residence in the city, shortly after he retired from the Armed Forces.
> 
> Documents obtained by CTV News on Saturday revealed that retired general Andrew Leslie, who once led Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, claimed more than $72,000 in moving expenses, including real estate fees, for a move in 2012.
> 
> “As such, I will be asking the Department of National Defence to examine how an in-city move could possibly total over $72,000,” Minister of National Defence Rob Nicholson told CTV News in an email on Sunday.
> 
> “In the meantime, it is important for Andrew Leslie to explain why he believes this is a reasonable expense for hard working Canadians to absorb. This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars."
> 
> Leslie retired from the military in 2011, but members of the Canadian Forces are entitled to expense one last move after they retire.
> 
> In a statement to CTV News on Saturday, Leslie was adamant that he did not break any rules.
> 
> “The Department of National Defence handles and pays all the costs for packing, shipping… The overwhelming majority of the expense is certainly the real estate fees,” the statement said ....


----------



## Lightguns

It's a political football now, regardless of the regs or privacy.  The CPC needs to discredit Liberal Andy as a future MND or MFA.  Welcome to real politics, SIR!  No hiding now.  They will spin him to be a Liberal elitist taking money away from busking Cpls in Cold Lake!


----------



## DAA

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Someone should tell the Minister - this, from CTV .....



Makes some sense on the final price tag, given the costs involved for both the purchase and sale of which there are NO limits other than with regard to property size.  I would assume that the previous property was comparable in price to the new purchase, so no wonder the big $$$.  Everything is proportional based on cost and cost is proportional based on location.

I saw a similar internal "whoop dee doo" almost 20 years ago, when the program first started out, was in it's infancy and the individual was claiming real estate and legal fees on the sale of a $600K home.  The first question asked was "What is a CF member doing, owning such an expensive home?"     :facepalm:

And the proportionate response, may be some sort of knee jerk reaction and all current CF members may very well pay the price of losing these benefits.

But still, at the end of the day, LGen Leslie is claiming an IPR, no different than any other CF member, regardless of rank is doing, so it begs the question of "How did they obtain information on his IPR relocation expenses, which probably weren't meant to be for public record?"   You could be next!


----------



## Transporter

As previously noted, it's political now. And regardless of whether LGen Leslie did everything completely within the rules or not, you can rest assured that this will be another benefit that will have the screws tightened on it, all in the name of taxpayer accountability and scoring cheap political points leading up to the next election.


----------



## DAA

Transporter said:
			
		

> As previously noted, it's political now. And regardless of whether LGen Leslie did everything completely within the rules or not, you can rest assured that this will be another benefit that will have the screws tightened on it, all in the name of taxpayer accountability and scoring cheap political points leading up to the next election.



No doubt but here is an off the cuff thought!

Will he throw the entire CF under the bus or will he navigate this minefield and come out on the higher political ground without doing that?


----------



## blacktriangle

DAA said:
			
		

> Will he throw the entire CF under the bus or will he navigate this minefield and come out on the higher political ground without doing that?



Depends - are we taking bets?  >


----------



## Transporter

DAA said:
			
		

> No doubt but here is an off the cuff thought!
> 
> Will he throw the entire CF under the bus or will he navigate this minefield and come out on the higher political ground without doing that?


 I don't think Leslie will throw anyone under the bus (if that's what you're asking), as long as everything he claimed and received approval was above board. He can simply say he did nothing but follow the rules provided by TB and as administered by BRS. But it won't matter to the Cons. They will exploit it to the hilt and will take it a step further to change the rules, all so they can tell Joe public that they are in their corner when it comes to managing their hard-earned tax dollars.


----------



## DAA

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Depends - are we taking bets?  >



Time will tell, it will all come out in the wash.

Chances are, some pundit assigned or volunteering for his campaign as an advisor will steer him in a direction which is compatible for election and based on the flavour of the electorate.  So the more the topic gains steam and the more the general population bites/feeds into this, the more he has to distance himself from it.

That's why they call it "Politics".



			
				Transporter said:
			
		

> I don't think Leslie will throw anyone under the bus (if that's what you're asking), as long as everything he claimed and received approval was above board. He can simply say he did nothing but follow the rules provided by TB and as administered by BRS. But it won't matter to the Cons. They will exploit it to the hilt and will take it a step further to change the rules, all so they can tell Joe public that they are in their corner when it comes to managing their hard-earned tax dollars.



It's too late now, if in fact he is actually considering running a successful compaign as a Liberal.  Policy matters are out of his hands and into his advisors, no matter what he thinks.  It's all about votes.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> It's a political football now, regardless of the regs or privacy.  The CPC needs to discredit Liberal Andy as a future MND or MFA.  Welcome to real politics, SIR!  No hiding now.  They will spin him to be a Liberal elitist taking money away from busking Cpls in Cold Lake!


 :nod:


----------



## Tibbson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how much of that cost is to pay the moving company. That's got to be a significant portion of it, especially if he's got a large amount of items in a large home. Full day pack, full day load, full day unload, etc.



And given the cost of his home (over $1 million) the real estate fees, being a percentage of the sale price, would account for another big chunk I'd think.


----------



## PuckChaser

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> And given the cost of his home (over $1 million) the real estate fees, being a percentage of the sale price, would account for another big chunk I'd think.



Absolutely. I really hope this comes back to bite the "gotcha" media with a review that says "Gen Leslie was moved in accordance with TBS policy, here's a breakdown of all the costs he never saw."

MSM is making it sound like he got moved, and then got a cheque for $72,000.


----------



## George Wallace

We are seeing an uproar over the 'farming out' of CAF medical records to an American owned/based company, and the lack of security/invasion of privacy entailed with those records being outside of DND.  Now we have the General's information leaked by someone at Brookefield Relocation Services.  Is there a much larger problem here than just the cost of General Leslie's move?  Are we facing some serious breaches in the control over our personal information by DND and the Government contracting out information management services?


----------



## PuckChaser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We are seeing an uproar over the 'farming out' of CAF medical records to an American owned/based company, and the lack of security/invasion of privacy entailed with those records being outside of DND.  Now we have the General's information leaked by someone at Brookefield Relocation Services.  Is there a much larger problem here than just the cost of General Leslie's move?  Are we facing some serious breaches in the control over our personal information by DND and the Government contracting out information management services?



Is the total cost to move someone ATI-able? I would think the individual breakdown would be at least Protected A, but total cost is a line item.


----------



## Transporter

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is the total cost to move someone ATI-able? I would think the individual breakdown would be at least Protected A, but total cost is a line item.


Something tells me we are about to find out.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is the total cost to move someone ATI-able? I would think the individual breakdown would be at least Protected A, but total cost is a line item.



I would imagine it would be ATI-able to the member.  I would imagine that an ATI would have a lot of that information redacted if requested by someone other than the member.


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We are seeing an uproar over the 'farming out' of CAF medical records to an American owned/based company, and the lack of security/invasion of privacy entailed with those records being outside of DND.



No.  We are not.  CAF medical records are held and maintained in-house.

VAC keeps paper records in a warehouse in Canada run by a private company.



> Now we have the General's information leaked by someone at Brookefield Relocation Services.



No.  We do not.  According to the MND, it was an ATI request.  Alternatively, if it was a leak, then BRS would not have all the information, since Brookfield does not manage the HG&E contract -they have no visibility on those costs.



> Is there a much larger problem here than just the cost of General Leslie's move?  Are we facing some serious breaches in the control over our personal information by DND and the Government contracting out information management services?



Given the lack of a factual basis for your fist two claims...


----------



## Monsoon

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is the total cost to move someone ATI-able? I would think the individual breakdown would be at least Protected A, but total cost is a line item.


Not if you ask for it by name, but if you ask something like, "Please give me the cost of all retirement moves that occurred both from and to the Ottawa area in the month of XXX 2012" you'll end up with a very short list of results.

Leslie can claim that he didn't know what the expenses amounted to, but he would certainly know that a 2% seller's agent commission and a 2% buyer's agent commission would total $40K on a $1M house. It would appear given the timeline that he bought the new house after he landed his defence contractor gig at CGI, so it could be suggested that he moved to the bigger house his bigger salary could afford and saved himself the sale commissions by doing it through IRP.

_Of course_ he was entitled to do that under the IRP policy, but he's in public life now and the rules are different: remember that David Dingwall a decade out of politics when the entitlements to which he was later entitled played a big role in Paul Martin's government losing power. The policy question is, "Should IRP, which is intended to provide a move back to a member's original hometown upon release be available for members wishing to move within the same local area?" and the political question is, "Should someone who has billed himself as a future MND use defence benefits to move himself from a $1M house to a bigger house he bought with his defence contractor money months after he retired from the military?" The optics ain't pretty.

My guess is that the CPC has as much to lose here in criticism of a TBS policy that existed under their mandate as the Liberals do through affiliation with a "fat-cat defence contractor". Since Steven Staples was quoted in the original article, I would guess this would have originated from the NDP, of which he was a former candidate.


----------



## Jed

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We are seeing an uproar over the 'farming out' of CAF medical records to an American owned/based company, and the lack of security/invasion of privacy entailed with those records being outside of DND.  Now we have the General's information leaked by someone at Brookefield Relocation Services.  Is there a much larger problem here than just the cost of General Leslie's move?  Are we facing some serious breaches in the control over our personal information by DND and the Government contracting out information management services?



I'm not a big fan of the brass getting unfair entitlements, which may or may not be the case, but to me as noted above, this is the bigger problem.


----------



## dapaterson

Jed said:
			
		

> I'm not a big fan of the brass getting unfair entitlements, which may or may not be the case, but to me as noted above, this is the bigger problem.



As previously stated, Brookfield does not have al the information about the cost of a move.  They therefore could not have leaked that information.


----------



## Jed

Oops! Should have read further down the thread.


----------



## Tibbson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely. I really hope this comes back to bite the "gotcha" media with a review that says "Gen Leslie was moved in accordance with TBS policy, here's a breakdown of all the costs he never saw."
> 
> MSM is making it sound like he got moved, and then got a cheque for $72,000.



Yep, it will be published on page 54 right next to the house league bowling scores.


----------



## Old Sweat

This rebuttal by Leslie published by the CP is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. While I agree with him that he is the victim of a smear campaign, I do not know who originated it. However it appears more likely to have been originated by a political organization than a taxpayer protection or fiscal responsibility group.

Former general Leslie accuses Tories of smear over moving expenses

By Jim Bronskill — CP — Feb 16 2014

OTTAWA - A retired general who once led Canada's troops in Afghanistan is accusing the federal Conservatives of a "personal attack" over his moving expenses to undermine his new role as a Liberal adviser.

Former lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie brushed off what he characterized as a partisan smear Sunday, saying he's been shot at by "real bullets" and can withstand the scrutiny that comes with working for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

The 35-year Canadian Forces veteran posted the comments online the same day the Defence Minister said he would ask his department to explain how it approved in-city moving expenses of more than $72,000 for Leslie — a Rob Nicholson said appeared "grossly excessive."

"In the meantime, it is important for Andrew Leslie to explain why he believes this is a reasonable expense for hard working Canadians to absorb," Nicholson said in a statement. "This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars."

Leslie told CTV News, which aired the story Saturday based on a government document, that he did not break any rules and that most of the moving expenses went to real estate fees.

CTV did not say how it obtained the document, but Nicholson's office said Sunday it was released under the Access to Information Act.

Leslie did not explain in his statement how he concluded the Tories were behind the story.

It aired just a week before Leslie, touted as a candidate in the next federal election, is to address a Liberal convention in Montreal.

Leslie said Sunday that like all Canadian Forces personnel who retire after 20 or more years of service, he was offered and accepted a standard benefit that allows veterans a final move to anywhere in Canada.

In Leslie's case, he and his family decided to move from their Ottawa house to a smaller one nearby.

"After moving homes 18 times in the service of my country, I was glad to make a new house in Ottawa our new, permanent home," he said in the statement.

"Each step of the process is overseen by a third-party supplier, and independent approvals for every expenditure are required, as directed by the Treasury Board of Canada. Costs are paid directly to the suppliers (real estate agents, movers etc.) by the Department of National Defence."

Leslie said that after retiring, he joined the federal Liberal Party because he felt "it was time for a change in how politics is conducted" in Canada.

"I saw how the Conservative Party often attacks those people that might dare to disagree with them," adding all too often the tactic is to make the issue personal, not about differences in policy or vision.

Now that he has joined Trudeau's team as a senior adviser on defence and foreign policy, the Conservatives have made him the target of a just such a personal attack, Leslie said.

"I can take it. I have been shot at by real bullets. What is disappointing is that this particular attack may raise questions over a military retirement benefit and I do not think veterans deserve to have another measure called into question."


----------



## Transporter

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This rebuttal by Leslie published by the CP is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. While I agree with him that he is the victim of a smear campaign, I do not know who originated it. However it appears more likely to have been originated by a political organization than a taxpayer protection or fiscal responsibility group.
> 
> Former general Leslie accuses Tories of smear over moving expenses
> 
> By Jim Bronskill — CP — Feb 16 2014
> 
> OTTAWA - A retired general who once led Canada's troops in Afghanistan is accusing the federal Conservatives of a "personal attack" over his moving expenses to undermine his new role as a Liberal adviser.
> 
> Former lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie brushed off what he characterized as a partisan smear Sunday, saying he's been shot at by "real bullets" and can withstand the scrutiny that comes with working for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.
> 
> The 35-year Canadian Forces veteran posted the comments online the same day the Defence Minister said he would ask his department to explain how it approved in-city moving expenses of more than $72,000 for Leslie — a Rob Nicholson said appeared "grossly excessive."
> 
> "In the meantime, it is important for Andrew Leslie to explain why he believes this is a reasonable expense for hard working Canadians to absorb," Nicholson said in a statement. "This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars."
> 
> Leslie told CTV News, which aired the story Saturday based on a government document, that he did not break any rules and that most of the moving expenses went to real estate fees.
> 
> CTV did not say how it obtained the document, but Nicholson's office said Sunday it was released under the Access to Information Act.
> 
> Leslie did not explain in his statement how he concluded the Tories were behind the story.
> 
> It aired just a week before Leslie, touted as a candidate in the next federal election, is to address a Liberal convention in Montreal.
> 
> Leslie said Sunday that like all Canadian Forces personnel who retire after 20 or more years of service, he was offered and accepted a standard benefit that allows veterans a final move to anywhere in Canada.
> 
> In Leslie's case, he and his family decided to move from their Ottawa house to a smaller one nearby.
> 
> "After moving homes 18 times in the service of my country, I was glad to make a new house in Ottawa our new, permanent home," he said in the statement.
> 
> "Each step of the process is overseen by a third-party supplier, and independent approvals for every expenditure are required, as directed by the Treasury Board of Canada. Costs are paid directly to the suppliers (real estate agents, movers etc.) by the Department of National Defence."
> 
> Leslie said that after retiring, he joined the federal Liberal Party because he felt "it was time for a change in how politics is conducted" in Canada.
> 
> "I saw how the Conservative Party often attacks those people that might dare to disagree with them," adding all too often the tactic is to make the issue personal, not about differences in policy or vision.
> 
> Now that he has joined Trudeau's team as a senior adviser on defence and foreign policy, the Conservatives have made him the target of a just such a personal attack, Leslie said.
> 
> "I can take it. I have been shot at by real bullets. What is disappointing is that this particular attack may raise questions over a military retirement benefit and I do not think veterans deserve to have another measure called into question."



Good for him... and I hope he sticks it right up their asses... pardon my Spanish.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I remember seeing all the ATI requests that have been filled by DND on the DWAN (ADM(PA) office?).  It should be pretty easy to verify if it has been ATI'd.

Having said that, you would have to know when you made the request some specific details which to me is kind of fishy.  Also, this is the same previous bunch that had pulled the gentlemans (Mr. Bruyea.. sp?)  full medical file for the VAC minister when he was an outspoken critic.  I would not be surprised if (once again) someone from the PMO 'suggested' to the juornalist that they ask for the specific info, or just gave them the file.

This is the same government that is responding to their party interfering in an election by introducing legislation to hamstring the elections commissioner.


----------



## Tibbson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I remember seeing all the ATI requests that have been filled by DND on the DWAN (ADM(PA) office?).  It should be pretty easy to verify if it has been ATI'd.
> 
> Having said that, you would have to know when you made the request some specific details which to me is kind of fishy.  Also, this is the same previous bunch that had pulled the gentlemans (Mr. Bruyea.. sp?)  full medical file for the VAC minister when he was an outspoken critic.  I would not be surprised if (once again) someone from the PMO 'suggested' to the juornalist that they ask for the specific info, or just gave them the file.
> 
> This is the same government that is responding to their party interfering in an election by introducing legislation to hamstring the elections commissioner.



Sadly, 10 years from now I can come back here and see similar comments and stories involving the Liberals.  Are any of them really all that different from one another?


----------



## George Wallace

Transporter said:
			
		

> Good for him... and I hope he sticks it right up their asses... pardon my Spanish.



As long as he sticks it to the proper sources.


----------



## Transporter

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As long as he sticks it to the proper sources.



Certainly. And I gotta say, I'm embarrassed that our MND would say the things he said, using the wording he used. Politics aside, very disrespectful to a man who has served his country as LGen Leslie has for 35 years. I just learned a lot about the integrity of the MND.


----------



## NavyShooter

Integrity and politician are two words that don't belong in the same sentence....

A politician is someone who lies when the truth would serve.

IMO.

NS


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This rebuttal by Leslie published by the CP is ...
> 
> "What is disappointing is that this particular attack may raise questions over a military retirement benefit and I do not think veterans deserve to have another measure called into question."



(I've edited this para out as I've found the appropriate reference I was asking about).

As to "may raise questions over military benefits" - While the program is a good one, makes sense overall and should be retained in general, isn't there a genuine question for debate when the policy requires all of us taxpayers to pay some $72,000 for a move a few streets down from the one he's already living on? That just appears silly. 

In a free and democratic society shouldn't one be able to examine as to whether or not a policy needs amending in order to prevent abuse? Regardless of which side of the fence you are on politically, the Minister has an obligation to review and curtail policies that result in what (in my humble opinion) are absurd expenditures.

 :2c:  :cheers:


----------



## Transporter

FJAG said:
			
		

> As to "I have been shot at by real bullets" - Does anyone recall when that happened? Sorry. I don't want to sound crass nor am I looking for a  :slapfight:  here but I just can't recall when he was ever in a fire fight or in harm's way and I'd really like to know.
> 
> As to "may raise questions over military benefits" - While the program is a good one, makes sense overall and should be retained in general, isn't there a genuine question for debate when the policy requires us taxpayer pay some $72,000 for a move a few streets down from the one he's already living on? That just appears silly.
> 
> In a free and democratic society shouldn't one be able to examine as to whether or not a policy needs amending in order to prevent abuse? Regardless of which side of the fence you are on politically, the Minister has an obligation to review and curtail policies that result in what (in my humble opinion) are absurd expenditures.
> 
> :2c:  :cheers:



All of which could (and should) be undertaken as a matter of policy review within the department, not in the form of a public personal attack on an individual. Come on man...


----------



## FJAG

Transporter said:
			
		

> All of which could (and should) be undertaken as a matter of policy review within the department, not in the form of a public personal attack on an individual. Come on man...



Sorry mate, I've read the article which quotes the Minister and I do not see it as a personal attack. I see it as a legitimate question being raised.

That said, Leslie has chosen to enter the public arena and to become a politician. He's entitled to receive respect and acknowledgement for his years of service, but that doesn't entitle him to a free ride.

Be honest with yourself. Regardless of whether or not the policy at the time permitted this move, doesn't this case merit public debate?

 :cheers:


----------



## Transporter

FJAG said:
			
		

> Sorry mate, I've read the article which quotes the Minister and I do not see it as a personal attack. I see it as a legitimate question being raised.
> 
> That said, Leslie has chosen to enter the public arena and to become a politician. He's entitled to receive respect and acknowledgement for his years of service, but that doesn't entitle him to a free ride.
> 
> Be honest with yourself. Regardless of whether or not the policy at the time permitted this move, doesn't this case merit public debate?
> 
> :cheers:



From the MND... “In the meantime, it is important for Andrew Leslie to explain why he believes this is a reasonable expense for hard working Canadians to absorb. This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars." You don't see this as a veiled political attack against the man, calling into question his judgement and his ethics? Really? This is not about entitlements... be honest with yourself.


----------



## Occam

FJAG said:
			
		

> Be honest with yourself. Regardless of whether or not the policy at the time permitted this move, doesn't this case merit public debate?



No.  _This case_ doesn't merit public debate.  If it requires public debate, it should be because the overall practice of <40 km moves being covered as a retirement move is wrong.  If it's wrong, then the current government had 8 years to address it, and not launch it as a "gotcha" topic when it suits them to launch an attack on a former CF member running for a spot in an opposition party.

These clowns suggesting that Andrew Leslie somehow did something wrong by claiming this move, by extension, suggest that I did something wrong by claiming my local move on retirement last year.  I have a big friggin' problem with that, and unlike Andrew Leslie, I don't have to be nice and polite when I respond to it.


----------



## Jed

Occam said:
			
		

> No.  _This case_ doesn't merit public debate.  If it requires public debate, it should be because the overall practice of <40 km moves being covered as a retirement move is wrong.  If it's wrong, then the current government had 8 years to address it, and not launch it as a "gotcha" topic when it suits them to launch an attack on a former CF member running for a spot in an opposition party.
> 
> These clowns suggesting that Andrew Leslie somehow did something wrong by claiming this move, by extension, suggest that I did something wrong by claiming my local move on retirement last year.  I have a big friggin' problem with that, and unlike Andrew Leslie, I don't have to be nice and polite when I respond to it.



You gotta know that the end result of this will end badly for the rank and file troop. Payback will mean taking away another hard earned benefit of signing on the dotted line and serving 20 or 25 + years.


----------



## PuckChaser

Occam said:
			
		

> If it requires public debate, it should be because the overall practice of <40 km moves being covered as a retirement move is wrong.


  

Absolutely agree. We shouldn't be paying for someone to move within the geographical area. We have those zones set up for a reason, right? But, we have the rules in place now, and moving short distances is within the rules. Leslie did nothing wrong by using a current policy. If they're going to change it going forward, so be it.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> If it's wrong, then the current government had 8 years to address it, and not launch it as a "gotcha" topic when it suits them to launch an attack on a former CF member running for a spot in an opposition party.
> 
> These clowns suggesting that Andrew Leslie somehow did something wrong by claiming this move, by extension, suggest that I did something wrong by claiming my local move on retirement last year.  I have a big friggin' problem with that, and unlike Andrew Leslie, I don't have to be nice and polite when I respond to it.



I'm waiting for proof it was the government that did this as a smear campaign. CTV has a "source", which of course they won't release. Its just as plausible to state that the MSM is using the "smear campaign" angle to try to villify the Conservatives again. Both accusations have no proof at all, but we can throw them around, right?


----------



## FJAG

Transporter said:
			
		

> From the MND... “In the meantime, it is important for Andrew Leslie to explain why he believes this is a reasonable expense for hard working Canadians to absorb. This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars." You don't see this as a veiled political attack against the man, calling into question his judgement and his ethics? Really? This is not about entitlements... be honest with yourself.



Of course I see this as a veiled "political" attack. I don't consider it a personal attack or an attack on his ethics but it clearly is an attack on his judgement and IMHO it's an appropriate one to make.

The old saying about "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" applies in politics and to Caesar himself. Leslie put himself out there and this move is one that to the general public will look outrageous. He's taken on a political mantle and he has to be prepared to have dirt thrown his way. Do you for one minute think by joining the Liberals he's not going to become their primary Defence critic and hammer at all the defence policies and personalities that he doesn't like?

Anyway while you and I have been conversing in a brief time span, I'm quite against having this :highjack:.

You won't change my mind and I won't change yours so let's let others chime in.

 :cheers:


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely agree. We shouldn't be paying for someone to move within the geographical area. We have those zones set up for a reason, right? But, we have the rules in place now, and moving short distances is within the rules. Leslie did nothing wrong by using a current policy. If they're going to change it going forward, so be it.



I was posted to Ottawa in 2008.  We looked at about 30 houses on our HHT, and on the second to last day we put offers in on two of the _tolerable _homes that were close to public transit, in decent neighbourhoods, in decent condition, and within our price range - knowing that we're going to have to sell the place again in a few years.  We had our offer accepted on one of the two homes, so the move was on.

Fast forward three years to 2011.  I get an offer for the Public Service, put in my release, and the two year clock starts ticking for my release move.  While the house that I chose in 2008 was optimal for the CF in that I could resell it fairly easily, it wasn't optimal for me in that we'd already outgrown it in three years and we wouldn't have touched the place if we were looking for a long term "we're in this house until we get put in a retirement villa" house.

So, I have no reservations about taking a local move.  The CF can't have it both ways.  I can pick out a house on a HHT which is 100% what I want, and then cause no end of administrative burden because I can't sell it at the end of my posting.  Or I can pick out a house that suits the need for the duration of the posting, and keep the CF happy because I don't cause all sorts of grief every time I get posted.  If I choose the latter, then the CF had better be prepared to accommodate my local retirement move to a home that _I want_, not a home that works out nicely for the CF and I'm miserable as hell in it.


----------



## Transporter

FJAG said:
			
		

> Of course I see this as a veiled "political" attack. I don't consider it a personal attack or an attack on his ethics but it clearly is an attack on his judgement and IMHO it's an appropriate one to make.
> 
> The old saying about "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" applies in politics and to Caesar himself. Leslie put himself out there and this move is one that to the general public will look outrageous. He's taken on a political mantle and he has to be prepared to have dirt thrown his way. Do you for one minute think by joining the Liberals he's not going to become their primary Defence critic and hammer at all the defence policies and personalities that he doesn't like?
> 
> Anyway while you and I have been conversing in a brief time span, I'm quite against having this :highjack:.
> 
> You won't change my mind and I won't change yours so let's let others chime in.
> 
> :cheers:



Challenging a man on his politics and hammering his stance on various policies is 100% fair ball. Jump into the political arena and you do open yourself up to scrutiny for your actions whilst in public office. But having the MND smear a former General officer in the national press for having done nothing wrong - nothing that literally thousands before him have done - and telling him he has a lot of explaining to do to the taxpayers of the country is repugnant... IMHO. I don't expect to change yours.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely. I really hope this comes back to bite the "gotcha" media with a review that says "Gen Leslie was moved in accordance with TBS policy, here's a breakdown of all the costs he never saw."


That is what they will find, and then will come the calls to change the system for all military members.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> As to "may raise questions over military benefits" - While the program is a good one, makes sense overall and should be retained in general, isn't there a genuine question for debate when the policy requires all of us taxpayers to pay some $72,000 for a move a few streets down from the one he's already living on? That just appears silly.


Indeed, elements of the IPR policies have been debated in our our budget saving threads on this site.  Some serving members here have questioned (before this hit the press) why we pay for IPR moves within the same geographic location - others have responded that the house you buy when you are expecting to move is often not the house you will by when you are expecting to settle and the IPR within geographic location allows pers to move from one to the other.

I have personally questioned the entitlement existing for each member of a service couple.  I know an example of a couple that took one member's IPR in the year leading up to their retirement, and then took the other member's IPR a year after retirement because they found a house they liked more.

I worry that media sensationalism driving this _examination_ of the policies will lead to a knee-jerk correction that is in-flexible (arbitrary dollar value cap on homes that will force service members into sub-standard housing in Toronto, Halifax or Vancouver and force large families into poor housing in all cities) or that requires a massive administrative overhead (managing variable ceiling prices for homes that discriminate by geographic location & family size) but which will lack the ability to keep pace with market changes (so the family in Cold Lake will still be sent to substandard housing because the ceiling price for realtor fees was set three years ago and prices have since spiked).


----------



## Edward Campbell

The "attack" on LGen (ret'd) Leslie is part of a larger _public_ (media led?) attack on "special privilege" ...






Source: _The Globe and Mail_
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

Many media people understand that Canadians, generally, are suspicious, jealous of privilege. It isn't the waste of billions that bothers us, it's $24,000 here, $72,000 there and $90,000 somewhere else. Those a understandable numbers and most people hate paying real estate fees and envy people who travel in business class.

The Conservatives will, with some care I hope (it can backfire ... what entitlements did retired CF members and CPC MPs Laurie Hawn, Erin O’Toole and Pierre Lemieux claim?), exploit this, but it is, essentially, a _public_, not a partisan political issue.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "attack" on LGen (ret'd) Leslie is part of a larger _public_ (media led?) attack on "special privilege" ...
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> The Conservatives will, with some care I hope (it can backfire ... what entitlements did retired CF members and CPC MPs Laurie Hawn, Erin O’Toole and Pierre Lemieux claim?), exploit this, but it is, essentially, a _public_, not a partisan political issue.


While the policy/rules are a public issue (like any other where government spends money in our name), and this one may be media-_driven_, what triggered the scrutiny?  THAT's what might suggest whether bringing this to the public forum was done for transparency/conscience, or for political reasons.


----------



## vonGarvin

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> what triggered the scrutiny?  THAT's what might suggest whether bringing this to the public forum was done for transparency/conscience, or for political reasons.


Who triggered it may be a better question.  And for what purpose.  It could be a CAF member who doesn't like Leslie who brought it foward, or it could have been any one of a number of journalists, or those with any kind of agenda.


----------



## Edward Campbell

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> While the policy/rules are a public issue (like any other where government spends money in our name), and this one may be media-_driven_, what triggered the scrutiny?  THAT's what might suggest whether bringing this to the public forum was done for transparency/conscience, or for political reasons.




I don't think it was _either_ "transparency/conscience, or for political reasons." My guess, as I said, above, is _Gotcha journalism_. Journalists compete for jobs and for column inches and for time on screen ~ it's their currency. "Gotcha!" works.

We know (at least we used to know, when I was still serving) that news outlets and individual journalists use the ATI system like a ocean drift net: there is no particular "target" but they will sell whatever they catch.


----------



## George Wallace

We have a number of retired Generals currently sitting in the House or the Senate.  Are we going to start looking at all of their final move expenses?  Are we going to start looking at any other member of Parliament who may have served over twenty years in the CAF and compare their final move expenses?   When will this nonsense stop?  

Just think how easy it would have been for a third party to request this information and release it, to have both the Liberals and Conservatives butting heads in the media, while they snicker in the corner and benefit from the fallout.  It would be a real coup for someone wanting to do away with the military and military budget.


----------



## tomahawk6

What was the weight of Leslie's household goods ? In the US officers in the rank of COL- GEN are authorized 18,000 pounds.Majors/LTC get 17,500.So I was wondering about the cost of the move ? In the US family moves are paid for by the service as long as you stay within your allowance.Anything above that the individual is on the hook for.


----------



## Monsoon

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Who triggered it may be a better question.  And for what purpose.  It could be a CAF member who doesn't like Leslie who brought it foward, or it could have been any one of a number of journalists, or those with any kind of agenda.


A clip on CTV last night showed a list of costs of all general/flag officer moves made within a certain time period, so it appears to have been the fruit of an ATI fishing expedition. Leslie's was by far bigger than the others, which were otherwise within the $20K-40K range (including one from Ottawa to Italy). Ottawa to Ottawa for $72K is certainly eyebrow-raising by comparison, but I would guess the cost of the agent commissions on a relatively expensive house is the explanation.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Occam said:
			
		

> I was posted to Ottawa in 2008.  We looked at about 30 houses on our HHT, and on the second to last day we put offers in on two of the _tolerable _homes that were close to public transit, in decent neighbourhoods, in decent condition, and within our price range - knowing that we're going to have to sell the place again in a few years.  We had our offer accepted on one of the two homes, so the move was on.
> 
> Fast forward three years to 2011.  I get an offer for the Public Service, put in my release, and the two year clock starts ticking for my release move.  While the house that I chose in 2008 was optimal for the CF in that I could resell it fairly easily, it wasn't optimal for me in that we'd already outgrown it in three years and we wouldn't have touched the place if we were looking for a long term "we're in this house until we get put in a retirement villa" house.
> 
> So, I have no reservations about taking a local move.  The CF can't have it both ways.  I can pick out a house on a HHT which is 100% what I want, and then cause no end of administrative burden because I can't sell it at the end of my posting.  Or I can pick out a house that suits the need for the duration of the posting, and keep the CF happy because I don't cause all sorts of grief every time I get posted.  If I choose the latter, then the CF had better be prepared to accommodate my local retirement move to a home that _I want_, not a home that works out nicely for the CF and I'm miserable as hell in it.



I fully agree with Occam:

There are all sorts of legitimate reasons for a member to make a final move within the very city he/she is posted to  on final posting and there are no valid reasons to deprive such member of the benefit just because he/she is not moving from one end of the country to another. The sole fact that residence during final posting likely was selected based on the requirement of working at a DND facility while the final move is to a house suited to one's retirement plans is sufficient to cover all sorts of reasons.

In the present case, Gen. Leslie's wish to move to a smaller house in retirement is perfectly legitimate.

BTW, I'm not convinced that this was necessarily a CPC job. Gen. Leslie certainly had enemies in the DND bureaucracy that may not wish to ever see him as MND. Pure speculation on my part here, but I don't think it is a possibility to be discounted offhand.

P.S.: T6: we don't have weight rules based on rank.


----------



## Nemo888

We are being out PR'd again. Story after irrelevant story is trying to keep the issues with traction out of the media. Someone knows that certain ways vets are being treated and changes to pensions to soldiers would kill the Cons in the next election. If we don't get a few good issues and reduce them to media soundbites we will be screwed over. Expect to be portrayed as entitled welfare moochers until the next election.

The centres in Sydney, Corner Brook and Saskatoon are hard sells to me for closure, but the 900 laid off VAC workers is a bigger issue. The loss of our records to an American lowest bidder company. The two tiers of veterans pre and post 2005. The miniscule payouts under the NVC. The fact that priority hiring and reeducation are primarily public relations operations. Just saying "Living Charter" makes my blood boil. We have been double crossed by the present government. A good public shaming is probably the only way to get these things reopened. They already expect this and are getting out in front of it.


----------



## Journeyman

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> We are being out PR'd again. Story after irrelevant story is trying to keep the issues with traction out of the media.


Yep, rather than see this as one in a series of stories putting the CPC in a poor light, it's all about you; "they" went after Leslie as a personal strategy to attack your hobby-horse.  

       :brickwall:



_Regardless_ of the CPC's actual role, we've seen 'the conspirators' spin it that way.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Gramps

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What was the weight of Leslie's household goods ? In the US officers in the rank of COL- GEN are authorized 18,000 pounds.Majors/LTC get 17,500.So I was wondering about the cost of the move ? In the US family moves are paid for by the service as long as you stay within your allowance.Anything above that the individual is on the hook for.



There is a Maximum weight of 20,000lbs on any domestic move (overseas moves are a lower weight allowance), anything over the 20K is paid for by the member. The vast majority of households are well below the 20K.


----------



## Nemo888

Just watch for a pattern. Calls to the media are planned, not random events like the weather. This is well timed to take the closures out of the headlines.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think it was _either_ "transparency/conscience, or for political reasons." My guess, as I said, above, is _Gotcha journalism_. Journalists compete for jobs and for column inches and for time on screen ~ it's their currency. "Gotcha!" works.


True.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> A clip on CTV last night showed a list of costs of all general/flag officer moves made within a certain time period, so it appears to have been the fruit of an ATI fishing expedition. Leslie's was by far bigger than the others, which were otherwise within the $20K-40K range (including one from Ottawa to Italy). Ottawa to Ottawa for $72K is certainly eyebrow-raising by comparison, but I would guess the cost of the agent commissions on a relatively expensive house is the explanation.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We know (at least we used to know, when I was still serving) that news outlets and individual journalists use the ATI system like a ocean drift net: there is no particular "target" but they will sell whatever they catch.


Since this appears to have been based on an ATI request (the first version of the story I read didn't mention ATI), then the reporter/researcher had their eyes drawn to the most prominent name, making me less suspicious of a "partisan" trigger (the same way, say, someone giving one reporter one file saying, "lookit this").


----------



## Journeyman

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Just watch for a pattern.


Oh, we're seeing a pattern.   :stars:


----------



## tomahawk6

Gramps said:
			
		

> There is a Maximum weight of 20,000lbs on any domestic move (overseas moves are a lower weight allowance), anything over the 20K is paid for by the member. The vast majority of households are well below the 20K.



The US does the same for overseas assignments.US military personnel overseas live in government quarters which have government furniture,which makes moves simpler.


----------



## Pusser

Gramps said:
			
		

> There is a Maximum weight of 20,000lbs on any domestic move (overseas moves are a lower weight allowance), anything over the 20K is paid for by the member. The vast majority of households are well below the 20K.



Actually the 20K lbs limit applies to overseas moves as well in that the total of all your HG&E (i.e. that which goes overseas PLUS that which goes into long term storage in Canada) can be no more than 20K lbs at public expenses (i.e. you pay the additional charges if you're over).  What you're allowed to ship overseas depends on whether you're going into furnished or unfurnished accomodation (i.e. you're allowed to ship more if you go into unfurnished accomodation.

A few other things to consider in this debate:

1)  The idea that some have mentioned that the final move on release is designed to get you back to your place of recrutiment is only true if you have less than ten years of service.  Ten years is the dividing line.  After that, you become entitled (with some exceptions) to a move anywhere in Canada you want (including across the street).  I would argue that after many years of service many CF members may no longer have any connection whatsoever with the place where they signed (I know I don't).  So limiting us to a move back to our place of recruitment doesn't make a lot of sense.

2)  As others have said, the house which you found suitable for your last posting may not be suitable for retirement.  To give myself as an example again, my wife and I expect to become empty-nesters about the same time that I expect to retire.  I will no longer need a four-bedroom house, but I will likely still want to stay in the same vicinity.  If the government is willing to move me across the country, why can't I simply move down the street and actually save the taxpayer some money? 

3)  BGRS does not keep the relocation files.  Once they are closed, they are sent to DND and DND holds them in accordance with government archival policy.  Any ATI for this information would be dealt with by DND.  As a private company, BGRS would not be subject to an ATI anyway.

4)  Relocation claims are subject to audit by DND (in fact, there is a minimum spot sampling of them done every year).  LGen Leslie's claim is no doubt being audited as we speak (if this has not already been done) and if he has been overpaid or underpaid, adjustments will be made.  There is a whole team of people who do this on a constant basis and they subject every claim to scrutiny in accordance with IRP policy/TB direction.  There are no favourites and the same policies apply to everyone, regardless of rank.

And on a completely different note, there is no "clawback" on our pensions when CPP kicks in.  The original intent of the CFSA was that no one would be able to draw more than a 70% of there best five years salary as a pension, including CPP.  However, when the CFSA was set up, it was recognized that most people would start drawing their CFSA pensions at least 10 years prior to CPP starting, so a "bridge" was inserted to fill that gap.   Initially, it was actually covered by a separate piece of legislation (the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act - SRBA) and was accounted for separately on our pay accounts.  For whatever reason, the CFSA and SRBA were amalgamated at one point and granularity was lost.  Nevertheless, the intent remained the same - a maximum total benefit of 70%.  The long and short of it is that nothing is clawed back at age 65, but rather the bridge is dismantled and replaced by CPP.  It is important to note that this is what we have paid for.  If we were to continue to draw the CFSA pension at the previous rate as well as CPP, we would have to pay higher premiums from the get go (and let's not get into the fact that our premiums are going up anyway, because the cause of that is different yet again and is a different topic of discussion).


----------



## The Bread Guy

I may regret this, but ....


			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Just watch for a pattern. Calls to the media are planned, not random events like the weather. This is well timed to take the closures out of the headlines.


I'm as suspicious as the next guy re:  political/personal gain intent behind media leaks, but this one appears to be pulled from an ATI trawl, not the "anonymous" envelope method.


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Oh, we're seeing a pattern.   :stars:


 :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> A clip on CTV last night showed a list of costs of all general/flag officer moves made within a certain time period, so it appears to have been the fruit of an ATI fishing expedition. Leslie's was by far bigger than the others, which were otherwise within the $20K-40K range (including one from Ottawa to Italy). Ottawa to Ottawa for $72K is certainly eyebrow-raising by comparison, but I would guess the cost of the agent commissions on a relatively expensive house is the explanation.



Now I think we're getting somewhere. This sort of information should have been all put out in the first place, but it then wouldn't have been a "gotcha" story. They're trying to drag this out for a few headlines.


----------



## pbi

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Now I think we're getting somewhere. This sort of information should have been all put out in the first place, but it then wouldn't have been a "gotcha" story. They're trying to drag this out for a few headlines.



Interesting that the "MSM" (whom we all know are the evil willing tools of the "Liberals" and the "liberals",) would attack a Liberal party hopeful, thereby apparently handing a nice smelly pile of dirt for the Tory catapult to launch via the MND's question.

It will be fun to watch the CPC, who have banked so much on their "pro-military" stance, stick handle this between the icebergs of their voter base, their fiscal prudence agenda, and their professed affection for the CF, and still get any fires put out before the election.

What won't be fun is watching what is now almost certainly going to happen to CAF relocation benefits, which are the same at least in principle and intent for a Cpl and his family as they are for LGen Leslie. A nasty big rich general with Liberal tendencies makes a nice stalking horse that everyone can relate to hating, but the collateral damage radius may be much wider.

Aaah, Canadian politics. Never changes. Why no serving soldier should ever hitch their cart to one political party's wagon: better to regard them all with healthy skepticism. The word "expediency" comes to mind, for some reason.


----------



## Old Sweat

I think this story was just too juicy to ignore. Rich general pulls boondoggle on taxpayers in move from one ritzy Ottawa neighbourhood to another. It also fits into the Ottawa insiders milk the system theme. Never mind the facts; the story speaks for itself.

I also fear what could happen to the benefit if this really gets messy, or if the CPC sees some political points to score to the detriment of Leslie . . . and to all the service members who had planned to relocate after release.


----------



## Container

His move costs more than most other moves in the same area? And his family works in real estate in Ottawa?

Yikes. It is possible that it's all above board, even likely, but the optics. Gets worse before it gets better.


----------



## armyvern

Container said:
			
		

> His move costs more than most other moves in the same area? And his family works in real estate in Ottawa?
> 
> Yikes. It is possible that it's all above board, even likely, but the optics. Gets worse before it gets better.



A million dollar home = 50K in real estate fees alone. Then you have lawyer fees etc.

Agent in the family or not, that real-estate agent's fees would be _their_ INCOME (and is taxable).


----------



## DAA

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Agent in the family or not, that real-estate agent's fees would be _their_ INCOME (and is taxable).



Having any sort of family member/relative involved, whether it is their profession or not, is delicate but it can be done.  The only exceptions to such cases are if the person is already "registered" with Brookefield Relocation Services and their name is on the "3rd Party Supplier List", then it would be allowable.  If they are not registered, then they shouldn't be used.

Arm's Length Transaction (as it relates to 3rd Party Suppliers who are NOT on the listing)
An arm's length transaction is one that is consummated between two or more non-related parties as per Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) interpretation. Related individuals include:

direct-line descendants, as well as spouse or common law partners, brothers, sisters, and in-laws; and
non-immediate family members such as cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces.

Edit - my original post has been cleaned up to be more reflective of currently available policy guidance.


----------



## Container

It was unfair for me to introduce that. There is currently no evidence of that....just curious. But that was inappropriate for "public" pondering

Maybe a trim of this thread, at least my "contribution" is in order before that gets legs?


----------



## armyvern

DAA said:
			
		

> No it wouldn't..............and having any sort of family member/relative involved, whether it is their profession or not, is a BIG fat NO NO!!!
> 
> :alarm:
> 
> Arm's Length Transaction
> An arm's length transaction is one that is consummated between two or more non-related parties as per Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) interpretation. Related individuals include:
> 
> direct-line descendants, as well as spouse or common law partners, brothers, sisters, and in-laws; and
> 
> non-immediate family members such as cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces.



Are you claiming that he used a family member as part of his process?

If my father is selling his house, I can't buy it?  If my father is a real estate agent, I can't use him to buy/sell and him get the same flat % fee each and every other real-estate agent would get for same service as long as he claims that flat-fee as his income for CRA purposes?? Are you claiming that the Timmies that my daughter served me at Tim Hortons, for which I paid for and for which place she earned income at for CRA purposes, is suspect because she is my daughter? My father is dead by the way; my daughter is alive.


----------



## Journeyman

DAA said:
			
		

> .... brothers, sisters, and in-laws.....cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces.


Great, now I've got Aerosmith's "Walk This Way" stuck in my head....   

....and the best thing lovin' was your sister and your cousin.... then my next door neighbor had a daughter, had a favour......


----------



## Edward Campbell

The Liberal Party of Canada Convention takes place in Montreal this week.

LGen (ret'd) Leslie is scheduled to speak twice on Friday:

12:15 pm – 12:45 pm _Lt. General (retired) Andrew Leslie_ ~ this is the Keynote address to one of the Convention's Plenary sessions
Room 517
Introduction by Harjit Singh Sajjan 

5:15 pm – 6:15 pm DELEGATE SESSIONS 
*Canada’s Role in Shaping a More Prosperous & Peaceful World*
Room 520 
   Moderator: Marc Garneau, MP 
      _Lt. General (retired) Andrew Leslie_ 
      Peter Harder, Senior Policy Advisor to Dentons Canada LLP
      Farah Mohamed, President and CEO, G(irls) 20
      Rana Sarkar, National Director of High Growth Markets, KPMG Canada


----------



## DAA

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you claiming that he used a family member as part of his process?
> 
> If my father is selling his house, I can't buy it?  If my father is a real estate agent, I can use him to buy/sell and him get the same flat % fee each and every other real-estate agent would get for same service? Are you claiming that the Timmies that my daughter served me at Tim Hortons, for which I paid for and for which place she earned income at for CRA purposes, is suspect because she is my daughter? My father is dead by the way; my daughter is alive.



The policy has become slightly more liberal over the years.  You can engage any 3rd Party Service Provider who is "registered" with Brookefield Relocation Services and the CFIRP Program.  What you cannot do, is pick a 3rd Party Service Provider who is NOT registered and who falls within the definition of "Arms Length".  You could use a parent, spouse, sibling, etc but ONLY if they appear on the list.  Years ago, it was a definite NO NO but through various levels of review, the policy was amended to allow such things.

So, if your father was a Real Estate Agent by profession and his name was on the list of 3rd Party Suppliers, you could use his services.

2.7.01 Selection of Third party supplier

Reimbursement for services provided shall not exceed pre-negotiated rates where the Third party supplier has been engaged by the service provider as part of the tendering process.

CF members may choose their own Third party suppliers not included in the directory of Third party suppliers provided they are at arm's length.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Do not confuse "arms length transaction" for tax purposes, "conflict of interests" and the very definition of arms length transactions in various other policies.

In the actual world, there is nothing illegal in making arms length transactions. For instance, I can hire my family members that carry on a liberal profession to render whatever service I may require of them and they are allowed to bill me for fair cost of the services.

The TB policies on these types of service rendered to civil servants and military personnel, however, excludes their use in certain circumstances, and that is only  matter of policy.

For tax purposes, again, arms length transaction are legal but, are not recognized as transaction that can be set off against the "tax man" if their effect is to reduce improperly the amount of income tax payable: i.e. if it splits income to avoid higher bracket of taxation for example.

In a case such as the one discussed here (and purely on the theoretical side as we have no idea what took place), it is the TB policy that determines whether an arms length transaction is permissible or not, since the operation contemplated would not result in any tax avoidance or reduction: The CF member would have his/her move paid under the policy and taxed or tax exempted, as the case may be, regardless of who is hired as Realtor. And the "arms length" realtor would have his/her commission fully taxed as any other such income.


----------



## Container

I'm unsure of how to read that oldgate- is it or is it not possible? For some reason I keep reading your explanation as both yes and no?


----------



## Navy_Pete

I still don't see why it matters if he moved next door or two hours away; 95% of the costs are real estate/lawyer fees, which would be the same regardless of location.  My last move was about half of that value by the time everything was factored in, and only a small portion was due to the distance.

I'm sure each and every MP gets close to this in their expense claims every friggen year just for coming to Ottawa for a few months a year, so they may want to watch their glass house.

ps I don't even particularly like Mr. Leslie, but this is BS.


----------



## Lightguns

CTV Atlantic was saying tonight that he seems to have moved from a Tory riding to a Liberal stronghold riding.  I guess they are setting him up for a run.  They were also looking into his net worth (which is considerable).


----------



## PuckChaser

Lightguns said:
			
		

> CTV Atlantic was saying tonight that he seems to have moved from a Tory riding to a Liberal stronghold riding.  I guess they are setting him up for a run.  They were also looking into his net worth (which is considerable).



Just what Canadians need, another parachute candidate. Didn't we learn anything from the NDP vacation MPs?


----------



## dapaterson

Andrew Cohen has published his thoughts on this:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/revealing+attack+Andrew+Leslie/9517123/story.html



> But that’s not really the story, is it? The story here has less to do with General Leslie than Citizen Leslie, or perhaps, in the future, Minister Leslie. It’s about politics.
> 
> While Rob Nicholson asks his officials to explain this long-standing government policy — one he could have changed but hasn’t — here are a few questions for him.
> 
> Why is Andrew Leslie the first veteran to come under this kind of public scrutiny? Is $72,000 egregious? If so, what is the average figure for moves involving such neighbourhoods?
> 
> And how is it that Leslie’s expenses found their way to CTV News, which first reported this on the weekend? Is there a breach of privacy in your department, Minister? Your office suggested the document was acquired under the Access to Information Act, but CTV did not.


----------



## cavalryman

Lightguns said:
			
		

> CTV Atlantic was saying tonight that he seems to have moved from a Tory riding to a Liberal stronghold riding.  I guess they are setting him up for a run.  They were also looking into his net worth (which is considerable).



Rockliffe being in the Ottawa-Vanier riding, I'm sure it will come as a surprise to the incumbent MP, Liberal Mauril Belanger, who has represented the riding since 1995, that the good general is being set to take over


----------



## FJAG

Aaaaaand we're off!

"Defence Department covered disgraced general’s $40,000 move to UAE

National Defence paid nearly $40,000 to move a disgraced general to the United Arab Emirates after he was court-martialled for having sex with a subordinate and trying to cover it up, expense records for the military’s top brass show.

The revelation about former brigadier-general Dan Menard is in the same set of records that show retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie was allowed to claim more than $72,000 for a move within Ottawa after he left the military.

... "

Full article here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/defence-department-covered-disgraced-generals-40000-move-to-uae/article16923408/

op:

 :cheers:


----------



## Lightguns

I am sure Mr Belanger will be most accepting of a position as a non-Liberal Liberal senator!


----------



## Occam

So _that's_ what it sounds like when a benefit goes poof right in front of your eyes...


----------



## PuckChaser

FJAG said:
			
		

> "Defence Department covered disgraced general’s $40,000 move to UAE



We're also paying his pension and he got severance as well. The guy wasn't a murderer, he gets to keep some benefits.... Media.  :facepalm:


----------



## Lightguns

FJAG said:
			
		

> Aaaaaand we're off!
> 
> "Defence Department covered disgraced general’s $40,000 move to UAE
> 
> National Defence paid nearly $40,000 to move a disgraced general to the United Arab Emirates after he was court-martialled for having sex with a subordinate and trying to cover it up, expense records for the military’s top brass show.
> 
> The revelation about former brigadier-general Dan Menard is in the same set of records that show retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie was allowed to claim more than $72,000 for a move within Ottawa after he left the military.
> 
> ... "
> 
> Full article here:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/defence-department-covered-disgraced-generals-40000-move-to-uae/article16923408/
> 
> op:
> 
> :cheers:



Ahhh ole' wrong way hat never seems to get a break.  Hiding in the UAE to avoid the ex and still can't fly under the radar!


----------



## The Bread Guy

And a bit of the bigger picture ....


> The Conservative government is reviewing its pricey policy of paying to move retired military members to new houses within the same city, as documents released to Global News through Access to Information show these moves are costing National Defence hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> 
> *National Defence has paid nearly $600,000 to move Generals, many of them retired, within the same city or just outside the city limits over the past five years, according to the documents* ....


Do we have a feeding frenzy smiley?


----------



## Jarnhamar

So it's cheaper to move to the UAE than a couple blocks in Ottawa? Sounds about right.


----------



## Journeyman

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> So it's cheaper to move to the UAE than a couple blocks in Ottawa? Sounds about right.


To be fair, Leslie probably brought his wife and her stuff _with_ him.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And a bit of the bigger picture ....Do we have a feeding frenzy smiley?



Close enough?







;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Close enough?


That'll more than do ....


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To be fair, Leslie probably brought his wife and her stuff _with_ him.



Touche  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> So it's cheaper to move to the UAE than a couple blocks in Ottawa? Sounds about right.



What are the real estate fees on half a house?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To be fair, Leslie probably brought his wife and her stuff _with_ him.


 :rofl:  Milpoints inbound!


----------



## Transporter

I assume one can ATI MP expense claims, not just for the stuff that they have to make public but for everything associated with their housing, moves, etc... essentially every tax dollar that they, or their constituency offices, have ever spent for whatever reason imaginable? Anyone have any insights on how that might work?


----------



## blacktriangle

Container said:
			
		

> His move costs more than most other moves in the same area? And his family works in real estate in Ottawa?
> 
> Yikes. It is possible that it's all above board, even likely, but the optics. Gets worse before it gets better.



The optics may not be great, but as long as he followed the rules, I'm happy. If his daughter made 50k in real estate commission, I feel the optics would be worse, and I would not be so quick to stick up for him. But as far as we know, there is no evidence of that, and it seems that he used a legitimate benefit made available to him by the GoC. 

I drive by his home on a regular basis, and did not even know it until today. It's a great area, good call Mr. Leslie. 

I don't even really like the guy from what I've seen, but I will say that I respect that he stuck up for our CAF benefits when questioned. Hopefully he won't pull a 180 if ever he becomes an elected official in Canada. Sadly, I fear it could already be to late for that particular benefit...I certainly wouldn't be banking on it if I was eligible to retire in the next few years.


----------



## brihard

"See? This is why we can't have nice things."


----------



## George Wallace

This story is continuing to regurgitate periphery items related to it.  Parliamentary Secretary on Defence, James Bezan (Selkirk--Interlake, Manitoba), was on the radio this morning talking on matter and brought up that a serving MGen did a $62K move in Ottawa, perhaps a more serious concern.  The Parliamentary Secretary on Defence was not too convincing in his knowledge of the matter and left me with an impression he was full of BS; but the fact that a serving officer did a local move and his expenses were nearly that of a retiring officer, does indicate that someone somewhere has been dropping the ball.  I think that the story should now shift to why a SERVING officer has incurred such a claim, and whether it was an abuse of the policy.

One good thing that is now coming out of this smozzle is that they are now starting to look at the humongous losses incurred by many Service Members who have moved from depressed areas on posting, some losing up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the sale of their homes.  That to me is a more serious matter to look into than the legitimate claim of an officer on his 'last move'.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The story appears to have "legs" as journalists say.

As nearly as I can tell from what I have read and heard:

     The story was, indeed, the result of an ATI request ~ sort of _data mining_ by journalists ~ by _Global News_;

     Someone, somewhere in the ATI _chain_, leaked one item, the Leslie item, to CTV before sending the whole file, including e.g. BGen (ret'd) Menard's expenses to _Global_;

     Most journalists are having trouble wrapping their heads around the policy. No one is speaking "for" the member who ends his/her service in Cold Lake or Goose Bay but needs to retire where (s)he and his/her spouse can both get jobs.

It is a fact, an indisputable fact, that when one is making a policy one wants to achieve a clear, simple, fair and all encompassing one. Every single limitation or exemption creates complications which will, sooner or later, come back to bite someone in the arse and, then, require further complications which will, inevitably, create new problems. The "last move" policy, as far as I remember and understand it, was pretty good in that it had relatively few exceptions/limitations ~ in other words, within a few well defined boundaries it applied equally to everyone all the time. That meant that the member in Cold Lake gets his/her "last move" to Retirement Haven MB where the member and the family will settle and become productive members of the community. Equally, the member in Dartmouth who was posted there eight years ago when the family consisted of member, spouse and three kids gets a cost move, for member and spouse only, now, since all the kids are gone, out of the four bedroom house they no longer need and into a nice condo just across the harbour in Halifax, where a productive second career waits. If the MND and other CPC politicians decide to "make (one time) hay" with this by introducing some new exceptions/limitations I *guarantee*, without fear of ever being wrong, that someone, a corporal most likely, will get sideswiped; the media will take up that case and DND and the government of the day will look cruel and foolish.


----------



## FSTO

If I was planning to retire in the next couple of years in the same community that I am currently serving in (in my case no) I would seriously consider doing an early move to IPR. By reading the tea leaves, this entitlement could be on its last legs. Better to strike now.


----------



## dapaterson

The serving general took an early IPR; that is, he moved to the house he'll retire in before he reitred.  Perfectly within policy.


----------



## McG

Pusser said:
			
		

> As others have said, the house which you found suitable for your last posting may not be suitable for retirement.  To give myself as an example again, my wife and I expect to become empty-nesters about the same time that I expect to retire.  I will no longer need a four-bedroom house, but I will likely still want to stay in the same vicinity.  If the government is willing to move me across the country, why can't I simply move down the street and actually save the taxpayer some money?


This is a horrible example to support why the military should have the benefit.  What you describe (empty nesting) is a life event that most Canadian's will go through without anybody financing a move.  

To justify this benefit, the argument must be something uniquely military.  What is the uniquely military element?  That we cannot pick when or where we move.  Often when selecting a residence, we compromise what we want (within what we can afford) against what has the best probability of quick resale without a financial loss when the government next orders a move.  We settle for less because we cannot wait for the “perfect fit” to come on the market and instead must take what is on the market now.   And even if a service member knows they are going to retire in the next 3 or 4 years, that service member does not know the house bought today will be the house at the time of retirement.

The typical Canadian family that is growing or down-sizing is able to plan and wait for what they want to appear on the market.   The decision is based on the family needs and not short-term market vulnerability.  The typical Canadian family can coordinate their retirement planning and home buying decisions.  Military service denies all this to the military family.

But, the benefit will now be reconsidered for all members of the military:


> * Conservatives to review policy of paying for same-city military moves*
> Rebecca Lindell  Global News
> 17 February 2014
> 
> OTTAWA – The Conservative government is reviewing its pricey policy of paying to move retired military members to new houses within the same city, as documents released to Global News through Access to Information show these moves are costing National Defence hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> 
> National Defence has paid nearly $600,000 to move Generals, many of them retired, within the same city or just outside the city limits over the past five years, according to the documents.
> 
> The most costly of those moves was expensed by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Andrew Leslie who moved from one house in an upscale Ottawa neighbourhood to another just a four-minute drive away – a move that cost taxpayers $72,000. Leslie is now an advisor to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.
> 
> “The policy was never intended to have taxpayers pay $72,000 for generals to move between mansions within the same city,” said Defence Minister Rob Nicholson. “Just like his Liberal friends, Andrew Leslie claims he is ‘entitled to his entitlements.’ That’s is why I have asked my department to review the policy to ensure the responsible use of taxpayers dollars.”
> 
> But Leslie’s not alone. Thirteen generals had intra-city moves. Another eight moved within 100 kilometres of their old house.
> 
> As part of the deal for serving their country, all military members can expense one final move post-retirement. The policy is meant to ensure members can choose their final home after being at the whim of the department for decades. All costs associated with the move – including the cost of moving possessions, legal fees and real estate commissions – are covered by the public purse.
> 
> In an email to Global News, Leslie defended the policy, saying it fairly compensates uniformed members for many moves over the course of their service.
> 
> “No restrictions, no quibbling,” he wrote. “You can move to Victoria, or you can move next door.”
> 
> But some question this interpretation of the policy.
> 
> Military journalist Scott Taylor said the original intent of the policy is to relocate soldiers who end up posted to a place they don’t want to retire, but some are exploiting a loophole.
> 
> “The rationale is that they want to be in the city of their choosing for their retirement. Moving within that city makes no sense. That was never the spirit of that entitlement,” Taylor said, adding that it is probably time for a systemic review.
> 
> Gregory Thomas of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the moves suggest generals believe they are entitled to their entitlements.
> 
> “Well it doesn’t say a lot for the Generals that they are going to whack the taxpayers to move from one part of Ottawa to the other after they leave the forces,” he said.
> 
> Global News requested and received details of the moving expenses of general staff through Access to Information laws. Before Global News published the information, at least part of it was leaked to CTV who published the details of Leslie’s move.
> 
> Nicholson immediately responded demanding an explanation from Leslie for the expenses – expenses that were approved by Nicholson’s own department.
> 
> “Expense claims for Liberal Defence Advisor Andrew Leslie’s in-city move appear grossly excessive. As such, I will be asking the Department of National Defence to examine how an in-city move could possibly total over $72,000,” Nicholson said in a statement. “In the meantime, it is important for Andrew Leslie to explain why he believes this is a reasonable expense for hard working Canadians to absorb.”
> 
> On Monday, Nicholson’s office said the review of Leslie’s expenses would cover all moves within the same city.
> 
> Leslie claims the Conservatives are launching a “personal attack” that stems from his recent decision to join the Liberal advisory team.
> 
> “I can take it. I have been shot at by real bullets,” Leslie wrote on his Facebook page this weekend. “What is disappointing is that this particular attack may raise questions over a military retirement benefit and I do not think veterans deserve to have another measure called into question.”
> 
> Leslie was not available for an interview on Monday, but in an email to Global News said he and his family moved 18 times and he bought the [first] house in Ottawa on a very short trip without the input of his wife.
> 
> “We decided to retire in Ottawa and not move out of the city. My wife found and chose the perfect house (smaller, and note who got the final say), fixed it up and here we are,” he wrote.
> 
> Leslie said he knew how much the real estate and legal fees cost, which was the bulk of the bill, but did not know the full cost of his 2013 move.
> 
> Nicholson disputes how much Leslie knew about the expenses saying that the policy requires members to submit their fees and commission bill for reimbursement.
> 
> Liberal MP Marc Garneau came swiftly to Leslie’s defence, saying the program was meant as a “solemn undertaking” to allow members to pick their final home, regardless of location.
> 
> “If the government wants to review it, that is their choice, but there is no question in my mind that the Conservatives are trying to smear the reputation of an honourable and very respected Canadian who has served his country for 35 years,” Garneau said.


 http://globalnews.ca/news/1154871/conservatives-to-review-policy-of-paying-for-same-city-military-moves/


----------



## Journeyman

John Geddes has posted commentary on this in Maclean's, aiming at MND Nicholson, in part: 


> Is it possible that Nicholson’s surprised reaction reflects the government’s unawareness, until the Leslie story surfaced over the weekend, with the way their own so-called Integrated Relocation Program works? I can’t imagine why. It’s not as if the program hasn’t been scrutinized closely since the Conservatives took office.
> 
> In the fall of 2006, the Auditor General presented a detailed report on the program, complete with a list of recommendations, which the government broadly accepted. It’s a significant file that you might expect a defence minister to have no trouble getting briefed up on.


I certainly agree with his comments.   :facepalm:

The complete story is at [Link]


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If the MND and other CPC politicians decide to "make (one time) hay" with this by introducing some new exceptions/limitations I *guarantee*, without fear of ever being wrong, that someone, a corporal most likely, will get sideswiped; the media will take up that case and DND and the government of the day will look cruel and foolish.


 :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat

This story from the Global TV site which lists the GOFO moves within a locality or to a nearby location is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

All members of the military are entitled to one last move at the government’s expense after they retire. The policy is meant to ensure members can choose where they want to live in their retirement after being at the whim of National Defence for decades. All costs associated with the move are covered by the public purse.

But news that some generals have been using the perk to switch neighbourhoods or move just outside the city limits has the federal government reviewing the policy.

Here is a list of the 21 generals, many of whom are retired, who moved within the same city over the past five years and charged it to the taxpayer.

Same city moves

LGen Leslie (Ottawa to Ottawa) $72,225.86
MGen Day (Ottawa to Ottawa) $59,627.82
RAdm Greenwood (Victoria to Victoria) $43,328.24
BGen Rochette (Ottawa to Ottawa) $40,012.75
LGen Lucas (Ottawa to Ottawa) $38,970.68
BGen Bigelow (Comox to Comox) $35,783.57
BGen Ward (Ottawa to Ottawa) $25,928.41
BGen Corbould (St. Albert to St. Albert) $25,506.47
BGen Cloutier (Ottawa to Ottawa) $24,608.46
BGen King (Ottawa to Ottawa) $20,272.66
BGen Labbe (Kingston to Kingston) $10,696.19
LGen Arp (Kingston to Kingston) $6,805.39
MGen Hines (St. Catherines to St. Catherines) $468.60

Near city moves

BGen Mclean (Ottawa to Greely) $35,164.34
BGen Bourque (Ottawa to Perth) $29,936.99
BGen Johnstone (Ottawa to Arnprior) $28,637.93
MGen Benjamin (Ottawa to Cantley) $25,505.87
MGen Gosselin (Kingston to Lombardy) $21,129.98
VAdm Jarvis (Ottawa to Ashton) $20,204.77
MGen Blanchette (Ottawa to Val-Des-Monts) $17,450.33
BGen Chekan (Ottawa to Carp) $468.60


----------



## Sub_Guy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> *BGen Chekan (Ottawa to Carp) $468.60*



$468?  That's a cheap move!  

This whole situation pisses me off (not the cheap move, I just find it funny that it is even on the list).  Clearly this is a political move by the Conservatives, and I know we (the Canadian Military) are going to suffer.  I don't know what it is with governments, it seems that  after too long in power they start acting like complete fucksticks.   Why isn't there a list of retired RCMP and their associated retirement cost moves floating around?  

I don't buy the ATI request by global, something tipped them off, why all of a sudden _now_ the media has an interest in retirement cost moves?


----------



## McG

Go back a few posts.  It was a Global news ATI, not a Conservative conspiracy.


----------



## Journeyman

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Clearly this is a political move by the Conservatives.....
> 
> 
> 
> Go back a few posts.  It was a Global news ATI, not a Conservative conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Don't let mere facts stand in the way of a good rant though......
        :stirpot:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> BGen Chekan (Ottawa to Carp) $468.60





			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> $468?  That's a cheap move!



Maybe he moved into the old Diefenbunker, so the realtor actually paid him to take it off DND's hands


----------



## Remius

The timing does seem off a bit though.  Global does an ATI request, specifically it would seem for Generals.  Somehow in the ATI process someone leaks this to CTV before Global does its story on this.  But it's Leslie's specific info that gets sent to CTV.

On the eve of the Liberal Party Convention where he will be speaking.

The MND specifically adresses Leslie as "Liberal Defence Advisor" in his statement.

He orders a review of General Leslie's moving expenses but not it would seem anyone else's.

The Government, who knew for a while about this benefit possibly being problematic suddenly are going to review it reacting to a media story (reacting to the media isn't something the CPC is known for yet they seem to be moving fast on this one).  Seems like a knee jerk reaction to me.

Could all be coincidence though but I doubt it.  I'm no fan of Mr. Leslie.  I'm also not a huge fan of final cost moves in the same posting area either.

But, in politics, everyone is fair game.  If this is a political move to discredit Leslie then it seems that would be par for the course.  I expect nothing less from any party really.  The CPC tried to pin some things on Trudeau that I would argue backfired and I hope this isn't the case here.  The Liberal's will fling dirt just as good as the CPC given the chance.   

But in the end the CF will likely be the ones paying for this as it may mean reduced benefits.  

The CPC may not have been the ones responsible for the leak or the ATI request but it isn't hard to see that with the timing and the language that they could have pointed someone in the right direction.

What will be interesting to see is what kind of backlash if any this might provoke.   It would seem that Laurie Hawn was asked if he used the program himself and that he did but does not remember the cost.  (from Cold Lake to Edmonton) You can bet that his relocation stuff will be ATIed as a result.  

When one thinks about it though, the CPC may not be be the ones behind all of this.  They have former military types within their ranks and what with the brouhaha with vets, why subject themselves to something that would backfire on them.


----------



## George Wallace

Crantor said:
			
		

> The timing does seem off a bit though.  Global does an ATI request, specifically it would seem for Generals.  Somehow in the ATI process someone leaks this to CTV before Global does its story on this.  But it's Leslie's specific info that gets sent to CTV.
> 
> .......
> 
> The CPC may not have been the ones responsible for the leak or the ATI request but it isn't hard to see that with the timing and the language that they could have pointed someone in the right direction.
> ..............
> 
> When one thinks about it though, the CPC may not be be the ones behind all of this.  They have former military types within their ranks and what with the brouhaha with vets, why subject themselves to something that would backfire on them.



Perhaps it would be best to make and ATI request as to the number of ATI requests each of the Media outlets submit in a day/week/month.  I am sure that the numbers will be astronomical.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Crantor said:
			
		

> The timing does seem off a bit though.  Global does an ATI request, specifically it would seem for Generals.  Somehow in the ATI process someone leaks this to CTV before Global does its story on this.  But it's Leslie's specific info that gets sent to CTV.
> 
> On the eve of the Liberal Party Convention where he will be speaking.
> 
> The MND specifically adresses Leslie as "Liberal Defence Advisor" in his statement.
> 
> He orders a review of General Leslie's moving expenses but not it would seem anyone else's.
> 
> The Government, who knew for a while about this benefit possibly being problematic suddenly are going to review it reacting to a media story (reacting to the media isn't something the CPC is known for yet they seem to be moving fast on this one).  Seems like a knee jerk reaction to me.
> 
> Could all be coincidence though but I doubt it.  I'm no fan of Mr. Leslie.  I'm also not a huge fan of final cost moves in the same posting area either.
> 
> But, in politics, everyone is fair game.  If this is a political move to discredit Leslie then it seems that would be par for the course.  I expect nothing less from any party really.  The CPC tried to pin some things on Trudeau that I would argue backfired and I hope this isn't the case here.  The Liberal's will fling dirt just as good as the CPC given the chance.
> 
> But in the end the CF will likely be the ones paying for this as it may mean reduced benefits.
> 
> The CPC may not have been the ones responsible for the leak or the ATI request but it isn't hard to see that with the timing and the language that they could have pointed someone in the right direction.
> 
> What will be interesting to see is what kind of backlash if any this might provoke.   It would seem that Laurie Hawn was asked if he used the program himself and that he did but does not remember the cost.  (from Cold Lake to Edmonton) You can bet that his relocation stuff will be ATIed as a result.
> 
> When one thinks about it though, the CPC may not be be the ones behind all of this.  They have former military types within their ranks and what with the brouhaha with vets, why subject themselves to something that would backfire on them.



..........or it could be the liberals putting it out there. Perhaps they knew this would come to light and would prefer to deal with it now. That way it'll be forgotten or he'll be vindicated, well before any election. Instead of it coming in the middle of his campaign where it would become a major distraction.


----------



## Remius

@George, 

There's an easier way.   TBS has a list of completed ATI requests, by month.  It isn't hard to see what has been requested and what stories have followed shortly there after.  For instance Tony Clement's gold embossed business cards were the subject of a rquest completed in Dec 2013.  In Jan, the Citizen ran a story on exactly that.  

https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atipo-baiprp/req/2013l-eng.asp

Someone also looked into his travel as well back in November. 

As for this current request it may have been done in Jan for this month (that data isn't available yet).  But there was something back in spet i believe requesting  info on rellocation plans and benefits but it seemed to be government wide. 

@recceguy

If they did do that it would be a pretty badly timed plan given their convention.  Plus they could have just come forward with it rather than use the guise of an ATI request.  But you have a point that they might have been trying to get ahead of it.  Although one would think they woudl have done that before the story broke in the news (unless they were too slow).  They seemed however fairly prepared.  Leslie responded, Marc Garneau taking the lead etc etc.


----------



## Journeyman

......or it could have been the NDP as a false-flag op, knowing it would have the CPC and the Liberals squabbling embarrassingly, which in turn would have the conspiracy theorists question the Global versus CTV timelines.....all apparently to distract attention from the VAC closures.  

         :stars:    :Tin-Foil-Hat:

About the best quote so far is:





			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .......have no idea what took place......


----------



## The Bread Guy

Crantor said:
			
		

> The timing does seem off a bit though.  Global does an ATI request, specifically it would seem for Generals.  Somehow in the ATI process someone leaks this to CTV before Global does its story on this.  But it's Leslie's specific info that gets sent to CTV.


Still peeling the layers off the onion, but another possible alternative explanation:  CTV requests & receives ATI trawl package.  Two ways it could go:
1)  Overall "lookit how much Canada is spending to move generals from one neighbourhood to another?" story, or
2)  Who floated to the top of the list?  Someone more prominent than most Generals knows?  Anyone else that's been in the news on the list?
We see how it went.
Also, so far, it appears only Global may have shared the "obtained' doucment itself.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ......or it could have been the NDP as a false-flag op, knowing it would have the CPC and the Liberals squabbling embarrassingly, which in turn would have the conspiracy theorists question the Global versus CTV timelines.....all apparently to distract attention from the VAC closures.
> 
> :stars:    :Tin-Foil-Hat:



But what about Elizabeth May?  The Green Party!  And Army uniforms are Green!  Convenient how your version excludes her completely.

Clearly, you're part of the deception plan - maybe you're the mastermind behind the whole consipiracy...


----------



## DAA

It's all pretty ridiculous.  

LGen Leslie should just do the honest thing and pay the money back.  Heck, he might even be able to borrow it, without interest, from Jeremy Broadhurst, Justin Trudeau's Chief of Staff.

Oh wait a second.....what was I thinking?  The Conservatives have already used that one.........    :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Also, so far, it appears only Global may have shared the "obtained' document itself.


And if you're interested, here's the "obtained" doc attached.

Also, here's a link to the AG's 2006 report on the program in question.


----------



## Journeyman

DAA said:
			
		

> LGen Leslie should just do the honest thing and pay the money back.


If everything he did was correct within regulations, want to give us a hand hauling him down off that cross?!  The _honest_ thing??!

For disclosure, I am not a fan of former-LGen Leslie.  I don't know if I'm a fan of politician-_Mr._ Leslie, but even that is irrelevant because he's not in my riding.


Sorry DAA, I thought more highly of you.  Maybe you should back off from the amount of time you're spending in the Recruiting threads.  :not-again:


----------



## Bog-Trotter

Is it just me, or...

having retired from the RAF, under essentially the same policy but in Britland, my move back to Canada was under $20K. Have I missed something... :'(


----------



## George Wallace

Bog-Trotter said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or...
> 
> having retired from the RAF, under essentially the same policy but in Britland, my move back to Canada was under $20K. Have I missed something... :'(



Yes you have.  If you look at the list that was provided, a couple of Generals moves cost less than $500 while others varied in costs up to the $72K.  Distance wasn't the big factor in cost.  Other factors were.  What was the value of the home they were moving from and the home that they were moving into, and what were the Legal, Realtor and Property tax costs involved were often the determining factors.   Someone moving from a downtown apartment to a home in the 'burbs would incur costs less than someone in a million dollar home moving into another million dollar home. 

As all the rules for this move, and all the others, seem to be in accordance to the directives, this is not news.   It is only news because someone who has no understanding of the rules governing the 'last move' of long serving military members thinks that there is an impropriety in what some have done.  Some people have the opinion that they must know everything about everything, even if it does not concern them.  Others, such as Stephen Staples have agendas to dismantle the military, and will see a conspiracy or impropriety around every corner.  Still others are just trying to justify their jobs and sell newspapers or fill a news program with sound bits.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If the MND and other CPC politicians decide to "make (one time) hay" with this by introducing some new exceptions/limitations I *guarantee*, without fear of ever being wrong, that someone, a corporal most likely, will get sideswiped; the media will take up that case and DND and the government of the day will look cruel and foolish.


Along those lines - different policy, maybe, but it's being pulled in ....


> A military family that took a $77,000 loss selling their Edmonton-area home because of a forced transfer is challenging the Conservative government in Federal Court.
> 
> Maj. Marcus Brauer is protesting a federal Treasury Board decision that denied him full compensation for lost equity under a long-standing Defence Department policy.
> 
> The resurrection of his case comes amid lingering questions about moving expenses claimed by military brass.
> 
> The government has yet to explain why it covered the nearly $40,000 bill to move a court-martialed and disgraced former brigadier-general to the United Arab Emirates. Nor has there been a public accounting of $47,000 in claims for three officers whose moves were listed as going from a spartan military camp in Afghanistan to Ottawa, Kingston, Ont., and Halifax.
> 
> Requests for comment or clarification were unanswered Tuesday.
> 
> The Harper Conservatives also remained silent Tuesday after two days' of political attacks on former lieutenant-general and star Liberal candidate Andrew Leslie's $72,000 moving bill.
> 
> Brauer said he could not comment on the expense claims of flag officers and noted that the nuts and bolts of moving outlays are handled under a separate benefits program.
> 
> But he did say he's been scrambling to make ends meet following a $77,000 equity hit in his move to Halifax, and has been appealing for donations to cover the estimated $20,000 needed to keep the Federal Court challenge going.
> 
> "The level of destitution we are going through is not acceptable for any family," he said Tuesday in an interview with The Canadian Press. "After 25 years of service I don't think I should have to go through this." ....


----------



## DAA

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If everything he did was correct within regulations, want to give us a hand hauling him down off that cross?!  The _honest_ thing??!
> 
> For disclosure, I am not a fan of former-LGen Leslie.  I don't know if I'm a fan of politician-_Mr._ Leslie, but even that is irrelevant because he's not in my riding.
> 
> Sorry DAA, I thought more highly of you.  Maybe you should back off from the amount of time you're spending in the Recruiting threads.  :not-again:



My bad idea of humour using it as a parody in comparison to the CPC fiasco.  Couldn't think of a better word to use at the time.


----------



## Lightguns

Talk radio is completely on side with the lower ranks, Canadians can tell the difference from uniformed politicans from soldiers.  Who really cares if "$500 Limit Andy" gets an rude introduction to a world he cannot order to shut up?


----------



## Remius

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Talk radio is completely on side with the lower ranks, Canadians can tell the difference from uniformed politicans from soldiers.  Who really cares if "$500 Limit Andy" gets an rude introduction to a world he cannot order to shut up?



I've never been a fan of the guy but he was a soldier at one time and the contract he had with the Crown applied to him as well as any private or corporal (including but not limited to unlimited liability).  The man and his family was posted and transferred 18 times, he served with distinction and yes became a general.  Becoming a general does indeed involve some politics.  

I care if he gets this rude introduction because it will likely lead to collateral damage.  The lower ranks will become pawns in this mess.  Leslie takes a bit of heat, the CPC tries to score some points and serving CF members will lose more benefits all with people smiling and saying they are supporting the troops. 

I think what grates on people who don't know any better is that:

a) he's was a general and, 

b) he's a rich guy who used to be a general

Neither should factor in at all in this.  

There are plenty of other things one could attack Leslie for but this shouldn't be one of them.

Already there seems to be a backlash over this.  Talk radio this morning was bringing up the fact that the auditor general and the ombudsman have both brought this problem of relocation up for years now and nothing has been done.  So why now?  Because it is politrically expediant to do so.  rather than look at this from a public interest point of view it is being used as a political interest.  

If anything, it seems, that at least the plight of some CF members who've suffered hardships in their postings and transfers are getting some attention now.


----------



## Sub_Guy

While not the case for Leslie, a few of the Generals/Admirals on the list had to vacate their residences at retirement because they were in Military housing (Adm Greenwood comes to mind).


----------



## George Wallace

Talk radio this morning mentioned questioning General Hillier on the matter and whether or not he took advantage of this policy.  His reply was that he did not.  He has a home in Newfoundland.  This now turns into a question of judgement on the part of General Leslie, not one of entitlements.  Could he have, with his financial situation, not taken advantage of this policy, like some others who have not found it necessary to do so?  Only General Leslie can answer that.  Perhaps this will place his ethics and morals into the limelight, rather than an entitlement that long serving members CAN take advantage of.  We have seen already that some have found it is NOT necessary to take advantage of this.  The longer this stays in the news, the more speculation and the appearances of a smear job will thrive.

Ill-informed people will continue to question why others have entitlements that they do not.  Socialism thrives in Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> A military family that took a $77,000 loss selling their Edmonton-area home because of a forced transfer is challenging the Conservative government in Federal Court.



That's just brutal.  The media should look into forced transfers and CF members loosing tens of thousands of dollars after they have their fill with the ex-generals moving expenses.


----------



## McG

George,
Michael Den Tandt raises similar questions about could/should LGen Leslie have opted not to take the IPR benefits here: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/gets+away+clean+from+Andrew+Leslie+expense+debacle/9521428/story.html 
He wraps-up with a few questions and the conclusion that the general should have chosen to forgo his entitelments:


> How could an overseas shift, logically, be less costly for taxpayers than one within Ottawa?


I too would be interested to know the answer, but I believe it has something to do with the policy not fully funding moves to locations outside of Canada.  I vaguely recall there being caveats related to that.


> And is there one standard for the brass and another for the ordinary soldier?


Yes.  There is one policy with one standard that is blind to rank.


> These are fair questions. They and more like them should be expected by Trudeau and his team, for this reason: They have held themselves up as reformers, who intend to play the game differently, with greater moral fibre than their opponents. It’s the very same claim Preston Manning and Reform began making in the late 1980s – yet here we are. It’s not good enough, therefore, for Leslie to say he followed all the rules (and there is no evidence at all to the contrary, that I have seen.) That’s a particularly weak argument for accepting an entitlement that most reasonable people would find overly generous, coming from a would-be crusader for accountability.



… of course, I also vaguely recall there being a payment-in-lieu for those who chose to forgo the IPR.  A chunk of money that goes into the retiring member’s pocket in exchange for saving the government the cost of a move.  If one is not buying or selling a home, then perhaps the assumed moral high ground of forgoing IPR is really just the individual’s financial better offer.


----------



## dapaterson

If your are outside of Canada, you will generally not have a house sale on your return move to Canada, which reduces costs significantly.


----------



## rubberhead291

With reference to General Hillier, did he state that he paid for his move to Newfoundland?  He retired as CDS on 1 July 2008 and was appointed as chancellor of MUN on 8 July.  It would not be unusual for a university, or corporation, to pay for an executive's move as part of their hiring process.  Perhaps MUN paid for his move?  Did he maintain a home in Newfoundland prior to his release?  If they made this comparison to raise questions about the moral and ethics of General Leslie it would help if the comparison was a fair one.  Having said that, if General Hillier paid for his move, just before/after his retirement from the CF, solely out of his own pocket, good on him - but I don't think the point was made by simply asking him if he took advantage of this benefit, and not asking if he was compensated by another organization.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Talk radio this morning mentioned questioning General Hillier on the matter and whether or not he took advantage of this policy.  His reply was that he did not.  He has a home in Newfoundland.  This now turns into a question of judgment on the part of General Leslie, not one of entitlements.  Could he have, with his financial situation, not taken advantage of this policy, like some others who have not found it necessary to do so?  Only General Leslie can answer that.  Perhaps this will place his ethics and morals into the limelight, rather than an entitlement that long serving members CAN take advantage of.  We have seen already that some have found it is NOT necessary to take advantage of this.  The longer this stays in the news, the more speculation and the appearances of a smear job will thrive.
> 
> Ill-informed people will continue to question why others have entitlements that they do not.  Socialism thrives in Canada.


----------



## sandyson

With reference to Gen Hillier, the appointment to Chancellor is an honourary one like honourary colonel.  Chancellors are not compensated--indeed quite the contrary.  It's an expensive appointment to accept in time and money.


----------



## George Wallace

rubberhead291 said:
			
		

> With reference to General Hillier, did he state that he paid for his move to Newfoundland?  He retired as CDS on 1 July 2008 and was appointed as chancellor of MUN on 8 July.  It would not be unusual for a university, or corporation, to pay for an executive's move as part of their hiring process.  Perhaps MUN paid for his move?  Did he maintain a home in Newfoundland prior to his release?  If they made this comparison to raise questions about the moral and ethics of General Leslie it would help if the comparison was a fair one.  Having said that, if General Hillier paid for his move, just before/after his retirement from the CF, solely out of his own pocket, good on him - but I don't think the point was made by simply asking him if he took advantage of this benefit, and not asking if he was compensated by another organization.



I think your point of view has completely lost track of what being discussed.  Nothing in your post pertains to this topic.  Who cares if he was compensated by another organization.  That doesn't matter and is in no way relevant to the discussion.  The discussion is on the DND policy that gives direction on what a long serving member is entitled to.  What is relevant is whether or not anyone took advantage of the benefits offered by DND, NOT some other organization.  Whether someone is compensated by some other organization outside of the government is irrelevant to this discussion and a RED HERING.


----------



## X Royal

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The discussion is on the DND policy that gives direction on what a long serving member is entitled to.  What is relevant is whether or not anyone took advantage of the benefits offered by DND, NOT some other organization.  Whether someone is compensated by some other organization outside of the government is irrelevant to this discussion and a RED HERING.


I agree with part of this statement. What any other organization paid has no relevance as long as  it was not somehow tied to the time the member was still serving.
But what also is a RED HERRING is anyone suggesting that a retiring member has done anything incorrect in claiming a benefit they are fully entitled to claim.


----------



## rubberhead291

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think your point of view has completely lost track of what being discussed.  Nothing in your post pertains to this topic.  Who cares if he was compensated by another organization.  That doesn't matter and is in no way relevant to the discussion.  The discussion is on the DND policy that gives direction on what a long serving member is entitled to.  What is relevant is whether or not anyone took advantage of the benefits offered by DND, NOT some other organization.  Whether someone is compensated by some other organization outside of the government is irrelevant to this discussion and a RED HERING.



I didn't initially bring up Gen (ret'd) Hillier, but I was asking whether that was a fair comparison for the media, or anyone else , to make and base a question on Gen (ret'd) Leslie's morals/ethics for claiming this benefit, as that would seem to be exactly what this thread is about.  In my opinion, there is nothing immoral about someone with a bigger paycheck claiming an entitlement.

On a related point, thanks 'Sandyson' for pointing out that, Gen (ret'd) Hillier's, incumbent position as chancellor is solely a titular head and typically receives no pay/benefits outside of University business.


----------



## upandatom

Good For him, He used an entitlement that was there. So whats the deal? Treasury board is aware of this entitlement, CAF wrote the policy, Brookfield Administers it. 

The media nowadays is a joke. 

Try reporting on something real, worthwhile, like Ukraine and whats going on there. 

Just no more Political bashing or Bieber talk please.


----------



## George Wallace

rubberhead291 said:
			
		

> I didn't initially bring up Gen (ret'd) Hillier, but I was asking whether that was a fair comparison for the media, or anyone else , to make and base a question on Gen (ret'd) Leslie's morals/ethics for claiming this benefit, as that would seem to be exactly what this thread is about.  In my opinion, there is nothing immoral about someone with a bigger paycheck claiming an entitlement.



The point that media personality was making, was that although there is an entitlement, one does not necessarily have to take it.

As the story unfolds in the media, you will find that General Leslie comes from a 'prominent family'.   Comparisons will be made.

I find some of the discussions on 'talk radio' very frustrating.  I find it incomprehensible that many are calling in, enraged that a General had such high expenses.   Stop.  Step back.  Think.  A Cpl with twenty years in service makes how much?...... And his/her home costs how much?  A General with twenty years or more service makes how much?  And their home costs how much?  We are looking at a wide range of 'Tax Brackets' between the lowly Cpls with over twenty years in and those of Generals with over twenty years service.  Naturally costs will be higher as you get into the General officer ranks.  Just proof once again that common sense is not common.


----------



## ModlrMike

That Mr Leslie partook of an entitlement that every member could is not really the issue. The greater issue is that we pay for final moves where the member already lives in their retirement community. Something the public will have a hard time accepting, even more so when there is the appearance of highly paid GOFOs getting benefits the rest of us don't. The facts are immaterial, appearance is everything.

The real tragedy here is that in their attempt to embarrass the government, or Mr Leslie, the media has created the very real possibility of the removal or diminution of a generally well administered benefit.

The political dimension is nothing more than a sideshow, which is an appropriate description for what passes for media these days.  :clown: :clown:


----------



## ballz

Some interesting comments from Pat Stogran in this interview with CBC's Evan Solomon...

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2438205095/

"The troops right now are suffering and I'm at a point right now as an ex-professional military person where I firmly believe the General Officers and the Flag Officers have let the rank and file down." 

He then goes on to say that troops should be allowed some form of union to represent them collectively, etc. I am just a little perplexed that someone "in the know" actually thinks that's a viable/allowable option for a country to allow its military to unionize / act as a collective group in anyway? Perhaps this is for a different thread...

But wow did he ever blade Andrew Leslie! The Tories will be replaying those sound bites for a while.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ballz said:
			
		

> Some interesting comments from Pat Stogran in this interview with CBC's Evan Solomon...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2438205095/
> 
> "The troops right now are suffering and I'm at a point right now as an ex-professional military person where I firmly believe the General Officers and the Flag Officers have let the rank and file down."
> 
> He then goes on to say that troops should be allowed some form of union to represent them collectively, etc. I am just a little perplexed that someone "in the know" actually thinks that's a viable/allowable option for a country to allow its military to unionize / act as a collective group in anyway? Perhaps this is for a different thread...
> 
> But wow did he ever blade Andrew Leslie! The Tories will be replaying those sound bites for a while.



The union thing is being discussed, somewhat, here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/114105/post-1291202#msg1291202


----------



## Jarnhamar

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The real tragedy here is that in their attempt to embarrass the government, or Mr Leslie, the media has created the very real possibility of the removal or diminution of a generally well administered benefit.



It makes sense to me to offer members retiring from the military a move to their home town or another geographical location of their choosing.  Paying for someone to move within the same city, or especially a few blocks, seems really wasteful to me.


----------



## DAA

ballz said:
			
		

> Some interesting comments from Pat Stogran in this interview with CBC's Evan Solomon...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2438205095/
> 
> But wow did he ever blade Andrew Leslie! The Tories will be replaying those sound bites for a while.



Interesting interview but not sure just how to take the comments.  Mr Strogan declined the local relocation option and Mr Drapeau says he didn't even know such a thing could be done.    :facepalm:

So other than the "optics" involved with what would be viewed a local move, at the end of the day, if you decide to move from Vancouver to Halifax, there is a cost involved, no different than buying just down the street.  If you take away the local area option, what happens to people who reside in Government owned housing (ie; PMQ's) or how about the person who is renting when they retire and then decide to buy locally?

Too many double edged swords at play, so to make it a level playing field and treat everyone equally, you get what you get.

If they start placing restrictions on such cases, someone will regretably end up with the unintended shaft.


----------



## dapaterson

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> It makes sense to me to offer members retiring from the military a move to their home town or another geographical location of their choosing.  Paying for someone to move within the same city, or especially a few blocks, seems really wasteful to me.



The challenge is always in how to write a simple, easy to administer, fair policy.  And then to ensure you do periodic revisions and updates because situations change.

For example, one problem with the current HEA is that the base amount hasn't increased for more than a decade, while house prices rose significantly.


----------



## Transporter

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge is always in how to write a simple, easy to administer, fair policy.  And then to ensure you do periodic revisions and updates because situations change.
> 
> For example, one problem with the current HEA is that the base amount hasn't increased for more than a decade, while house prices rose significantly.


 Like the $650 movement grant that's been $650 ever since I joined 25+ years ago?


----------



## DAA

Transporter said:
			
		

> Like the $650 movement grant that's been $650 ever since I joined 25+ years ago?



The movement grant used to be two values.  One for shipping HG&E over a threshold weight and a different amount for shipping under the threshold weight.  I "think" it used to be $725.00 for shipping over 1,000 lbs and $225 or $250 for under that.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge is always in how to write a simple, easy to administer, fair policy.  And then to ensure you do periodic revisions and updates because situations change.
> 
> For example, one problem with the current HEA is that the base amount hasn't increased for more than a decade, while house prices rose significantly.



The biggest problem with trying to claim HEA is proving/substantiating that the loss was attributed to a depressed market.

Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.

I've seen submissions, well substantiated sent up to DCBA, passed over to Treasury Board and denied.  TB will view the submissions but the criteria they use is based on information provided by CMHC and Stats Can.  You can't win for losing.  HEA (formerly known as HEAP) used to be much more liberal in nature but as it was costing DND and the CF too much money, that benefit was reviewed and rewritten into what it is today.


----------



## Transporter

DAA said:
			
		

> The movement grant used to be two values.  One for shipping HG&E over a threshold weight and a different amount for shipping under the threshold weight.  I "think" it used to be $725.00 for shipping over 1,000 lbs and $225 or $250 for under that.
> 
> The biggest problem with trying to claim HEA is proving/substantiating that the loss was attributed to a depressed market.
> 
> Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.
> 
> I've seen submissions, well substantiated sent up to DCBA, passed over to Treasury Board and denied.  TB will view the submissions but the criteria they use is based on information provided by CMHC and Stats Can.  You can't win for losing.  HEA (formerly known as HEAP) used to be much more liberal in nature but as it was costing DND and the CF too much money, that benefit was reviewed and rewritten into what it is today.


 Correct. Movement grant used to be two values, one for <1000lbs and one for 1000lbs or more. The one for 1000lbs or more has always been $650 to my recollection. I remember on my first posting making sure the movers would take my cinder block and plywood "entertainment centre" to help me get to 1000lbs.  ;D


----------



## DAA

Transporter said:
			
		

> Correct. Movement grant used to be two values, one for <1000lbs and one for 1000lbs or more. The one for 1000lbs or more has always been $650 to my recollection. I remember on my first posting making sure the movers would take my cinder block and plywood "entertainment centre" to help me get to 1000lbs.  ;D



I too remember that but am pretty sure it was $725 and one of the policy revisions actually listed "non-admissable" items of which bricks/blocks were one of them.    :nod:  In fact I think that at one point in time, receipts were also once required to claim the grant.  When they moved to a "straight up front" payment, with no requirement to provide proof of out of pocket expenses, I had some people trying to return that money, believe it or not and that was in the late 90's early 2000.

PS - the cinder block entertainment centres, used furniture from off someones front porch and disgarded appliances were generally referred to as a "dumpster to dumpster move".


----------



## armyvern

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> It makes sense to me to offer members retiring from the military a move to their home town or another geographical location of their choosing.  Paying for someone to move within the same city, or especially a few blocks, seems really wasteful to me.



From my point of view, it can/does make sense.  When a military member is posted to Ottawa (or any location) and proceeds on their House Hunting Trip (HHT - stating the acronyms for all the "guests" viewing this thread), they have a mere 5 days, 9 if they take an extended HHT, in which to source, visit, offer and waive conditions on a home purchase. *5 days*. Personnel proceeding on postings consider vastly different items on their "house checklist" when moving on a posting than they do when moving on retirement. Easy resale being high on that list to enable their next posting -- and saving the taxpayers money as it does cost the taxpayers when a CF member buys a house that isn't easily resold when they are posted out. They also consider other things as enabling to performing their duties as a CF member at the new location -- Ottawa, for example, near an OC transpo spot to get to/from the workplace efficiently and on time.

If that member ends up retiring at the same place, often unforecasted retirement (did Ex-general Leslie really *plan* on retiring when he did or did he retire because other aspirations for his career future did not pan out?),  they no longer need quick/easy resale homes that are located next to the OC transpo depot. 

The purchased home was bought on a posting, with little "choosing time," and with tax-money saving resale in mind pending another posting out in the future. When that goes to rat-shit and the member ends up releasing, they should not be required to suck up the cost of moving into "an actually suitable long-term home" for their family regardless of rank, inheritance or income simply because the ratshit hit the fan and they pulled pin in the last town they happened to be posted to rather than opting to move across the country. 

A final move, after years of buying easy resale, suitable for life in the CF upon posting after posting houses, into a home that is suitable for long-term family needs vice CF short term (read taxpayer) needs should be something we_ ALL_ get regardless of where that "dream/retirement home" happens to be.  On postings we "settle" for a house. We should not be requiring any CF member to "settle" on a house upon retirement regardless of income, rank or location of retirement; for cripes sakes, let us move into a house we actually love/want when we retire so we finally have a "home" instead of a "house". I really don't think that's too much to ask after 10 postings in 26 years (in my case).

The last home I bought is certainly NOT the home I want to retire in, so gawd forbid I get posted to Ottawa and end up retiring there and find myself "stuck in it" after purchasing it when I felt it better suited "posting" criteria and that I would not be ending my career in Ottawa.


----------



## Jarnhamar

You sunk my battleship...

Excellent points, I concede


----------



## Journeyman

DAA said:
			
		

> .....Mr Drapeau......


I have no idea why he gets interviewed about _anything_.  As soon as I see Scott Taylor's lapdog his name listed, I know it's not a credible news story.




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...did Ex-general Leslie really *plan* on retiring when he did or did he retire because other aspirations for his career future did not pan out?....



         :nod:      [And he left with a hearty "good fucking riddance" from me]


----------



## DAA

I have provided good counsel to my subordinates, similar to ArmyVern, when they have been posted.  Take advantage of the relocation benefits and first and foremost on your mind should be, is that you will more than likely have to sell that house 3-7 years down the road.  Do not "over buy!"

Something I haven't see mentioned in this thread yet, is any comments or advice which were provided by your Relocation Consultant.  Something during your first interview which is generally "Hi, nice to meet you, my name is George and I have been assigned your relocation file for your upcoming posting.  It is my job to maximize these benefits on your behalf!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Everyone keeps coming back to policy. That's not what this is about. That is simply a side bar discussion.

It's about optics, and it will stick with Gen Leslie for the rest of his public career.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :nod:      [And he left with a hearty "good fucking riddance" from me]



And me. His newfound troubles make me feel somewhat better about the money he took from me in Afghanistan


----------



## armyvern

DAA said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Something I haven't see mentioned in this thread yet, is any comments or advice which were provided by your Relocation Consultant.  Something during your first interview which is generally "Hi, nice to meet you, my name is George and I have been assigned your relocation file for your upcoming posting.  It is my job to maximize these benefits on your behalf!"



Have dealt with them many times now and have yet to hear it.


----------



## DAA

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everyone keeps coming back to policy. That's not what this is about. That is simply a side bar discussion.
> 
> It's about optics, and it will stick with Gen Leslie for the rest of his public career.



You mean my comment?



			
				DAA said:
			
		

> So other than the "optics" involved with what would be viewed a local move


----------



## Fishbone Jones

DAA said:
			
		

> You mean my comment?



No. In general.


----------



## DAA

recceguy said:
			
		

> No. In general.



Sorry, bad fingers on the keyboard.

This is about both policy and "optics".  Maybe the policy needs a review or maybe it doesn't.  Because something looks bad for one person and that person just happens to be a General Officer, then to do a revamp could end up hurting all of us, regardless of the rank level.

He didn't do anything wrong but what he did "looks" wrong.

One principle of leadership is to "lead by example".  So if our Senior Officers start declining the same benefits that Jr Offrs, Snr and Jr NCO's are also entitled to, then how do we interpret that?

I don't know him personally, but as a former CF/DND Relocation Advisor, I am inclined to support a relocating member, where necessary.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> And me. His newfound troubles make me feel somewhat better about the money he took from me in Afghanistan



It is indeed a long line.  My bank account was affected by his handiwork.


----------



## armyvern

Recceguy and George,

I hope you both claimed the IPR upon your releases from the CF then given your donations to Crown coffers.  Me too - I'm just not aged enough to elect IPR yet.

 :-*


----------



## Jed

Wow, M. Drapeau, is sure inflexible on any benefits to any military member. He appears to want all uniformed personnel to suffer to appease his sense of fair play.


----------



## Jarnhamar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everyone keeps coming back to policy. That's not what this is about. That is simply a side bar discussion.
> 
> It's about optics, and it will stick with Gen Leslie for the rest of his public career.



It would have been politically savvy of him to forgo the entitlement that's for sure.


----------



## armyvern

Jed said:
			
		

> Wow, M. Drapeau, is sure inflexible on any benefits to any military member. He appears to want all uniformed personnel to suffer to appease his sense of fair play.



I wonder if M. Drapeau claimed his IPR? No, apparently he "didn't even know it existed" as stated in someone's earlier post. (Are Colonels the new Lieutenants  [ie: lost] !!??  >).   :

You know, all uniformed pers *should* incur the costs of moving, selling/buying every 5 or so years, thus prohibiting and impeding their ability to build up any equity whilst being posted to wherever the government (read taxpayer) decides they should go.  Seems fair for us to be bankrupt after 25 years career due to paying these costs at the governments behest. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Kat Stevens

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everyone keeps coming back to policy. That's not what this is about. That is simply a side bar discussion.
> 
> It's about optics, and it will stick with Gen Leslie for the rest of his public career.



I really don't think it will stick to him for long at all, some people are just teflon.  In a year nobody will remember this.


----------



## George Wallace

Jed said:
			
		

> Wow, M. Drapeau, is sure inflexible on any benefits to any military member. He appears to want all uniformed personnel to suffer to appease his sense of fair play.



M. Drapeau is a 'special' person.


----------



## DAA

George Wallace said:
			
		

> M. Drapeau is a 'special' person.



I actually thought he was a somewhat "standup" kind of guy after reading some referring articles in print.  Now that I actually saw him in a televised Q&A, I need to rethink my opinion.


----------



## dimsum

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I wonder if M. Drapeau claimed his IPR? No, apparently he "didn't even know it existed" as stated in someone's earlier post. (Are Colonels the new Lieutenants  [ie: lost] !!??  >).   :
> 
> You know, all uniformed pers *should* incur the costs of moving, selling/buying every 5 or so years, thus prohibiting and impeding their ability to build up any equity whilst being posted to wherever the government (read taxpayer) decides they should go.  Seems fair for us to be bankrupt after 25 years career due to paying these costs at the governments behest. [/sarcasm]



Shhh....sarcasm tag or not, the "good idea fairies" and bean-counters will run with this!  >


----------



## Transporter

DAA said:
			
		

> I too remember that but am pretty sure it was $725 and one of the policy revisions actually listed "non-admissable" items of which bricks/blocks were one of them.    :nod:  In fact I think that at one point in time, receipts were also once required to claim the grant.  When they moved to a "straight up front" payment, with no requirement to provide proof of out of pocket expenses, I had some people trying to return that money, believe it or not and that was in the late 90's early 2000.
> 
> PS - the cinder block entertainment centres, used furniture from off someones front porch and disgarded appliances were generally referred to as a "dumpster to dumpster move".



I remember differently. One of us is getting old  ;D


----------



## DAA

The current relocation policy has gone through many many revisions over the years, some to the benefit of CF members and some to not so much a benefit.  Have you ever considered or tried to pursue one of those covetted OUTCAN postings, like to the US or maybe Europe and you own a home here in Canada?  Well, here comes your "Relocation Tip of the Day" that might give you second thoughts.......

When posted OUTCAN and you sell your home, you are venturing into Mortgage Breaking Penalties because your mortagage is not "portable" because you are not entitled to purchase a residence OUTCAN.  Before the most recent policy revision (2012), such penalties were limited in reimbursement to "3 months" of payments.  However, within your mortgage contract, the penalty normally imposed by the lender, was either "3 months of payments or the mortgage interest differential (ie; interest payments for the balance of the mortgage term)" and the "higher" of the two became applicable.

Today, that is no longer the case   ----> 
 http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch8.page?#art-08-02-06

Back in 2008--2010, when the lending rates dropped into the 3% range in some cases, I saw people take some serious hits for accepting an OUTCAN posting and having to discharge their current mortage where the MID was applicable, one of them to the tune of $18K and that was a "Cpl".   

So, if you are a Home Owner, you best have your ducks lined up before not just seeking but actually accepting that posting.  It may cost you some serious out of pocket money.


----------



## Transporter

DAA said:
			
		

> The current relocation policy has gone through many many revisions over the years, some to the benefit of CF members and some to not so much a benefit.  Have you ever considered or tried to pursue one of those covetted OUTCAN postings, like to the US or maybe Europe and you own a home here in Canada?  Well, here comes your "Relocation Tip of the Day" that might give you second thoughts.......
> 
> When posted OUTCAN and you sell your home, you are venturing into Mortgage Breaking Penalties because your mortagage is not "portable" because you are not entitled to purchase a residence OUTCAN.  Before the most recent policy revision (2012), such penalties were limited in reimbursement to "3 months" of payments.  However, within your mortgage contract, the penalty normally imposed by the lender, was either "3 months of payments or the mortgage interest differential (ie; interest payments for the balance of the mortgage term)" and the "higher" of the two became applicable.
> 
> Today, that is no longer the case   ---->
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch8.page?#art-08-02-06
> 
> Back in 2008--2010, when the lending rates dropped into the 3% range in some cases, I saw people take some serious hits for accepting an OUTCAN posting and having to discharge their current mortage where the MID was applicable, one of them to the tune of $18K and that was a "Cpl".
> 
> So, if you are a Home Owner, you best have your ducks lined up before not just seeking but actually accepting that posting.  It may cost you some serious out of pocket money.



Good tip for sure. 

Another (and in my opinion better) option to consider, depending on the housing/rental market you are leaving before going OUTCAN, is to rent your home. You can still declare it as your principal residence IAW subsection 45(2) of the Income Tax Act as long as you declare all rent as income and don't claim Capital Cost Allowance. You can also write-off all associated expenses, including mortgage interest, property taxes and management fees and you will not incur any capital gains when you sell (or move back in). It's nice to have someone else paying your mortgage for you whilst you stay in the housing market. This is 100% above board - see CRA Guide T4036(E).


----------



## TCBF

Lightguns said:
			
		

> CTV Atlantic was saying tonight that he seems to have moved from a Tory riding to a Liberal stronghold riding.  I guess they are setting him up for a run...



- This was the other shoe that I was waiting to see dropped.  Still, I don't think it is a big issue. 

- Most Canadians won't understand because most Canadians aren't worth re-locating: Their employer sees no need to compete for their skills using re-location and IPR as part of a comprehensive pay and benefits package. Whenever I get a Larry Lunchbox or Suzie Sewingkit remarking on the good pension I am going to get, I simply ask: "Why didn't YOU walk into the Recruiting Centre WITH me in October 1976?"
Know the answer I get? Stunned silence. They want the benefits without the bleeding. They are junk.


----------



## Tibbson

DAA said:
			
		

> I have provided good counsel to my subordinates, similar to ArmyVern, when they have been posted.  Take advantage of the relocation benefits and first and foremost on your mind should be, is that you will more than likely have to sell that house 3-7 years down the road.  Do not "over buy!"
> 
> Something I haven't see mentioned in this thread yet, is any comments or advice which were provided by your Relocation Consultant.  Something during your first interview which is generally "Hi, nice to meet you, my name is George and I have been assigned your relocation file for your upcoming posting.  It is my job to maximize these benefits on your behalf!"



Its been my experience that the relocation consultants can say or not say what ever they want.  Once you are done with that initial interview it's almost impossible to get any more face time with them.  Everything is via email or fax or "call me and leave a message and I'll get back to you".  

I'll never forget on my move from Edmonton I was getting tired of the phone/email tag game so I walked into the BOR area where Crookfield was at the time and I specifically looked over and noted my consultant sitting in her cubical, alone.  I went to reception and asked to see her for a moment.  The receptionist picked up the phone, waited for a few moments and said to me "sorry, she's not in, you'll have to call her and make an appointment".  When I pointed out to the receptionist that I just saw her and in fact I could see the top of her head from where I was standing AND that her phone never rang so I'd appreciate it if she would REALLY call her and let her know I wanted to see her the look on the receptionist's face was priceless when she knew she was busted.


----------



## TCBF

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> Its been my experience that the relocation consultants can say or not say what ever they want.    ...



- Perhaps they are all retired recruiters?   ;D


----------



## Alberta Bound

Just got a chance to catch up on this thread after a couple long work days. Some interesting perspectives going out here. A couple points from the RCMP perspective. 

You aren't seeing a comparison including RCMP "local" moves as we are no longer entitled to them. Our retirement moves now have to be over 40 kms like posting transfers. I stated previously that it was withdrawn after the RCMP  took some heat a number of years ago over in the same city moves. No where close to the heat this is getting. But politically the Commr said that is the way it goes and then it was gone. Do I think RCMP should have lost this benefit. No, because right now it is shortly going to cost me a bunch of money so I can go from that correct house for wife and kids, near to my posting to the right house for post career and close to the kids but not 40 MK's away. 

Although the CF and RCMP benefits are close under IRP they are not identical. Do I think the CF should lose this benefit. Absolutely not. For all the good reasons previously listed. 

CF members should count themselves lucky that they get even one face to face with Brookfield. In the RCMP on EX level (Chief Superintendent) and above get that. Everyone else gets the phone / fax / e mail treatment. And for those who think that every benefit in the IRP is automatic. In my 6 cost moves that has not been my experience. The RCMP and Brookfield interpretations seem to always lead to a decrease in my entitlement. 

I did laugh at the people who referenced the couple generals who got moves that only cost about $468. If you look,their files still said active. I would bet that $468 is the initial Brookfield consultation fee. 

I don't know Gen Leslie. But members serve and in doing so make many sacrifices. Including their families. If nothing else don't they deserve our support in their transition out of the CF.


----------



## YZT580

By the regs. Gen. Leslie appears to have done everything above board and he was entitled to the payments he received so the whole embarrassment hinges on the word entitled.  I would never vote for anyone who starts his political career by saying "what can I get out of it" and that is Leslie's attitude.  From personal observation he appeared to relish the spot light and enjoy the perks that his rank and title provided him and he is after more of the same in the political world.  Nothing he has said suggests that he has anything to offer the people of his riding other than the guarantee that he will ensure that his pension is topped up, his expense account is maxed out and his family all benefit.  He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.  He reminds me of Chou and Layton who lived in Toronto subsidized housing until they were  outed by an enterprising reporter.  VOTE NO


----------



## DAA

YZT580 said:
			
		

> By the regs. Gen. Leslie appears to have done everything above board and he was entitled to the payments he received so the whole embarrassment hinges on the word entitled.  I would never vote for anyone who starts his political career by saying "what can I get out of it" and that is Leslie's attitude.  From personal observation he appeared to relish the spot light and enjoy the perks that his rank and title provided him and he is after more of the same in the political world.  Nothing he has said suggests that he has anything to offer the people of his riding other than the guarantee that he will ensure that his pension is topped up, his expense account is maxed out and his family all benefit.  He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.  He reminds me of Chou and Layton who lived in Toronto subsidized housing until they were  outed by an enterprising reporter.  VOTE NO



"Entitled", "Took advantage of or maximized his benefits", "Exercised his rights", there is no other correct way to say it and based on his increasingly public profile, he's now taking heat over it.  So what else can he say?  This is not and has never been a "secret" incentive of some sort, only afforded to the elite Senior Officer Corps of the CF.

1.1.01 Policy effective date

The Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) 2009 is effective 1 April, 2009. It represents the Treasury Board Secretariat's approved policy for CF members  on relocation of their Dependants, Household Goods and Effects ((D) HG&E).

1.1.02 Policy statement

The Department will:
 •pay for a door-to-door move when authorized to relocate at public expense; and
 •ensure reimbursement of relocation expenses as per the CFIRP policy.

1.1.03 Eligibility application

The following officers or non-commissioned members of the Regular Force or the Reserve Force on Class B or C service are entitled to relocation benefits under the CFIRP:

Ready it for yourself --->  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch1.page?

And if you look closer at the Layton Chou situation from back in that day, not only were they "outed" but the fact in that case, was that their "combined" household income exceeded the threshold to be "entitled" to reside in subsidized housing.  The fact that neither of them reported an increase in income was merely an "oversight" on their part.  Once it was brought to their attention that they were not "entitled" to live there, I believe they moved.  But I don't think and I could be wrong, that they even paid anything back.


----------



## The Bread Guy

TCBF said:
			
		

> - This was the other shoe that I was waiting to see dropped.  Still, I don't think it is a big issue.
> 
> - Most Canadians won't understand because most Canadians aren't worth re-locating: Their employer sees no need to compete for their skills using re-location and IPR as part of a comprehensive pay and benefits package. Whenever I get a Larry Lunchbox or Suzie Sewingkit remarking on the good pension I am going to get, I simply ask: "Why didn't YOU walk into the Recruiting Centre WITH me in October 1976?"
> Know the answer I get? Stunned silence. They want the benefits without the bleeding. They are junk.





			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - Perhaps they are all retired recruiters?   ;D


Welcome back, TCBF - good to see the vitriolic wit once again!  ;D


----------



## Transporter

YZT580 said:
			
		

> By the regs. Gen. Leslie appears to have done everything above board and he was entitled to the payments he received so the whole embarrassment hinges on the word entitled.  I would never vote for anyone who starts his political career by saying "what can I get out of it" and that is Leslie's attitude.  From personal observation he appeared to relish the spot light and enjoy the perks that his rank and title provided him and he is after more of the same in the political world.  Nothing he has said suggests that he has anything to offer the people of his riding other than the guarantee that he will ensure that his pension is topped up, his expense account is maxed out and his family all benefit.  He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.  He reminds me of Chou and Layton who lived in Toronto subsidized housing until they were  outed by an enterprising reporter.  VOTE NO



You are entitled to your opinion. Have any facts to back it up?


----------



## armyvern

YZT580 said:
			
		

> By the regs. Gen. Leslie appears to have done everything above board and he was entitled to the payments he received so the whole embarrassment hinges on the word entitled.  I would never vote for anyone who starts his political career by saying "what can I get out of it" and that is Leslie's attitude.  From personal observation he appeared to relish the spot light and enjoy the perks that his rank and title provided him and he is after more of the same in the political world.  Nothing he has said suggests that he has anything to offer the people of his riding other than the guarantee that he will ensure that his pension is topped up, his expense account is maxed out and his family all benefit.  He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.  He reminds me of Chou and Layton who lived in Toronto subsidized housing until they were  outed by an enterprising reporter.  VOTE NO



It's a benefit. It's a benefit to which we are ALL entitled after completing service.

Not that I'd vote liberal, but I'm certainly not one to take away a vote from someone simply because the claimed a benefit which they've earned through their service and to which us non-politicians also claim.  Quite the glass house to live n'est pas?

I guess then, every service member (including the corporal who has effected a same-city retirement move), is morally bankrupt by your standards. Simply because after earning that benefit they chose to move into a "home" for retirement rather than the "house" they bought based upon posting requirements (5 days HHT and the quick re-sale for short-term posting factors rather than "final family long-term settlement" factors).


----------



## Rifleman62

You MAY be interested in these two comments from a blogger, or you may not.  

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2014/02/

It's the video that's attached:

*National Post’s Andrew Coyne column a case of shilling for Liberals or just incompetence?
February 19, 2014 — BC Blue *

and
*
Liberal General’s daughter gets job at real estate firm immediately after house sale
February 19, 2014 — BC Blue *


----------



## YZT580

There are people in the civil service who retire with 200 days accumulated sick leave and there are those who retire with 2.  The one took his entitlements whilst the other was honest about his called-in sick days.  Generally people call the one with 200 a fool.  Rather the one with only 2 is morally bankrupt.  That is the primary issue here.  If you are of any rank and have moved into inferior housing just because of the risk of the next move, by all means take that offered incentive but I doubt that Leslie's former residence was inferior in any way: just not in the right riding.  That is bad taste and  demonstrates his contempt for the folks who paid for his unnecessary real estate fees.  But I am prepared to be wrong. If the General will produce a sampling of his expense claims over the last say 5 years and they are all totally legit.  I will gladly apologize for implying that he ever took the system and my wallet for a ride.  Hypothetical I know :2c: :2c:


----------



## armyvern

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ... But I am prepared to be wrong. If the General will produce a sampling of his expense claims over the last say 5 years and they are all totally legit.  I will gladly apologize for implying that he ever took the system and my wallet for a ride.  Hypothetical I know :2c: :2c:



FOIA. I don't have copies of all my claims for the last 3 months let alone 6 years. I don't have copies of any of them.  I'm sure that I could get copies of my ~90 claims (minimum) and 2 X posting claims for the past 5 through FOIA though.

I'll trust what the audit of his IPR move claim details/shows/reveals/whatever ... because you just _know_ it's going to happen.


----------



## YZT580

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> FOIA. I don't have copies of all my claims for the last 3 months let alone 6 years. I don't have copies of any of them.  I'm sure that I could get copies of my ~90 claims (minimum) and 2 X posting claims for the past 5 through FOIA though.
> 
> I'll trust what the audit of his IPR move claim details/shows/reveals/whatever ... because you just _know_ it's going to happen.



The move and the expense claims go hand in hand.  If he has been scrupulously clean in his personal expense claims then he has more than likely just taken the move because it was the final gesture from his employer.  If his expense claims are padded (remember the sick leave thing) then it is likely he was just after his entitlements and that is morally reprehensible.  I'm done, end of rant


----------



## DAA

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There are people in the civil service who retire with 200 days accumulated sick leave and there are those who retire with 2.  The one took his entitlements whilst the other was honest about his called-in sick days.  Generally people call the one with 200 a fool.  Rather the one with only 2 is morally bankrupt.  That is the primary issue here.  If you are of any rank and have moved into inferior housing just because of the risk of the next move, by all means take that offered incentive but I doubt that Leslie's former residence was inferior in any way: just not in the right riding.  That is bad taste and  demonstrates his contempt for the folks who paid for his unnecessary real estate fees.  But I am prepared to be wrong. If the General will produce a sampling of his expense claims over the last say 5 years and they are all totally legit.  I will gladly apologize for implying that he ever took the system and my wallet for a ride.  Hypothetical I know :2c: :2c:



You are right.  Some people are honest and some aren't and thus manage to somehow take liberties, such as the sick leave you mentioned.  But in this instance, it was reimbursement for "eligible and approved" expenses and those expenses are vetted, reviewed and certified by an "independant" civilian contractor (Brookefield Relocation Services) and administered outside of the CF.  The only time someone from the CF is actually involved in the relocation process, is when the person feels they are being disadvantaged, in which case they are required to request "recourse" inorder to have a benefit paid and I don't see any mention of that here.

Also, you can't necessarily compare DND Civilian employee's to Candian Forces members.  First thing, CF members are told when and where they will move, our civilian counterparts aren't.  While we both, at times, provide the exact same service, for CF members just where that service is provided is subject to change and not by choice.



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> The move and the expense claims go hand in hand.  If he has been scrupulously clean in his personal expense claims then he has more than likely just taken the move because it was the final gesture from his employer.  If his expense claims are padded (remember the sick leave thing) then it is likely he was just after his entitlements and that is morally reprehensible.  I'm done, end of rant



The process is not "managed" by the Canadian Forces, so he has NO authority, influence or otherwise over any of the process.

This isn't a case of someone who works for him, nor his office staff processing his final benefits, nor a "wink wink, nudge nudge" to someone regarding a receipt or even someone from the "contracted" service provider.  It's "clear cut" policy, sanctioned by the Treasury Board of Canada, so it's reasonably full proof on the part of anyone involved.


----------



## Pusser

YZT580 said:
			
		

> He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.



So because you don't think he should have exercised a benefit, which he had earned, under circumstances about which NONE of us are actually aware, he's morally bankrupt?  How many people, other that yourself of course, choose not to claim benefits, which they have earned, simply because they feel it would be a bit much?  Not claiming an earned benefit would be like not accepting your pay because you didn't feel you earned it that day.  Have you ever returned your pay to the Crown for those days when you didn't give 100% of your efforts to your job?  How about returning a half day's pay for each unit Christmas dinner - you know, those days where everybody stops working at noon and just parties for the rest of the day?  After all, isn't it morally bankrupt to accept pay to party?


----------



## Edward Campbell

The view from David Parkins in the _Globe and Mail_:






Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article17008363.ece/BINARY/w620/web-friedcar21col1.jpg


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> How about returning a half day's pay for each unit Christmas dinner - you know, those days where everybody stops working at noon and just parties for the rest of the day?  After all, isn't it morally bankrupt to accept pay to party?



Well there goes the mens Christmas dinner ...


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well there goes the mens Christmas dinner ...



Already classified as an "event" for us (because of the size of our unit)  thus requiring DM approval.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Already classified as an "event" for us (because of the size of our unit)  thus requiring DM approval.



Learn something new every day!  Thank you for the education RQ


----------



## Fishbone Jones

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The view from David Parkins in the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_
> Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article17008363.ece/BINARY/w620/web-friedcar21col1.jpg



Thank you Mr Campbell. That's exactly what I have been saying. The military (here) is going round and round about the policy and entitlements.

Those outside the military neither understand or care about that.

They are concerned that a General spent $72,000.00 to move 6.5 blocks and used taxpayer money to physically position himself in a riding that would be favourable to his new civilian occupation as a politician.

I gather not many of the folks here will vote liberal anyway, so it is really those (befuddled civilians) outside the CAF, that count in this.

And they don't like what they see. Whether the understand the reason(s) or not.


----------



## dapaterson

A quick amendment: from what I know of the electoral map in Ottawa, there was no change of riding.


----------



## Remius

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A quick amendment: from what I know of the electoral map in Ottawa, there was no change of riding.



Still won't stop the accusation or the theory that there was.  One does not have to live in a riding to run in it.


----------



## trustnoone73

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The move and the expense claims go hand in hand.  If he has been scrupulously clean in his personal expense claims then he has more than likely just taken the move because it was the final gesture from his employer.  If his expense claims are padded ... then it is likely he was just after his entitlements and that is morally reprehensible.  ...



If we speculate enough on speculative claims I'm sure we can find moral reprehension or just a lot of nothing about nothing.  Quite frankly, I've moved enough to know a free move would not be worth the hassle unless my wife really wanted a different house.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thank you Mr Campbell. That's exactly what I have been saying. The military (here) is going round and round about the policy and entitlements.
> 
> Those outside the military neither understand or care about that.
> 
> They are concerned that a General spent $72,000.00 to move 6.5 blocks and used taxpayer money to physically position himself in a riding that would be favourable to his new civilian occupation as a politician.



Wrong again.  The move kept him in Rockliffe, and he will run oi Orleans.  As I understand it, he qualifies to run in Orleans because he owns property there.  There is no smoking gun here,  LGen Leslie, just like Cpl Snuffy, used his IPR to select his place of retirement - much like, I imagine, you did.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There are people in the civil service who retire with 200 days accumulated sick leave and there are those who retire with 2.  The one took his entitlements whilst the other was honest about his called-in sick days.  Generally people call the one with 200 a fool.  Rather the one with only 2 is morally bankrupt.  That is the primary issue here.  If you are of any rank and have moved into inferior housing just because of the risk of the next move, by all means take that offered incentive but I doubt that Leslie's former residence was inferior in any way: just not in the right riding.  That is bad taste and  demonstrates his contempt for the folks who paid for his unnecessary real estate fees.  But I am prepared to be wrong. If the General will produce a sampling of his expense claims over the last say 5 years and they are all totally legit.  I will gladly apologize for implying that he ever took the system and my wallet for a ride.  Hypothetical I know :2c: :2c:









You're taking me for a ride by forcing me to sift through the nonsense your spewing out.  Don't try and write cheques your ass can't cash!


----------



## McG

Andrew Leslie talks about his moving costs with Maclean’s here: http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/02/22/exclusive-qa-andrew-leslie-talks-about-his-moving-costs-his-political-career-and-the-attacks-to-come/

I’d say he offers a fairly good defence of why soldiers deserve this benefit after a full career.  No arguments that we have not already seen here, but some new information on the specifics of his situation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Wrong again.  The move kept him in Rockliffe, and he will run oi Orleans.  As I understand it, he qualifies to run in Orleans because he owns property there.  There is no smoking gun here,  LGen Leslie, just like Cpl Snuffy, used his IPR to select his place of retirement - much like, I imagine, you did.



I simply stated what I heard on a news program.

Nowhere did I say what he did was wrong. Nowhere did I say the policy was wrong. Nowhere did I say he wasn't entitled to it.

However, my point still remains, whatever the legalities and policies of his move were, it will still leave a bad taste in the mouths of civilians that don't understand the program.

I also predict that this will not be that last we hear of it. This is the stuff political hay is made from and it will follow him for a long time.

BTW, just for shiggles, as you brought it up, the cost to move my family from Trenton, across the province to my retirement cost the government less than $5,000.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

recceguy said:
			
		

> BTW, just for shiggles, as you brought it up, the cost to move my family from Trenton, across the province to my retirement cost the government less than $5,000.



Horse and buggies were a lot cheaper than the moving trucks we use today.........


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Horse and buggies were a lot cheaper than the moving trucks we use today.........



 8)


----------



## DAA

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Horse and buggies were a lot cheaper than the moving trucks we use today.........



I did see someone try to claim reimbursement for Pet Shipment one time.........for a horse.      :facepalm:


----------



## Occam

recceguy said:
			
		

> BTW, just for shiggles, as you brought it up, the cost to move my family from Trenton, across the province to my retirement cost the government less than $5,000.



I'm going to guess you were in a Q, and didn't sell a home.  I just did my retirement move (distance 35 km) last year, and it cost at least $25,500 - 3/5 of which was real estate commission.


----------



## trustnoone73

DAA said:
			
		

> I did see someone try to claim reimbursement for Pet Shipment one time.........for a horse.      :facepalm:



It's not as uncommon as you might think.  Unfortunately not covered.  Hint:  If you own livestock, own a trailer that is attached to the vehicle you are driving to your next location.


----------



## Remius

Occam said:
			
		

> I'm going to guess you were in a Q, and didn't sell a home.  I just did my retirement move (distance 35 km) last year, and it cost at least $25,500 - 3/5 of which was real estate commission.



Someone call the media!!!


----------



## Occam

Crantor said:
			
		

> Someone call the media!!!



I know!  I've been waiting for the knock on the door.  My name's gonna turn up on a ATI request sooner or later.  Of course, I wasn't a General...with a million dollar home...and a potential candidate for an opposition party (though I'm damn tempted to take a run at a resurrected Rhinoceros party).


----------



## Shamrock

Occam said:
			
		

> I know!  I've been waiting for the knock on the door.  My name's gonna turn up on a ATI request sooner or later.  Of course, I wasn't a General...with a million dollar home...and a potential candidate for an opposition party (though I'm damn tempted to take a run at a resurrected Rhinoceros party).



You leave the Rockies alone. I don't care about an ocean view from Edmonton.


----------



## George Wallace

And now the usual anticipated reactions by our elected Members of Parliament to current CAF policies are likely to be forthcoming, due to public outrage to perceived abuse to use of benefits what they are totally ignorant about:


LINK

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


> The Hill Times
> 
> CF rank and file retirement benefits threatened   with attention from Leslie furor: Blais
> 
> By MICHAEL BLAIS |
> Published: Friday, 02/28/2014 6:19 pm EST
> Last Updated: Friday, 02/28/2014 8:02 pm EST
> 
> NIAGARA FALLS, ONT.—The artificially created furor over Andrew Leslie’s military retirement benefits has borne the expected results. Political pundits took to social media, radio, newspapers, and television for several days to discuss the seemingly outrageous sum that the former general claimed for housing and move-related expenses as a component of the Canadian Forces retirement benefit.
> 
> Benefit, not entitlement.
> 
> Disinformation, perhaps willfully applied in the guise of political expedience, stoked the flames of discord. Defence Minister Rob Nicholson chimed in on cue, disparaging Leslie’s judgment despite the fact that this seemingly terrible act occurred under his watch. Esteemed Ottawa barrister Michel Drapeau, for whom I bear a great deal of respect, expressed disappointment due to proximity issues inherent with Leslie's move. His position was buoyed by a CBC exposé dramatically revealing that several admirals and Army/Air Force generals also availed themselves of this program when they decided to retire in the community of their last assignment. Most recently, Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant, who shocked the veterans' community at CFB Petawawa with her inconsiderate comments on mental health stigma, embraced this position and has announced publicly that she will be studying “relocation” costs incurred through the CF retirement benefit.
> 
> Retired colonel Pat Stogran, Canada’s first veterans ombudsman, was perhaps the most outspoken critic. Joining the fray on CBC Power and Politics, he derided Leslie as self-serving and claimed that he did not take advantage of his retirement benefit as he felt there was, due to ongoing public service, a conflict of interest when he assumed his role as Canada’s first veterans ombudsman. There is no conflict of interest. Military service is unique; the retirement benefits inherent with a willingness to sacrifice one’s life on behalf of the nation over a 20-year service span reflect this most sacred obligation. Whether you choose to retire or, as I would encourage younger veterans such as Leslie, to continue to serve the nation’s interests through public service, is irrelevant to the program criteria.
> 
> Perspective is required. First, this not some dreaded liberal entitlement with all the dreaded connotations inferred by those who would attempt to make the issue political shortly before Leslie was to speak before the Liberal biennial convention. Leslie is, of course, an exception; a vast majority of CF retirement benefit recipients have not incurred such a wonderful equity return on their investments. Real estate fees, the primary component of the program, on a million-dollar-plus home are not insignificant; at the very least, close to $60,000 of the $72,000 in question was applied to this expense. Add to this the legal costs associated with selling and buying a home, moving expenses and the $72,000 is clearly justified under the programs criteria.
> 
> Leslie is an exception. Most CF personnel are not posted to a prime real estate area like Ottawa; there is no market-inflated increase in equity. Some, such as major Marcus Brauer, have suffered catastrophic consequences when the military communities, that DND encouraged them to purchase equity-building homes in, were subsequently ravaged by deficit reduction downsizing or base closures and the market collapsed. The rank and file, by pay-scale definition, does not have the financial resources to purchase accommodations equitable to the same level of comfort as would be expected of a general. They are also subject to four-year posting cycles common to military service that necessitates relocation before accruing much equity. Leslie was fortunate. He maintained his residence in Ottawa for an extended period of time and the equity the property accrued was indeed significant.
> 
> DND implemented the program in the 1990s to encourage CF members to purchase homes during their careers to establish financial equity to supplement their pensions upon retirement. This program has borne significant benefits to the affected communities and DND equity assurance policies undoubtedly stimulated and sustained economic growth in isolated areas—like CFB Petawawa, Gallant—wherein the base provides the sole or primary employment infrastructure. Where bases still exist, CF members often choose to retire there due to preference, post-military employment opportunities and/or the fact that their spouses, understanding retirement is imminent, availed themselves of local employment opportunities that transcend the standard posting period.
> 
> To deny the rank, file, and their families these retirement benefits by using Leslie, the exception, as an example to eliminate the CF retirement benefit program or imposing criteria inclusive of mandatory range exclusions, is disingenuous. Significant financial hardship will be imparted upon the retiring CF member as these costs, real estate, legal fees, moving expenses, will surely negate most if not all equity accrued through the DND sponsored program.
> 
> Leslie, exception he may be, fulfilled the program’s longstanding criteria for eligibility. Questions about his judgment are clearly unfounded, politically motivated and, considering Gallant’s response, perhaps indicative of a more insidious budget deficit scheme to deny Canadian Forces members the retirement benefits they have earned.
> 
> I would suggest now is the time for the Harper government, with respect, not derision, to honour its obligation to Leslie and to all CF members who have fulfilled their obligation to this nation and qualify for CF retirement benefits, wherever they choose to retire. Canada’s sons and daughters have, through great sacrifice and honour, earned the right of choice.
> 
> Michael L. Blais, CD, is founder and president of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy and is based in Niagara Falls, Ont.



So.  We will likely see a knee-jerk reaction by TB and the Government to amend current policies that may have adverse affects on ALL CAF members in the future.


----------



## ModlrMike

> The artificially created furor over Andrew Leslie’s military retirement benefits has borne the expected results. Political pundits took to social media, radio, newspapers, and television for several days to discuss the seemingly outrageous sum that the former general claimed for housing and move-related expenses as a component of the Canadian Forces retirement benefit.



A furor created by CTV and nourished by the rest of the MSM; just so we remember the start of all of this. Not that the politicians on all sides are blameless for stoking the fire. The public outcry is borne not solely of ignorance, but in only small measure, envy as well. The appearance that a millionaire General got something they never will is a force multiplier in the debate. When the story broke, that was the exact sentiment expressed at work. Not the political dimension, but the appearance of a benefit for the rich Generals at the public's expense.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So.  We will likely see a knee-jerk reaction by TB and the Government to amend current policies that may have adverse affects on ALL CAF members in the future.



Law of unintended consequences indeed.


----------



## The Anti-Royal

Law of unintended consequences indeed.

FTFY.


----------



## Occam

BOHICA.



Original link

DND to stop compensating same-city moves for retiring military

By Laura Stone and Jacques Bourbeau   Global News

OTTAWA – The federal government will no longer reimburse retiring Canadian Forces members’ same-city moves following a Global News series exposing the tab for several moves at hundreds of thousands of dollars.

National Defence intends to announce a new policy that no longer pays military members for same-city moves when they retire, with exceptions for sick or disabled military members.

The government also plans to rein in open-ended costs.

“We will fix the system,” Conservative MP Parm Gill, parliamentary secretary for Veterans Affairs, said in an interview.

The decision follows a series of Global News stories that revealed it cost nearly $600,000 to move Generals, many of them retired, within the same city or just outside the city limits over the past five years.

The priciest move was that of Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Andrew Leslie, now an advisor to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and who is hoping to run for the Liberals in the riding of Ottawa-Orleans. Leslie received $72,000 to move from one house in the upscale Ottawa neighbourhood of Rockcliffe to another just 2.5 kilometres away.

Included in that tab was $7.70 in mileage and $271.22 in per diems for the move.

Leslie did not file for those two payments; they were given to him automatically. But documents show he did sign off to receive them.

“Seventy thousand dollars for a move down the street in the same neighbourhood, I do not believe any Canadian sees that being a good use of taxpayers’ money,” said Gill, who represents the Toronto riding of Brampton-Springdale.

DND’s retirement resettlement policy was designed to allow soldiers, who spend their career being posted around the country and sometimes around the world, to expense one final move when they retire so they can choose where they will live.

In February, Leslie told Global News that he and his family moved 18 times and he bought the first  house in Ottawa on a very short trip without the input of his wife.

“We decided to retire in Ottawa and not move out of the city. My wife found and chose the perfect house … fixed it up and here we are,” he wrote.

Leslie said he knew how much the real estate and legal fees cost, which was the bulk of the bill, but did not know the full cost of his 2013 move.

With files from Rebecca Lindell


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Well that is just awesome. You are now supposed to pick your retirement home, on a 5 day HHT, without even necessarily knowing it was your retirement house.   :


----------



## armyvern

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well that is just awesome. You are now supposed to pick your retirement home, on a 5 day HHT, without even necessarily knowing it was your retirement house.   :



Don't recall who, but someone just said it well over in another thread, "*Optics trump common sense and fairness*".

Quote of the damn day.


----------



## Occam

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well that is just awesome. You are now supposed to pick your retirement home, on a 5 day HHT, without even necessarily knowing it was your retirement house.   :



Crystal Ball, Mk IV.  NSN 6530-21-865-3389.  Will be available at a Supply warehouse near you.   ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have not yet seen the inevitable CANFORGEN, but does this crap can just the under 40kms final move, or the entire final move (ie you get dumped from the CF at whatever your last posting, is)?


----------



## Transporter

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have not yet seen the inevitable CANFORGEN, but does this crap can just the under 40kms final move, or the entire final move (ie you get dumped from the CF at whatever your last posting, is)?



Appears to affect "same city" moves only i.e. you still get your final move to your IPR on release (if you qualify), but it can't be within the same city (however that will be defined).


----------



## Occam

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have not yet seen the inevitable CANFORGEN, but does this crap can just the under 40kms final move, or the entire final move (ie you get dumped from the CF at whatever your last posting, is)?



The only time 40 km comes into play for move to IPR on release is that you cannot claim HEA unless you move more than 40 km.  

Otherwise, the 40 km requirement is for a posting from one place of duty to another; the new residence must be at least 40 km closer to the new place of duty than the old residence in order to be eligible for a move under IRP.  

Your final move to IPR on release can be across the street if you so choose (under existing regs), so long as it's a medical release or you have more than 10 years of service.

I'm guessing that an arbitrary distance will be chosen, and if you're under that distance - no eligibility for a move to IPR.


----------



## liams mom

This is frustrating. We moved to our current posting with 8 weeks notice. I quit a super great, very secure civilian job. We bought our house in under two days. We settled on an only okay house since my job was gone and it no longer helped us get a larger mortgage. 

I eventually got another great, super secure job. We bought our forever, dream house eventually, about 33 km down the road from the just okay house we bought earlier, thinking we would get some moving costs back upon his eventual and not far off retirement. 

Guess not. 

And yes, he is past 24 years of service  so could elect to retire tomorrow, but wasn't intending to. It is a real slam in the gut.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Wouldn't they have to pay for your final move if you were living in a PMQ and you chose to remain in the geographical area?


----------



## 392

liams mom said:
			
		

> This is frustrating. We moved to our current posting with 8 weeks notice. I quit a super great, very secure civilian job. We bought our house in under two days. We settled on an only okay house since my job was gone and it no longer helped us get a larger mortgage.
> 
> I eventually got another great, super secure job. We bought our forever, dream house eventually, about 33 km down the road from the just okay house we bought earlier, thinking we would get some moving costs back upon his eventual and not far off retirement.
> 
> Guess not.
> 
> And yes, he is past 24 years of service  so could elect to retire tomorrow, but wasn't intending to. It is a real slam in the gut.



Can you backdate an IPR move?


----------



## armyvern

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Wouldn't they have to pay for your final move if you were living in a PMQ and you chose to remain in the geographical area?



You would think so.  Interesting twist to consider.


----------



## liams mom

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> Can you backdate an IPR move?



When we did the move we checked and were told yes. Of course, one never knows until one actually files the paper work...we were made aware that the policy can change at any time and we still went ahead, willing to take the risk. It would be nice to claim some of the fees and costs which we paid out. 

Hubby is going to get some more info this week and see what our options are.


----------



## donaldk

Occam said:
			
		

> Crystal Ball, Mk IV.  NSN 6530-21-865-3389.  Will be available at a Supply warehouse near you.   ;D



CGCS doesn't list a crystal ball   , but the NSN above should be ordered and sent to CTV .



		Code:
	

Item Identification 
 NSN:  6530-21-865-3389
 DMC:   A 
DPA1:  Gen Inst 2b 
DPA2:  NNNN 
 
   STATUS:  Item is active
 
 Date CGCS Established:  17-FEB-1972
  STATUS Date:  31-DEC-1999
 
 Last Updated:  01-SEP-2009
 
 ITEM NAME:  ENEMA ADMINISTRATION SET,DISPOSABLE
 
Characteristic  Reply 
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ITEM DESCRIPTION
  CONSISTS OF A GRADUATED 1500 TO 2000 CC CAPACITY PLASTIC FILM BAG FITTED WITH A 60 INCH ENEMA TUBE,ENEMA SOAP,STERILE LUBRICANT,PLASTIC LINED UNDER PAD,AND ASHUT-OFF CLAMP
 

 
 USERS:   MS, TA 
 
RNCC RNVC  Reference Number NCAGE 
5 2  20275-010
 90721 
3 2  BP3443
 30720 
 Management Data - from CFSS 
Stock Type:    
 C 
Stock Classification:    
 X 
Stock Item Group:    
 
IM Advisory:    
 2E 
Tracking Indicator:    
 
Repairability:    
 A 
Entitlement Checking:    
 NO
 
Batch Lot Managed in CFSS:    
 NO
 
Shelf Life:    
 0 (Months)
 
Quality Assurance:    
 C 
Supply Manager:    
 750 
Lead TA:    
 C10K 
SCHC:    
 
Serial Number Profile:    
 
Base Unit Of Measure:    
 
Unit of Issue:    
 EA 
CFSS UOI price:    
 $2.72 
 
HAZMAT:


----------



## Shamrock

Sounds like it's designed to offer a more clear vision for those with their heads up their asses.


----------



## Edward Campbell

A lot of news "reports" are, partially (sometimes even largely), written by public relations professionals in the "communications" branches/departments of corporations, government agencies and special interest groups. That's why some people, including me refer (too often unfairly) to journalists as _*stenographers*_: they, the reporters, in effect, take dictation (some of you young folks may have to _Google_ that expression) from the PR professionals. My sense is that there was some of this in this 'report;' the Conservatives are at war with the public sector - and it's good politics, in most of Canada, to run against "fat city" and the public service -and this news report reads rather like part of the campaign.


----------



## jollyjacktar

So in other words, we're collatoral damage in the summer offensive against the PS.


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So in other words, we're collatoral damage in the summer offensive against the PS.



We could use that as "Optics" in the media......  >


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So in other words, we're collatoral damage in the summer offensive against the PS.




That's how it looks to me.

This is, from a partisan political perspective, a "double whammy:" it reminds voters in 200± ridings why they don't really like the "fat cat" public sector with their defined benefit pensions, and, and, and ... and it reminds a more select pool of voters, in Ottawa, that Andy Leslie (soon to be a star Liberal candidate) *appears* to have sucked, big time, from the public teat.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ........and, and, and ... and it reminds a more select pool of voters, in Ottawa, that Andy Leslie (soon to be a star Liberal candidate) *appears* to have sucked, big time, from the public teat.




So to 'discredit' a potential Liberal candidate, thousands are thrown to the curb.  

Are all our politicians fools to hire complete morons as their advisers?  It seems that in the past decade more politicians have been caught up in the scandalous maneuvering and strategies of their political handlers than in ever in the past.  Although this may cause harm Andy Leslie as a potential candidate, it does just as much harm, if not more, to the Conservatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It's not _*all*_ politics ... I am 100% sure that there were some earnest bean counters pushing this (and other) cost cutting measures. But, notwithstanding the merits (or lack of same) of the issue, the presentation is being done in a highly partisan manner ~ just the way Liberal, NDP and other Conservative governments _frame_ policy announcements.


----------



## dapaterson

Still $18k cheaper than claiming Kanata is a part of PEI.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are all our politicians fools to hire complete morons as their advisers?


Not to mention fool enough to follow bad advice if that's what the morons suggest?  Or ignore good advice if that's what they got?


----------



## Occam

donaldk said:
			
		

> CGCS doesn't list a crystal ball   , but the NSN above should be ordered and sent to CTV .
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Item Identification
> NSN:  6530-21-865-3389
> DMC:   A
> DPA1:  Gen Inst 2b
> DPA2:  NNNN
> 
> STATUS:  Item is active
> 
> Date CGCS Established:  17-FEB-1972
> STATUS Date:  31-DEC-1999
> 
> Last Updated:  01-SEP-2009
> 
> ITEM NAME:  ENEMA ADMINISTRATION SET,DISPOSABLE
> 
> Characteristic  Reply
> GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ITEM DESCRIPTION
> CONSISTS OF A GRADUATED 1500 TO 2000 CC CAPACITY PLASTIC FILM BAG FITTED WITH A 60 INCH ENEMA TUBE,ENEMA SOAP,STERILE LUBRICANT,PLASTIC LINED UNDER PAD,AND ASHUT-OFF CLAMP
> 
> 
> 
> USERS:   MS, TA
> 
> RNCC RNVC  Reference Number NCAGE
> 5 2  20275-010
> 90721
> 3 2  BP3443
> 30720
> Management Data - from CFSS
> Stock Type:
> C
> Stock Classification:
> X
> Stock Item Group:
> 
> IM Advisory:
> 2E
> Tracking Indicator:
> 
> Repairability:
> A
> Entitlement Checking:
> NO
> 
> Batch Lot Managed in CFSS:
> NO
> 
> Shelf Life:
> 0 (Months)
> 
> Quality Assurance:
> C
> Supply Manager:
> 750
> Lead TA:
> C10K
> SCHC:
> 
> Serial Number Profile:
> 
> Base Unit Of Measure:
> 
> Unit of Issue:
> EA
> CFSS UOI price:
> $2.72
> 
> HAZMAT:



I was wondering who would be curious enough to look up the NSN.  My money was on ArmyVern.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest ....


> The federal government will no longer cover moving costs for retiring members of the Canadian military who are relocating within a 40-kilometre radius ....


The Info-machine version:


> The Government of Canada has announced changes to the Intended Place of Residence (IPR) policy for retiring Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members. Following a review by the Department of National Defence, the Government of Canada is amending the IPR policy to apply only to members moving outside a 40 km radius within a one-year period following their retirement. This change will better align the IPR policy with those of other federal government departments and agencies such as the RCMP. It will also include compassionate exceptions for medical reasons and extenuating personal circumstances ....


----------



## PuckChaser

So it looks like now you just have to wait a year and still claim IPR in the same city and get that cost move as you're entitled to the move for up to 2 years? Really doesn't look like a huge hit, but the public will see it as us being "fiscally responsible".


----------



## dapaterson

Reading the press release, it sounds like it will now have to be in excess of 40 km and within one year of release; the second year will no longer be there either.

I expect a CANFORGEN in short order to provide the details...


----------



## kratz

I hope there is a grandfather clause, if not the grievances will follow.


----------



## McG

kratz said:
			
		

> I hope there is a grandfather clause, if not the grievances will follow.


Except that one cannot grieve TB policies.


----------



## SupersonicMax

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The Government of Canada has announced changes to the Intended Place of Residence (IPR) policy for retiring Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members. Following a review by the Department of National Defence, the Government of Canada is amending the IPR policy to apply only to members moving outside a 40 km radius within a one-year period following their retirement. This change will better align the IPR policy with those of other federal government departments and agencies such as the RCMP. It will also include compassionate exceptions for medical reasons and extenuating personal circumstances ...



So, is there also going to be a review to align other benifits with other department and agencies?  Like interest payment when breaking a mortgage or CMHC insurance?


----------



## Wolseleydog

Serious question for the many admin SMEs here: what about those in PMQs at time of retirement?

They must vacate (within how long?) upon release.  What if they wish to retire in the same city?  

Any provision for that?

Just curious -- this is the first thought that popped into my head upon hearing this.


----------



## McG

You will need to wait for the new policy to be published for that answer.


----------



## Occam

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So, is there also going to be a review to align other benifits with other department and agencies?  Like interest payment when breaking a mortgage or CMHC insurance?



 :rofl:

Oh, I'm sorry.  You were serious.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

kratz said:
			
		

> I hope there is a grandfather clause, if not the grievances will follow.



There will be a grandfather clause


----------



## Shamrock

Sweet. Overtime!


----------



## George Wallace

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> Serious question for the many admin SMEs here: what about those in PMQs at time of retirement?
> 
> They must vacate (within how long?) upon release.  What if they wish to retire in the same city?
> 
> Any provision for that?
> 
> Just curious -- this is the first thought that popped into my head upon hearing this.



And your question has been answered:



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> CANFORGEN 160/14 CMP 071/14 171505Z SEP 14
> CHANGES TO THE INTENDED PLACE OF RESIDENCE POLICY AND ASSOCIATED RELOCATION BENEFITS
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> REFS: A. CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) DIRECTIVE EFF 16 SEP 14
> B. CLARIFICATION BULLETINS 2009 (1-3, 6-14) AND 2010 (1-5)
> C. CBI 208 SECTIONS 8-10
> D. QR AND O CHAPTER 209 SECTION 2 - RELOCATION EXPENSES
> E. CANFORGEN 089/14 CMP 041/14 281403Z MAY 14
> 
> 
> 
> A.  .....................................
> 
> B.  LOCAL IPR MOVES (40 KM OR LESS FROM DOOR TO DOOR). RELOCATION BENEFITS WILL NO LONGER BE PAYABLE, THEREBY BRINGING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE IPR POLICY AND THE WIDER RELOCATION POLICY WITHIN THE CAF WITH RESPECT TO MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A MOVE. EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE FOR PERSONNEL WHO ARE REQUIRED TO VACATE CROWN-CONTROLLED ACCOMMODATIONS ON RELEASE/TRANSFER, .........
> 
> ....................................................
> 
> 
> 4  THE AVAILABLE IPR RELOCATION BENEFITS REMAIN UNCHANGED FOR THOSE WHO ARE RELOCATING TO AN IPR LOCATION GREATER THAN 40 KM FROM THEIR CURRENT RESIDENCE
> 
> 5.  IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES SUMMARIZED ABOVE, EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14, ANY TRAINED MEMBER MEDICALLY RELEASED, REGARDLESS OF YEARS OF SERVICE, WILL BE ENTITLED TO AN IPR MOVE TO ANYWHERE IN CANADA


----------



## DAA

:goodpost:

Thanks for that George.  I didn't realize the CANFORGEN had been issued already.

I'm glad to see that at least they addressed the issue of personnel residing in crown controlled housing.   Not often a policy changes and something "smart" is included in it!


----------

