# Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]



## Sub_Guy (31 Aug 2005)

Anyone have any idea when these are supposed to come out?  The date always seems to get pushed back, then we either end up paying back money or getting a big bag O'cash..


----------



## zeke_wpg (7 Oct 2005)

Don't hold your breathe, the math required to obfusicate the process is mind numbing. 

Calgary = $86.00 ??


----------



## aesop081 (7 Oct 2005)

zeke_wpg said:
			
		

> Calgary = $86.00 ??



Try being in BC with a PLD of $0.00 !


----------



## zeke_wpg (12 Oct 2005)

How is Post Living Differential calculated? 
Each year during the February to March timeframe, the PLD rate at each Canadian Forces location is reviewed based on the following information: 

The latest Statistics Canada information on family spending patterns; 

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) data on typical hosing types; 

National Defence data on the military population at each place of duty. A location with a higher number of military personnel will have a larger impact on the local economy than a location with a lower Canadian Forces population. For example, Ottawa compared to Moncton; and 

Actual cost of living data in a wide variety of categories at all places of duty in Canada. Examples of these categories include: total annual cost of transportation; household / renter insurance costs; the cost of utilities; and various goods and services like the cost of food and medical care. 

Since these factors can sometime fluctuate from year to year, a three-year average has been adopted to ensure any radical variations do not have a large impact on the Canadian Forces members in that area. 

PLD is a taxable benefit. As a result, an increment is added when calculating the rates to offset the income tax paid on the allowance. This means that the allowance is increased by the amount of marginal tax to allow for loss through taxation. 

Once the data has been compiled, changes to the PLD amount for each location are calculated by May. By June/July the new figures are entered into the Canadian Forces pay system and the changes are announced to the military members and their families. By July/August, Canadian Forces members will see the changes to PLD on their monthly pay statements


----------



## Shadow Cat (12 Oct 2005)

Somebody that I know that is stationed in Shearwater was infomred yesterday that the PLD for Halifax is going upt to $380.  Does anyone know if this is true or not?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2005)

It would be much more reliable news if DH went to the OR and asked the Fin Clerk for the news, than to hear it here.


----------



## Shadow Cat (12 Oct 2005)

I will get hubby to do that once he gets back to Borden.


----------



## Gunner (12 Oct 2005)

CANFORGEN 138/05 ADM(HR-MIL) 066 011703Z SEP 05
STATUS OF POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL (PLD) - 2005
UNCLASSIFIED

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE TO ALL CF MBRS ON THE STATUS OF THE ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO PLD RATES 

PLD IS A BENEFIT PAID TO MBRS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF LIVING IN ANY GIVEN PLACE OF DUTY AND THE NATIONAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF LIVING. THE CF NATIONAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE IS UPDATED ANNUALLY AND IS BASED ON THE COST OF LIVING AT EACH OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE CF MBRS SERVE IN CANADA 

ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF PLD PAYABLE AT EACH LOCATION IS NOT YET AVAILABLE. I ANTICIPATE THAT THIS INFO WILL BE AVAIL IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND THE PLD ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN OCT 05 

THIS MSG IS TO BE GIVEN WIDEST POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION


----------



## Bloggins (13 Oct 2005)

Does any one know the PLD rate for Toronto?

Cheers


----------



## Gunner (13 Oct 2005)

ON Toronto(1) 1237 928 
ON Toronto(2) 749 562 
ON Toronto(3) 682 512 
ON Toronto(4) 946 710 
ON Toronto(5) 1130 848 

The notes (1 through 5) denote different areas of Toronto that you may reside.

The two amounts are for full (ie the larger number) and part (ie the smaller number).

The Post Living Differential (PLD) final methodology includes the following elements:

1. The intent of PLD is to stabilize the overall cost of living of CF members and their families residing in Canada to a maximum not exceeding the weighted average CF cost of living, namely the difference between the weighted average CF cost of living and the cost of living in the PLD area.

2. A PLD area is, as determined by DND in examining local circumstances, a location within the boundaries of a CF place of duty in Canada and may include a zone within a large metropolitan region (e.g., Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and environs).

3. The cost of living will be based on a representative CF household defined as:

gross household income based on the weighted average Corporal salary and a representative CF spousal income derived from the latest available Canadian census data. The most recent available data is from the 1996 Census and establishes the CF spousal income, on average, at approximately $1000 per month in year 2000 dollars; 
family size as determined from the CF personnel records or periodic surveys of CF members. Current representative family size of three persons is derived from the 1998 CF Household Survey; and 
the proportional distribution of homeowners versus renters as determined from CF personnel records or periodic surveys of CF members. 

4. The household expenditure pattern, including the category weightings, will be based on the Canadian average for a household of similar income and family size, as described in the Statistics Canada Family Expenditure Survey (FAMEX).

5. Cost of living differences will be determined by the pricing of a representative selection of the items in the FAMEX and any additional items determined by DND as being necessary to meet the CF requirement. As a minimum, the data collected and representative items priced will provide sufficient indication of spatial differences in expenditure by the representative household in the following categories:

income tax - the total combined federal and provincial income tax paid annually; 
transportation - total annual cost; 
rent for renters and mortgage interest for homeowners; 
property (real estate) tax for homeowners; 
home maintenance cost for homeowners; 
household/renter insurance; 
utilities; 
goods and services, to include:

(1) food items (consumed at home and away from home);
(2) clothing;
(3) household items, including furniture;
(4) personal care;
(5) medical and dental care;
(6) domestic services, including child-care;
(7) recreation; and
(8) alcohol and tobacco.

expenditure on sales tax, if not included in the pricing of relevant items; and 
miscellaneous items, to include expenditures not included elsewhere (e.g., education costs and lotteries) and savings and investments. 

6. Homeowner costs will be based on:

the home size indicated by the Canadian average expenditure profile; 
home purchases for the last 12 months (12 months may be expanded for locations where there is insufficient real estate market activity for meaningful analysis); 
the rolling average interest rate for a five-year closed mortgage; and 
a 20% down-payment. 

7. PLD rates will be calculated annually using the current three-year rolling average and the CF weighted average, computing the differentials between location costs and the CF weighted average, and adding an increment to offset the income tax paid on the PLD allowance. Data will be collected in the January to April period with rates calculated in May and entered into the pay system in and announced in June. New rates will be implemented to coincide with the approved posting season (July/August) with the tentative effective date of 1 July. 

8. The income tax increment included in the calculated PLD rate will be based on the estimated marginal tax determined from using the second from lowest federal income tax rate, published by CCRA, combined with the associated provincial tax rate excluding grants or surcharges.

9. With the incorporation of the three-year rolling average (Para 7 above), and the approval of the final methodology, the PLD rate cap imposed on higher cost of living areas is no longer necessary and is, therefore, removed. 

10. A reduced PLD of 75% will be paid to a member sharing a principal residence with another CF member who is entitled to PLD.

11. Where warranted, the Minister of National Defence may prescribe measures to maintain programme affordability.


----------



## Sub_Guy (22 Oct 2005)

1.   THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO ANNOUNCE REVISED PLD RATES
FOR 2005.  AS PROMULGATED AT REF A, SPECIAL REPRESENTATION TO TBS
WAS NECESSARY TO LIFT THE CAP ON PLD EXPENDITURES FOR THIS YEAR.  TB
APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND HAS RESULTED IN NEW RATES FOR 2005
2.   BASED ON THIS YEAR S CF COST OF LIVING (COL) SURVEY, SOME LOCNS
WILL SEE PLD RATE INCREASES AS THEIR LOCAL COL HAS RISEN ABOVE THE
CF NATIONAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE. THESE INCREASES ARE EFFECTIVE 1 OCT 05
AND WILL BE PAID AT END OCT PAY.  CONVERSELY, OTHER LOCNS WILL SEE
PLD RATE REDUCTIONS AND SOME WILL CEASE TO BE ENTITLED, AS THEIR
PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6007 UNCLAS CANFORGEN
LOCAL COL HAS MOVED CLOSER TO OR BELOW THE CF NATIONAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE.  REDUCTIONS AND CESSATIONS FOR THESE AFFECTED LOCNS WILL
TAKE EFFECT 1 JAN 06
3.   ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REVISED PLD RATES  (READ IN
FOUR COLUMNS: LOCATION/FULL PLD RATE/SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT RATE/EFF
DATE):
ALDERGROVE/190/143/1 JAN 06
BORDEN-BARRIE/86/65/1 JAN 06
BRANTFORD/113/85/1 JAN 06
CALGARY/21/16/1 JAN 06
CAMBRIDGE /84/63/1 JAN 06
CHATHAM/0/0/1 JAN 06
CHILLIWACK/0/0/1 JAN 06
CORNERBROOK/83/62/1 OCT 05
DUNDURN-SASKATOON/0/0/1 JAN 06
GANDER/0/0/1 JAN 06
GRAND FALLS-WINDSOR/133/99/1 OCT 05
GUELPH/245/183/1 JAN 06
HALIFAX/374/280/1 OCT 05
HAMILTON/347/260/1 OCT 05
PAGE 3 RCCLHAV6007 UNCLAS CANFORGEN
KAMLOOPS-KELOWNA/68/51/1 JAN 06
KENORA/0/0/1 JAN 06
KINGSTON/16/12/1 JAN 06
KITCHENER//170/127/1 FEB 06
LONDON/46/34/1 JAN 06
MEAFORD-OWEN SOUND/0/0/1 JAN 06
MONTREAL - NORTH SHORE/495/371/1 OCT 05
MONTREAL - SOUTH SHORE/404/303/1 OCT 05
NANAIMO/6/4/1 JAN 06
NIAGARA-ST CATHARINE/174/130/1 JAN 06
NORTH BAY/6/4/1 JAN 06
OTTAWA-GATINEAU (NCR)/196/147/1 OCT 05
PETERBOROUGH/68/51/1 JAN 06
PRINCE ALBERT/0/0/1 JAN 06
QUEBEC CITY-VALCARTIER/189/141/1 OCT 05
ROUYN-NORANDA/0/0/1 JAN 06
SARNIA/0/0/1 JAN 06
SAULT STE MARIE/0/0/1 JAN 06
SEPT-ILES/112/84/1 JAN 06
SHERBROOKE/0/0/1 JAN 06
PAGE 4 RCCLHAV6007 UNCLAS CANFORGEN
SHILO/0/0/1 JAN 06
ST JOHN S/308/231/1 OCT 05
ST-HYACINTHE/24/18/1 OCT 05
ST-JEAN-SUR-RICHELIEU/0/0/1 JAN 06
STRATFORD/206/155/1 JAN 06
SUDBURY/0/0/1 JAN 06
THUNDER BAY/0/0/1 JAN 06
TIMMINS/0/0/1 JAN 06
TORONTO - AREA 1/1586/1189/1 OCT 05
TORONTO - AREA 2/669/502/1 JAN 06
TORONTO - AREA 3/542/407/1 JAN 06
TORONTO - AREA 4/1005/754/1 OCT 05
TORONTO - AREA 5/1377/1032/1 OCT 05
TRAIL/0/0/1 JAN 06
VANCOUVER/517/387/1 JAN 06
VICTORIA-ESQUIMALT/464/348/NO CHANGE
WINDSOR/331/248/1 OCT 05
WINNIPEG/0/0/1 JAN 06


----------



## Tigs (26 Oct 2005)

too bad Winnipeg went down... seems like the cost of living for everything has gone up. Rent is $50 more, groceries have gone up, gas has gone up and utilities have gone up by an insane amount.  What can ya do!


----------



## Springroll (26 Oct 2005)

Well we just checked hubby's pay statement and our PLD was not increased for end Oct. It is still sitting at $182.
I thought it was to be on the end Oct pay? 
Is there any particular reason why it would be not updated on the pay statement?


----------



## Inch (26 Oct 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Well we just checked hubby's pay statement and our PLD was not increased for end Oct. It is still sitting at $182.
> I thought it was to be on the end Oct pay?
> Is there any particular reason why it would be not updated on the pay statement?



Did you check the end Oct pay statement or the mid Oct pay statement? It won't be on the mid Oct pay statement since those came out the first week of Oct and the PLD increase happened after. It's on my end Oct pay statement, a little over $100 after taxes.


----------



## Springroll (26 Oct 2005)

I'm looking at it right now and it is the end Oct pay statement.


----------



## BOSNwife (27 Oct 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Well we just checked hubby's pay statement and our PLD was not increased for end Oct. It is still sitting at $182.
> I thought it was to be on the end Oct pay?
> Is there any particular reason why it would be not updated on the pay statement?



Yes, That its the correct PLD Pay for Halifax area. End-Oct Pay $182 + Mid-Oct Pay $192= $374 PLD for the month of Oct. You got it all; same as us.


----------



## Springroll (27 Oct 2005)

I see the math, but since when do they start dividing up the amounts per pay? 
Wouldn't the total amount just be lumped into your monthly pay and then divided by 2 from there? 
That is how they do it with everything else. 

My husband is even confused by this especially considering the date beside the PLD amount on there is 05-10-01. ???

I haven't found hubby's mid Oct pay statement yet, but when we do, I will see what it says.

edited to add: 
we did find his mid sept statement and all it says is PLD $192...no date or anything.


----------



## Inch (27 Oct 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I see the math, but since when do they start dividing up the amounts per pay?
> Wouldn't the total amount just be lumped into your monthly pay and then divided by 2 from there?
> That is how they do it with everything else.
> 
> ...



Mid month pay drops are done on the 2nd of the month, the PLD increase didn't happen until after the 2nd, so it couldn't be added to the mid-Oct pay. The date beside the PLD amount on the end month statement is showing you what date that is effective from. It was effective from the 1st of Oct, since the pay drop was already made for the mid month pay, they just added the difference onto the end month pay. You'll notice on the end month statement that next to "Current Pay and Allowances" it says "$182.00", I highly doubt that his current pay and allowances is only $182.00. That's because he was already paid for the month which was split up between the two pays, so his end month pay is his closing balance on the mid Oct statement + the PLD increase - taxes on the PLD increase = his end month pay.

The math that BOSNwife showed you is correct.

Clear as mud?


----------



## shado_wolf (10 Dec 2005)

Hey all,

reference this:
PLD is a taxable benefit. As a result, an increment is added when calculating the rates to offset the income tax paid on the allowance. This means that the allowance is increased by the amount of marginal tax to allow for loss through taxation

does this mean it has already been added to the amounts in the table and that amount will be taxed or that the amount in the table is the amount a member gets after all is said and done.

Thanks all,
Dylan


----------



## CallOfDuty (22 Feb 2006)

Hey there guys...sorry to Hi-jack your thread S McPhee, but I just wanted to ask a question.........does anyone know when I will start receiving PLD pay?  Would it be during my NE tech training, or will I have to wait until its over and get posted to a ship?
   Getting PLD and also sea duty allowance will definately help this OS pay the mortgage. 
Steve


----------



## Navalsnpr (22 Feb 2006)

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> Does anyone know when I will start receiving PLD pay?  Would it be during my NE tech training, or will I have to wait until its over and get posted to a ship?
> Getting PLD and also sea duty allowance will definately help this OS pay the mortgage.



Best answer... check your CSOR or ships office as you have to apply through them in order to get PLD.


----------



## Collin.t (22 Feb 2006)

as long as you live on the base you will not be eligible for PLD, it's only once you'll get your own private accomodation, then you need to apply for it, if you are living with someone else that's from the military both your PLD will be slightly reduce


----------



## TAS278 (27 Feb 2006)

Well sounds like he has a mortgage.  Well you will need a copy of your home owners certificate or whatever you have that proves you live where you say you live. Then you will have to go to CSOR ("Pink Palace" if you are in Halifax.)  Take a number, sit down and wait. When you go up tell them you would like to commence PLD. Should be fairly easy. If you are unsure about what you need then call ahead and ask. 

It isn't an application, it is a privilege everyone gets that lives off the base


----------



## Collin.t (27 Feb 2006)

In victoria it sure doenst cover the mortgage, the allowance after taxes is roughly 300$ if im not wrong. My studio apt was 545$. A condo with all the various fees will not cost you under 1000$ per month 

PLD sure helps but it's not meant to cover mortgage


----------



## TAS278 (27 Feb 2006)

OK It actually isn't directed at the rent alone. It is used to augment all of the living difference from base to the next. Groceries, local services and living costs.  Spend it on beer if you like though.


----------



## BOSNwife (28 Feb 2006)

Collin.T said:
			
		

> as long as you live on the base you will not be eligible for PLD, it's only once you'll get your own private accomodation, then you need to apply for it





			
				TAS278 said:
			
		

> it is a privilege everyone gets that lives off the base



I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.
We live On Base & in PMQ's & Receive PLD.


----------



## TAS278 (1 Mar 2006)

BOSNwife said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.
> We live On Base & in PMQ's & Receive PLD.



Yes you are right, I generalized there, forgeting that people still use PMQ's. Funny thing is they charge the same amount for PMQ's across the country. (at least they are supposed to) and PLD is different.


----------



## Collin.t (1 Mar 2006)

By PMQ you mean those little overpriced shitty house ?? Cause I don't think someone living in one of the blocks would get PLD ?


----------



## BOSNwife (2 Mar 2006)

TAS278 said:
			
		

> Funny thing is they charge the same amount for PMQ's across the country. (at least they are supposed to) and PLD is different.



I'm sorry but that is incorrect. PMQ's ARE charged at different rates. They go by how many bedrooms & quare footage of Living space.




			
				Collin.T said:
			
		

> By PMQ you mean those little overpriced shitty house ?? Cause I don't think someone living in one of the blocks would get PLD



I'm sorry are you calling my PMQ (Private Military Quarters) a "little overpriced shitty house" I happen to like my house & it's view of the Ocean & the Navy Jetty. 
If you are refereing to the blocks as 'Single quarters' than you are correct, no PLD for them.


----------



## NavyGirl280 (2 Mar 2006)

LOL

BOSNWife....honey you need to calm down LMAO

Yes I agree sometimes people dont understand unless they are living the situation BUT is it worth getting banned or starting fights? 
Yes I agree our "little overpriced shitty houses" get trashed all the time. Their doing the renovations in our area and its looking better (well as long as they would fix those fences by the main road .... LOL.... but for the most part, they have come a LONG way since a few years ago. I live in one of the bigger PMQs and I love my house, minus the fact how hard it is to heat it in the winter. But you take the good with the bad and when something goes wrong, be thankful its not coming out of our pocket for the expensive to have it fixed. Yes we may have to call and leave message after message or show up in person to CFHA, however, they do come out (evetually) and the work is done. Mind you sometimes its not to the best quality but nevertheless, its done. The PMQs will never be "up-to-date" with the of the communities around us because there is such a high demand for these homes (I know...I was on a 9 month waiting list) and they need to get in and out as quickly as possible (to fix them up) to accommodate for this. The people across the road from me left 2 days ago and already they are in there ripping up old flooring and getting ready to paint. Anyway thats my little blurb on it all LOL...

BOSNWife - just think hun....only 5 more months before he comes home   You can do it hun....and remember Im only a phone call away!

S.Bradbury


----------



## airforcedave (5 Apr 2006)

I have just been posted prohibited, which means no authorization for moving F & E.  I'm also receiving PLD.

According to the CBI 205.45 in regards to PLD:

(2) (Application of PLD) PLD is a taxable benefit payable to eligible members of the Regular Force and to members of the Reserve Force who are moved at public expense for service reasons, who rent or own a *principal residence * in a qualifying location. 

However, the CBI has defined principle residence as such:

"principal residence" means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants and is situated at:

1. the member's place of duty, if their furniture and effects are located at that place, 

*2.the member's former place of duty,  if the member is not authorized to move their furniture and effects at public expense to their place of duty,*

*3. the place where the member's furniture and effects were located on enrolment, if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their furniture and effects at public expense to their place of duty, or * 

4. any other place of duty, selected place of residence or designated alternate location, if the member is authorized to move their furniture and effects at public expense to that place, except for the purpose of release or transfer to the Reserve Force.(résidence principale)

So the obvious question becomes: do I still receive PLD corresponding to my current location after I got posted?  If there is anyone in the know who can provide some guidance, that would be greatly appreciated. 

OR

Should this remained unanswered until I can go to my orderly room and ask directly, in order to prevent any unsupported speculation.  

In any event, an advanced "thank you" to those who answer.


----------



## Zoomie (5 Apr 2006)

Looks like you should still retain your PLD even when attach-posted out with restricted F&E.


----------



## TN2IC (3 Nov 2006)

I am trying to find the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for Canadian Forces (CBI) in refer Chapter 205. It states to refer to this at the bottom of the DND 2272 (06-00) PLD Request Form.

My problem is now, we are living at a family member home due to their kind hearts/disabilities. We help out in any way. But where I am clearing into the Regular Forces I need to apply to PLD, or am I entitled to do it? I don't want to make a false claim or anything. Getting in trouble first week at a new work ain't my thing. So any help? I need to know before I submit my in-clearance package in Monday.


Cheers,
TN2IC


 ???


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Nov 2006)

You mean this section big guy? 

From http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&sidecat=22&chapter=205

205.45 - POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL

(1) (Policy) Post Living Differential (PLD) is established as a means of stabilizing the overall cost of living of CF members and their families in order to maintain a relative and predictable cost of living no matter where in Canada the members are posted (excluding isolated posts). PLD rates represent the differential between the CF standard cost of living in Canada and the cost of living at established PLD areas. PLD rates are set annually based on a Treasury Board approved methodology. 

(2) (Application of PLD) PLD is a taxable benefit payable to eligible members of the Regular Force and to members of the Reserve Force who are moved at public expense for service reasons, who rent or own a principal residence in a qualifying location. 

(3) (Definitions) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this instruction.

"CF standard cost of living" means the weighted average of the cost of living of the Canadian Forces locations in Canada other than at isolated posts. (coût de la vie normalisé des FC)

"cost of living" means the sum of money required to provide for the following categories of household expenditures for a household of three persons, with a household income as may be determined from time to time by the Minister:

shelter, 
food, 
clothing, 
furniture and other household items, 
personal care, 
medical and dental care, 
domestic services, including childcare, 
recreation, 
transportation, 
income tax, 
sales tax, and
"marginal tax rate" means the second from the lowest personal federal tax rate combined with the applicable provincial or territorial tax rate without any surcharge or reduction. (taux marginal d'imposition)

"member" means an officer or non-commissioned member. (militaire)

"place of duty" has the same meaning as in CBI 209.80 (Application and Definitions). (lieu de service)

"Post Living Differential Area" means a location in Canada within the boundaries of a CF place of duty where the cost of living exceeds the CF standard cost of living in Canada. (secteur de vie chère)

"principal residence" means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants and is situated at:

the member's place of duty, if their furniture and effects are located at that place, 
the member's former place of duty, if the member is not authorized to move their furniture and effects at public expense to their place of duty, 
the place where the member's furniture and effects were located on enrolment, if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their furniture and effects at public expense to their place of duty, or 
any other place of duty, selected place of residence or designated alternate location, if the member is authorized to move their furniture and effects at public expense to that place, except for the purpose of release or transfer to the Reserve Force.(résidence principale)
"service couple" means two members who are married or in a common-law partnership. (couple militaire)

(4) (Entitlement - Regular Force) Subject to paragraphs (7) to (19), a member of the Regular Force whose principal residence is located within a PLD Area is entitled to the monthly PLD established for that area. 

(5) (Entitlement - Reserve Force) Subject to paragraphs (7) to (19), a member who, as a result of a period of Class "B" or "C" Reserve Service, is authorized to move their furniture and effects at public expense to their place of duty is entitled for that period of service to the monthly PLD established for that area if

that place of duty is within a PLD Area; and 
the member's principal residence is located within that area.
(6) (Subsequent periods of service) Subject to paragraphs (7) to (18), a member who

commences a new period of Class "B" or "C" Reserve Service within one year of completing the entire period of service described in paragraph (5) (i.e., no early termination initiated by member); or 
occupied single quarters during the initial period described in paragraph (5), and who would have been entitled to PLD if they had established a principal residence during that period, is entitled to PLD at the established rate if 
the new period of service is performed at the same place of duty as the previous period of service, 
that place of duty is within a PLD Area, 
the member's principal residence is located within that area, and 
the member has not transferred from the reserve unit to which he or she belonged at the time the initial period of service described in paragraph (5) commenced, to a local reserve unit. 

(7) (Change in boundary of place of duty) If a geographical area that forms part of a place of duty is redefined under authority of CBI 209.80 (Application and Definitions), a member whose principal residence was located in that area, remains entitled to PLD at the established rate while they or their dependants occupy that residence, or in the case of a member on a period of Class "B" or "C" Reserve Service, until the end of that period of service.

(8) (PLD at other than the place of duty) For the purposes of this instruction,

when a PLD rate exists at the location of the principal residence, the member is entitled to the lower of the PLD rate for that location and the rate established for the member's place of duty provided that the member 
is posted from one place of duty to another place of duty and, although authorized, chooses not to move dependents, household goods and effects to the new place of duty and to maintain his/her principal residence at the former location, or 
is not posted, but chooses, and is authorized to move at his/her own expense to another location where they establish a principal residence, or 
is posted to a new place of duty and is as authorized by the Minister of National Defence to move to a location other than the place of duty, in accordance with CBI Chapter 209 (Transportation and Travelling Expenses), Section 9 (Integrated Relocation Pilot Program) where they establish a principal residence; and
when a member is posted from one place of duty to another place of duty and the member is authorized to move dependants to a selected place of residence in Canada under CBI 209.82 (Movement of Dependants), paragraph (1)(h), or, to a designated alternative location or selected place of residence in Canada under CBI 209.90 (Movement of Dependants, Furniture and Effects to Other Than the Place of Duty of the Officer or Non-commissioned Member), paragraph (5), if a PLD rate exists at the location of the new principal residence, the member is entitled to PLD at the established rate.
(9) (Not entitled) A member is not entitled to the PLD if

their principal residence is located at an isolated post as defined in CBI 205.40 ( Isolation Allowance); or 
they are authorized an early move to an intended place of residence prior to release, regardless of location.
(10) (Joint occupation) A member is entitled to receive 75% of the PLD if he/she jointly occupies a principal residence with another member who is entitled to the PLD. 

(11) (Service couple) If the members of a service couple who are each entitled to the PLD are serving at the same place of duty and jointly occupy a principal residence, each member is only entitled to receive 75% of the PLD rate.

(12) (Member of service couple posted) A member of a service couple referred to in paragraph (11) who is posted to a new place of duty is not entitled to receive the PLD in respect of the principal residence at the former place of duty. However, if the member is authorized to move household goods and effects and occupies a principle residence at the new place of duty, the member is entitled to PLD in accordance with paragraph (4) or (5) as applicable. 

Note: Where a spouse, who is a member of the Reserve Force, is moved in accordance with CBI 209.80, but not for the purpose of a period of Reserve service at the new place of duty, the Reservist is moved as a dependant in accordance with paragraph (3)(a) (Definitions) of that Article and is not entitled to PLD. 

(13) (Member of service couple on attachment) A member of a service couple referred to in paragraph (11) who is on an attachment and who maintains a principal residence at the former place of duty during the period of the attachment is deemed to serve at the former place of duty and to occupy that residence.

(14) (Member without dependants) A member without dependants who maintains a principal residence at a place of duty while serving on an attached posting, remains entitled to PLD at the rate established for that location for the duration of the posting.

(15) (Calculation) Where the current three-year rolling average for an individual location exceeds the CF standard cost of living, the difference is grossed up by the marginal tax rate for the representative CF family and divided by twelve to establish a monthly rate for that year. The rate and locations qualifying for PLD will fluctuate annually as economic conditions change.

(16) (Provision for Affordability) Where warranted, the Minister of National Defence may prescribe measures to ensure continued programme affordability.

(17) (Accommodation Assistance Allowance - Regular Force) A member who, on 31 March 2000, was receiving a monthly Accommodation Assistance Allowance under the Regulations Concerning Accommodation Assistance Allowance at a rate higher than that provided for under this instruction, is entitled to a monthly PLD at the higher rate until the earlier of

the date on which the amount provided for under this instruction exceeds the amount the member was receiving; and 
the date on which the member moves from the principal residence.
(18) (Accommodation Assistance Allowance - Reserve Force) In the case of a member on a period of Class "C" Reserve Service, the member is entitled to receive Accommodation Assistance Allowance in accordance with paragraph (17), with the additional provision that the entitlement will terminate the earlier of paragraphs (a), (b), or the date that period of service ends. 

(19) (Administrative Process) Members with their principal residence in a qualifying location who wish to request PLD must complete the Post Living Differential Request Form and submit it to their Unit Records Support for approval and processing. In approving each request, Unit Records Support authorities will confirm that the conditions of this instruction are satisfied, and enter approved requests into the Central Computation Pay System. 

(TB # 830113, effective 1 Jan 03)


----------



## 284_226 (18 Feb 2007)

The last PLD adjustment was in Oct 05, or Jan 06, depending on where you reside.  I was just going over the DGCB website, and the plan for the PLD system was to annually collect data in January to April, calculate the rates in May, enter them into the pay system and announce in June, with a tentative effective date of 1 Jul.

Over the years, it looks like the dates have been announced later, and later, and later.  We're now past mid-Feb, so even an optimistic implementation date for the next adjustment would be April - meaning that we're going to be close to having a year without an adjustment since PLD was implemented in 2000 (I believe).

Anyone heard tale of what's going on with PLD?  (And no, the orderly room people haven't heard a peep  )


----------



## PO2FinClk (18 Feb 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Anyone heard tale of what's going on with PLD?  (And no, the orderly room people haven't heard a peep  )


Yup, and this is no lie, was briefed by DGMC pers that PLD has over expended its' envellope, and that it is likely to be cancelled as a whole with no replacement. And no AAA is not coming back either.

So don't expect any adjustment other then it being cancelled.


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Feb 2007)

Well there is a post that will get people fired up!

I would love to be one to break the news to people working in Esquimalt!

AAA was never a good thing anyway.


----------



## 284_226 (18 Feb 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Yup, and this is no lie, was briefed by DGMC pers that PLD has over expended its' envellope, and that it is likely to be cancelled as a whole with no replacement. And no AAA is not coming back either.
> 
> So don't expect any adjustment other then it being cancelled.



Ouch.  That wouldn't be very good news at all.  I can't speak for other high/medium rate areas, but Halifax was certainly on track for having a cost of living that was climbing far faster than other parts of the country, what with our regulated (chuckle) gasoline prices and skyrocketing property assessments...evidently someone forgot to tell the provincial assessors that the real estate bubble has burst.


----------



## PO2FinClk (18 Feb 2007)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I would love to be one to break the news to people working in Esquimalt!


Already done, I was briefed a few months ago and when I touched base with Sr Clerks in Esquimalt/MARPAC they stated having already been advised of this.


----------



## Stoker (18 Feb 2007)

The msg been signed, due out soon. PLD rates will be reduced with some areas cut out all together.


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Feb 2007)

I will have to sit and wait for the message, but it is probably safe to assume that Esquimalt won't be cut off the list!


----------



## TN2IC (18 Feb 2007)

I am guessing we will have to watch and shot. I don't believe anything unless I got a reference. I didn't hear anything during orders.


----------



## radop215 (1 Mar 2007)

is there a website that details who gets what?
such as edmonton gets this rate for pld


----------



## PO2FinClk (1 Mar 2007)

Googled http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=8


----------



## Barrel Nut (2 Mar 2007)

Ummmmm I wonder in the CF could cut PLD at this point, it seems to me it would now be a condition of contract, which could cause another legal mess. Any Legal Begals out there?
Allowances are easily started but not always so easy to eliminate.  It would also generate bad press for the current government especially now that the $30 Billion taken from DND, RCMP and Public Service Pensions by the former government is before the courts.  The current Goven't seems to have gone to lengths to reconize the CF members, it would be a shame for them to allow another cut at our expense on the heels of the above pension raid.
So lets just take an over view of the entire situation: Strip 15 billion from the CF Pension fund and tell them theres not enough surplus in the plan, raise pension premiums to make it back, raise the retirement service to 25yrs vice 20 and next eliminate the PLD.  Is it just me or can anyone else see why recruiting may be having a hard time.


----------



## ammo618 (2 Mar 2007)

Geeez,

    Everyone posted to the GTA/Toronto area will be jumping out their windows/crying to there career mangler for a posting if this *unsubstaniated rumor *  has any truth. All of this "I got a briefing..." crap does is get people ,who may be affected, worked up & worried.  Rant ends... :

Ammo


----------



## Stoker (4 Mar 2007)

ammo618 said:
			
		

> Geeez,
> 
> Everyone posted to the GTA/Toronto area will be jumping out their windows/crying to there career mangler for a posting if this *unsubstaniated rumor *  has any truth. All of this "I got a briefing..." crap does is get people ,who may be affected, worked up & worried.  Rant ends... :
> 
> Ammo



This is the latest I have heard. The original amount of money for budgeted for PLD has skyrocketed up to about $90 million per year. This extra money had to come from some where, with the state of the military budgets right now, a new formula is coming out to calculate PLD rates. Apparently the first formula wasn't that great so the another formula is being created. The rates won't be increased, but will be decreased in all areas with the new formula. Look for the message around the 1st of April.


----------



## ammo618 (4 Mar 2007)

Thanks for the info Stoker.  Hopefully the new formula will be easier to understand than the current one.

Ammo


----------



## mudrecceman (4 Mar 2007)

Stoker said:
			
		

> This is the latest I have heard. The original amount of money for budgeted for PLD has skyrocketed up to about $90 million per year. This extra money had to come from some where, with the state of the military budgets right now, a new formula is coming out to calculate PLD rates. Apparently the first formula wasn't that great so the another formula is being created. The rates won't be increased, but will be decreased in all areas with the new formula. Look for the message around the 1st of April.



So...as the cost of living (read fossil fuels and everything that is transported by them) increases...PLD will decrease.

Makes PERFECT military sense  ;D


----------



## Barrel Nut (5 Mar 2007)

Lets call it what it is: The Military and the RCMP have the same problem:  An Officer sits down and reviews the state of the CF members problems and comes up with the idea of how to bring in the PLD, he pulls it off, everyone is happy and he gets that promotional PER, gets promoted and moves on.  The next Officer comes in and trys to find a way to improve something so that he too can advance, but the guy before him spent alot and the chances of him doing the same just won't fly, so wait, I know how to save the Dept big $$ we'll start cutting the PLD, he too is a genius and gets the promotional PER in the bag, and the cycle continues, now sitting at a new system which will again save the Dept $$.

Did they forget about us on the receiving end, no they didn't, because it was never really about us.  Personally I feel the CF would be better served by standardizing the administration of the Forces through a non-military agency because as long as members require change to get promotional PERs there will be no stability on policies such as PLD.


----------



## Torlyn (5 Mar 2007)

Barrel Nut said:
			
		

> Personally I feel the CF would be better served by standardizing the administration of the Forces through a non-military agency because as long as members require change to get promotional PERs there will be no stability on policies such as PLD.



How do you believe a non-military body would be better capable of making policy decisions for the CF?  It seems that you're asking a governmental body to create and institute those changes with no input from the military.  This would be an improvement?  I'm not sure how the results would be more stable, given the fickleness of governments.  Perhaps I misunderstood?

T


----------



## Barrel Nut (5 Mar 2007)

Lets look at it this way, our pays (gross) are seldom jerked around with, they are stable for the most part, why? because its controlled by Treasury Board not the CF directly.   Removing allowances from the CF Admin and placing them into an outside dept would allow for more input on our part, better review practices, more accountability, more accurate accounting thus leading to a more stable system (grant you this will cost).  The CF's track record on this issue is lacking, what was once done to help members has only turned into another dent in the ole moral footlocker. 

One final note:  PLD does have an effect on moral, lowering it when your posted to someplace like Toronto would be senseless.  I'm personally am up for posting this year, I have a few choices before me: take the posting, go IR or just get out.  The cost of living and the PLD rate in the area I am posted to will be part of my decision because I rather stick it out here with what I have and as a civy as opposed to uproot again (7th time) and live poor somewhere else, PLD was supposed to help stop that from happening.


----------



## PO2FinClk (5 Mar 2007)

Barrel Nut said:
			
		

> Lets look at it this way, our pays (gross) are seldom jerked around with, they are stable for the most part, why? because its controlled by Treasury Board not the CF directly.   Removing allowances from the CF Admin and placing them into an outside dept would allow for more input on our part, better review practices, more accountability, more accurate accounting thus leading to a more stable system (grant you this will cost).  The CF's track record on this issue is lacking, what was once done to help members has only turned into another dent in the ole moral footlocker.


[quote author=CBI 205.45(1)]PLD rates are set annually based on a Treasury Board approved methodology.[/quote]

The TB approved methodology includes using data provided from various sources:


> - The latest Statistics Canada information on family spending patterns;
> - Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) data on typical hosing types;
> - National Defence data on the military population at each place of duty. A location with a higher number of military personnel will have a larger impact on the local economy than a location with a lower Canadian Forces population. For example, Ottawa compared to Moncton; and
> - Actual cost of living data in a wide variety of categories at all places of duty in Canada. Examples of these categories include: total annual cost of transportation; household / renter insurance costs; the cost of utilities; and various goods and services like the cost of food and medical care.



So whichever track record you may perceive as lacking, the fact is that the calculation of PLD was made in conformity with guidelines established by the TB. In no instance was this a "CF Admin" issue, but simply that the kitty is running on empty, and that despite the method above some areas were not being fairly represented.

The intent of PLD is to stabilize the overall cost of living for Canadian Forces members, the fact that it affects moral is but ancilliary in its' establishement.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Mar 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> The intent of PLD is to stabilize the overall cost of living for Canadian Forces members,



If Rental Rates have anything to do with PLD, someone is fudging the numbers somewhere ... it doesn't even come close to "stabilizing" the cost of living.

Example: cheapest 2-bdrm house (PMQs, by far the cheapest accomodations) in Vancouver costs $550 more than the equivalent in Comox ($1085 vs. $535); there is a far greater discrepancy in market rates.  PLD for Vancouver is $517 *before tax*!   

Of course transportation, insurance and pretty much everything else is more expensive (in many cases *far* more expensive ) in Vancouver than Comox.  Taxes are of course the same.

I defy anyone to make sense of that.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Mar 2007)

Rental Rates might be one of the factors, but it's not the only one.  You might pay less for something else in Vancouver than in Comox.

Max


----------



## radop215 (12 Mar 2007)

would it not have something to do with where the staff colleges are?  hence toronto having 5 levels of PLD and edmonton gets nothing.


----------



## PO2FinClk (12 Mar 2007)

radop215 said:
			
		

> would it not have something to do with where the staff colleges are?


Colleges??? I can only deduce that you mean that an area can be subdivided based on the location of CF assets.

Look at the TB methodology to see how it is determined, flawed or not.


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Mar 2007)

I was just looking over some information and it appears that there is a change coming, but we most likely won't see anything until after 01 Oct 07.


----------



## PO2FinClk (19 Mar 2007)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> but we most likely won't see anything until after 01 Oct 07.


That is good news in deed, provided of course it remains as such. It would make sense to me that higher rate PLD area's would be informed before any other.


----------



## BinRat55 (18 Apr 2007)

I've often wondered about the rationale behind determining PLD rates as well as locations.  Our situation here in Gander is grim to say the least.  I would say moderate to high rents (definitely not as high as BC or Ottawa), fuel prices are at a constant buck-15 per liter (and to drive to the nearest city you're looking at 300Km easy), my (what used to be) 150.00 a pay grocery bill is now 250.00 (maybe we eat more to keep warm  ??? - oil prices are the highest in Canada)... and I could go on.

Gander receives NO PLD.  Flawed or not, it is by far perfect, and definitely confusing!! :blotto:

Did I mention we have the highest provincial tax rate in Canada?

Interesting stuff!!


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Apr 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Googled http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=8



Internet policy link: http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&Section=205.45&sidecat=22&Chapter=205#205.45

Rates:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/11_05/11_05_dcba_pld_e.asp


----------



## 284_226 (18 Apr 2007)

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> Internet policy link: http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&Section=205.45&sidecat=22&Chapter=205#205.45
> 
> Rates:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/11_05/11_05_dcba_pld_e.asp



I don't think there was an issue of anyone not being able to find information on PLD.  The issue was this:



> 205.45 - POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
> 
> (1) (Policy) Post Living Differential (PLD) is established as a means of stabilizing the overall cost of living of CF members and their families in order to maintain a relative and predictable cost of living no matter where in Canada the members are posted (excluding isolated posts). PLD rates represent the differential between the CF standard cost of living in Canada and the cost of living at established PLD areas. *PLD rates are set annually* based on a Treasury Board approved methodology.



Considering the last rate was set in October 05, we're way overdue for a new rate to be set (according to the policy).  It's nice that we're still getting it, but a lot can happen to a geographical area's economic picture in 18 months and it'd be nice to know what the future of PLD is.  Not hearing anything official on the subject when an adjustment is overdue isn't a very good sign.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (18 Apr 2007)

keep in mind places with little or no PLD now have an average real estate sales price close to Victoria @ 500,000 +/- such as Calgary 402,000 +/- vice say Brandon 125,000 +/- and they did say when it came out don't count on PLD, it is an allowance, just like SDA/FOA and the like. And as for it "being a condition of contract" it wasn't in my contract, or my TOS contract and likely won't be in my next TOS contract. my 2 cents


----------



## 284_226 (18 Apr 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> keep in mind places with little or no PLD now have an average real estate sales price close to Victoria @ 500,000 +/- such as Calgary 402,000 +/- vice say Brandon 125,000 +/- and they did say when it came out don't count on PLD, it is an allowance, just like SDA/FOA and the like. And as for it "being a condition of contract" it wasn't in my contract, or my TOS contract and likely won't be in my next TOS contract. my 2 cents



How many members do we have in Calgary?     I think that's a drop in the bucket, as compared to the changes that have occurred in locations where we have significant numbers of personnel...

I'm also not sure what you're trying to say WRT "they did say when it came out don't count on PLD", and then you compare it to two long-standing and established allowances.  I agree it's not a "contract" issue, but any major changes to the PLD policy would likely be viewed by CF members in the same light as a major change to an environmental allowance.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Apr 2007)

there are currently CFRC Cal (approx 10) 1 ASG Det Cgy (12) 41 Bde (30) plus all RSS and Cl B staff in the area, close to 2 Bty's (or Coy's) of people, not to mention the guys posted to General Dynamics Canada for one project or another, but FYI Edmonton is in the same boat PLD wise with far more people than Esquimalt has, PLD has nothing to do with how many pers in a geographical area are drawing it


----------



## 284_226 (19 Apr 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> there are currently CFRC Cal (approx 10) 1 ASG Det Cgy (12) 41 Bde (30) plus all RSS and Cl B staff in the area, close to 2 Bty's (or Coy's) of people, not to mention the guys posted to General Dynamics Canada for one project or another, but FYI Edmonton is in the same boat PLD wise with far more people than Esquimalt has, PLD has nothing to do with how many pers in a geographical area are drawing it



Actually, it does, if I understand it correctly.  If the pot of money from which PLD is drawn upon is fixed, then a relatively small number of people (such as Calgary) getting an increase to PLD would have less of an effect on the pot than would a large increase to an area such as Edmonton or Halifax.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Apr 2007)

That's one effect of PLD distribution, but *the calculations to determine PLD rates in an area* "has nothing to do with how many pers in a geographical area are drawing it".


----------



## 284_226 (19 Apr 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's one effect of PLD distribution, but *the calculations to determine PLD rates in an area* "has nothing to do with how many pers in a geographical area are drawing it".



I know, and that wasn't my claim.  Earlier posts suggested that the costs of the "pot" have skyrocketed - the crux of what I'm saying is that wouldn't be caused by a relatively small area (CF population-wise) like Calgary getting increases, it would more likely be caused by larger CF population areas getting increases to PLD.  The calculation method is the calculation method; it wouldn't be a contributing factor to a skyrocketing PLD budget.  A $100/month increase to the Edmonton area would have a far greater effect on the bottom line than would a $100 increase to the Calgary area.

In any event, we're pretty much left with "wait and see".  If someone knows what's going on with PLD, they're not tellin' (yet)...


----------



## PO2FinClk (19 Apr 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Not hearing anything official on the subject when an adjustment is overdue isn't a very good sign.


To be more precise, not seeing anything official on paper is the issue as several people have heard official statements to this effect. Like anything else, until its on paper it means little.


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Apr 2007)

I know they say not to count on PLD, but then why give us a living allowance if we can't count on it to help with our cost of living?? I do have a .ppt on PLD that I found on the din, once I get back to work I can forward the link on to who ever is interested.  It isn't much but it does mention a way ahead for the allowance, it also talks of revamping the allowance to be more effective.

PLD shouldn't be lumped in with SDA since it is location dependant and directly linked to cost of living.  AAA wasn't the greatest (I could never figure out the formula) but at least it didn't fluctuate as much as PLD.


----------



## Gunner98 (19 Apr 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I don't think there was an issue of anyone not being able to find information on PLD.  The issue was this:



You might not have had...but the only link in the topic was DWAN only accessible.  Petawawa gets nothing (and that is unlikely to change) so if you move from Ottawa with lots of choice up the Valley you lose the chump change.


----------



## molson949 (3 May 2007)

I was wondering if anyone heard about the post living allowance for Alberta ( Edmonton ) area. The price of homes and rent in the Edmonton and area is the fifth highest now in the Canada, WOW a two bedroom rents for 750 to 900 and a three bedroom for 900 to 1200/mtn, just about half months pay for a Cpl. And here is the good news for someone posted to Edmonton this summer the ave price of a single family home is now $413,000 bucks lets do some math 300k house @ 6.5 % rate = 2000/mtn not including taxes and insurance, lets go $350000 @ 6.5 % = 2344/mtn 

WOW 

350k in Edmonton maybe able to get you a three bedroom half duplex, A fewyears ago PLD was 11$ in Edmonton time to review that ASAP.

However on the up side there is alot of work for spouses,and other family members in all Fields and lets not forget the price of gas at the pumps we only pay 1.06 right now sweet times.( LOL )

What warming bells need to go off before this gets look at at all levels of the chain of command and the government to protect us for helping protect others??

Pay raises are good and the salary troops get pay today have improve but is there ore that we can do?? 

open to comments from all

CHEERS,
MOLSON949


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 May 2007)

Molson:  How much Alberta pays on provincial taxes again?

Max


----------



## MJP (3 May 2007)

While having a low provincial tax might be nice, it certainly doesn't offset the recently skyrocketing prices in real estate in Edmonton.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 May 2007)

But it sure makes a difference in the End.  No provincial taxes on goods and low income tax plus low oil price makes a HUGE difference in the end...  If you buy a house 200 000$ more in Alberta than in Manitoba (example), amortized over 25 years that makes 8K$ a year more.  How much do you save in taxes/oil every year?  Much more in my opinion, if you manage your finance well


----------



## HItorMiss (3 May 2007)

I make less then 50k a year what bank would give me a 350k mortgage?....that is the point of the COL payments...it brings you up to or closer to par with those around you. It has nothing to do with tax's or fuel savings so your argument is irrelevant.


----------



## molson949 (3 May 2007)

Thanks for the comments trade in your high taxes and get posted to Edmonton save on cheaper gas ( LOL ) but where do you want to live 35 mins from base 60 mins from base ?? The choice is up to the person the cheaper the house the farer you are away from work remember you save on your gas ( LOL ) SO it is up tp you??

Do any one know what all the other bases are collecting for post living allowances?? 

Lets remember we all pick out trade however we do not allows pick our posting "MISSION BEFORE SELF" The Canadian forces whats to make sure the right personal is in the right place to complete the task or mission it needs to get done, DONT BE FOOL BY THAT.

Cheers,
Molson949


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I make less then 50k a year what bank would give me a 350k mortgage?....that is the point of the COL payments...it brings you up to or closer to par with those around you. It has nothing to do with tax's or fuel savings so your argument is irrelevant.



PLD is not only about mortgages (anyways, not that I know of)  there is a BUNCH of factors taken into consideration (like taxes and prices of services)

Max


----------



## HItorMiss (3 May 2007)

PLD is a cost of living allowance which does indeed deal with the cost of owning a house or paying rent...and if the avg house is going for 350k or a 1-2 bedroom Apt going at $900(ish) what Pte/Cpl can afford that. Now factor in the the PMQ's at the Edmonton Garrison are full and your soldiers are being forced to live on the open market. Tax's and fuel cost argument holds less water then a sieve. Sorry Max your right out of er on this one.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 May 2007)

Cost of a house sure is a factor but not the only one.  I think tax breaks in Alberta are sufficient enough to offset the housing market.  

From the CBIs:



> "cost of living" means the sum of money required to provide for the following categories of household expenditures for a household of three persons, with a household income as may be determined from time to time by the Minister:
> 
> shelter,
> food,
> ...



I don't think the fact that you can or cannot get a mortgage or the situation of the PMQs has a huge factor in PLD.  PMQs are not the only rental option.

Max


----------



## MJP (3 May 2007)

Yes but rents in the entire area have matched the rise in the price of real estate.  Living in Alberta isn't as cozy as everyone thinks.  Yes Provincial taxes are lower and gas is a bit cheaper, but hell usually Winnipeg is roughly the same as Edmonton (or at least it did) for gas prices and I don't recall too many refineries there.  Food,sundries and all other services are the same as anywhere else.

The biggest reason I think they should review PLD is the bloody price of a Timmies DD.  I pay less out here on course here in Gagetown then I do in Edmonton.  That is a crying shame if you ask me.


----------



## casing (3 May 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Molson:  How much Alberta pays on provincial taxes again?
> 
> Max



You should make sure of your numbers before spouting off some stereotypical garbage like that.  For the 2006 tax year I paid more taxes as a resident of Alberta than I would have as a resident of Ontario.  And sure, there might not be a PST in Alberta, but it's just built into the price of the goods.  Things are not as cheap there as everyone likes to believe.


----------



## aesop081 (3 May 2007)

molson949 said:
			
		

> Do any one know what all the other bases are collecting for post living allowances??



Comox = $0
Greenwood = $0


----------



## HItorMiss (3 May 2007)

Here just to give you a valid idea Max

Edmonton
http://www.places4rent.com/finder.asp?LOCID=97

Petawawa/Pembroke
http://www.places4rent.com/finder.asp?LOCID=621


Now that is just rent...get it now?


----------



## MJP (3 May 2007)

ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REVISED PLD RATES (READ IN FOUR COLUMNS: LOCATION/FULL PLD RATE/SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT RATE/EFF DATE): 

ALDERGROVE/190/143/1 JAN 06 
BORDEN-BARRIE/86/65/1 JAN 06
BRANTFORD/113/85/1 JAN 06
CALGARY/21/16/1 JAN 06
CAMBRIDGE /84/63/1 JAN 06
CHATHAM/0/0/1 JAN 06
CHILLIWACK/0/0/1 JAN 06
CORNERBROOK/83/62/1 OCT 05
DUNDURN-SASKATOON/0/0/1 JAN 06
GANDER/0/0/1 JAN 06
GRAND FALLS-WINDSOR/133/99/1 OCT 05
GUELPH/245/183/1 JAN 06
HALIFAX/374/280/1 OCT 05
HAMILTON/347/260/1 OCT 05
KAMLOOPS-KELOWNA/68/51/1 JAN 06
KENORA/0/0/1 JAN 06
KINGSTON/16/12/1 JAN 06
KITCHENER//170/127/1 FEB 06
LONDON/46/34/1 JAN 06
MEAFORD-OWEN SOUND/0/0/1 JAN 06
MONTREAL - NORTH SHORE/495/371/1 OCT 05
MONTREAL - SOUTH SHORE/404/303/1 OCT 05
NANAIMO/6/4/1 JAN 06
NIAGARA-ST CATHARINE/174/130/1 JAN 06
NORTH BAY/6/4/1 JAN 06
OTTAWA-GATINEAU (NCR)/196/147/1 OCT 05
PETERBOROUGH/68/51/1 JAN 06
PRINCE ALBERT/0/0/1 JAN 06
QUEBEC CITY-VALCARTIER/189/141/1 OCT 05
ROUYN-NORANDA/0/0/1 JAN 06
SARNIA/0/0/1 JAN 06
SAULT STE MARIE/0/0/1 JAN 06
SEPT-ILES/112/84/1 JAN 06
SHERBROOKE/0/0/1 JAN 06
SHILO/0/0/1 JAN 06
ST JOHN S/308/231/1 OCT 05
ST-HYACINTHE/24/18/1 OCT 05
ST-JEAN-SUR-RICHELIEU/0/0/1 JAN 06
STRATFORD/206/155/1 JAN 06
SUDBURY/0/0/1 JAN 06
THUNDER BAY/0/0/1 JAN 06
TIMMINS/0/0/1 JAN 06
TORONTO - AREA 1/1586/1189/1 OCT 05
TORONTO - AREA 2/669/502/1 JAN 06
TORONTO - AREA 3/542/407/1 JAN 06
TORONTO - AREA 4/1005/754/1 OCT 05
TORONTO - AREA 5/1377/1032/1 OCT 05
TRAIL/0/0/1 JAN 06
VANCOUVER/517/387/1 JAN 06
VICTORIA-ESQUIMALT/464/348/NO CHANGE
WINDSOR/331/248/1 OCT 05
WINNIPEG/0/0/1 JAN 06


----------



## camochick (3 May 2007)

When the heck did gas become cheap in Alberta?  If you don't want to live in cracktown you're paying a decent chunk of change for rent here, and don't even think about getting a pmq, the list is so long you'll be waiting until retirement. Alberta is great for somethings, but don't be fooled, it's just as pricey as the rest of the country, taxes or not.


----------



## Strike (4 May 2007)

Wow.  How does Kingston end up getting more than Edmonton?


----------



## BernDawg (4 May 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> Wow.  How does Kingston end up getting more than Edmonton?


Well Kingston is close to Ottawa and that is the center of the universe (as far as NDHQ is concerned) so it must be more expensive than "out west".
I think it's time the pine pilots at NDHQ that set the rates and policies took a road trip and did some real world research.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 May 2007)

Casing said:
			
		

> You should make sure of your numbers before spouting off some stereotypical garbage like that.  For the 2006 tax year I paid more taxes as a resident of Alberta than I would have as a resident of Ontario.  And sure, there might not be a PST in Alberta, but it's just built into the price of the goods.  Things are not as cheap there as everyone likes to believe.



Then how come all my friends with equal salary have more money in their bank account at the end of the year than me?  They don't pay nearly as much taxes as I pay in Manitoba.

Max


----------



## HItorMiss (4 May 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Then how come all my friends with equal salary have more money in their bank account at the end of the year than me?  They don't pay nearly as much taxes as I pay in Manitoba.
> 
> Max



your going to listen to I am surOr they budget better? seriously there can be a myriad of reasons but none of which matter as the issue is why Edmonton I beleive will soon be getting a high rate of PLD. As I showed in a pervious post look at the cost of renting an apartment in Edmonton vs Petawawa and that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

EDIT: to make sense


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> your going to listen to I am surOr they budget better? seriously there can be a myriad of reasons but none of which matter as the issue is why Edmonton I beleive will soon be getting a high rate of PLD. As I showed in a pervious post look at the cost of renting an apartment in Edmonton vs Petawawa and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> EDIT: to make sense



I was referring to the net amount they received last year as opposed to the net amount I received last year.  The got much more than me, and got returns from moving from Ontario to Alberta (I moved from Ontario to Manitoba at the exact same tiem as them, and we are on the exact same salary).  Yet, they get (much) more money every paycheck than I do.

Max


----------



## HItorMiss (4 May 2007)

I give up...clearly it's a conspiracy for them to make more money then you...that's right they don't deserve it and the cost of living there is no more then anywhere else in Canada......


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 May 2007)

I don,t say it's a conspiracy, but nor is the fact that they doN,t get PLD...  I think much smarter people get to decide what the PLD rate is

Max


----------



## geo (4 May 2007)

Casing said:
			
		

> there might not be a PST in Alberta, but it's just built into the price of the goods.  Things are not as cheap there as everyone likes to believe.


NO! retailers might take advantage of the fact that there is no PST and jack up their prices, but it's not "built into the price".


----------



## BernDawg (4 May 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> NO! retailers might take advantage of the fact that there is no PST and jack up their prices, but it's not "built into the price".



Yes things are expensive out there but it is directly related to the oil boom.  When the patch can pay a HS grad $20 to swamp out trucks and clean up sites the service industry has to bump their wages to get and keep employees.  Timmies here starts at $9.50-$10.00/hr to work at the counter.  XL DD is $1.75 and they can't keep their people because you have to baby them or they move on to a better paying position somwhere else.  The only un-employed people in AB are the ones that don't want to work.  So as a result prices for goods and services go way up. Teen combo at A&W is $8.09.  We took the kids out for supper after their spring concert Wed  night and it was over $60 at a local sit-down place (2 adults 3 kids).
It's a bit of a ramble but I think I've laid it out OK.


----------



## niner domestic (4 May 2007)

We have friends and family in Alberta who at the moment, are praying that they can stay put for a while longer as the house prices for them, have gone up from approx 210K to over 700K.  They know if they ever leave Alberta that if they are posted/transferred back they will never be able to afford a house.  I can see a number of folks instead of selling their homes, just renting them out while they wait to go back.


----------



## Wookilar (4 May 2007)

Having spent 13 years out west and having moved back east two years ago, I know what impact taxes, user fees, rent/sale prices, groceries (etc, etc) have on a family:

My house here in Kingston is assessed for the same amount my last house in St.Albert (I bought early, was on advance party from Calgary, it wasn't like it is now): my property taxes are half here in Kingston. 
School fees for my youngest: Alberta = about $530 (includes bussing); Ontario = NOTHING!!!
Medical Taxes/User Fees: Alberta: good lord, I don't want to think about it; Ontario: dental is half of that in Alberta, meds are more (about 1/5th more). %'s recovered through the health plan remain the same.
Income Tax Return (fed and prov combined of course): Alberta: my spouse and I regularly got about $2k back; Ontario: last year $2.4k, this year $1.8k.
Groceries: Alberta = meat is MUCH cheaper, but milk/bread/veggies are more (not a lot, but noticeable on a budget).
Gas: about the same.
Sporting Activities: Hockey costs almost 50% more in Alberta.

That's about all I can think of right now. One or two thousand one way or the other over the course of a year can have a big impact on families, especially if you only have one wage earner. Single people probably would make more money in Alberta vs Ontario (can't comment on other provinces)

Wook


----------



## George Wallace (4 May 2007)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Well Kingston is close to Ottawa and that is the center of the universe (as far as NDHQ is concerned) so it must be more expensive than "out west".
> I think it's time the pine pilots at NDHQ that set the rates and policies took a road trip and did some real world research.



You by any chance trying to get posted to Ottawa?  (Where the PLA is the lowest in the CF.)


----------



## MJP (4 May 2007)

Ottawa the lowest?

OTTAWA-GATINEAU (NCR)/196/147/1 OCT 05

There are many many bases that are lower, much lower.


----------



## PO2FinClk (4 May 2007)

I would recommend reading this thread about PLD: http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/57673.0.html

Point is that I was briefed (as well as MARPAC) last fall that PLD as a whole would be canceled/removed and not replaced as it ran its course and that the funding envelope had been over expended. Granted without message traffic it does not bear the weight desired, but this is nonetheless info from an official source. Others have since come across info which states that change is possibly coming Fall 07.

That being said I would not expect to see any review to the current rates until such a time as official direction  of PLD is released.

PS: Do not confuse PLD with PLA, 2 very distinct allowances which have no bearing to one another. PLA is intended for pers posted outside Canada as detailed under Foreign Service Directives & MFSI's.


----------



## BernDawg (4 May 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You by any chance trying to get posted to Ottawa?  (Where the PLA is the lowest in the CF.)


Good God No!  I'm headed the other way this summer.


----------



## molson949 (4 May 2007)

Thanks to MJP 

I see you gave the locations for PLD I was wondering if I can get the rates if at all possible?? or if anyone esle have they that would be great to,

This issue needs to be look at more often they what it currently is I think home prices go up and down or sky rocket in AB right now, after tour 01-06 I sold my condo to a freind and if he was to sell today this 1977 2 bedroom 900 sq  place?? he would make 85K more them what I sold it to him for plus the new place I bought also when up 60K in 6 months WOW AND F^%$ SWEET LOL

I am not worried I am just wondering about personal posted in to Edmonton or the young pte's posted in sooner then later.

THANKS ALL

molson949


----------



## aesop081 (4 May 2007)

molson949 said:
			
		

> I am not worried I am just wondering about personal posted in to Edmonton or the young pte's posted in sooner then later.



Its not just Edmonton........New people are effectively being priced out of the market in Vancouver, Vancouver island and a few other bases.


----------



## PO2FinClk (10 May 2007)

Latest info I just received is that PLD was under a complete review (reasoning, eligibility, methodology amongst a few) at DCBA in negotiation with TB. 

It also mentions that it is not ready to be submitted for approval and that at the moment the anticipated announcement is for 6 months from now, but could take even longer depending on the details and TB approval process.


----------



## simysmom99 (12 May 2007)

Currently Edmonton receives no PLD.  I have heard on the news that some families from the East don't want to be posted to Edmonton because of the cost of housing.  We currently live in Griesbach (new part so we are lucky enough to own our house) and there are no vacancies on the rental side.  The waiting time at Lancaster Park has been up to 3 years.  The average house price in Edmonton is $413,000.00 and the rental market is terribly low (not sure of percentage).  I hope that this is revamped for those coming to the Edmonton area.  The so called "Alberta Advantage" is quickly running out of steam being as the cost of living here is now becoming astronomical.


----------



## armyvern (12 May 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Latest info I just received is that PLD was under a complete review (reasoning, eligibility, methodology amongst a few) at DCBA in negotiation with TB.
> 
> It also mentions that it is not ready to be submitted for approval and that at the moment the anticipated announcement is for 6 months from now, but could take even longer depending on the details and TB approval process.



We just had the same briefing info given to us by the DAPP gods during the ILQ.


----------



## PO2FinClk (12 May 2007)

I have also just been informed that CMP & CFCWO are conducting Townhall's where they are passing this same info.


----------



## 284_226 (12 May 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> I have also just been informed that CMP & CFCWO are conducting Townhall's where they are passing this same info.



Town Halls?  Has it occurred to them that maybe a CANFORGEN might reach out and touch the masses a little more efficiently?

Sheesh...no wonder there's no money left, with the brass jetsetting around telling us there's no money.  Town Halls are meant for topics where the opinion of the unwashed masses may actually have a bearing on the decisions made by those at the top.

Sorry, the flak isn't directed at you, PO2FinClk - but for an organization that should have the best communication going, somewhere there's someone who thinks information is power, and has decided to hold it all.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (13 May 2007)

x


----------



## 284_226 (13 May 2007)

I don't know what actions are being taken in Ottawa to address the PLD issue, but what I do know is precisely how simple it is to draft a message.

To illustrate, here's the text of CANFORGEN 120/06 (DTG 201452Z JUL 06) as it applied to me (and the vast majority of us):



> GSO/Pilot/NCM - LCol and Below.  Pay increases are based on total compensation comparability with benchmarked occupation in the Public Service (PS).  The CF and the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) officials are actively working on this issue and good progress is being made.  It is not possible at this time to announce the GSO/Pilot/NCM pay adjustment and it will likely not be possible to do so before fall 06....An update will be provided end-Sep 06.



So, in that case, they waited 3.5 months after the expected pay increase to basically tell us "Wait - Out".  But at least they said an update was forthcoming.

We're now 19 months since the last official communication on the PLD front.  I think someone can probably do a little better than "Wait - Out".

If the CFCWO, CLS, CMP, etc. are travelling out and about in the course of all of their duties, that's one thing.  I sure hope they're not merely doing it expressly for the purposes of PLD town halls.  "Stay in my lane", my butt.


----------



## PO2FinClk (13 May 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I sure hope they're not merely doing it expressly for the purposes of PLD town halls.


That is precisely correct as they provided this information during question periods at the conclusion of the townhall's.

I personally agree with you that a CANFORGEN stating precisely what they are passing along would assist in alleviating the myriad of rumours circulating around. As I was reading the post prior to yours just above, I thought of the same message you quoted where they provide sort of a "SITREP" on the issue as it affects the masses tremendously. I however do not agree with you that an individual is holding this information "hostage" so to speak. I would rather say that it has not been thought of or perhaps there are too many variables at the moment to issue any official direction with certainty.

Hopefully as the conduct more of these townhall's they will see the undeniable requirement to officially apprise the whole via message.


----------



## 284_226 (13 May 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> I however do not agree with you that an individual is holding this information "hostage" so to speak. I would rather say that it has not been thought of or perhaps there are too many variables at the moment to issue any official direction with certainty.



That sentiment may be a little strong for what I'd intended to convey.  It just seems that all too often the information flow in the CF works very well upwards, but is meager or nonexistant downwards.

Suffice it to say that even a brief, contrite Canforgen stating "We're aware conditions in some areas like Edmonton (for example) have changed considerably since the last PLD adjustment, and we're working on it with TBS.  Update to follow in one month." would be better than silence.  Not everyone has the benefit of attending these town halls, and - playing the Devil's Advocate - when everyone is told "Don't believe it until it's on paper", who is to say that these snippets of information being reported here and there aren't rumours themselves?


----------



## PO2FinClk (13 May 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> who is to say that these snippets of information being reported here and there aren't rumours themselves?



I understand your point, but consider the sources, CMP, DAPPP, D Mil C and the CF CWO. If anyone were to not be spreading rumours I believe credence should granted to these.


----------



## 284_226 (13 May 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> I understand your point, but consider the sources, CMP, DAPPP, D Mil C and the CF CWO. If anyone were to not be spreading rumours I believe credence should granted to these.



No, I don't think you do understand my point.

When a subordinate asks me - someone who does a pretty good job of staying current on issues - if I've heard anything on the subject of PLD, I can't really be telling him "Well, I heard from this guy on Army.ca who says he got briefed by CMP...", when at the same time I'm telling him not to participate in rumour-mongering and to only believe something when it comes down on paper.  I don't have any reason to believe that you'd be anything less than truthful, but it's still not something official that I can pass on to a subordinate.  

I can ask the question "Has anyone heard anything on the subject of PLD?" here because a) I'll take any answer with a grain of salt and b) I'll not repeat the information to anyone else as being "authoritative".

A CANFORGEN would negate the need for all these town halls, and end the "Well, I haven't heard anything here at Shearwater, but this guy I know at Petawawa told me he got briefed..." second-hand accounts.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 May 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Only if you steal it: _nothing _is cheaper in Vancouver.



BC=BRING CASH!! ;D

To the guy in Gander....let's get real. the cost of a house in Gander is peanuts compared to other locales. If you were posted to Victoria you'd be lucky to find a doghouse for under 300 large...gas was 1.26 a litre in Victoria last week if the news can be believed.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> BC=BRING CASH!! ;D
> 
> To the guy in Gander....let's get real. the cost of a house in Gander is peanuts compared to other locales. If you were posted to Victoria you'd be lucky to find a doghouse for under 300 large...gas was 1.26 a litre in Victoria last week if the news can be believed.



A buck-thirty in Vancouver today ...


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2007)

The BCferries fuel surcharge is going to go through the roof to go with that..... :


----------



## 284_226 (13 May 2007)

As bad as I think things have gotten in Nova Scotia lately, I know the folks in Alberta are getting hit even harder.  It's a darn good thing we don't have any personnel (that I'm aware of, anyways) in Fort McMurray.  My next door neighbour just moved from there.

Check this out - http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?PropertyID=5680128.

I can't imagine Edmonton or Cold Lake are very far behind...


----------



## CallOfDuty (14 May 2007)

Oh my god!!!!  Half a million bucks for a trailor home!!!


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (15 May 2007)

wait for it,

Cost me $120 buck to fill my MINI VAN in victoria this morning, and unless you make spec don't plan on buying a house in greater victoria, average single family house price is just shy of $600 Grand


----------



## axeman (15 May 2007)

Steady  On ... i came back from the gulf and purchased a new to me used RV . got a good deal on it  now i know why . it has a 250 $ gas tank at 1.15 a litre now gas is 1.25 $  .. guess what doesnt get used too often ..

 :'(     my bad im waiting for retirement though ...

I agree that somewhere some one has to revamp  PLD to bring some sense into the big variation of payout throughout the country . expensive places may not get it but other places that cost less then others get max ?


----------



## PO2FinClk (15 May 2007)

axeman said:
			
		

> I agree that somewhere some one has to revamp  PLD to bring some sense into the big variation of payout throughout the country .


In the works, read above and until a CANFORGEN is released be on the lookout for a Townhall within your area.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 May 2007)

ftp://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dmilpersstrat/HR_Stakeholders_Committee/Committee_27_Feb_07/

Look for the PLD presentation  (DIN ONLY)


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 May 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The BCferries fuel surcharge is going to go through the roof to go with that..... :



And just in time for the long weekend ...


----------



## simysmom99 (16 May 2007)

I did a bit of a search on the dnd website for timings for the Townhall meetings.  Couldn't find anything current.  If anyone has info on that, it would be appreciated as I would like to attend.  No point complaining if you are not willing to find the solution.
Many thanks.


----------



## PO2FinClk (16 May 2007)

Note that I am not aware of anyone touring every single Base/Wing what have you, but merely meant that if one were to occur at your location would provide you the opportunity to hear from the sources. Thus keep an eye out in the event that one does come your way.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (17 May 2007)

If anyone is interested there are pension briefings in esquimalt next week, the pay guys from that evolution might be able to shed some light


----------



## BestodaBest (23 May 2007)

I've just recently done a component transfer to regf armoured soldier, and im hoping to be posted out in edmonton with the strats... so according to you guys, there are no PLD available in edmonton, and no space to live on base? im gonna be starting at the bottom again as a private, and i dont think im gonna be able to survive in a brand new environment in a province so far away (im currently situated in Ontario, Toronto).

From wat you guys are saying, im expected to just move to edmonton, find my own place on day one, and hope for the best?!?

Help me out here guys


----------



## simysmom99 (23 May 2007)

BoB, I don't think the Army will hang you out to dry.  I imagine that you will get more info on that when your posting message comes through.  The situation in Edmonton is that there are no vacancies for families in PMQs (don't know about barracks) on base.  So, you need to go to the open market.  Rents are high, average house prices are also high.  It's a tough situation that not only effects people posting in.  The cost of gas is now $1.21, so that increases the cost of everything that is shipped here.  However, I think the cost of living is going up everywhere.


----------



## BestodaBest (23 May 2007)

thx simysmom, much obliged... i just hope it works out in the end... supposing i even do get 2 go to edmonton... a couple of years in barracks wouldn't be too bad, so at least i could accustom myself to the city and surroundings.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (24 May 2007)

Keep in mind for all those in Edm whining about little to no pld that pld in the 2 highest markets in the country have steadily been dropping while taxation, transportation costs (and yes bus passess and ferry costs are included here), food prices, houseing prices, vehicle purchases, clothing costs, parking fee's and the like continue to rise we will very likely see pld disappear and we will all be in the same boat. (and yes I used to live in Alberta making minimum wage) of course I could support my family on $8.00/per hour in Calgary, promptly posted to Victoria (with $650/month pld) and in less than 4 years was making just shy of 60,000 and bankrupt. But like I say the writing is on the wall, the treasury board won't let PLD last forever.


----------



## acheo (29 Jun 2007)

Hi,

This is a question for anyone working for DCBA/similar unit or just very knowledgeable in financial issues. 

I just finished reading the following thread at : http://cfpilots.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1341 on CF Pilot`s lounge. I pasted it at the bottom of this thread for those who cannot access it.

Just like my fellow aviators I'm very concerned and I would like to hear *from decision makers *  about this issue.

1. Are the PLD`s going to be reassessed any soon? When?
2. Are they going to be cancelled?
3. Are the decision makers aware that a lot of people can no longer afford houses in Edmonton/Cold Lake/Victoria and that could have a subversive effect on personnel retention?  

Thanks!




> Post Living Differential
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


----------



## 284_226 (29 Jun 2007)

I don't suppose you bothered to do a search and read this, did you?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57673.0/all.html


----------



## acheo (29 Jun 2007)

In fact I did. Unless you are well informed on this topic and are able to give me some *real data * (not just a meaningless a briefing that has been published on DIN to calm down the working class ) please refrain from giving your sarcastic comments which are, by the way, so frequent on this forum.

Again, does anyone from DCBA or any financial section can answer these questions and stick to the facts?

Acheo


----------



## GAP (29 Jun 2007)

.


----------



## 284_226 (29 Jun 2007)

acheo said:
			
		

> In fact I did. Unless you are well informed on this topic and are able to give me some *real data * (not just a meaningless a briefing that has been published on DIN to calm down the working class ) please refrain from giving your sarcastic comments which are, by the way, so frequent on this forum.



I give sarcastic comments?  Wow, I wonder what would happen if I really tried.    

Oh, and I resent the "working class" remark.  I'll have it known that I keep work to an absolute minimum, in accordance with Air Force policy.



> Again, does anyone from DCBA or any financial section can answer these questions and stick to the facts?



Did it possibly occur to you that nobody can answer your questions because nobody has the answers yet, since the issue still seems to be under investigation?

I don't think coming in here with both barrels blazing, demanding answers, is going to be particularly conducive to your cause.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jun 2007)

acheo said:
			
		

> In fact I did. Unless you are well informed on this topic and are able to give me some *real data * (not just a meaningless a briefing that has been published on DIN to calm down the working class ) please refrain from giving your sarcastic comments which are, by the way, so frequent on this forum.
> 
> Again, does anyone from DCBA or any financial section can answer these questions and stick to the facts?
> 
> Acheo



Rein in the attitude acheo.   I can assure you as soon as hard data on PLD gets released it'll get posted here by someone.

If you're so concerned that only responses from "decision-makers" will do, then I suggest you only work with official channels.

If someone here is from one of those shops, and decides to declare it, and decides to release information before it is officially promulgated, you'll see it just as soon as the rest of us.

So please, drop the dictatorial tone.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## ZipperHead (29 Jun 2007)

acheo said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> This is a question for anyone working for DCBA/similar unit or just very knowledgeable in financial issues.
> 
> ...



While I suspect that the writer of this is perhaps speaking in their second language (i.e. they are bi-lingual) hence the confusion between "subversive" and "adverse", greed has no linguistic boundaries or distinctions in regards to looking after Number 1. Most of the people I associate with are concerned with the effect that high housing costs will have on the rank and file soldiers/sailors/air-people, yet 'acheo' is expecting sympathy for the "aviator" class (read as: officers) not the unwashed masses (as witnessed by the sarcastic "working classes" comment). Boy, I would really feel sorry for a fly-boy or fly-girl that can't afford a house in Edmonton/Cold Lake/Victoria, what with all that special pay they get, compared to a Private or Ordinary Seaman living in those places that don't get any extra pay (sea pay or air crew allowance). What are they teaching in RMC these days?? Doesn't sound like leadership to these ears. Me! Me! Me! It would be a tragic loss to the CF to lose these overgrown spoiled brats (see..... that's sarcasm!!!) Look after your soldier/sailors/airmen first, and then worry about yourself.

AL


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jun 2007)

Nice little rant there Al.   I do agree with what you said.



			
				Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Look after your soldier/sailors/airmen first, and then worry about yourself.



Unfortunately, it is very few in the Officer Corps who really take this to heart and become truly good officers.  Those few, who have risen to greatness, and recognized the contributions of their subordinates in making them the officer they have become, are very rare indeed.  The rest will eventually become fodder and left by the wayside.

It amazes me when I meet a young member of the CF (NCM, NCO and/or Officer) whose main interest is "self".  "How do I get two or three medals?"  "How do I get promoted?"  "How do I become an officer?"  All questions that really don't hit home, until their lack of experience is exhibited, and then one can only shake their head in bemusement at their egos and arrogance.  One could only hope that they some day will grow out of these immature fantasies and gain some real leadership qualities and experience.

As for PLD; is it not adjusted in three year cycles?


----------



## 284_226 (29 Jun 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As for PLD; is it not adjusted in three year cycles?



Adjusted annually, based on a three-year rolling average of the factors that get input into the PLD equation.  The last adjustment was Oct 05, or Jan 06, depending on where one resides.

There hasn't been a CANFORGEN issued on the subject (like the annual "Wait, out" messages that come out around June concerning the annual cost of living adjustment) since the last increase adjustment - which has caused a lot of speculation amongst the masses about what's happening with it.  In this case, the silence on the subject is doubly disconcerting.

Edit:  not everyone got an increase - some decreased or lost PLD altogether during the last adjustment.


----------



## simysmom99 (2 Jul 2007)

As I recall in an earlier thread, there may be town hall meetings in certain areas.  Any word on that?  My dh doesn't really have the time to dig for such notices (and I don't think it is high on his priority list), so any update (if there is one  ) would be helpful.  As you all know, I like to use my big mouth for good.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (2 Jul 2007)

on a side note - my mom just got home from work, the Canada Day holiday has been moved to the following Monday if it falls on a weekend, she poured coffee in Calgary today for $30/hr not including shift premium


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jul 2007)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> for the "aviator" class (read as: officers)



Not all military aviators are officers, just so we are clear



> any extra pay (sea pay or air crew allowance).



That point is soon to be invalid, as you army folks in field positions will receive "full-time" FOA


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (4 Jul 2007)

I'll just add to that, this PLD issue is no different than D@#3 near every other year.


----------



## scas (24 Oct 2007)

I've been hearing some rumors. One guy said it was on the news the other day, and another said that its comming within the month. Has anyone else heard of PLD for edmonton coming in soon? And I'm not meaning that its still with the treasury board. I've also heard the RCMP has gotten theirs. Can anyone confirm these?


----------



## geo (24 Oct 2007)

They have been talking of revamping the whole enchelada......Not just for Edmonton

Still pending as far as I know.

Considering that this is going to be part of the remuneration package being worked out for us, I would not hold my breath...


----------



## PO2FinClk (25 Oct 2007)

scas, that has been the rumint for some time now based on tidbits of info "shared" throughout the past year. The same is mentioned in posts above by others.

Whatever the case may be, do no expect, anticipate or hope for anything and then there will be no chance of disappointment.


----------



## armyvern (26 Oct 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> scas, that has been the rumint for some time now based on tidbits of info "shared" throughout the past year. The same is mentioned in posts above by others.
> 
> Whatever the case may be, do no expect, anticipate or hope for anything and then there will be no chance of disappointment.



Our DCBA guest speaker gave us a brief on some of the proposed changes to PLD that were in the works this past spring on the ILQ. Again, one more time, this issue has been noted by DND/CF and changes _*have*_ been recommended.

Patience people. It's not like the CF can just make those changes.

A whole bunch of you need to understand that the CF can recommend changes and propose them. Those proposals must then be staffed outside of DND/CF to Treasury Board. Anything affecting monies requires TB consent/approval.

The Treasury Board ACT is an *ACT of Parliament * ... the CF can't just change it overnight (and they sure as heck don't get to make the ultimate decision or the change itself anyway), no matter how common sense and desperately required those changes may be.


----------



## PO2FinClk (26 Oct 2007)

Vern, that is to be added to briefs by DMCARM last fall as well as the CF CWO last spring to the same effect.


----------



## armyvern (26 Oct 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Vern, that is to be added to briefs by DMCARM last fall as well as the CF CWO last spring to the same effect.



It should be part of the briefs too.

You, I, and others understand how it works ...

Yet there are too many who just figure that seeing "no action" means that it's the CF and DND screwing them around when that is absolutely untrue.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (26 Oct 2007)

DGRMC Seminar starts on Monday 29 Oct.  Probably a good chance for unit CClks and Adjts to ask DGCB or DCBA (at least one of the two of them will be there) about this.


----------



## PO2FinClk (27 Oct 2007)

Won't be there myself but would be a good venue to ask. However as far as I concerned, asking either of those two I would only expect results in the "We are aware of the issues and are currently working on it. Once information is available it shall then be distributed. Next question."


----------



## Metricks (21 Nov 2007)

Hello all, just a new person online in this forum.  I read the entire thread on this touchy topic with great interest.  I understand (albeit roughly) that it is a complex issue that involves many variables and the control of outside sources to boot (TB).  I do not want to argue with so many people who are likely better informed and more intelligent than myself.  
I wish to, instead, offer a different view entirely.  Does a person who chooses to serve his/her country deserve a certain quality of life?  To offer what many times amounts to the ultimate sacrifice, should be treated with respect, I would think.  What or how should such a person be supported/treated by his country?
I would argue that such a person should receive a stable income.  An income that matched the cost of living, with some ability to prepare for the inevitability of age.  I do not think they should be given money 'hand over fist'.  They should be, however, at least comfortable enough to perform the job asked of them, without constant fear of living pay to pay, or worse, falling short.  It is a valuable and necessary role we all pay as forces members.  Just as valuable as any other professionally paid member of the public.  Does anyone disagree?  I would be eager to invite any nay sayer to join us, and then say what we deserve.
Perhaps instead of arguing another allowance, one that inspires such fear, as it is NEEDED by so many to survive, we should be asking why we are not paid enough to negate this need?  Why we have to argue over this 'allowance' when we at least DESERVE to LIVE in the country we are sworn to, and volunteered to, protect.
Any feedback appreciated.  I state my opinion with no malice or contempt for anyone on this server.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Nov 2007)

Metricks said:
			
		

> Hello all, just a new person online in this forum.  I read the entire thread on this touchy topic with great interest.  I understand (albeit roughly) that it is a complex issue that involves many variables and the control of outside sources to boot (TB).  I do not want to argue with so many people who are likely better informed and more intelligent than myself.
> I wish to, instead, offer a different view entirely.  Does a person who chooses to serve his/her country deserve a certain quality of life?  To offer what many times amounts to the ultimate sacrifice, should be treated with respect, I would think.  What or how should such a person be supported/treated by his country?
> I would argue that such a person should receive a stable income.  An income that matched the cost of living, with some ability to prepare for the inevitability of age.  I do not think they should be given money 'hand over fist'.  They should be, however, at least comfortable enough to perform the job asked of them, without constant fear of living pay to pay, or worse, falling short.  It is a valuable and necessary role we all pay as forces members.  Just as valuable as any other professionally paid member of the public.  Does anyone disagree?  I would be eager to invite any nay sayer to join us, and then say what we deserve.
> Perhaps instead of arguing another allowance, one that inspires such fear, as it is NEEDED by so many to survive, we should be asking why we are not paid enough to negate this need?  Why we have to argue over this 'allowance' when we at least DESERVE to LIVE in the country we are sworn to, and volunteered to, protect.
> Any feedback appreciated.  I state my opinion with no malice or contempt for anyone on this server.



Metricks, how about completing your profile so that those who wish to continue this discussion have a fair idea of your personal point of reference in terms of service years and experience.

Thank you.


----------



## Metricks (21 Nov 2007)

Profile added, my apologies.  As I mentioned, I am new to this site and was not even aware of the profile page until you mentioned it.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Nov 2007)

No worries, it helps to put posters' comments in perspective.  For example, your aim appears to be to state that the entire compensation package (pay and benefits) may not be satisfactory, yet I notice you haven't been in long enough to remember the days of the pay freeze and the raises since.

To aid the discussion, here's a reference to offer some background on how much has changed over the past while - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/spsm-rgsp/er-ed/vol2/vol210_e.asp

Scroll about half-way down the page to Table 2086 - History of Increases for the Canadian Forces 1991 to 2003.

Changes since can be found checking the superceded rates under each rank here, and those earlier under the historic rate links.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (21 Nov 2007)

they introduced PLD when I was in Esquimalt in the late nineties. My first two years there I did live hand to mouth trying to pay a mortgage and raise two kids. The PLD helped a lot when it came in and then when I was posted to Gagetown I lost it because of the cost of living being way lower in NB vice BC. 
Now that we have such high prices in Edmonton there really needs to be a review of the benefit there.
I like the PLD idea because every region is different and has different costs in this country.


----------



## PO2FinClk (21 Nov 2007)

Metricks said:
			
		

> Perhaps instead of arguing another allowance, one that inspires such fear, as it is NEEDED by so many to survive, we should be asking why we are not paid enough to negate this need?  Why we have to argue over this 'allowance' when we at least DESERVE to LIVE in the country we are sworn to, and volunteered to, protect.



Metricks, I fear you have completly missed the intent behind PLD or any other such allowance in its entirety. The intent of the allowance is to offset the various cost of living in different areas, where folks are posted to "beyond their control". You may state where you wish to be posted, but that is all the control you have as you are subject to "unlimited liability".

We are paid enough, really look at the salaries, even those just entering the service and we are well remunerated which is also regularly adjusted to comparability to the Public Sector.  Increasing the salaries would only again create inequity that Bob in NB sees more net salary (read cost of living including housing) then Jane in Edmonton. In short, right back to square one.


----------



## Metricks (22 Nov 2007)

Good day folks!  I had a night to toss this around in my head, and I came up with a few thoughts on the topic.  I remember my Dad was working in the military during the pay freeze days, painful times indeed.  They definately highlighted a need for change of policy.  However, I would argue that the intent behind the recent change was to bring parity between cost of living and our wage, which is still not achieved.  When a military member in good financial standing is priced out of the home market, there is a problem.  I am not talking about mansions here, but entry level homes at the bottom of the market range for the region.  I am talking about being debt free and earning a MCpl wage, with all associated allowances and benefits.  I am talking about a working spouse in the mix.  When a member in this position walks into a bank and doesn't get a second glance, that portrays an issue.  
I do not have any easy answers to this issue.  Perhaps a higher median pay across the board.  Perhaps legislation that forces banks to consider responsible military members for mortgages.  As I said, no easy answers.  But possibly sharing these ideas, sparking debate, may result in intelligent folks in the right positions to encourage change.  As always, I welcome any feedback, and write my thoughts with no malice or contempt.  Thanks guys and gals.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (22 Nov 2007)

Metricks said:
			
		

> Perhaps legislation that forces banks to consider responsible military members for mortgages.



I think you bring up an interesting argument but I'm afraid I have to disagree strongly with this idea. I think it would only serve to alienate the military from the general public as we'd start be viewed as in some sort of "privileged" class of society to whom the regular rules don't apply. Additionally, banks are in the business of making money and when they turn someone away for a mortgage, it's not because they want to be cruel or deny the dream of home ownership to somebody. It's because this person's income and credit history don't provide a reasonable expectation that they will be able to service this debt for the next 25 years. I think forcing the banks to start considering people who don't meet these requirements would just end up in losses for the banks and foreclosures and difficulties for the members who are entering into mortgages they can't really afford but were mandated to be provided by the banks.

Concerning PLD, I think the system just needs to be more flexible to the rapid shift in the cost of living throughout Canada. I think updating PLD rates on a semi-annual basis would alleviate a lot of the strain people are undertaking at the moment.


----------



## PO2FinClk (22 Nov 2007)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> Concerning PLD, I think the system just needs to be more flexible to the rapid shift in the cost of living throughout Canada. I think updating PLD rates on a semi-annual basis would alleviate a lot of the strain people are undertaking at the moment.


And that is precisely what the current initiative/alternative currently being worked on is intended to achieve.

PS (Off Topic): I have very very rarely seen banks turn away any CF member (Reg F anyways) which had a decent credit history. As they know that 1) A pay cheque is assured and 2) They will get their money one way or the other due to CF regulations to this effect. ANd based on these reasons often CF members will authorized higher ceiling mortgages then civilians.


----------



## baccalieu (23 Nov 2007)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> I think you bring up an interesting argument but I'm afraid I have to disagree strongly with this idea. I think it would only serve to alienate the military from the general public as we'd start be viewed as in some sort of "privileged" class of society to whom the regular rules don't apply.
> 
> Concerning PLD, I think the system just needs to be more flexible to the rapid shift in the cost of living throughout Canada. I think updating PLD rates on a semi-annual basis would alleviate a lot of the strain people are undertaking at the moment.





> We are paid enough, really look at the salaries, even those just entering the service and we are well remunerated which is also regularly adjusted to comparability to the Public Sector.  Increasing the salaries would only again create inequity that Bob in NB sees more net salary (read cost of living including housing) then Jane in Edmonton. In short, right back to square one.





> No worries, it helps to put posters' comments in perspective.  For example, your aim appears to be to state that the entire compensation package (pay and benefits) may not be satisfactory, yet I notice you haven't been in long enough to remember the days of the pay freeze and the raises since.
> To aid the discussion, here's a reference to offer some background on how much has changed over the past while - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/spsm-rgsp/er-ed/vol2/vol210_e.asp
> Scroll about half-way down the page to Table 2086 - History of Increases for the Canadian Forces 1991 to 2003.




When comparing CAF wages to the Federal Public Service pay scales I have to agree that todays 
Canadian Military pers are receiving an excellant pay package
I left the forces in the early 70's to join the Federal Public Service, my pay at that time was several 
hundred dollars more than what a CPL was receiving. I retired from the Public Service some 20 years later, 2 levels above my joining rank, but  my salary at retirement was less than a senior Private. 
The top non-officer rank in our trade today makes approximately what a CPL earns.

Although I knew PDL existed,the general public likely wasnt aware of it until todays newspaper article.
It will be disheartening to injured or down-on-their-luck individuals in Vancouver or Victoria who have to relay on welfare to survive, who discover their full living allowance is less than the militarys "top up"  PLD.


----------



## PO2FinClk (23 Nov 2007)

baccalieu said:
			
		

> Although I knew PDL existed,the general public likely wasnt aware of it until todays newspaper article.
> It will be disheartening to injured or down-on-their-luck individuals in Vancouver or Victoria who have to relay on welfare to survive, who discover their full living allowance is less than the militarys "top up"  PLD.


It was quite public since it onset as a recommendation following the SCONDVA report, and was in fact covered throughout the media of the time quite extensively. However, PLD was intended to be only a Temporary measure which its funding envelope was well exhausted some time ago.

If all read this thread from the beginning, you will undoubtedly notice numerous mentions that the CF have been working on a self-managed and more flexible replacement model to PLD for sometime and is expected within the next few months. There is therefore no basis on crying foul about PLD being canceled when it has been made extremely clear by various L1 offices that a replacement is in the mix. This is not to mention the fact that no actual instruction or guidance to this effect has yet to be issued by the CF - until then it is but rumint. Until such a time, perhaps this thread should be locked to prevent any further inaccurate assumptions.


----------



## baccalieu (23 Nov 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> It was quite public since it onset as a recommendation following the SCONDVA report, and was in fact covered throughout the media of the time quite extensively. However, PLD was intended to be only a Temporary measure which its funding envelope was well exhausted some time ago


.
Perhaps I shoud clarify my earlier remarks. Although it was mentioned in the media prior to today, I dont recall ever seeing  PLD rates for qualifying cities. 

I





> f all read this thread from the beginning, you will undoubtedly notice numerous mentions that the CF have been working on a self-managed and more flexible replacement model to PLD for sometime and is expected within the next few months. There is therefore no basis on crying foul about PLD being canceled when it has been made extremely clear by various L1 offices that a replacement is in the mix. This is not to mention the fact that no actual instruction or guidance to this effect has yet to be issued by the CF - until then it is but rumint. Until such a time, perhaps this thread should be locked to prevent any further inaccurate assumptions.


I dont believe its being cancelled either,what we see and hear at the moment is just rumour and instigation by the media.


----------



## 284_226 (24 Nov 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> It was quite public since it onset as a recommendation following the SCONDVA report, and was in fact covered throughout the media of the time quite extensively. However, PLD was intended to be only a Temporary measure which its funding envelope was well exhausted some time ago.



You've mentioned this a few times.  I've never seen anything that suggested PLD was a "temporary measure".  Everything I've ever seen published on the subject merely points out that it was a result of SCONDVA, and that it was meant to address regional disparities in cost of living.

Also, the "funding envelope that was well exhausted some time ago" that you describe has me curious.  I'll freely admit I'm not well versed in how the large sums of money move to and fro in Ottawa, but the picture you portray is that Treasury Board gave us X millions of dollars when it was implemented, and when it ran out some years later, that would be it.  Would TB not assign funds in a "_not to exceed X dollars per year, you figure out how to assign it fairly_" basis?  If it's like any other allowance - and there's nothing to suggest that it isn't - wouldn't the funding envelope be adjusted to fit the requirement?  Think benefits as they pertain to the folks serving in Afghanistan.  If we had to deploy a number of people on short notice (DART, for example), and we overspend on the benefits for serving out of country, does that mean we're putting those benefits at risk of being cancelled?  I would suspect that the funding envelope just gets adjusted out of necessity.



> If all read this thread from the beginning, you will undoubtedly notice numerous mentions that the CF have been working on a self-managed and more flexible replacement model to PLD for sometime and is expected within the next few months. There is therefore no basis on crying foul about PLD being canceled when it has been made extremely clear by various L1 offices that a replacement is in the mix. This is not to mention the fact that no actual instruction or guidance to this effect has yet to be issued by the CF - until then it is but rumint. Until such a time, perhaps this thread should be locked to prevent any further inaccurate assumptions.



Define "self-managed".  Does that mean that the allowance can be handed out by the CF without any say by TB?

The message still isn't getting out.  To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a CANFORGEN, Maple Leaf article, or blurb in the base rag about the status of PLD.  There's been lots of "scuttlebutt", but like the fatherly (and motherly) Chiefs always like to point out, "Don't believe it until you have it on paper".  I said it months ago - there is no harm in telling people "This is what we know so far...".  Watching leaked news stories about it on the 6 o'clock news is what fuels the speculation - only ongoing, periodic updates from the upper echelons will counter it.

I hope you haven't taken this post as an attack on you - it isn't meant to be.  You're just another member who's been trying to dispel rumour based on what you've heard at official briefings.  There's just so many versions of what others have heard at official briefings, rumour, and third-hand information floating about that it's high time something got said via official channels.


----------



## armyvern (24 Nov 2007)

baccalieu said:
			
		

> II dont believe its being cancelled either,what we see and hear at the moment is just rumour and instigation by the media.



There's not a post on this site that says it's being cancelled. Where are you coming up with that from?? It says Ottawa is being set as the zero rate. PLD rates for other cities and locations will be adjusted accordingly ... some will go up -- others will go down from their current rate. 

Haven't had an O Gp in the past couple weeks?? This is out there ... it isn't just the media -- it is being passed down via CoC near you.


----------



## baccalieu (24 Nov 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There's not a post on this site that says it's being cancelled. Where are you coming up with that from?? It says Ottawa is being set as the zero rate. PLD rates for other cities and locations will be adjusted accordingly ... some will go up -- others will go down from their current rate.



*Quote from: PO2FinClk *
If all read this thread from the beginning, you will undoubtedly notice numerous mentions that the CF have been working on a self-managed and more flexible replacement model to PLD for sometime and is expected within the next few months. *There is therefore no basis on crying foul about PLD being canceled when it has been made extremely clear by various L1 offices that a replacement is in the mix.* This is not to mention the fact that no actual instruction or guidance to this effect has yet to be issued by the CF - until then it is but rumint. Until such a time, perhaps this thread should be locked to prevent any further inaccurate assumptions.


----------



## armyvern (24 Nov 2007)

baccalieu said:
			
		

> *Quote from: PO2FinClk *
> If all read this thread from the beginning, you will undoubtedly notice numerous mentions that the CF have been working on a self-managed and more flexible replacement model to PLD for sometime and is expected within the next few months. *There is therefore no basis on crying foul about PLD being canceled when it has been made extremely clear by various L1 offices that a replacement is in the mix.* This is not to mention the fact that no actual instruction or guidance to this effect has yet to be issued by the CF - until then it is but rumint. Until such a time, perhaps this thread should be locked to prevent any further inaccurate assumptions.



Have you read his post in the context of the entirity of this thread?

It's not being cancelled, it's being revamped and given an overhaul. Just like PO2FinClerk said ... his post above doesn't even say it's being cancelled. He said there's NO BASIS for saying it's being cancelled.

Canelled means the benefit would cease to exist -- that's NOT what's happening.

Would you like me to let the Comd here know, that the update on it's status that he obtained, and provided from Centre, and passed on to his pers here via O Gps -- is rumint?? Sorry, but the direction the PLD was taking, including Ottawa becoming the ZERO rate, has made it down my CoC officially and was passed to our pers accordingly via their O Gp.

Well before this story (and it's details) hit the media.


----------



## baccalieu (24 Nov 2007)

*Local MP pushes for cost of living allowance for troops--Edmonton and Cold Lake*

http://www.morinvillemirror.com/News/356326.html


----------



## armyvern (24 Nov 2007)

baccalieu said:
			
		

> *Local MP pushes for cost of living allowance for troops--Edmonton and Cold Lake*
> 
> http://www.morinvillemirror.com/News/356326.html



Wow. I guess he'll claim the credit for Edmonton receiving PLD under the new system too?? -- Despite the fact that the CFCWO passed along that Edmonton tidbit as being the basis for this current PLD overhall in the first place way back at his briefing to myself and others in April (also noted in this thread quite a while ago)?

These changes are already underway. The cost of living in Edmonton etc was noted and recognized by the CoC long ago (see this thread!!) and was the basis for the overhaul. This occured long before the media became involved, and, what we are seeing now, is politicians -- in their typical manner -- jumping on the bandwagon to claim credit for it's occurance. What a load of bullshit that is.


----------



## geo (25 Nov 2007)

Oooh Vern,  Just love it when you tell it like it is!

Thanks for the reality check!


----------



## 284_226 (4 Dec 2007)

> UNCLAS CANFORGEN 182/07 CMP 077/07
> SIC WAS
> SUBJ: 1 APRIL 2007 - IMPROVEMENTS TO THE POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
> (PLD) BENEFIT
> ...


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Dec 2007)

Hey look at that NO Comox!!    Shocking!  

Decent little jump for Victoria though, good stuff there...


----------



## exgunnertdo (4 Dec 2007)

??? Didn't the new CANFORGEN state that Ottawa would be baseline and get zero?  Not that I'm complaining, living in Ottawa.  (The rates listed for Ottawa are no change from the current amounts, by the way.)

Edit - OK, as I'm thinking about my confusion...The message last week read something like "effective 1 Jul 07..." but we don't start losing our PLD till 1 Apr 08, and now this message states the rates in effect from 1 Jul 07 till the end of the FY.

So I'm guessing that everyone lower than $196 will lose their PLD?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Dec 2007)

I didn't expect to see Hamilton getting more the Edmonton.

No Shilo.  WTF!


I kid I kid.


----------



## scas (4 Dec 2007)

Something is definatly wrong with the system.. How can Windsor be a higher cost of living than Edmonton? As I understand the original message, enfiisis was going to be placed on Cold lake, calgary and edmonton???


----------



## PO2FinClk (4 Dec 2007)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> Edit - OK, as I'm thinking about my confusion...The message last week read something like "effective 1 Jul 07..." but we don't start losing our PLD till 1 Apr 08, and now this message states the rates in effect from 1 Jul 07 till the end of the FY.
> 
> So I'm guessing that everyone lower than $196 will lose their PLD?


Read the messages again.

Those who see their PLD increase will see it retroactive to 01 Jul 07, and those which are lower will start seeing claw backs effective the dates established for their rank levels.


----------



## mummiebear5 (4 Dec 2007)

No Wainwright either


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Dec 2007)

Has anyone checked out the tables in the reference of the message?

I had a peek but it only raised more questions, the table at reference C has most (not all) cities listed, it then goes through the current rate as of 08, 09 and 2010 the rates decrease for every location.   Edmonton, Calgary, and Victoria are not on that list.    The most expensive region in Toronto goes down to approx 550 by 2010.

The table at reference B has the cities which are getting PLD now, but most of them have a PLD indication of zero.   ???


Just thought I would throw it out there, for those of you who didn't already know, there are two military bases on Vancouver Island....  For some reason Comox seems to be forgotten


----------



## Staff Weenie (4 Dec 2007)

I would love to see the calculations and baseline information used to derive the PLD rates published. I wonder if an ATI would free up that data. 

For some reason, it would seem that currently Toronto cna be up to 10x more expensive than Ottawa, ergo a loaf of bread on sale for $1 in Ottawa should be $10 in parts of Toronto.......

But, PLD is move than loaves of bread, it's supposedly based upon a whole series of factors......that said, I doubt that across the board, Hamilton is more expensive than Ottawa, or that Toronto in general is more expensive on average by up to a factor of 10.

In about 2001, I actually got a chance to play pokey chest with a civy involved in the calculations of PLD. He basically admitted that as Ottawa had such a huge number of entitled folks, they could not afford to allow for a realistic PLD rate. Every effort was made to find ways to reduce Ottawa's average costs. The biggest result came by dropping a pin into the centre of the city, and taking a radius out to Smith's Falls, and drawing a big circle, and using everything within for calculating average housing & rental costs.

As we all know, when calculating numbers, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics......


----------



## dapaterson (4 Dec 2007)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> As we all know, when calculating numbers, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics......



...and liars, damn liars, and staff officers...


----------



## BinRat55 (11 Dec 2007)

Oh man I don't understand!!

Corner Brook - 83
Grand Falls/Windsor - 133
St John's - 308

Gander - Diddly.

Is there a site or a paper I can access that I can read for myself where this "logic" came from? I honestly don't understand. Even Ottawa got PLD, and they were supposed to be the "base" comparison... (nothing against the pers in Ottawa - I beleive they should get something, but words is words...)


----------



## exgunnertdo (11 Dec 2007)

The fact that Ottawa is still getting PLD is part of CBI 205.452, which is "Transitional PLD."  IE, it's all the cities that get PLD now, but aren't going to under the new formula.  The table in that CBI shows the gradual reduction in PLD for those members, down to zero.  If you get posted to a city in the TPLD policy, you don't get PLD.  Those of us that are here in Ottawa (and other cities) bought houses with that PLD in effect and now have a couple of years to re-align our budgets to reflect the zero PLD.  

Can't speak for the maritimes, never lived there.  But I was raised in Manitoba, and can't see my PLD being zero, while those in Shilo also get zero!  While the conspiracy theories are being tossed around - maybe this is the CF's way of getting people to request postings to places like Winnipeg ;D.  

Seriously though, I would also like to see some transparency in the figures.  How do they arrive at them?  And (new formula aside for a moment) Ottawa was at ~200 per month before the change, does that mean that places that kept their PLD had it reduced by ~200 to reflect the "Ottawa Baseline" part of the policy?


----------



## Aerobicrunner (11 Dec 2007)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Is there a site or a paper I can access that I can read for myself where this "logic" came from? I honestly don't understand. Even Ottawa got PLD, and they were supposed to be the "base" comparison... (nothing against the pers in Ottawa - I beleive they should get something, but words is words...)



There is some information regarding the CBI at the beginning of this thread, however this is the update dated 29 Nov 07 found on intranet at: http://hr3.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=8&sidecat=7

INTRODUCTION
The Post Living Differential (PLD) program was introduced on 1 April 2000 to provide a mechanism to stabilize the cost of living of Canadian Forces (CF) members and families, serving in Canada, with respect to regional differences. PLD provides a means for a CF family to enjoy a relative and predictable standard of living no matter where they serve in Canada. The original PLD methodology was developed in the mid-late 90’s; however, the economic conditions under which the previous methodology was derived, roughly a decade ago, are no longer relevant in today’s environment. Following an intensive review, a new PLD methodology has been approved by Treasury Board effective 1 July 2007. Measures have also been approved by Treasury Board to ease the transition to the new methodology.

METHODOLOGY CHANGES
The following changes have been made effective 1 July 2007. 

A “Standard City” approach has been adopted as the threshold to determine a PLD area. Under the original methodology any CF place of duty with costs above the CF Weighted Average was deemed a PLD area. Under the new methodology any CF place of duty with costs above the Standard City will be deemed a PLD area. CBI 205.45 defines Standard City as the cost of living in National Capital Region, as determined by the Minister in consultation with independent firms(s) with the expertise in the field of cost of living determination. 
Incorporate an average annual CF salary as the profile used to determine the costs at each CF place of duty instead of using a profile that includes spousal income. A spouse of a CF member is not always guaranteed employment at the new place of duty; thus it is more appropriate to focus on CF members’ salaries. 
Use current year data instead of a three-year rolling average. The three-year rolling average was instituted to prevent large fluctuations in rates; but this methodology has proven unresponsive, particularly in booming economies with rapidly increasing shelter costs. 

Other Policy changes/clarification are: 

A member retains their PLD when they elect an early Intended Place of Residence within the boundaries of their current place of duty (see CBI 205.45 (9)); 
Clarifies that a Reservist who receives a return move back to where they were moved from (former place of ordinary residence) is not entitled to PLD (see CBI 205.45(5)(c)); 
A Reservist is entitled to PLD on subsequent Reserve Force employment if they find that employment within 90 days vice one year (see CBI 205.45(6)); and 
A Reservist is not disqualified for PLD if they join a local reserve unit (limitation has been removed from CBI 205.45(6)). 

TRANSITIONAL MEASURES
Updated PLD rates effective 1 July 2007 are contained in the table to CBI 205.45. These rates reflect the new methodology. Where members currently in receipt of PLD will see decreases, transitional measures have been incorporated into a new CBI 205.452. In general, decreases will be phased in over a three-year period. Officers in the rank of captain or above, and non-commissioned members in the rank of warrant officer or above will have decreases phased in starting 1 April 2008. Officers in rank of lieutenant or below, and non-commissioned member in the rank of sergeant or below will have decreases phased in starting 1 April 2009. For Captain (Navy) and Colonel and above living in the National Capital Region (NCR), the new PLD rate for that location will be implemented in full as of 1 April 2008. For details see CBI 205.452.

The Post Living Differential (PLD) methodology includes the following elements:

The intent of PLD is to stabilize the overall cost of living of Canadian Forces (CF) members and their families residing in Canada to a maximum not exceeding the National Capital Region (NCR) cost of living, namely the difference between the NCR cost of living and the cost of living in the PLD area.

A PLD area is, as determined by Department of National Defence (DND) in examining local circumstances, a location within the boundaries of a CF place of duty in Canada and may include a zone within a large metropolitan region (e.g., Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) and surrounding vicinity.

The cost of living will be based on a representative CF household defined as: 
a. gross income based on the average CF salary; and

b. family size as determined from the CF personnel records or periodic surveys of CF members. Current representative family size of three persons is derived from the 1998 CF Household Survey. 

The household expenditure pattern, including the category weightings, will be based on the Canadian average for a household of similar income and family size, as described in the Statistics Canada Family Expenditure Survey (FAMEX).

Cost of living differences will be determined by the pricing of a representative selection of the items in the FAMEX and any additional items determined by DND as being necessary to meet the CF requirement. As a minimum, the data collected and representative items priced will provide sufficient indication of spatial differences in expenditure by the representative household in the following categories: 
a. income tax - the total combined federal and provincial income tax paid annually; 

b. transportation - total annual cost; 

c. rent for renters and mortgage interest for homeowners;

d. property (real estate) tax for homeowners; 

e. home maintenance cost for homeowners;

f. household/renter insurance; 

g. utilities;

h. goods and services, to include: 
(1) food items (consumed at home and away from home); 
(2) clothing; 
(3) household items, including furniture; 
(4) personal care; 
(5) medical and dental care; 
(6) domestic services, including child-care; 
(7) recreation; and 
( 8 ) alcohol and tobacco. 
i. expenditure on sales tax, if not included in the pricing of relevant items; and 

j. miscellaneous items, to include expenditures not included elsewhere (e.g., education costs) and savings and investments. 
Homeowner costs will be based on: 
a. the home size indicated by the Canadian average expenditure profile; 

b. home purchases for the last 12 months (12 months may be expanded for locations where there is insufficient real estate market activity for meaningful analysis); 

c. the rolling average interest rate for a five-year closed mortgage; and 

d. a 20% down-payment. 
PLD rates will be calculated annually using the current year data and the NCR, computing the differentials between location costs and the NCR costs, and adding an increment to offset the income tax paid on the PLD allowance. Data will be collected in the October to January period. New rates will be implemented with the tentative effective date of 1 April.

The income tax increment included in the calculated PLD rate will be based on the estimated marginal tax determined from using the second from lowest federal income tax rate, published by the Canada Revenue Agency, combined with the associated provincial tax rate excluding grants or surcharges.

A reduced PLD of 75% will be paid to a member sharing a principal residence with another CF member who is entitled to PLD. This provision also applies to service couples.


----------



## baccalieu (12 Dec 2007)

If its that expensive to live in Ottawa, how do the majority of the Federal Public Servants who live there without the benifit of PLD manage to survive?? 
Whats your total family income, $90,000-$100,000?


----------



## baccalieu (12 Dec 2007)

Someone please tell me Im wrong here.

1.Lets assume I was born in Victoria and worked as a civilian in a low paying job, however if I join the Navy,finish basic training, then get a posting back to my hometown,I will receive an allowance of $600.00 per month in PLD to offset my living costs.
Seems like a "gravy train" to Navy types who spend most/all of their career in either Halifax or Esquimalt.

2. A "service couple" posted to Toronto would receive 1586 and the other 1190 for a yearly total of $33312.
What kind of homes are they buying in Toronto? His and hers?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (12 Dec 2007)

baccalieu said:
			
		

> Someone please tell me Im wrong here.
> 
> 1.Lets assume I was born in Victoria and worked as a civilian in a low paying job, however if I join the Navy,finish basic training, then get a posting back to my hometown,I will receive an allowance of $600.00 per month in PLD to offset my living costs.
> Seems like a "gravy train" to Navy types who spend most/all of their career in either Halifax or Esquimalt.
> ...



Yeah some gravy train. I was posted there in 1996-2001.....it was a struggle to buy a house, my family were all in  Ottawa and my wife's in Halifax. There was no compassionate allowance at the time and service air had just shut down. when my Dad died it cost me $1500 to get home for his funeral. I came out of Victoria with no savings and huge debt in 2001 and as the house prices had stagnated I didn't make anything on my house. A public servant who grew up and lived in Victoria didn't have to move every three to five years take the wear and tear on his furniture and appliances etc etc.


----------



## exgunnertdo (12 Dec 2007)

baccalieu said:
			
		

> Someone please tell me Im wrong here.
> .
> .
> .
> ...



Yes, you're wrong - the service couple would each get 75% of the full rate, not 1 at 100% and the other at 75%.  And that exceptionally high rate in Toronto is only for one area.  Other parts of Toronto have much lower rates.  I've never seen a map, though, so I don't know where the area in question is.

And it's not a "gravy train."  PLD is intended to equalize quality of life for members of the CF across Canada, not to equalize QOL to civilians on the local economy.  The theory being that someone posted to Toronto, a place with very high cost of living, does not have a significantly lower QOL than a service member of the same rank who is posted to Shilo, which has a much lower cost of living.  The comparison to a person working as a civilian in a low paying job is irrelevant.  Just the same as it's irrelevant that civilian wages in Alberta are extremely high right now.


----------



## PO2FinClk (12 Dec 2007)

exgunnertdo, I fully concur with both your posts.



			
				silver said:
			
		

> Wow man, this sucks. I'm a spec pay Cpl 2 with a wife who makes about $33K/year and 3 kids. I live in Ottawa and we just bought a house. It's going to be hard for us to be paying our new mortgage as it is right now.


Not really if you look at all the figures.

Currently you receive $196.00 which will remain until Apr 09, where it will reduce by $65.00 leaving you to still receive $131.00. Then in Apr 2010 it will go down by a further $66.00 leaving you with $65.00 until the end of March 2011. Now if you consider that for 2007 you see a pay raise of $86.00/Month (as a Cpl 2) combined with any future economc adjustments, you should not feel much impact if any. Note that I am not trying to mitigate your personal finances, but when looking at all these figures you should not see much impact. As the PLD decrease is in "chunks" of $65.00/month, this ends up being less $20.00 per pay after taxes.


----------



## simysmom99 (12 Dec 2007)

I think anyone who buys a house, or sets up their budget on future PLD rates, tour pay, whatever extra money may or may not be coming down the pipeline is foolish.  Buy what you can afford, have a QOL that you can afford comfortably without the extra money, that way you won't have any problems.
I Edmonton we are getting I ~ $200 the way I read the chart.  Pays a couple of bills, yes?  We could always have nothing...


----------



## Aerobicrunner (12 Dec 2007)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> And that exceptionally high rate in Toronto is only for one area.  Other parts of Toronto have much lower rates.  I've never seen a map, though, so I don't know where the area in question is.



Map showing the different PLD areas in Toronto is found on this Intranet site:  http://armyonline.kingston.mil.ca/LFCA/143000440005102/PLD_MAP00.DOC


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2007)

silver said:
			
		

> Wow man, this sucks. I'm a spec pay Cpl 2 with a wife who makes about $33K/year and 3 kids. I live in Ottawa and we just bought a house. It's going to be hard for us to be paying our new mortgage as it is right now. I feel bad for anyone like us or in worse financial situations (ie. any Ptes with kids, etc).



Sorry to take this off-topic but I just had to ask,...
Whatever gave you the impression buying a house has ever, or should ever, been easy?


----------



## ixium (12 Dec 2007)

With all the aid and information avaliable, buying a house should be realitivly easy. 
Its when people try and get a house that is outside their price range, or just barely in theirs that it becomes a problem.

With a quick look at mls.ca I found quite a few nice 4 bedroom houses in the Ottawa area in the $100k-$200k price range which, baring no other major debts, should be affordable with a $90k per year income.


----------



## baccalieu (12 Dec 2007)

With the proceeds from the sale of a previous home, a person could probably go up to the 400-500k range and if buying "across the river" perhaps even in the 300-400k range.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Dec 2007)

baccalieu said:
			
		

> With the proceeds from the sale of a previous home, a person could probably go up to the 400-500k range and if buying "across the river" perhaps even in the 300-400k range.



If the sale of the previous home was all profit and not used to pay off the mortgage, maybe......
In some cases, there hasn't been enough equity put into the home to make much off of the sale.


----------



## baccalieu (12 Dec 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> With all the aid and information avaliable, buying a house should be realitivly easy.
> Its when people try and get a house that is outside their price range, or just barely in theirs that it becomes a problem.
> 
> With a quick look at mls.ca I found quite a few nice 4 bedroom houses in the Ottawa area in the $100k-$200k price range which, baring no other major debts, should be affordable with a $90k per year income.



Not necessarily "nice" 4 bdrm homes, but even a discriminating buyer should be able to find one here.

4 bdrooms or more, 2 baths or more-- 200-400k 

Aylmer, Gatineau, Hull and surrounding areas...223 homes
Ottawa, within its existing boundaries.............476 homes


----------



## PO2FinClk (14 Dec 2007)

For the moment, would remain 0.00 and other cities would see theirs adjusted accordingly. There is not perfect solution, but as I stated before, claw back of PLD coupled with pay raises will not see yourself net income be reduced noticeably. As I stated before not trying to judge your situation burt looking at the amounts speak for themselves.

Any chance of anything changing on these in the very near future? Not likely as this one alone took several years to develop.


----------



## exgunnertdo (14 Dec 2007)

Child care in this city (Ottawa) is really expensive.  It can run up to 40 or 50 dollars a day, with a licenced centre being as high as $55 per day for an infant (under 18 months).  I was paying $16 per day in rural Manitoba (government set rate for licenced home day care, 2005 rate, it may have gone up since then), no PLD, then $25 per day in Borden, with around $80 per month PLD, now $40 per day, no PLD (after it's phased out).  The PLD in Borden didn't cover the increase in child care, let alone the other increases in price compared to MB.  Likewise for Ottawa, if you use the current PLD rates.  You can buy a smaller house, a fixer upper, rent if you have to, to mitigate the increased housing costs here, but I can't see shopping around for "bargains" in child care.  Not going to happen.  There are women charging $25 per day here, but I have to ask myself why.  I won't compromise my kids' safety, health and happiness with potentially substandard care.


----------



## Sub_Guy (14 Dec 2007)

Child care is a killer (3 kids)...  If I ever find myself posted to the Ottawa region, I would consider living on the Quebec side where child care is much cheaper, and the corner stores have beer.....


----------



## x-zipperhead (14 Dec 2007)

Better be about a $4000.00 per year savings in child care as that is about how much more you'll be paying in income taxes on a $60,000 per year salary.  Maybe if you crunch the numbers it is worth it but that $5 a day daycare comes with a price......much higher taxes.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Dec 2007)

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> ......much higher taxes.



That's putting it mildly my friend.


----------



## Roy Harding (14 Dec 2007)

Yeah - but the corner stores have beer!


----------



## x-zipperhead (14 Dec 2007)

The beer makes it all worthwhile ;D


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2007)

Solution:  Live close to a bridge on the Ontario side.  Low taxes; easy cross-border shopping for beer at the corner store.


----------



## baccalieu (15 Dec 2007)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Oh man I don't understand!!
> 
> Corner Brook - 83
> Grand Falls/Windsor - 133
> ...



Although the bureaucrats have put together reams of stats and information in order to calculate PLD, there does not appear to be any logical reasoning as to which cities received it or the amounts that should be allocated to each. Perhaps the "Eeny, meeny, miny," method or the "blindfolded dart shooter" system was used to arrive at their calculations.


----------



## PO2FinClk (15 Dec 2007)

DIN: http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/methodology_e.asp?sidesection=8&sidecat=10
Internet: http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/methodology_e.asp?sidesection=8&sidecat=10

Perhpas you mean to say that failing to see the results of each assesment you cannot identify a pattern? As from my perspective it is quite logical.


> The Methodology - POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
> 
> The Post Living Differential (PLD) methodology includes the following elements:
> 
> ...


----------



## baccalieu (15 Dec 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Perhpas you mean to say that failing to see the results of each assesment you cannot identify a pattern? As from my perspective it is quite logical.



Im just a courious old codger who has trouble understanding things at times and Im wondering 
why some cities have been selected and others havnt.Theres nothing wrong with my memory though, and I cant recall reading or hearing about any politician,bureaucrat, or manager who was selective with information and didnt make their decisions based solely on the info placed in front of them.
Im sure thats the situation here, and the same criteria is applied evenly to each city, but then again, 
its possible the info they are using is dated.

Expenses in The Comox Valley have been increasing for some time now and there wouldnt be any 
great difference between Nanaimo and Comox, one has PLD the other does not. 
The same with Gander/Grand Falls.


----------



## darmil (19 Dec 2007)

Hi I'm a reservist on class "C" cpl 4 on work up for TF108.I've read the whole thread but kinda confused what is the PLD amount  for Edmonton or whats it going to be?I have a wife and one kid. I hope I qualify for the PLD I'm still waiting to here back from my W.O. The PLD would help I took a big pay cut to come on work up so anything would help.The housing in Edmonton sucks my rent went up $400 in December HoHoHo! Any info would be appreciated thx.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Dec 2007)

I have no idea if a Class C Res qualifies.  That said here are the rates.

http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/canforgen182_07_e.asp?sidesection=8&sidecat=2

3. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MONTHLY RATES FOR ALL PLD QUALIFYING LOCATIONS FOR THE PERIOD 1 JUL 07 TO 31 MAR 08 INCLUSIVE. THESE RATES REPRESENT THE GREATER OF THE PLD RATES IN THE TABLES AT REFS B AND C. READ IN THREE COLUMNS: PLD AREA, FULL PLD RATE, SEVENTY-FIVE 
PERCENT PLD RATE:
ALDERGROVE, 207, 155
BARRIE/BORDEN, 87, 65
BRANTFORD, 114, 86
CALGARY, 595, 446
CAMBRIDGE, 85,64
COLD LAKE, 162, 122
CORNERBROOK, 83, 62
*EDMONTON, 232, 174*
GRAND FALL/WINDSOR, 133, 100
GUELPH, 245, 184
HALIFAX, 374, 281
HAMILTON, 347, 260
KAMLOOPS/KELOWNA, 161, 121
KINGSTON, 16, 12
KITCHENER, 170, 128
LONDON, 46, 34
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE, 495, 371
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE, 404, 303
NANAIMO, 6, 4
NIAGARA/ST CATHARINES, 174, 131
NORTH BAY, 6, 4
OTTAWA, 196, 147
PETERBOROUGH, 68, 51
QUEBEC CITY, 189, 142
SEPT-ILES, 112, 84
ST JOHNS, 308, 231
ST HYACINTHE, 24, 18
STRATFORD, 207, 155
TORONTO AREA ONE, 1586, 1190
TORONTO AREA TWO, 670, 503
TORONTO AREA THREE, 543, 407
TORONTO AREA FOUR, 1006, 755
TORONTO AREA FIVE, 1377, 1033
VANCOUVER, 696, 522
VICTORIA, 609, 457
WINDSOR, 332, 249

4. ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE INSTR WILL BE THE SUBJ OF A SEPARATE MSG FROM DAPPP


----------



## Gunner (19 Dec 2007)

MikeH said:
			
		

> Hi I'm a reservist on class "C" cpl 4 on work up for TF108.I've read the whole thread but kinda confused what is the PLD amount  for Edmonton or whats it going to be?I have a wife and one kid. I hope I qualify for the PLD I'm still waiting to here back from my W.O. The PLD would help I took a big pay cut to come on work up so anything would help.The housing in Edmonton sucks my rent went up $400 in December HoHoHo! Any info would be appreciated thx.



If you were not moved at government expense you will not qualify for PLD.  For instance, if you are serving with a Reserve unit in Edmonton and take a Cl C to deploy with TF 1-08, you will not be eligble as you have not been moved.  However, if you accept a Cl B offer to work at another location and are reimbursed for your move, you may be entitled to PLD.

Cheers,


----------



## Mistake (2 Jan 2008)

So....  Let me get this one straight.  To start with, as a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals  like someone posted from Calgary does.  And I don't qualify for accommodations like a reg force CPL would.   And then to top it all off CBI 205.45 states that I don't qualify for PLD simply because I am a reservist.  This is ridiculous. Why is it that everyone else should either make more money or enjoy subsidized living???    How is my burden (and MikeH's) any less? Thats the $232 question.  I'd love to hear from a DND policy dude on this one.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2008)

Mistake said:
			
		

> To start with, as a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals  like someone posted from Calgary does.



No RegF member posted to a location gets TD and meals. (unless you consider someone posted IR but thats a tad different)



> And I don't qualify for accommodations like a reg force CPL would.



If you are a reservist from edmonton on Class C service in edmonton, why would you need military accomodation , dont you already live somewhere. And if by your statement you mean you should et free accomodation, well that RegF corporal pays for his quarters so...


----------



## Gunner (2 Jan 2008)

> As a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals  like someone posted from Calgary does.



Correct, however a person from Calgary will be on TD from their home unit (not posted to Edmonton).



> And I don't qualify for accommodations like a reg force CPL would.



You are not posted to Edmonton and you are not on TD so you would not be entitled to accommodations.  I'm not sure if you could or couldn't move into SQ's if they are available (but you would have to pay).



> And then to top it all off CBI 205.45 states that I don't qualify for PLD simply because I am a reservist.  This is ridiculous. Why is it that everyone else should either make more money or enjoy subsidized living???  How is my burden (and MikeH's) any less? Thats the $232 question.  I'd love to hear from a DND policy dude on this one.



It's not based on whether you are a Reservist, it is based on whether you were moved at government expense (eg a posting).  You live and work in Edmonton as a civilian and you have accepted a contract to work with the military in Edmonton.   Remember that PLD is designed to minimize the effect on families moving from lost cost areas to high cost areas to meet the needs of the service.  You have not been moved at government expense and you are not entitled to PLD.  You and the other Reservists have not been "posted" to Edmonton for 1-08.

If you go to the CF Grievance Board there are a number of R of G that refer to similar circumstances as you provide.

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/csViewer.asp?x=1



> Regarding the rationale the differential treatment of Reservists, the CDS stated that a Reservist who accepts a voluntary call-out in an area where he has chosen to reside does not experience the cost of living increase that a Reservist posted into a PLDA must contend with. The CDS concluded that the current system compensates Reservists for costs where the CF requires them to be in higher costs area.


Cheers,


----------



## Mistake (3 Jan 2008)

Mistake said:
			
		

> as a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals  like someone posted from Calgary does.



For CDN Aviator Ill clarify my mistake, I meant to say 'like a Cls C Res from Calgary who is employed in Edmonton does.'  Any Cls C Reservist outside a 100km radius qualifies for TD and R&Q while employed in Edmonton.  

Also, in response to this comment;


			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If you are a reservist from edmonton on Class C service in edmonton, why would you need military accomodation , dont you already live somewhere. And if by your statement you mean you should et free accomodation, well that RegF corporal pays for his quarters so...



Yes of course I have a place to live, and so does MikeH, that's not the point.  The point is that we are forced to pay rents which are painfully higher than elsewhere in Canada (even higher than in the all important capital region).  Not only do we have to pay them but we qualify for neither PLD nor the highly subsidized accommodations on base.  The simple fact is that of the several thousand personnel employed at the Edmonton Garrison the only people, to the best of my knowledge, that receive neither PLD nor subsidized living are me and Mike and the few dozen other reservists from Edmonton.

And lastly to respond to Gunner's posting;


			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> It's not based on whether you are a Reservist, it is based on whether you were moved at government expense (eg a posting).  You live and work in Edmonton as a civilian and you have accepted a contract to work with the military in Edmonton.   Remember that PLD is designed to minimize the effect on families moving from lost cost areas to high cost areas to meet the needs of the service.  You have not been moved at government expense and you are not entitled to PLD.  You and the other Reservists have not been "posted" to Edmonton for 1-08.



Fundamentally it is based solely on the fact that Im a reservist.  If you read 205.45(4) and 205.45(5) you'd see that the only criteria necessary to qualify RegF personnel is that their primary residence is located within the PLDA.   Contrastingly, the reservist must be relocated at public expense in order to qualify.  I can see no reasonable justification to discriminate between the two. Take for instance the theoretical example of an Edmontonian who joined a RegF unit in Edmonton.  That person would automatically qualify for PLD regardless of the fact that they already 'had a place to live,' and were not forced into this high cost environment.  Regardless of what the stated goal of the PLD policy is, it is clear that it is meant to simply balance out the inherent regional disparities resulting from varied cost of living across the country.   PLD has been instituted to allow everyone in the CF to enjoy the same standard of living by topping up our pay so that we can all enjoy the same REAL income.  

My complaint is not that the regulations are being adhered to improperly, but that the regulations themselves are discriminatory.  I realize that I don't qualify and why I don't qualify, what Im saying is that the reasoning is unjust.  And if you read ID: FIN-8290-5321 (at Gunners link select Post Living Differential) you'll see that the CFGB agrees. 

"the Board found that CBI 205.45(5) and (6) results in unequal treatment between Reservists for no cause, and as such, the Board recommended that the regulation be amended to extend this benefit to all Reservists serving on a full-time basis in a PLDA."  

The quote given by Gunner is actually the CDS rejecting the Boards recommendations.  Unlike this seemingly arbitrary decision I'd say in this case my frustration is fairly justified.


----------



## -rb (3 Jan 2008)

Mistake said:
			
		

> Also, in response to this comment;
> Yes of course I have a place to live, and so does MikeH, that's not the point.  The point is that we are forced to pay rents which are painfully higher than elsewhere in Canada (even higher than in the all important capital region).  Not only do we have to pay them but we qualify for neither PLD nor the highly subsidized accommodations on base.  The simple fact is that of the several thousand personnel employed at the Edmonton Garrison the only people, to the best of my knowledge, that receive neither PLD nor subsidized living are me and Mike and the few dozen other reservists from Edmonton.



 :crybaby: Suck it up, so over the course of your year and a half of work up training and deployment your out about $3000...you chose to live in edmonton prior to signing on for tour, be glad you got the opportunity to go over...many Reg force members are itching to go (or go again) and can not due to bad timing, luck of the draw and other spots being filled by reservists. Not bashing here as I have no problem to date with this, just stating the facts. The money you make overseas should be more than enough to cover your expenses back home.

Taking a pay cut for a year and a half will garner no sympathy from me either, i know many who have taken a cut to join the reg force as a lifelong _career_ and I hear no bitching from them. If the cost of living is so unbearable in edmonton do something about it and move elsewhere. As a reservist you have that luxury to choose your home base.

cheers.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2008)

Mistake,

You lived there willingly -- before enlistment in the CF ResF entered the picture.

There's a BIG difference --- the CF is NOT forcing you to live there, you have a choice in the matter.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2008)

Mistake said:
			
		

> Yes of course I have a place to live, and so does MikeH, that's not the point.  The point is that we are forced to pay rents which are painfully higher than elsewhere in Canada (even higher than in the all important capital region).  Not only do we have to pay them but we qualify for neither PLD nor the highly subsidized accommodations on base.  The simple fact is that of the several thousand personnel employed at the Edmonton Garrison the only people, to the best of my knowledge, that receive neither PLD nor subsidized living are me and Mike and the few dozen other reservists from Edmonton.




Suck it up Buttercup.  You made a decision years ago to live in Edmonton.  You shopped around, found a place and rented it.  All your own doing and your choices.  All those others, several thousands, had no choice like you.  They were POSTED to Edmonton and had to make the move or Release.  The Government compensated them.  If you were on a Class B or C at your Reserve Unit, would you be crying for the same benefits?  I doubt it. 



			
				Mistake said:
			
		

> And lastly to respond to Gunner's posting;
> Fundamentally it is based solely on the fact that Im a reservist.



Bull Shit!  The rules apply to all, Reservist and Reg.  If a Regular Force member lives in a location and their spouse finds a job in another location miles away, they are not entitled to any benefits.  It was their decision, much like the one you made.  If a Regular Force member is posted and his spouse has a high paying job or some other reason that they can not move, then the RegF member may receive some benefits.



			
				Mistake said:
			
		

> If you read 205.45(4) and 205.45(5) you'd see that the only criteria necessary to qualify RegF personnel is that their primary residence is located within the PLDA.   Contrastingly, the reservist must be relocated at public expense in order to qualify.  I can see no reasonable justification to discriminate between the two.



Where do you see discrimination there?  Both would have had to have been POSTED into the PLDA.  If they (either one of them) should decide to live outside of the PLDA, then they would have no entitlements.  They made that decision, not the CF.



			
				Mistake said:
			
		

> Take for instance the theoretical example of an Edmontonian who joined a RegF unit in Edmonton.  That person would automatically qualify for PLD regardless of the fact that they already 'had a place to live,' and were not forced into this high cost environment.



"WERE NOT FORCED" are the key words there.



			
				Mistake said:
			
		

> Regardless of what the stated goal of the PLD policy is, it is clear that it is meant to simply balance out the inherent regional disparities resulting from varied cost of living across the country.   PLD has been instituted to allow everyone in the CF to enjoy the same standard of living by topping up our pay so that we can all enjoy the same REAL income.



PLD has been instituted to allow everyone in the CF to enjoy the same standard of living by topping up our pay so that we can all enjoy the same REAL income WHEN they are POSTED by the Government from one economic region to another.  Not when there is a "NO COST" Posting (A point that you may want to research also.).  



			
				Mistake said:
			
		

> My complaint is not that the regulations are being adhered to improperly, but that the regulations themselves are discriminatory.  I realize that I don't qualify and why I don't qualify, what Im saying is that the reasoning is unjust.  And if you read ID: FIN-8290-5321 (at Gunners link select Post Living Differential) you'll see that the CFGB agrees.
> 
> "the Board found that CBI 205.45(5) and (6) results in unequal treatment between Reservists for no cause, and as such, the Board recommended that the regulation be amended to extend this benefit to all Reservists serving on a full-time basis in a PLDA."
> 
> The quote given by Gunner is actually the CDS rejecting the Boards recommendations.  Unlike this seemingly arbitrary decision I'd say in this case my frustration is fairly justified.



They are not unfair, nor unjustified.  It is your interpretation of them that is ill-informed.  Look into what benefits a CF member gets from a "No Cost Posting".  Look at what benefits a member gets when they are separated from their spouse or family by a decision that they made, not a decision brought upon them by the Government.  Look at who made your decisions for you.  You or the Government?  You did.  It was your decision to take the Class C in your 'home town'.  The Government wants to cut waste and costs.  Your application and contract was one method to do so.


----------



## simysmom99 (3 Jan 2008)

There seems to be a great sense of entitlement going on here.  We are lucky that we work for DND.  I don't know of too many other companies who top up your salaries when you move to another "more expensive" region.  Edmonton gets something like $232 per month give or take.  Doesn't that pay at least 1 bill?  
Another point to make.  Edmonton is not the most expensive place to live by far.  Our housing costs have gone down, our wages are up, what is there to complain about?  If you want to buy a house here, then do what everyone else does and save your money and get into a starter home.


----------



## GAP (3 Jan 2008)

New cost-of-living bonus irks soldiers, sailors, aircrew in Eastern Canada
at 17:06 on January 2, 2008, EST.
Article Link

OTTAWA - Alberta's booming economy has prompted the Defence Department to revise an allowance that gives soldiers, sailors and aircrew posted in major cities a cost-of-living bonus. 

The changes mean military members in some expensive cities in Eastern Canada, such as Ottawa, will come out on the losing end. But there will also be winners under the new system, announced internally at the end of November and backdated to July 1, 2007. 

The revised formula gradually eliminates the Post Living Differential Allowance over three years in select locations. 

Soldiers based in Edmonton have started to receive the allowance for the first time, the amount of which varies depending on the city, rank and marital status. Those living in Calgary get the highest bonus of over $500 a month. 

Last summer, Statistics Canada reported that the cost of living in Alberta increased nearly three times as fast as the average national inflation rate during the previous 12 months. Edmonton and Calgary had the most rapidly rising living costs among Canadian cities. 

"The fundamental change we made was because (the allowance) wasn't responsive to boom economies," said Maj. Terry Sokolowsky, director of domestic benefits administration. 

Under the old system, the taxable benefit was calculated on a three-year rolling average of cost-of-living across the country. Now defence bureaucrats determine the bonus based on current year data and adjust the rate annually. 

The change was quietly announced to military members at the same time the federal government decided to give the Forces an overall two per cent pay increase, retroactive to April 1, 2007. The allowance was introduced in 2000 by the former Liberal government. 

The revision does not sit well with members who are about to lose the bonus. They describe the change as a disincentive to transfer to headquarters or training positions. 

A number of serving officers and enlisted members in Ottawa declined to speak on the record, but said the eventual loss of the allowance would mean financial hardship, especially in lower ranks and among married couples who are both in the military. 

"This is really going to hurt some families, when you consider it could take as much as $300 out of the household budgets of married couples," said one member who didn't want to be identified. 

But Sokolowsky defended the decision. 

"We had to find a system that works equitably across all of Canada and not just for a specific region," he said in a recent interview. 

"We don't have regional rates of pay and we have to compensate people who live in high cost areas so they can have some kind of predictable living standard." 

The calculation takes into account a number of economic factors, including housing prices, insurance and other household items. 

Sokolowsky said the new system won't save the federal government any money. The Defence Department set aside $72 million in the last budget for the posting bonus and that amount is expected to increase in 2008. 

Three cities - all in Alberta - will see either the introduction of the allowance, or an increase in the existing rate: Edmonton, Calgary and the air base at Cold Lake. 

The bonus has been - or is about to be - eliminated in the Ontario communities of Borden, Brantford, Cambridge, Hamilton, Guelph, Kingston, Ottawa and Thunder Bay, among others. 

Bases in Quebec affected by the cuts include Valcartier, Sherbrooke and Sept Iles. 

The Newfoundland and Labrador communities of Corner Brook, Gander, and Windsor will also feel the pinch. 

Sokolowsky cautioned that the cost of living bonus in some of the smaller centres amounted to only a few extra dollars a month. 

There will be a three-year phase-out for higher ranks and four years for lower ranks, he said. 
More on link


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (3 Jan 2008)

I'll jump on this one also, ok you may lose some in wages due to your pay cut, but you are now making what a reg force Cpl makes as a class C reservist, your costs are no different than before you took the contract, after work-up trg you will go to theater, you will not be taxed, you will earn mfsp, you will earn HRA, all in all you will come out way ahead of your class A bretheren. This is a classic case of "what can my army do for me" it is unfortunate we live in a society of entitlement.  Of course if you took the contract only for the money, does that not make us no better than mercenaries.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2008)

> Take for instance the theoretical example of an Edmontonian who joined a RegF unit in Edmonton.  That person would automatically qualify for PLD regardless of the fact that they already 'had a place to live,' and were not forced into this high cost environment.



Mistake,

Your problem with the above quote from you is that no member joins the RegF _*AND*_ a Unit in Edmonton. A member joins the RegF, goes on his training and then MAY end up being posted to Edmonton. Of course, he MAY originally have hailed from Edmonton as well -- but that does NOT negate the fact that the CF (AFTER his joining the RegF) has POSTED him to Edmonton -- he could very well have been posted to Petawawa too through NO choice of his own. A member joining the CF owns that primary residence in Edmonton ONLY until the completion of his training, then, if he's lucky (or not) he may find himself being REQUIRED to pack up that residence and relocate it to another part of the country -- or he MAY (and may is the operative word here) find himself *posted* close enough to his old residence that he MAY still be able to live in it. That is NOT applicable to you, ergo the benefit entitlement is NOT applicable to you.

You CHOOSE to live in Edmonton with it's high cost of living, you are not subject to being* forced * to move anywhere where the cost of living MAY be higher.

HE didn't have a choice as to where the CF posted him upon joining the RegF. You as a ResF member --- willifully joined a ResF Unit located in your hometown of Edmonton. The cirucmstances between the 2 of you are VASTLY different.


----------



## Gunner (3 Jan 2008)

I think enough people have responded to Mistake.


----------



## baccalieu (3 Jan 2008)

simysmom99 said:
			
		

> There seems to be a great sense of entitlement going on here.  We are lucky that we work for DND.  I don't know of too many other companies who top up your salaries when you move to another "more expensive" region.



Other than the Military and possibly the RCMP, you wont find any other Federal employees who receive top ups or living allowances when relocated to non-Arctic or isolated postings in Canada . If there are others, their numbers would be very low..



> By 10:33 a.m. yesterday, Canada's top 100 CEOs had earned $38,998 -- the same pile of money it will take the average full-time worker all year to make, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said yesterday in a report.



How many military pers earn this "average" Canadian wage of $38,998, sh.t most privates make more than that.


----------



## Mistake (3 Jan 2008)

Why is it that so many people have so much to say when a lowly maggot tries to get a few bucks that everyone else already gets.  You'd think it was your money and that I forced you to read my whiney little complaint session.  Let me ask you this, how does it effect you in any way?  Why are you so pissed off. 

From Yukon
"Suck it up, so over the course of your year and a half of work up training and deployment your out about $3000..."

I don't know where you come from but three grand is a lot of money to me.  Words are cheap but $3712 would go a long way.  Im not crying over having to pay for a meal or about having to buy my own name tag,  this is big money.  I don't think I will suck it up, I think Ill go for the money instead.  Can you honestly tell me that you would just roll over and give up enough money to pay for a year of University or three months of mortgage payments.  YEAH RIGHT!

From ArmyVern
"There's a BIG difference --- the CF is NOT forcing you to live there, you have a choice in the matter."

Where's the choice.  Maybe I could manipulate the system and 'move' another 25 km from the city so that I would qualify for TD and R&Q but I don't think it should have to come to that.  As it stands, for the duration of my contract I have no choice but to reside in Edmonton.  Besides, I didn't choose to stay in Edmonton.  I volunteered for deployment and by chance was attached to a unit at the Garrison here.  Im not going to lie, I like being here, but don't try to tell me that it was my choice.  

From George Wallace,
"They are not unfair, nor unjustified.  It is your interpretation of them that is ill-informed,"

Yes, of course it is my interpretation.  It just so happens that my interpretation, unlike yours,  is shared by the CFGB.  Regardless of what both you and I have to say about each others 'ill-informed' judgments surely you must agree that the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is an authority on the issue and must therefore have a better understanding of the underlying complexities than either you or I.  

Also From George Wallace,
"WERE NOT FORCED are the key words there."

You missed my point, or maybe I explained myself poorly. Ill try again. Assume tomorrow I went RegF, I name either 1 or 3 VP as my preference and they let me keep my CPLs and keep my courses.  My choice, right.  Technically the army could tell me that Im actually going to be a Van Doo, but that doesn't happen, at least not lately.  So I stay in Edmonton and I sign a contract.  I do pretty much the same job and work the same hours and live in the same place but I would instantly qualify for PLD.  BOOM-5% raise.  I guess it could just be me, but I definitely see a double standard here.  

I realize that this is not always how it works and that we can't always choose our postings, but there is often a choice and it doesn't disqualify a RegF M like it does a ResF M.

Also From George Wallace,
"The Government wants to cut waste and costs.  Your application and contract was one method to do so." 

Hey, I've got an idea.  We could just deduct a few thousand bucks from your next paycheque, you know, in the name of saving money.   I realize the army is cheap, good on them, but why is it a waste if the money is given to me, but perfectly justifiable when given to everybody else.  

Im still on leave for a few days so I could keep this up forever, but Im sure we all have better things to do so unless one of you guys address me directly Ill give it up and save my complaining for elsewhere.  I cant imagine that bickering with you guys will get me anywhere anyways.

Enjoy the rest of your holidays.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Jan 2008)

Mistake, all I can suggest is that if you don't like the advice you are receiving here, then you should be prepared to submit a grievance on the matter when you return to work.  Then you can put your effort toward seeking a change in the system.

Grievance Manual


----------



## Gunner (3 Jan 2008)

> Yes, of course it is my interpretation.  It just so happens that my interpretation, unlike yours,  is shared by the CFGB.  Regardless of what both you and I have to say about each others 'ill-informed' judgments surely you must agree that the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is an authority on the issue and must therefore have a better understanding of the underlying complexities than either you or I.



Irregardless that the CFGB shares your opinion, the CDS shares George's.  That's the one that counts for a redress of grievance.

Mistake, you are wrong as many people here are trying to tell you.  If you don't like it, submit a redress but be aware the same redress has been submitted before and not supported because you have not been unfairly treated.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (3 Jan 2008)

Let me share a little perspective.   One of my junior hands a few years ago joined the navy from Victoria, this is in the days when Reg force BMQ's were conducted all over the place due to backlogs, he did his BMQ in Victoria, OSQAB, QL3 in Victoria, he was posted to a west Coast ship in Victoria,  he did not recieve PLD for a couple of years.  Sometimes the rules don't work the way we wan't them too, even for the reg force.


----------



## -rb (3 Jan 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Sometimes the rules don't work the way we wan't them too, even for the reg force.



True enough, for as far as I know Reg Force members living in single q's are excluded from PLD as well. That being said, I would assume a reservist attach posted to a base living in a single q would also not be eligible for PLD?


----------



## stealthylizard (3 Jan 2008)

I can't wait to learn all this administrative stuff.  I forget most of what I learned when I was in the PR back in the 90's, and a lot of it has probably changed.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jan 2008)

Mistake said:
			
		

> Why is it that so many people have so much to say when a lowly maggot tries to get a few bucks that everyone else already gets.  You'd think it was your money and that I forced you to read my whiney little complaint session.  Let me ask you this, how does it effect you in any way?  Why are you so pissed off.



If you didn't want the advice or for us to 'care' -- why'd you post it? Hoping some of us would back you up _just because_?? It seems to me that you posted with the hopes of hearing differently and having members back you up by saying "Oh look how the CFs screwing him around....", but it would seem to me that you aren't very happy to find out that the CF isn't screwing you around at all and that we don't prescribe to your sense of entitlement to this benfit.



> From ArmyVern
> "There's a BIG difference --- the CF is NOT forcing you to live there, you have a choice in the matter."
> 
> Where's the choice.  Maybe I could manipulate the system and 'move' another 25 km from the city so that I would qualify for TD and R&Q but I don't think it should have to come to that.  As it stands, for the duration of my contract I have no choice but to reside in Edmonton.  Besides, I didn't choose to stay in Edmonton.  I volunteered for deployment and by chance was attached to a unit at the Garrison here.  Im not going to lie, I like being here, but don't try to tell me that it was my choice.



Go ahead and move another 25km -- you wouldn't be entitled to TD or R&Q at that point either because you'd be doing that by choice. Do you get it yet? There is a world of difference between "personal choice" and "ordered to report for duty at location XXX". Your living situation has nothing to do with the CF. YOU are there by your choice, and were also so before the CF came into the picture. Did you join the CF ResF simply in expectation that they would then begin paying you extra to compensate you for choices *you* made rather than decisions THEY made for you? If you couldn't afford Edmonton -- you as a ResF member had the opportunity to say "no" to a C Class contract there (if you are originally from outside of Edmonton) -- you chose not to. And that CHOICE is NOT applicable to members of the CF who finds themselves with posting messages in hand -- they either "GO" or "Get Out". Your situation is not comparable.



> Enjoy the rest of your holidays.



You too.


----------



## navy-nesop (4 Jan 2008)

Here is my 2c,

Reservist service is part-time, is it not.  Unless you get class C, I believe.  Can anyone find another part time job that compares to the Military.  I don't think McDonald's treats their employees as good as the Military does.  On top of that, if you want, you can get hired full time by a simple transfer.  They will even recognise your part-time spent with them.  After the reg forces, you can transfer back to reserve so you can relaxe and enjoy the rest of your carrier.

My thinking is "if you don't like your job or the conditions, quit!"

I probably have a few reasons of my own to complain.  You can read an another post I did. http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/69215.0.html

But the way I see it.  Conditions are great if you add all of them together, the friendship is exceptional and they might even let me shoot a missile again some day.

Think of what you have instead of what you could have.

this is navy-nesop, over


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2008)

Navy-NESOP:

You're a little out of your lanes here.

There are three classes of Reserve service, labelled A, B and C.  Class A is the traditional part-time model.

Class C is employment on operations (including prep and post-deplyoment).

Class B is other full-time service - whether on course, in support of the Reserves, or, increasingly, supporting the Regular Force, largely by backfilling the many holes in the Reg F structure.

Right now over 40% of certain rank levels in the LFC Primary Reserve are employed on full-time service (class B or class C).  To be blunt, the CF would collapse without the thousands of full-time Reserve personnel working today.  CFRCs are manned by hundreds of reservists; hundreds more work in the training system.  Others work at bases and at all levels of HQs.

Unfortunately, many of the senior advisors who are "reservists" in NDHQ have never served a single day of class A service in their lvies.  Rather, they are ex-Regular Force members who are double-dipping:  collecting a full pension for their Reg F service while working full-time as a Reservist (for 330 days per year).  Someone with a 30 year Reg F career will earn 135% of their former pay as a full-time Reservist (pay and pension) - is it any wonder that theyt don't see the need for PLD and certain other benefits for Reservists?  They are better off, with more time off (paid and unpaid) than ever before.

I don't begrudge PLD or other benefits to the Reg F.  But for how long?  We have Reg F pers refusing postings - shouldn't that be grounds to terminate PLD?


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2008)

Just to add:

Class A and Class B are paid an equivalent of 85% of what their compatible Regular Force pay is through the Reserve Pay System.

Class C is paid the same as Regular Force from the Regular Force Pay System.  This causes some problems on termination of contracts.

Most points regarding entitlements to PLD have already been covered ad nauseum already, but suffice it to say, personal choices by the member do have consequences on one's entitlements, be they Regular or Reserve Force.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Jan 2008)

Just one more thing don't forget the elusive class B/A position  ;D


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (4 Jan 2008)

A the good old class B annotated A, had a few of those myself.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2008)

(we're veering off topic here):  There are both class B annotated A and class B positions out there.  Even the "short term" class B positions can be establoshed for up to 3 years.  Relocation benefits attach to any position of over 12 months, including PLD.  (There we go - back on topic!)


----------



## darmil (4 Jan 2008)

Mistake just suck it up. like me get through the tour then like me can go back to making the same as a major let the gov't keep the $200.


----------



## NCRCrow (4 Jan 2008)

$374 for Halifax is a joke. This town (province) is overtaxed and corrupt!  Gas just hit 116 here! 

But I remember when it was called Triple A and it was 30 dollars. 

Now I heard a fiflty rumour about paying for parking in Dockyard! 1.50 for the bridges. Maybe I should get a bus pass!

Nah!


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (4 Jan 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> $374 for Halifax is a joke. This town (province) is overtaxed and corrupt!  Gas just hit 116 here!
> 
> But I remember when it was called Triple A and it was 30 dollars.
> 
> ...



You are correct about the parking but it's not just for the dockyards.

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/029-09_e.asp


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Jan 2008)

That CFAO came out in 96, when are they going to start charging people for parking?

Its been a while since I have wandered around Halifax, but when I was there, the transit system did not provide regular service to dockyard, they only ran buses in the morning and quitting time.  Has this changed?

Paying 1.50 for the bridge is robbery, considering the same bridge in Vancouver got rid of its toll in 1963.

Taken from the CFAO
9. Exemptions. In accordance with the discretionary authority that has been granted to the Deputy Minister to cover specific situations, an exemption of parking charges applies:

   1. to large installations at bases and dockyards, where parts of their installation are more than 500 metres away from a regularly scheduled public transit service stop, and where there is sufficient parking to meet reasonable demand. This exemption does not apply to a unit geographically separate from the base that does not meet these criteria. It applies to bases and the lodger and integral units supported by these bases provided.


----------



## twizted (4 Jan 2008)

"I don't begrudge PLD or other benefits to the Reg F.  But for how long?  We have Reg F pers refusing postings - shouldn't that be grounds to terminate PLD?"


Can you  explain me the correlation between Reg F pers refusing postings and grounds to terminate PLD ? 

Thank you !


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2008)

If we say "a reservist has roots in community X, therefore we won't pay PLD" and a Reg F member says "I like it in X, so don't post me or I'll release" I'd argue the logical consequence should be "If you stay in X, you'll lose PLD - which we pay to people forced to be there".

If you want the pay and benefits of the Regular Force, you have to accept the related turmoil of postings.  You can't pick and choose only the good parts.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (4 Jan 2008)

I could be wrong here, and way out of my lane, but a mbr can only refuse a posting once (please correct me if I'm wrong). In the trade I was in a carreer mgr with some spine told those guys who pulled the "if you post me I'll get out" garbage that the door was wide open don't let the knob hit you on the way out.  Food for thought.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jan 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I could be wrong here, and way out of my lane, but a mbr can only refuse a posting once (please correct me if I'm wrong). In the trade I was in a carreer mgr with some spine told those guys who pulled the "if you post me I'll get out" garbage that the door was wide open don't let the knob hit you on the way out.  Food for thought.



I know this is an off topic reply, but... there is no absolute entitlement to refuse a posting once in a career. While many distressed trades try to accommodate members who do the "post me and I'll bet out" thing, many don't. I was just speaking with my career manager about this very thing, and they are being pushed to force people's hands. My trade is at 50% PML, and he issued a couple of releases this year alone.

Anyhow, back on topic. Clearly the PLD instruction requires a modernization. It doesn't address the Class C issue well enough.


----------



## NCRCrow (4 Jan 2008)

Refusing a posting (without serious validation) or "post me back to sea or I will get out threats"

GET THE F*CK OUT!


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jan 2008)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I could be wrong here, and way out of my lane, but a mbr can only refuse a posting once (please correct me if I'm wrong).



No, no such policy exists. As a matter of fact, refusing a promotion for the express purpose of evading a posting is also an official no-no.



> I don't begrudge PLD or other benefits to the Reg F.  But for how long?  We have Reg F pers refusing postings - shouldn't that be grounds to terminate PLD?"



WTF does that have to do with PLD ?


----------



## navy-nesop (5 Jan 2008)

I may be wrong but the purpose of PDL is to make it more fair for every military personnel.  Take a Cpl and a LS for this example.  One is in Valcartier and the other one in Victoria.  Their monthly pay is the same, but the outcome at the end of the month is different.  One can get a place for 450$ a month, the other one it's 950$, one can get car insurance for 225$ a year, the other one it's 850$.  One can get a poutine for 3,50$ the other one it's 10$ (for the real stuff anyway).

Let me tell you, I' m an OS, incentive one with two kids and my wife dos not work yet.  Without PDL it would be impossible for me to afford living in Victoria.

So, they don't give us PLD because they like us that much and they want us to be happy.  It's a necessary measure if they want to have sailors around and people in other cities where it cost a lot to live.

They can't have different rules for every situation, so if you are reg force and live in one of those designated city, you get it.  Does not matter if you refused a posting or you come from a wealthy family.

For the reserve part, I'm not well informed to comment too much but if you want PDL join the reg force!


----------



## BinRat55 (5 Jan 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> $374 for Halifax is a joke. This town (province) is overtaxed and corrupt!  Gas just hit 116 here!



A whole $1.16??   You must be mortified.  We here in Gander are used to it though.  We have not been lower than $1.16 since the summer.  It actually went down a penny when the HST went down on the first, but in good faith, it was raised back up the day later by 2 cents.  We are at $1.20 here.  Oh, Gander gets nothing for PLD.  Wanna house?  It'll cost ya - about 200G.  Nothing like Edmonton, but still... do you use heating oil?  It costs me $800 to fill my tank - and let me tell you, this winter its pretty much monthly.  It hurts financially to live here in Gander and what puts salt in the wounds is that Grand Falls (90K away) receives PLD, Corner Brook receives PLD and St John's receives PLD.


----------



## prarie chimo (21 Jan 2008)

also the PMQ's are priced to match the market.  in edmonton a three bedroom duplex is 725, but in gagetown its 400


----------



## brian_k (21 Jan 2008)

How do I find out if I get PLD in Edmonton? Is there a something on the internet I can refer to (i dont have easy access to the DIN).


----------



## Teflon (21 Jan 2008)

brian_k said:
			
		

> How do I find out if I get PLD in Edmonton? Is there a something on the internet I can refer to (i dont have easy access to the DIN).



Yup - go or call your Orderly Room they should not only be able to answer your question but start the process if you do


----------



## PO2FinClk (21 Jan 2008)

brian_k said:
			
		

> How do I find out if I get PLD in Edmonton? Is there a something on the internet I can refer to (i dont have easy access to the DIN).


To add to Teflon's post,

You can refer to CBI's through the internet (and Google) and get this: http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&sidecat=22&chapter=205

Or to this thread which is found in the proper administration forum: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52775.0.html

A quick search would of answered your questions which you obviously did not do.


----------



## prarie chimo (22 Jan 2008)

the current PLD rate in edmonton is $232 before taxes


----------



## prarie chimo (22 Jan 2008)

and you actually have to fill out a request form


----------



## PO2FinClk (22 Jan 2008)

prairie chimo said:
			
		

> and you actually have to fill out a request form


So no different then anywhere else then.


----------



## Springroll (30 Jan 2008)

I was in the BOR here in Vic on friday, and was told by the clerk that the back PLD money was due to be deposited at the end of Feb and that the new mthly PLD amt was going to take effect come the mid Feb pay. 

Is there some truth to this?


----------



## PO2FinClk (31 Jan 2008)

> CCPS Advisory - E00708
> Advisory list
> Date: 28 Jan 2008
> Subject: Revised Post Living Differential (PLD) rates effective 1 Jul 07
> ...


----------



## Springroll (31 Jan 2008)

Thanks a bunch, PO!!!

 ;D


----------



## scas (11 Mar 2008)

Does anyone have the new rates about PLD for April 1 08?? We just received word about an increase that comes into effect as of Apr 1, and seeing if anyone knows the rates??


----------



## PO2FinClk (11 Mar 2008)

Look up CBI's, they are listed there. They are also all listed in another thread of PLD in this very forum.

Search function would of answered your question.


----------



## scas (11 Mar 2008)

I know about the original increase, but theres info being passed on about an New increase effective April 1 08. I tried the search function and was able to find anything about this increase.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Mar 2008)

Any 01 Apr 08 change to PLD has yet to be officially promulgated.  There will be a CANFORGEN and an update to the CMP Compensation and Benefits website (DWAN) once it's announced.


----------



## Ammo (11 Mar 2008)

I was checking CMP's web site and it states:
Updated PLD rates effective 1 July 2007 are contained in the table to CBI 205.45. These rates reflect the new methodology. Where members currently in receipt of PLD will see decreases, transitional measures have been incorporated into a new CBI 205.452. In general, decreases will be phased in over a three-year period. Officers in the rank of captain or above, and non-commissioned members in the rank of warrant officer or above will have decreases phased in starting 1 April 2008. Officers in rank of lieutenant or below, and non-commissioned member in the rank of sergeant or below will have decreases phased in starting 1 April 2009. For Captain (Navy) and Colonel and above living in the National Capital Region (NCR), the new PLD rate for that location will be implemented in full as of 1 April 2008. For details see CBI 205.452.
CBI 205.452 is available on the INTRANET at http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/cbi_chapter-205_e.asp?sidesection=6&section=3. I am sure that it is also available on the internet but I don't have the address right now


----------



## PO2FinClk (12 Mar 2008)

Ammo, I believe they are referring to yet to be released amended rates to those you are referencing which were extensively covered in another thread.


----------



## resolute (18 Mar 2008)

Greetings All,

I am a 4th year medical student, about to start my family medicine residency in Toronto (I haven't been matched to a particular hospital yet, but am hoping for east-end / Scarborough area).  Obviously, the housing market is quite expensive there, and I am hoping for a 3-bedroom place (my wife and I have one kid and another on the way).

I am torn between living in the Oshawa area (cheaper market) and commuting everyday (not very practical for on-call duties), vs. finding a "cheap" place in a sketchy area in Toronto / Scarborough.

I have looked everywhere (on-line and on this site in particular) but have been unable to find a PLD map for GTA detailing the 5 different "zones" of living expense.  On page 11 of this thread Aerobicrunner posted a link to such a map, but it was an "intranet" link.  Like most students sponsored by the CF, I don't have access to any of the intranet stuff, or a CF computer account.  We must rely on information given to us by our cell clerks / university liaison officers, who are perpetually overworked and aren't always able to respond to our requests in a timely manner.

Is anybody knowledgeable about the Toronto PLD situation?  Obviously, I will need to wait for my posting instruction, etc., before making any financial commitments, but if I know what areas are eligible, I can begin my research ahead of time.

Thanks.


----------



## Aerobicrunner (18 Mar 2008)

Unless someone does it before I get to work tommorow, I will see if I can put the map on this thread.


----------



## acheo (19 Mar 2008)

I missunderstood your question and posted the PLD's instead.



> ALDERGROVE, 207, 155
> BARRIE/BORDEN, 87, 65
> BRANTFORD, 114, 86
> CALGARY, 595, 446
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Mar 2008)

Thank you Acheo, that was posted at reply #183. Now, to answer Resolute's question, can you define the geographical areas for these:



> TORONTO AREA ONE, 1586, 1190
> TORONTO AREA TWO, 670, 503
> TORONTO AREA THREE, 543, 407
> TORONTO AREA FOUR, 1006, 755
> TORONTO AREA FIVE, 1377, 1033


----------



## acheo (19 Mar 2008)

my mistake


----------



## exgunnertdo (19 Mar 2008)

There's a link to the map (DWAN only, unfortunately), post 164 on page 11 of this thread.  
Here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52775/post-647589.html#msg647589

Edit - OK, oops, the person asking the original question had already found that, sorry!  I was responding to the last bit and didn't read the previous posts!


----------



## Sub_Guy (31 Mar 2008)

2008/2009 Rates   -------  Still no Comox.....

ALDERGROVE, 418, 314
CALGARY, 711, 533
CAMBRIDGE, 71, 53
COLD LAKE, 319, 239
EDMONTON, 684, 513
GUELPH, 167, 125
HALIFAX, 631, 473
HAMILTON, 414, 311
KAMLOOPS/KELOWNA, 525, 394
KITCHENER, 62, 47
LETHBRIDGE, 234, 176
MEAFORD, 77, 58
MEDICINE HAT, 145, 109
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE, 505, 379
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE, 376, 282
MOOSE JAW, 284, 213
NANAIMO, 75, 56
PAGE 3 RCCLHAV6004 UNCLAS
QUEBEC CITY/VALCARTIER, 117, 88
RED DEER, 327, 245
REGINA, 62, 47
SASKATOON, 382, 287
SEPT-ILES, 107, 80
ST JOHNS, 149, 112
STRATFORD, 82, 62
TORONTO AREA ONE, 1485, 1114
TORONTO AREA TWO, 506, 380
TORONTO AREA THREE, 522, 392
TORONTO AREA FOUR, 819, 614
TORONTO AREA FIVE, 1167, 875
VANCOUVER, 1083, 812
VICTORIA/ESQUIMALT, 816, 612


----------



## MJP (31 Mar 2008)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> 2008/2009 Rates   -------  Still no Comox.....
> EDMONTON, 684, 513



Wow that is quite a large jump just under 200% of the last amount. Not to mention the PLD rates even came out before the beginning of the fiscal year!  Will wonders ever cease.


----------



## Gunner98 (31 Mar 2008)

Those of us in the Upper Ottawa Valley - North Bay and Petawawa - _we don't need no stinkin' handouts_... 'cause then we would need somewhere to spend it.


----------



## Gunner (31 Mar 2008)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> 2008/2009 Rates   -------  Still no Comox.....
> EDMONTON, 684, 513



Almost makes me wish I stayed in...


----------



## scoutfinch (31 Mar 2008)

Am I reading this correctly??  PLD has jumped from $347 to $631 for Halifax for this year?


----------



## Pea (31 Mar 2008)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> 2008/2009 Rates   -------  Still no Comox.....
> EDMONTON, 684, 513



Wow, that puts a whole other perspective on possibly being posted to Edmonton! Very nice to see.


----------



## NCRCrow (31 Mar 2008)

I Love Halifax! :


----------



## JustAnotherZoomie (31 Mar 2008)

Pte Pea said:
			
		

> Wow, that puts a whole other perspective on possibly being posted to Edmonton! Very nice to see.



Yes, certainly puts a whole 'nother spin on a posting from Halifax to Ottawa, too.

Just out of curiosity, if a Reg F member with >20 yrs service decided to pull the plug and take a Class B reserve position (3 year contract) in their current location, would they retain PLD since they were moved to the area at Crown expense?


----------



## Gunner (31 Mar 2008)

JAZ, it's best to ask your OR that question.  I know if you leave the Reg F and go Cl B you can have your final move postponed while you are on Cl B.  If you did that, it would make sense that you would still collect PLD.


----------



## Springroll (31 Mar 2008)

Is there a CANFORGEN for these new rates???

*edit for spelling


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Apr 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Is there a CANFORGEN for these new rates???
> 
> *edit for spelling



UNCLAS CANFORGEN 061/08 CMP 024/08


----------



## kincanucks (1 Apr 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Is there a CANFORGEN for these new rates???
> 
> *edit for spelling



http://vcds.dwan.dnd.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2008/061-08_e.asp


----------



## radop215 (1 Apr 2008)

when does it become effective?


----------



## Gunner (1 Apr 2008)

CANFORGEN 061/08 CMP 024/08 311241Z MAR 08 POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL (PLD) 2008/2009 RATES UNCLASSIFIED
REFS: A. CBI 205.45 (POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL) <http://hr3.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/includes/cbi_coverpage_e.asp?sid
esection=6&docid=4>
B. CBI 205.452 (TRANSITIONAL POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL) <http://hr3.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/includes/cbi_coverpage_e.asp?sid
esection=6&docid=4>
C. CANFORGEN 182/07 CMP 077/07 031554Z DEC 07 </vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2007/182-07_e.asp>  
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO PROMULGATE REVISED PLD RATES, *EFFECTIVE 1 APR 08*, WHICH WERE DETERMINED FROM THE ANNUAL COST OF LIVING SURVEY CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REF A. 
2. THE CURRENT PLD METHODOLOGY BETTER REFLECTS ACTUAL YEAR-TO-YEAR FLUCTUATIONS IN THE COST OF LIVING WITHIN THE VARIOUS CF DUTY AREAS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WITH RAPIDLY GROWING LOCAL ECONOMIES. NEVERTHELESS, PLD RATES ARE NOW SUBJECT TO GREATER VOLATILITY THAN IN PAST YEARS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, PERSONNEL SHOULD GUARD AGAINST MAKING LONG-TERM FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS BASED ON PLD. 
3. IAW REF A THE FOLLOWING RATES ARE EFFECTIVE 1 APR 08, READ IN THREE COLUMNS: PLD AREA, FULL RATE, SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT RATE:

ALDERGROVE, 418, 314
CALGARY, 711, 533
CAMBRIDGE, 71, 53
COLD LAKE, 319, 239
EDMONTON, 684, 513
GUELPH, 167, 125
HALIFAX, 631, 473
HAMILTON, 414, 311
KAMLOOPS/KELOWNA, 525, 394
KITCHENER, 62, 47
LETHBRIDGE, 234, 176
MEAFORD, 77, 58
MEDICINE HAT, 145, 109
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE, 505, 379
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE, 376, 282
MOOSE JAW, 284, 213
NANAIMO, 75, 56
QUEBEC CITY/VALCARTIER, 117, 88
RED DEER, 327, 245
REGINA, 62, 47
SASKATOON, 382, 287
SEPT-ILES, 107, 80
ST JOHNS, 149, 112
STRATFORD, 82, 62
TORONTO AREA ONE, 1485, 1114
TORONTO AREA TWO, 506, 380
TORONTO AREA THREE, 522, 392
TORONTO AREA FOUR, 819, 614
TORONTO AREA FIVE, 1167, 875
VANCOUVER, 1083, 812
VICTORIA/ESQUIMALT, 816, 612 
4. TRANSITIONAL PLD (TPLD) HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AT LOCATIONS THAT
ARE EXPERIENCING DECREASES IN PLD RATES AS A RESULT OF THE NEW PLD METHODOLOGY. THE TPLD RATES CAN BE FOUND AT REF B. ELIGIBLE PERSONNEL SHALL RECEIVE THE GREATER OF THE ABOVE RATES (WHICH WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE TABLE TO REF A) AND THE RATES AT REF B FOR THE APPLICABLE PERIOD AND RANK GROUP. THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE TPLD:

BARRIE/BORDEN
BRANTFORD
CAMBRIDGE
CORNERBROOK
GRAND FALL/WINDSOR
GUELPH
KINGSTON
KITCHENER
LONDON
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE
NIAGARA/ST CATHARINES
NORTH BAY
OTTAWA/GATINEAU
PETERBOROUGH
QUEBEC CITY/VALCARTIER
SEPT-ILES
ST JOHNS
ST-HYACINTHE
STRATFORD
TORONTO AREA ONE
TORONTO AREA TWO
TORONTO AREA THREE
TORONTO AREA FOUR
TORONTO AREA FIVE
WINDSOR 

5. GIVEN THAT CF PERSONNEL ARE ENTITLED TO THE GREATER OF EITHER PLD OR TPLD FOR THEIR LOCATION, THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS WILL RECEIVE PLD OVER TPLD FOR THIS YEAR:

HALIFAX
HAMILTON
NANAIMO
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE 

6. LOCATIONS NOT LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE ARE NOT PLD OR TPLD AREAS, AND PERSONNEL AT THESE LOCATIONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EITHER ALLOWANCE. 
7. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, PLD RATES MAY NOW BE SUBJECTED TO SIGNIFICANT INCREASES OR DECREASES FROM YEAR-TO-YEAR, CF PERSONNEL ARE HEREBY ADVISED NOT TO MAKE LONG-TERM FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS BASED ON THE ABOVE RATES. 
8. SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Apr 2008)

radop215 said:
			
		

> when does it become effective?



01 Apr 08 (no its not retro at all)


----------



## Soldiergirl (2 Apr 2008)

Can someone tell me if the BARRIE/BORDEN get this?? If so what is the rate?

Sorry I can never really understand these things.


----------



## Gunner (3 Apr 2008)

See paragraph 4 for your answer.


----------



## SigOp_Geek (8 Apr 2008)

as others have noted, I was shocked to see the revised rates released so quickly!  now, of course, the question becomes:  "when will we see the new rate implemented?"  (I checked April's pay and the old amount of $232 is what I received)  

The biggest reason I ask is that back pay always seems to be taxed at around 50% whereas my monthly pay is taxed at a MUCH lower rate (something silly like 23%) and extra cash for luxuries and increased bill payments is always a good thing


----------



## NCRCrow (8 Apr 2008)

I went from 371 to 300 even though PLD went to 631.

Funny world...pay office assures me, Mid June everything will be straightened out


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2008)

I beieve there is a MARGEN out stating the new rates will kick in 01 May, with the retro amount for Apr 08 on the May pay run.

The 100% Halifax rate was actually $374   ;D but the new rate is $631 for 100%.


----------



## PO2FinClk (9 Apr 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I beieve there is a MARGEN out stating the new rates will kick in 01 May


Perhaps forthcoming, but not as of this moment.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2008)

I received my mid Apr pay statement, and for Apr I am getting the old (i.e. before 01 Apr 08) amount for the Halifax (I am a 75% type) of $281.  

PO2FinClerk,

My bad, I meant to say MARLANTGEN.


----------



## PumpKickr (10 Apr 2008)

For info.  Anyone else think switching to a 1 year average vice a rolling average is a horrible idea. Its going to be jumping up and down all over the place.

SUBJ: POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL (PLD) RATE CHANGE FOR HALIFAX

REFERENCES: A. CBI 205.452 (TRANSITIONAL POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL)
B. CANFORGEN 061/08 CMP 024/08 311241Z MAR 08
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION TO THE 
PROMULGATED REVISED PLD RATES FOR HALIFAX.
2. REFERENCE A IDENTIFIED HALIFAX AS AN AREA OF TRANSITION, ONE THAT
WAS 
EXPECTED TO INCUR A DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF PLD, WHEN UTILIZING
THE 
ACTUAL YEAR-TO-YEAR FLUCTUATIONS IN THE COST OF LIVING. HALIFAX HAD
A 
PAGE 2 RCEOCEA5111 UNCLAS 
TRANSITIONAL PLD RATE ESTABLISHED AT 300 DOLLARS PER MONTH (TABLE TO
REF 
A) IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE ANY LARGE DECREASES IN THE FORECASTED
NEGATIVE 
CHANGES IN PLD. THE EXPECTATION WAS THAT HALIFAX WOULD DECREASE
BELOW 
THE TRANSITIONAL RATE ONCE THE ECONOMIC FIGURES AND METHODOLOGY WAS 
TABULATED.
3. THE RESULTS HAVE PRODUCED THE OPPOSITE OF THE ORIGINAL
EXPECTATION 
DUE TO A DECREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING OF THE BASELINED CITY
OTTAWA. 
THIS DECREASE COMBINED WITH THE USE OF ONE YEARS STATISTICS VICE A 
ROLLING AVERAGE HAS TRANSLATED INTO A NEW FULL PLD RATE OF 631
DOLLARS 
PER MONTH AS PER REF B. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE NEW RATE WILL BE 
REFLECTED IN MID MAY 08 PAY. PERSONNEL WHO FALL INTO GROUP A 
(LT(N)/CAPT,PO1/WO AND ABOVE) WILL EXPERIENCE A PLD REDUCTION TO THE
PAGE 3 RCEOCEA5111 UNCLAS 
300 
DOLLAR TRANSISTIONAL RATE VICE THE OLD PLD RATE OF 374 FOR APRIL 08.

THIS ERROR DUE TO BATCH PAY POSTINGS WILL BE CORRECTED ASAP.
4. THIS EXPERIENCE CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THE VOLATILITY OF THE NEW PLD 
RATES WHICH CAN BE AFFECTED DUE TO THE COST OF LIVING RISING OR 
DECREASING NOT ONLY IN THE LOCAL AREA BUT IN THE BASELINE CITY. IT
ALSO 
SERVES TO HIGHLIGHT THE NEED TO GUARD AGAINST MAKING LONG-TERM
FINANCIAL 
COMMITMENTS BASED ON PLD, AS THE ALLOWANCE IS SUBJECT TO LARGE 
FLUCTUATIONS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
END OF ENGLISH TEXT


----------



## bdcasey916 (10 Apr 2008)

If you read the MARLANTGEN for Halifax, which I have sitting on my desk, it states that the new rate will "New Rate will be reflected in MID MAY 08 PAY.  I still get PLD as my POR is still Halifax while I finish my training and I spoke with the Borden Pay Office this morning and they assured me that in Mid May it would be taken care of as Ottawa has to change it in the Pay System, not the local Pay Office.  But don't shot the messenger, I am just quoting what I was told my clerk in the BOR.


----------



## PO2FinClk (10 Apr 2008)

Everything you have just mentioned is also stated the in the message posted just above by PumpKickr.


----------



## bdcasey916 (10 Apr 2008)

My apologies I brought up the post, but didn't read it all as I was busy at work.  I guess I should pay attention to detail a little more


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Apr 2008)

Yes I was very surprised to get 300 in my statement yesterday....I'm glad someone explained it cause I was going to have a word with the pay folks this morning after seeing the message bumping it up to over 600...thanks for posting everyone.


----------



## volition (28 Apr 2008)

Ok, here's my question...If you enrolled from New Brunswick, then doing ojt in St-Jean, then you decide to move all your things to Victoria, BC (Cause gf got a job there), I'm I entitled to PLD, of if I go there to do OJT? THanx.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Apr 2008)

Its based where YOU are POSTED


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

There are so many questions I have to this one.  I won't wade in other than to say I am betting any RMS Clerk who replies or other mbr is going to ask you to clarify and answer some questions.  The first one is 'where are you officially posted to now', are you on restricted move/posting and are you posted to Vic once training complete?


----------



## volition (28 Apr 2008)

I was posted to the Language school, now Im posted to CMR St-jean on IR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2008)

IIRC there is no PLD if you are posted to the St-Jean area.  Where your GF is working has no bearing.  So, until you are posted to Vic, no PLD.


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2008)

volition said:
			
		

> I was posted to the Language school, now Im posted to CMR St-jean on IR.



Uhh... isn't CMR Campus the location of the language school?


----------



## armyvern (28 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Uhh... isn't CMR Campus the location of the language school?



There's quite a few language schools in the CF where one can be posted to for the year long french course etc.

One right here in my neck of the woods.


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2008)

volition said:
			
		

> Ok, here's my question...If you enrolled from New Brunswick, then doing ojt in St-Jean, then you decide to move all your things to Victoria, BC (Cause gf got a job there), I'm I entitled to PLD, of if I go there to do OJT? THanx.



Ummm.... 
Enrolled in NB - Check
Posted to St Jean for OJT - Check
GF Moves to Victoria BC for a job.... _ Huh?

What does the location of your GF have to do with anything.
If you haven't been posted to the west coast, why would the crown move your GF at crown expense
Also, if she is your GF and not your wife - common law or otherwise - why would the CF recognize you as living in either NB or BC?


----------



## PO2FinClk (28 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> If you haven't been posted to the west coast, why would the crown move your GF at crown expense


Bingo, unless the DHG&E have been relocated at Crown expense no entitlement exists. 

A quick look at the CBI's or through various threads on this forum would of answered his question:
205.45(3) (Policy) The purpose of the PLD is to reduce the adverse financial impact on military members and their families *when posted to a PLDA* (excluding isolated posts) with a COL above the national average.


----------



## NCRCrow (28 Apr 2008)

I was told by Mid July this would be all rectified. It's like money in the bank!


----------



## Cansky (28 Apr 2008)

volition said:
			
		

> Ok, here's my question...If you enrolled from New Brunswick, then doing ojt in St-Jean, then you decide to move all your things to Victoria, BC (Cause gf got a job there), I'm I entitled to PLD, of if I go there to do OJT? THanx.


I had one of my troops go thru moving F&E (furniture and effects) after enrollment.  Its a nightmare if you haven't contact relocation services first and get permission from the chain of command.  Last time I check (and did speak with relocation services) When you enroll they will only more F&E from location of enrollment.  IF you enrolled in NB and as far as relocation knows that is where you F&E is located then they will only move your stuff from NB.  The troop working for me had his F&E located with his parents and they moved 500km closer to his posting, he had to move his F&E back to his place of enrollment then Relocation services assisted and paid for the remainder of the move.  Remember that this happen 2 years ago and policy changes every year with Royal lepage.  So talk to them and your clerks.  Your MPRR will reflect where your F&E is located.
Kirsten


----------



## geo (28 Apr 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> I was told by Mid July this would be all rectified. It's like money in the bank!



Umm.... of which year ???


----------



## mover1 (28 Apr 2008)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> I had one of my troops go thru moving F&E (furniture and effects) after enrollment.  Its a nightmare if you haven't contact relocation services first and get permission from the chain of command.  Last time I check (and did speak with relocation services) When you enroll they will only more F&E from location of enrollment.  IF you enrolled in NB and as far as relocation knows that is where you F&E is located then they will only move your stuff from NB.  The troop working for me had his F&E located with his parents and they moved 500km closer to his posting, he had to move his F&E back to his place of enrollment then Relocation services assisted and paid for the remainder of the move.  Remember that this happen 2 years ago and policy changes every year with Royal lepage.  So talk to them and your clerks.  Your MPRR will reflect where your F&E is located.
> Kirsten



I call B.S. on this one or your troop did something he wasn't supposed to or misinterpreted the rules.  There are scenarios like this and there are guidelines on how to deal with them. I have never seen someone forced to move their F&E back to thier original point of enrollment just to get it taken to thier first posting.


----------



## BinRat55 (28 Apr 2008)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> I had one of my troops go thru moving F&E (furniture and effects) after enrollment.  Its a nightmare if you haven't contact relocation services first and get permission from the chain of command.  Last time I check (and did speak with relocation services) When you enroll they will only more F&E from location of enrollment.  IF you enrolled in NB and as far as relocation knows that is where you F&E is located then they will only move your stuff from NB.  The troop working for me had his F&E located with his parents and they moved 500km closer to his posting, he had to move his F&E back to his place of enrollment then Relocation services assisted and paid for the remainder of the move.  Remember that this happen 2 years ago and policy changes every year with Royal lepage.  So talk to them and your clerks.  Your MPRR will reflect where your F&E is located.
> Kirsten



I have to agree with mover on this one.  Moved his F&E back to his prior location? To where? His parents moved. Did they rent a storage for a day? Nah... very hard to believe.  If anything, the contractor would have readjusted his values for his envelopes. They will also move dependants too - not just F&E... also, policy with Royal LePage doesn't change every year...


----------



## volition (29 Apr 2008)

Im on IR in St-Jean. My gf(Common-law), my current address is Fredericton, now she`s moving to Victoria(my own expense), all my stuff is going as well, cause the company she works for is paying part of the move.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Apr 2008)

It doesn't matter where your gf/common-law is.  *You* get PLD for where *you* are posted, if applicable.


----------



## Cansky (29 Apr 2008)

Here is the link from Royal Lepage Relocation book for APS 08 http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dcba/pdf/CFIRP_policy_A-PP-005-IRP-AG-001-1_Apr-08_e.pdf
go to pages 87-90. Page 87 states 
When CF members become entitled to move their (D)HG&E they may move from
-the location of LTS(long term storage) or
-the residence that was *occupied by CF member and/or dependents prior to enrollment. * 

Violition I would recommend (as stated in my original post)  Read the relocation booklet (link above) Contact Royal lepage relocation and talk to your clerks.  At the least your Commonlaw spouse can move but put your belongings in LTS in NB to ensure it follows you. 
Kirsten


----------



## geo (29 Apr 2008)

volition said:
			
		

> Im on IR in St-Jean. My gf(Common-law), my current address is Fredericton, now she`s moving to Victoria(my own expense), all my stuff is going as well, cause the company she works for is paying part of the move.



I just hope for your sake that you eventually get posted to Esquimault 
cause the alternatives are....
- you have to move your GF & F&E back to the east coast if that's where you're posted OR
- you lose your GF & possibly your F&E when she dumps you & keeps everything OR
- you quit the CF in order to meet up with the GF...


----------



## mover1 (29 Apr 2008)

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> Here is the link from Royal Lepage Relocation book for APS 08 http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dcba/pdf/CFIRP_policy_A-PP-005-IRP-AG-001-1_Apr-08_e.pdf
> go to pages 87-90. Page 87 states
> When CF members become entitled to move their (D)HG&E they may move from
> -the location of LTS(long term storage) or
> ...



In the case of your private we would do two hypothetical moves,  One from the place of his original employment and the other from his new residence. If the move from his new residence cost less than the move from his original place of enrollment then he pays the crown nothing. 
If it costs more then the extra monies has to be paid by the member. (all we are talking about is the transportation fee. Not the packing or unpacking fee or the insurance or the fuel surcharge etc etc so the cost is minimal)
The member can either ask for reimbursement thought DCBA or see royal lepage to get some funding from one of his envelopes to cover it.  

Just on a quick note of UFI - The average Private moves less than 500 lbs of crap to his initial posting and this costs the department a lot of cash each year.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Apr 2008)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Just on a quick note of UFI - The average Private moves less than 500 lbs of crap to his initial posting and this costs the department a lot of cash each year.



Are you suggesting that we not move their "crap"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Apr 2008)

volition said:
			
		

> Im on IR in St-Jean. My gf(Common-law), my current address is Fredericton, now she`s moving to Victoria(my own expense), all my stuff is going as well, cause the company she works for is paying part of the move.



Posting clear and accurate information is important.  From the CF policy perspective, having a girlfriend makes you single WRT to benefits.  Having common-law status with the CF means you have the correct paperwork filled out correctly, signed off by your CO, copies on your Pers File and your HRMS data changed to reflect your marital status as Common Law.

Now, do you, or do you NOT have common law status IAW CF policy?  (note, if you have not filled out any paperwork and submitted it to your CoC, you likely do not have common law status in the CF.)


----------



## Gunner98 (29 Apr 2008)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Just on a quick note of UFI - The average Private moves less than 500 lbs of crap to his initial posting and this costs the department a lot of cash each year.



Interesting UFI. The average CD wearer moves at least 500 lbs of 'I love me wall/room trinkets,mugs, books, plaques, prints etc. during any/all moves in the latter 20 years of their career.  No one blinks an eye.  The Privates' 500 lbs of crap is his life or all meaningful, mobile parts thereof.  I say it is a small price to pay to allow them to transition to their new life.


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Apr 2008)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Just on a quick note of UFI - The average Private moves less than 500 lbs of crap to his initial posting and this costs the department a lot of cash each year.



Does this include ex-wives??   >


----------



## geo (29 Apr 2008)

Ex wives?

Nope - that's excess baggage - but I am certain you already knew that  :nana:


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Apr 2008)

:rofl:


----------



## mover1 (30 Apr 2008)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that we not move their "crap"?



No I am suggesting that there is a better way  rather than having a moving company come in, have mom or dadd take a day off for an estimate, then a pack and a load. costing us top dollar all for what!  A TV, Bicycle, a boom box  and a videogame system. 


Since the average move is under 500 lbs anyways it should go the same way as UAB. 

Barring there is no CMTT in the area. Pte Bloggins can have mom or dad pack his crap and take it to Greyhound or a trucking company that can do just as well.
Saves time and money for all parties involved, and it would mean a more timelier delivery of said crap as F & E under 500 lbs has a larger delivery window (according to the Transit Time Guide) of when it can show up at the members posting.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Apr 2008)

I think some here may take issue with what you refer to as crap.  Afterall one mans garbage is anothers gold.


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Apr 2008)

I think that these days, more and more people are joining who have a spouse and/or dependents so their moves will be quite a bit larger than the average 500 lbs.  Even a lot of the single people own a house or have an apartment.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Apr 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I think that these days, more and more people are joining who have a spouse and/or dependents so their moves will be quite a bit larger than the average 500 lbs.  Even a lot of the single people own a house or have an apartment.



True, but generally speaking it is still the young, single (wo)man who make up the majority of new enrollees.


----------



## garb811 (30 Apr 2008)

Man, when I joined, I wasn't even told I had the entitlement to move my "crap".  My "crap" sat in my parent's basement for 20 years until my Dad had enough of it and loaded it up and hauled it to me when they came for a visit one summer.  Talk about a gold mine of memories!

Closer to the topic though, is there an entitlement for a recruit to put their stuff into LTS if their parents or whoever moves?


----------



## mover1 (30 Apr 2008)

Yes...


----------



## Tewkster (6 May 2008)

I just got my pay statement for May and the PLD hasn't changed.  Is this the same at all bases with PLD changes or just Halifax?  Are we now waiting until June before the PLD increase kicks in?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2008)

No one in our shop got it either (Halifax as well).  So...thats 2 months backdated increase now.  I guess that MARLANTGEN was just for shits and giggles.

 ;D


----------



## SigOp_Geek (6 May 2008)

Not just you folks...I am in Edmonton and the change still hasn't been done.  The original information I heard was mid-June so I wasn't actually expecting it in May anyways...


----------



## PO2FinClk (6 May 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I guess that MARLANTGEN was just for shits and giggles.


Realise that the MARLANTGEN was only issued based on information provided to MARLANT from DMPAP, and as such have no direct control over the issue.

Any Orderly Room Pay Office should of been able to provide you with this information:


> CCPS Advisory - E02008
> Advisory list
> Date: 30 Apr 2008
> Subject: Transitional PLD (TPLD) Rates 01 Apr 2008
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2008)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Realise that the MARLANTGEN was only issued based on information provided to MARLANT from DMPAP, and as such have no direct control over the issue.
> 
> Any Orderly Room Pay Office *should* of been able to provide you with this information:



I bolded the operative word


----------



## blacktriangle (7 May 2008)

SigOp_Geek said:
			
		

> Not just you folks...I am in Edmonton and the change still hasn't been done.  The original information I heard was mid-June so I wasn't actually expecting it in May anyways...



I'm likely being posted there, is there room to live in shacks or am I going to be forced out into the economy?


----------



## SigOp_Geek (8 May 2008)

Shack space is at a premium here...the last I heard, Cpls and above are forced onto the local economy as they are "more likely to be able to afford it" than Ptes.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 May 2008)

SigOp_Geek said:
			
		

> Shack space is at a premium here...the last I heard, Cpls and above are forced onto the local economy as they are "more likely to be able to afford it" than Ptes.



That's is straight up BS. Check you info before posting.

There are members of all ranks in the shacks in Edmonton, and they will not FORCE you onto local economy if you're a Cpl. However, if a Cpl does take a room in the shacks, they should be prepared to room with Ptes.


----------



## MJP (8 May 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> That's is straight up BS. Check you info before posting.
> 
> There are members of all ranks in the shacks in Edmonton, and they will not FORCE you onto local economy if you're a Cpl. However, if a Cpl does take a room in the shacks, they should be prepared to room with Ptes.



I don't quite think it is entirely BS.  We just got a Cpl re-enrollee back into the platoon and he had to find living accommodations on the economy.  SLI (single living in) quarters are almost full to capacity.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 May 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> I don't quite think it is entirely BS.  We just got a Cpl re-enrollee back into the platoon and he had to find living accommodations on the economy.  SLI (single living in) quarters are almost full to capacity.



I can understand if there's NO accomodations, but that wouldn't just be a rank thing. I know of many Cpls, and a few Jacks living in the W's. None of them have been Forced out.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 May 2008)

Don't they FORCE out pers in Gagetown after 1 year?


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Don't they FORCE out pers in Gagetown after 1 year?



Yep.


----------



## MJP (8 May 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I can understand if there's NO accomodations, but that wouldn't just be a rank thing. I know of many Cpls, and a few Jacks living in the W's. None of them have been Forced out.



The key word IS/ARE living in the shacks right now.  The soldier I'm talking about moved here upon re-enrollment and was told to find accomodations on the economy.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 May 2008)

Wow that sucks. What about Shilo? I just want PPCLI, I don't care where.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 May 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> The key word IS/ARE living in the shacks right now.  The soldier I'm talking about moved here upon re-enrollment and was told to find accomodations on the economy.



Seen, but I'm sure that would happen to anyone in the Pte-MCpl rank moving in and asking for SLI if there's no room. As it stands, I haven't seen anything come down forcing current living-in members out, regardless of rank or TI.

As an aside, do we know if they're still keeping Bldg 222 as transients, or are they moving SLI members there?


----------



## MJP (8 May 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Wow that sucks. What about Shilo? I just want PPCLI, I don't care where.



I have no clue about Shilo.  with PLD rent on the economy really is not that bad. 




> Seen, but I'm sure that would happen to anyone in the Pte-MCpl rank moving in and asking for SLI if there's no room. As it stands, I haven't seen anything come down forcing current living-in members out, regardless of rank or TI.



Maybe it's just a long day but I'm not following you.  I am talking about a soldier that is a Cpl and has been moved to Edmonton.  During his clearing in he was instructed to find living accomodations on the economy as he would not be given SLI quarters.  He wasn't already living there.  There are and were when he was clearing in, rooms availiable.

You are talking about Cpl-Mcpls already living in.  There is no plan to get them to move out, just that base quarters will restrict new living in pers to Ptes (coming in off of their 3's etc etc).  Now I'm sure someone can get SLI quarters if they can claim and prove some sort of inability to live on the economy, but I'm sure it will bethe exception rather than the norm.

I don't know about Bldg 222 but considering the dirth of transient quarters as well, I don't forsee that changing unless we get some new buildings.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 May 2008)

Lots of room in Shilo.  

"As it stands, I haven't seen anything come down forcing current living-in members out, regardless of rank or TI."

As discussed its SOP in Gagetown.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 May 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> just that base quarters will restrict new living in pers to Ptes (coming in off of their 3's etc etc).



What is the rationale/reasoning for this?


----------



## Sig_Des (8 May 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just a long day but I'm not following you.  I am talking about a soldier that is a Cpl and has been moved to Edmonton.



Could be a long day. I'm saying I can understand someone moving into edmonton, asking for R&Q, and being told they need to live off the economy. And as the housing issue stands, I'm sure this'll be happening a bit in the next little while.

As far as Edmonton goes, no one is being forced out if they already live in.

Regarding this : 





> There are and were when he was clearing in, rooms availiable



Who told him this? Was it Base R&Q, the OR, the ROS? Because it's the first I hear about anyone being turned away when there's room's available.

Personally, I moved out of shacks when I was still a Pte. With the PLD (and I moved out with no PLD) going up, and the Bde Comd's 3 year Cpl policy, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to live off the economy (yes, I am aware that not everyone is in the same situation).

I don't think anyones gonna have any warm fuzzies regarding the SLI situation until more buildings go up.


----------



## MJP (8 May 2008)

I wasn't privy to the conversation but anecdotally, we have been told in several O-Groups that space is at a premium in the shacks.  One can surmise that this is Base quarters way of ensuring there are rooms for younger troops fresh off their 3's.  

Plus a Cpl/MCpl can afford to live on the economy better that an IPC1-2 Pte, especially with PLD.  Even IR guys are being told to take a hike and live on the economy, although they get much better financial compensation for it.



> Who told him this? Was it Base R&Q, the OR, the ROS? Because it's the first I hear about anyone being turned away when there's room's available.



Base R&Q

I'm clearing in 18 new BIQ troops tomorrow so while I'm down at R&Q, I will get from them the official policy.  However there is fresh blood in there right now and they are and seem to be doing a better job than what was done in the past.  Maybe we are just starting to see the beginning of better management of the scant resources we have.


----------



## MJP (13 May 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> I'm clearing in 18 new BIQ troops tomorrow so while I'm down at R&Q, I will get from them the official policy.  However there is fresh blood in there right now and they are and seem to be doing a better job than what was done in the past.  Maybe we are just starting to see the beginning of better management of the scant resources we have.



Right from the CWO in charge of  R&Q, Cpls and above wanting to move into SLI in Edmonton will be told to pound salt and live on the economy.  There is no plan to force people already living in to move out of the shacks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2008)

MJP said:
			
		

> Right from the CWO in charge of  R&Q, *Cpls and above wanting to move into SLI in Edmonton will be told to pound salt* and live on the economy.  There is no plan to force people already living in to move out of the shacks.



Even if there are rooms available?   :


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 May 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Even if there are rooms available?   :



And set up the next group of IPC1 Ptes to get screwed?    :


----------



## MJP (15 May 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Even if there are rooms available?   :



Yes even if rooms are availiable.  I don't see why you are rolling your eyes, with PLD and the pay a Cpl and up makes no one should be complaining that hard.  There will be exceptions to the rule we all know the 'Tard that couldn't manage his finances to save his life and gets so screwed up he needs to move into shacks  to sort out his life.


----------



## blacktriangle (15 May 2008)

Thanks for the info MJP.

Would I be right in thinking that most of the new folks clearing in to BN's are 18-20ish? I know I have enough cash saved for a new car or rent, but I know one of my best friends also hoping to live in shacks does not. Good policy in my opinion.

It just wouldn't make sense to screw over brand newish troops from the get go financially, last time I checked retention in the CF was a priority.


----------



## MJP (15 May 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Would I be right in thinking that most of the new folks clearing in to BN's are 18-20ish? I know I have enough cash saved for a new car or rent, but I know one of my best friends also hoping to live in shacks does not. Good policy in my opinion.
> 
> It just wouldn't make sense to screw over brand newish troops from the get go financially, last time I checked retention in the CF was a priority.



Most are in that age bracket.  If your getting posted here from somewhere else, IRP covers tons of stuff for renting first month deposit and stuff.  I'm not up on the rental portion of entitlments but check out http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dcba/engraph/CF_Integrated_Relocation_Program_e.asp?sidesection=2&sidecat=99 and click on CFIRP FY 08/09 to get the latest and greatest info.


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2008)

Sooooooooo.......

PLD ?


Milnet.ca staff


----------



## CountDC (12 Jun 2008)

Refs: A. CBI 205.45(1) Definitions http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/cbi/pdf/CBI_205_Sec_3.pdf
B. http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/PLD_FAQ_e.asp?sidesection=8&sidecat=12
C. CFAO 209-28(22) Removal Benefits

Good day to all;

Hopefully someone here can help with this one.  I am after actual regulations other than those above in regards to subj.  I am trying to establish 100% if a mbr enrolled and posted with move of HG&E restricted is entitled to PLD. According to ref A and B mbr is entitled to PLD at rate of enrolment location until move is authorized.


----------



## PO2FinClk (12 Jun 2008)

Not really sure what the issue is or what else you are looking for Ref's A & B spell it out pretty clearly to me. Ref C has nothing to do with PLD or TPLD.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> I am after actual regulations other than those above in regards to subj.


Ref A IS the actual regulation.




			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> According to ref A and B mbr is entitled to PLD at rate of enrolment location until move is authorized.





> (iii) the place where the member’s household goods and effects were located on enrolment, *if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty*






			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> I am trying to establish 100% if a mbr enrolled and posted with move of HG&E restricted is entitled to PLD.


Once again I could quote several passages to this effect which all answer your question. Restricted is removed once you secure lodgings/accomodations at the new location.

As I said before, you have all the refs, they spell it out very clearly making hard to figure out what it is you are looking for. Other threads on the issue also provide insight into PLD entitlements. It therefore makes it obvious that you were provided information which you disagree with, and that is what you need to provide if you want appropriate feedback.


----------



## CountDC (12 Jun 2008)

hmmm - guess I wasn't as clear as I thought so maybe this will help:

Further info:

I am attempting to resolve an issue where mbr has been informed they are not entitled to PLD. Although Ref A and B does support PLD entitlement I have been around too long to assume that is the end of it.  There may have been an amendment or CANFORGEN or someother forsaken ruling released over ruling this that I have missed but someone else has.

Ref C may come into play here yet - have to see what answers some give.


----------



## PO2FinClk (12 Jun 2008)

Then all I can tell you is the CBI, if the mbr meets the criteria then there it is, to be handled in the same way as anything else in the military.


----------



## Pelorus (3 Sep 2008)

Hi folks,

I was hoping someone would be able to provide some insight regarding post living differential.  I have spent the last hour or so searching on this website, as well as looking through various administrative orders.  I believe the most current instructions regarding PLD are found in CBI 205.45 (p. 13 of the pdf file), which I will refer to in this post.

The reason I am looking for clarification is because I have been told two different things regarding whether or not I am eligible for PLD.  I am an OCdt in my first year of university in Halifax, and living in a single room in residence.  I was told by an RMS Clerk at the base that because I am living in an area in which PLD is in effect, I am eligible for it.  However, my ULO has told me that because I am living in residence, I am ineligible for it.  He told me that if I were to move into an apartment building or house next door or just across the street from where I am now, I could be granted PLD.

As I understand it, according to CBI 205.45, as long as a member of the regular force is living in a PLDA, they are eligible for PLD other than in the case of the following exceptions:



> 205.45(9) *(Not entitled)* A member is not entitled to the PLD if:
> (a) their principal residence is located at an isolated post as defined in CBI 205.40 (Isolation Allowance); or
> (b) the monthly PLD rate is $50 or less.



Now, the PLD of Halifax is quite a bit larger than $50, and it is not an isolated post, so I don't think that I fall under either of those exceptions.

The other exception I ran into (I don't believe that it's in CBI 205.45, although I could have missed it) I found on the page for the PLD Application Form, which states:



> QR&O 205.45 definition of ''principal residence''. No entitlement to PLD if principal residence is a single quarter.



I assume that CBI 205.45 is simply the replacement of QR&O 205.45, however perhaps the confusion involves the definition of a single quarter.  I didn't see it defined in the instructions, but I am wondering why, if it turns out that my ULO is correct, that a room in residence (which is essentially an apartment building) does not qualify for PLD, but an apartment in a private complex in the same area would.

Many thanks in advance for any help.

------------------------------------

I want to apologize for the long post, although I am sure that it is preferred to a single line post consisting of "My ULO says I cant get PLD, what gives?"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Sep 2008)

From asking similar questions to my OR, what I was told was 'as long as you live outside of military SQs, you are entitled to PLD".  Explaination was...military SQs are offered at a extremely low rate compared to the local rental market; they include things like heat, power, laundry facilities, the would normally cost a mbr much more $.  Makes sense, right?  I am currently living-in over in Shearwater for $169 a month.  I am betting at residence, you pay more than that, and that includes cable, power, heat, laundry and basic furniture.

Not to say your ULO is yanking your chains, but I would bet the Clerks are the authorities on it.  My advice?  Submit a memo to the Orderly Room (or maybe they will just want an email...ask them, I am assuming you are dealing with the Pink Palace?) and ask them specifically if you are entitled to PLD if you are living in residence on campus and are NOT living in military single quarters.  If they don't know for sure or if there are doubts, they usually make a call to DCBA or whoever the authority is for the benefit and come back with a yes or no.

As PLD in Halifax is $634 a month now, I would rather find out for sure and in writing if possible, before I got PLD for a year and then had to pay it back. 

From the clerk friend I have that I talked to about it back in the spring, as long as you aren't having single quarters deducted from your pay for staying on base, you are entitled to either 100% or 75% PLD rate, in your case it would be the 100% IMO.

We can speculate here some...I can tell you what the RMS MCpl and Sgt I talked to said about it...if the grey area is single quarter equals/does not equal residence...talk to the OR.  IMO, the ULO is not the authority on this subject;  DCBA is.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Sep 2008)

The CBI reads (in part):



> “principal residence” means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants, and is situated at:
> (i) the member’s place of duty, if their household goods and effects are located at that place;
> (ii) the member’s former place of duty, if the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty;
> (iii) the place where the member’s household goods and effects were located on enrolment, if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty; or
> (iv) any other place of duty, selected place of residence or designated alternate location, if the member is authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to that place, except for the purpose of release or transfer to the Reserve Force. (résidence principale)



So, the issue of move of HG&E (or continued residence in the place of enrolment if not auth a move) comes into play as well.


----------



## CountDC (3 Sep 2008)

I am going to go out on a limb here (just feeling risky today) >

You were posted with move of HG&E restricted or prohibited. 

If you already had a residence in Halifax then you would still qualify for PLD there.

If you lived somewhere else then you do not qualify for PLD in Halifa put could qualify in the area you came from if you still maintain a residence there. 

The only type of residence that does not qualify is Single Quarters as previously pointed out they are already subsidized by the military. Unless things have changed in the last 2 years then you will have to provide a copy of your rental agreement when you submit your appllication for PLD as proof that you have a residence within the geographical boundaries of Halifax.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Sep 2008)

boot12 don't apologise for a long post..we prefer those that give needed detail vice just an emote.


----------



## Pelorus (3 Sep 2008)

Thank you very much for the replies everyone, they've been most helpful.

Regarding the restriction of movement of HG&E, I was not told either way, but I have my posting message sitting in front of me and one of the lines jumped out at me:



> E.  MOVE OF HG AND E AUTHORIZED IAW REF B. FIN CODE FOR MOVEMENT OF HG AND E WILL BE PROVIDED BY CFRG COMPT 2



Now I don't pretend to understand what half that line implies, but it seems to me that I was authorized to move my belongings, and as such should not be disqualified for PLD based on this?



I realize that the final say in this comes down to the fine people working at S-90 (the pink palace?), but I would like to be armed with a bit of knowledge before going in, and you guys are helping me do just that.  Thanks again.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Sep 2008)

Your message does authorize movement of HG&E; Halifax should therefore be considered as your principal residence.

However - the rules governing those enrolled in full-time school are sometimes arcane (and profane?) - it's a very specialized body of knowledge, managed through CDA in Kingston.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Sep 2008)

S-90 is the Pink Palace.  Take your posting message in with you and any other relevant info you have.  They will know you aren't living-in (Single Quarters) as you don't have any R & Q deductions on your pay.  As long as they have the relevant facts which are correct, they can make the correct decision.

The only other thing I can say is...PLD is taxable so...you'll likely see about $400ish of it in actuality (per month).


----------



## CountDC (4 Sep 2008)

will - here I go on the limb and it breaks.   

Go directly to Pink Palace (remember your message and lease), collect PLD each month (I hate you     ) 

While there in the lobby shout so this is the Pink Palace   >   trust me, they will loooove you.

PLD and donairs - what more could I ask for? oh yeah the flat of Keith's and the wonderful smell of the harbour when the wind is at your back.  I hate this place.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Sep 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> PLD and donairs - what more could I ask for? oh yeah the flat of Keith's and the wonderful smell of the harbour when the wind is at your back.  I hate this place.



You're just on the wrong side of the harbour every day then... 8)


----------



## CountDC (4 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You're just on the wrong side of the harbour every day then... 8)



really far on the wrong side - I'm in Disneyland.  Think it's fun dealing with this place from there, come here to work and find out how fun it really is.


----------



## maniac779 (31 Mar 2009)

Did the new rates come out today? Can anyone post them? I won't be near a work computer for the next month or so.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Apr 2009)

Nothing on the CANFORGEN side or the CCPS Advisory site (yet).


----------



## jacksparrow (13 Apr 2009)

I have read all the posts above, and just need this question answered.

I am on IR doing OJT living in the officer's mess. I am married with my principal residence in the GTA Ontario. I already get separation pay, do I qualify for PLD?

I am supposed to be going on course in Sept 2009, I have been on IR since Nov 2008

Thx


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Apr 2009)

jacksparrow said:
			
		

> I have read all the posts above, and just need this question answered.
> 
> I am on IR doing OJT living in the officer's mess. I am married with my principal residence in the GTA Ontario. I already get separation pay, do I qualify for PLD?
> 
> ...



You should.  I'm on IR in Ottawa and still receive PLD for Kingston......not for long, though.


----------



## jacksparrow (13 Apr 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> You should.  I'm on IR in Ottawa and still receive PLD for Kingston......not for long, though.



That is what my wife tells me too from talking to her fellow canadian military wives online. How come no one in the clerks office bothered to tell me this?

I am going in there 1st thing tomorrow.

Thx


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2009)

Go to your OR.  They can sort you out.  There is a possibility that you DO NOT qualify.  I have been in a situation where I was not entitled to IR, nor Separation Allowance.


----------



## Tewkster (13 Apr 2009)

You should still get PLD at your principal location if it applies, but you won't get PLD while on IR, TD, etc...



			
				jacksparrow said:
			
		

> I have read all the posts above, and just need this question answered.
> 
> I am on IR doing OJT living in the officer's mess. I am married with my principal residence in the GTA Ontario. I already get separation pay, do I qualify for PLD?
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Apr 2009)

Tewkster said:
			
		

> You should still get PLD at your principal location if it applies, but you won't get PLD while on IR, TD, etc...



Well, that's funny, I'm on IR and I get PLD.  Seeing how PLD is for your principal residence, I don't see why you wouldn't.  Also, I still get it when I'm on TD.


----------



## Tewkster (13 Apr 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Well, that's funny, I'm on IR and I get PLD.  Seeing how PLD is for your principal residence, I don't see why you wouldn't.  Also, I still get it when I'm on TD.



Ok, I don't think I was very clear.  You won't get PLD at both locations, only your primary one.  Ex.  If your primary residence is Halifax and you are on IR or TD in Borden, you still only get the PLD rate from Halifax, not both Halifax and Borden.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Apr 2009)

Tewkster said:
			
		

> Ok, I don't think I was very clear.  You won't get PLD at both locations, only your primary one.  Ex.  If your primary residence is Halifax and you are on IR or TD in Borden, you still only get the PLD rate from Halifax, not both Halifax and Borden.



Much better!!  :nod:  Of course, you're right, you only get it for the location of your principal residence.


----------



## CountDC (14 Apr 2009)

jacksparrow said:
			
		

> That is what my wife tells me too from talking to her fellow canadian military wives online. How come no one in the clerks office bothered to tell me this?
> 
> I am going in there 1st thing tomorrow.
> 
> Thx



Not enough info there to give an answer - did you already have PLD in Toronto before going on your IR?  If so why was it stopped? If you were not already receiving it why not?  Did you ask the clerk if you qualify for PLD while on IR either while clearing out of Toronto or in at your new location?  If not - why? Most clerks at bases are taking care of hundreds of people so they do not know everyones personal situation so it is up to the member to be aware of their pay and ask the questions.  Then there is the matter of skill level- maybe your pay clerk is new and not aware of all the in and outs.

With the question you posted the only real answer any one can give is - why didn't you bother asking?

"Anyone in the clerks office" makes it seem like you think all the the clerks are there to take care of you instead of everyone else.  What you may have meant is "How come my pay clerk didn't tell me"


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Apr 2009)

One thing I learned quickly in the military is take care of your own sh*t and go see the clerks with the appropriate reference.


----------



## ballz (14 Apr 2009)

Ahhh PLD, I've been trying to get my sorted out since September... gonna be some dandy back-pay if it ever goes through...


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2009)

ballz, go see your clerk, bring a copy of your lease, he/she'll fill out the appropriate form and it should be on the next month's pay.  I've never had any issue getting the PLD.


----------



## ballz (15 Apr 2009)

It's being done. It's just that I live 800 KM away from my orderly room so everything administrative takes forever. This is the third time I've mailed them the PLD request form thinger. I could really use that back-pay to clear up some credit card debt that I've accumulated over the last 2 semesters too, but I guess it's probably best that it worked out like this anyway, rather than spending it all on Subway throughout the semester.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2009)

Still, that time frame is not acceptable.  Send it, ask an email confirmation of the receipt and once they have it, call them and do not hang up until they put it in the system.


----------



## CountDC (15 Apr 2009)

I agree - that is not acceptable. You could also go with sending it Priority Post - that way you can track and confirm that it was delivered.  If you wanted you could also send it signature required and then have them come up with an excuse for it not to be done.

To go along with SupersonicMax - ask them to email a screen capture showing the entry was made and include a screen capture of the dollar amounts generated. Then you know for sure that it has been entered and approved and that you should receive the money on your next generated pay.  If you get it into the system before the end of Apr you will get the money on your Mid May pay.


----------



## coldcanuk (22 Apr 2009)

Hello,
  I have two questions for the board.

1)  Is there somewhere at CFB Edmonton that I could list a room rental availability?
2)  What is the impact on my PLD should another member reside with me and is entitled to collect PLD?

Thank-you
 :2c:


----------



## Occam (22 Apr 2009)

1.  I'm sure someone can point out some locations on the base that you could advertise - Canex, MFRC would be starters.
2.  If you share accommodations with someone who is also entitled to PLD, you both draw it at the 75% rate.  (See CBI 205.45(10))


----------



## LoKe (28 Jul 2009)

I'm not entirely sure how PLD works, and I'm wondering if I'd be able to collect it.

My hometown, i.e., the place where I enrolled is London, Ontario.  My unit is in Kingston.

I have no dependents (kids, spouse, etc).  I'm being TD'd to Esquimalt for a tasking for 3 months.  If I rent an apartment while I'm there, for at least three months (or longer), am I entitled to PLD?  What if I still pay rent in Esquimalt when I'm back in Kingston, could I still collect?


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Jul 2009)

LoKe said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure how PLD works, and I'm wondering if I'd be able to collect it.
> 
> My hometown, i.e., the place where I enrolled is London, Ontario.  My unit is in Kingston.
> 
> I have no dependents (kids, spouse, etc).  I'm being posted to Esquimalt, B.C. for a tasking for 3 months.  If I rent an apartment while I'm there, for at least three months (or longer), am I entitled to PLD?



Are you actually posted or going on TD?  PLD has nothing to do with a spouse or children, you get the PLD of where your main residence F&E is.  For example, I am on IR in Ottawa but as I maintain a home in Kingston, I receive the PLD from Kingston.

Do a search for the DCBA Aide Memoire to which I (and others) have posted a link several times.


----------



## LoKe (28 Jul 2009)

I'm TD'd out here.  I don't really have any F&E.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Jul 2009)

Then you won't get PLD for out there.  If you are receiving PLD for Kingston, you will continue to get that.


----------



## Teflon (28 Jul 2009)

If you are on TD then no you will not get PLD for Esquimalt as you don't "live" there You will recieve PLD for Kingston (if Kingston gets any) where you live.

By the way if you are going to Esquimalt for a 3 month tasking, that's not a posting that's a tasking - terminoligy but using it wrong could result in confusion.


----------



## LoKe (28 Jul 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Then you won't get PLD for out there.  If you are receiving PLD for Kingston, you will continue to get that.



I'm not getting PLD anywhere.  It just seemed, from reading the DGCB document on it, that if I found a place here I could claim it.

I suppose not.

Thanks!


----------



## Biohazardxj (28 Jul 2009)

CBI 205.45

“principal residence”
    means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants, and is situated at:

       1. the member’s place of duty, if their household goods and effects are located at that place;
       2. the member’s former place of duty, if the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty;
       3. the place where the member’s household goods and effects were located on enrolment, if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty; or
       4. any other place of duty, selected place of residence or designated alternate location, if the member is authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to that place, except for the purpose of release or transfer to the Reserve Force. (résidence principale)

And if you scroll down to the table of the same ref the rate for Kingston March 2008  is 0.


----------



## LoKe (28 Jul 2009)

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't understand at all.

I don't live in Kingston.  I don't have a house or apartment there, nor do I have single quarters.  I don't have personal effects there, either.  That's where my unit is, and I'll be going back there after the 3 month TD.  

I've been in single quarters for the past 16 months.  Mostly in Borden.

Wouldn't my TD in Esquimalt count as "*4. any other place of duty, selected place of residence or designated alternate location*, if the member is authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to that place, except for the purpose of release or transfer to the Reserve Force. (résidence principale)"


----------



## gcclarke (28 Jul 2009)

Well, no, because you haven't been "authorized to move [your] household goods and effects at public expense to [Esquimalt]".


----------



## LoKe (28 Jul 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Well, no, because you haven't been "authorized to move [your] household goods and effects at public expense to [Esquimalt]".


But I have no household goods or effects to move at public expense.


----------



## gcclarke (28 Jul 2009)

And because you're there on TD, you haven't been authorized to move that nothing to Esquimalt at public expense.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Jul 2009)

You'll get your apartment paid by the CF, IF this is the accommodation they can provide you.  If you are in SQ, you are NOT entitled to PLD.  You need to rent an apartment or a house (PMQ included) to be eligible.  So, no F&E, no PLD.  Period.

You will get PLD at the place of your F&E only (normally where you are posted).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Jul 2009)

Question though...why have you not asked your Orderly Room any of this? Would that not be better then relying on an internet forum for your answers?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jul 2009)

LoKe said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't understand at all.
> 
> I don't live in Kingston.  I don't have a house or apartment there, nor do I have single quarters.  I don't have personal effects there, either.  That's where my unit is, and I'll be going back there after the 3 month TD.
> 
> ...


[/quote]





			
				LoKe said:
			
		

> But I have no household goods or effects to move at public expense.



 :


OK

PLD (Post as in Posted) is for people who are POSTED and must move household goods and effects.   (You conveniently overlooked that part of the Regulation in your post above.)  You are neither posted, nor are you, by your own admission, the owner of household goods and effects.  You admit to living in Single Quarters, and that your Unit is Based in Kingston.  Once you return from your 3 month TASKING (NOT a POSTING) you will in all likelihood live in Single Quarters in Kingston, until such time as you may decide to find other accommodations.  Still no PLD in your future there, either.

You are not entitled to PLD under any of the conditions specified in the Regulations.


----------



## Biohazardxj (28 Jul 2009)

And if you look at the last line of my last post.  PLD in Kingston is 0 after March of 08.  So, regardless of where you live in Kingston, be it MQ, apartment, or a house, you will not receive PLD because there isn't any in Kingston.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (28 Jul 2009)

I have a question about PLD.

I am currently posted to Toronto, however, I live over 1.5 hours away from Toronto.  In my posting message it says movement of F & E restricted, which I have interpreted as meaning I am not allowed to move my stuff at the crowns expence.

However,

If I were to find myself a furnished apartment in Toronto, and im actually posted to Toronto, as listed above, would I be able to collect Toronto PLD?  Or do I have to collect the Kitchener PLD because I have not been able to move my items.

And before someone asks, I have been trying to book an appointment with my orderly room to go over this stuff, but so far they have been busy and ive been told going over this stuff is not a priority, so I am a few weeks away from being able to speak with them.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jul 2009)

Your Docs stating that your movement of F&E is restricted, will also list Kitchener as the location of your F&E.  If you do any moving it will be at your expense, and will still not entitle you to PLD.  It WOULD NOT BE an authorized move; as stated in the Regulations, so you will be paying out of your own pocket/no PLD.


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Jul 2009)

Some old threads which may be of interest regarding "Restricted Moves" and PLD.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31283/post-230778.html#msg230778
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77241.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77241.0.html

I'm out of date and you really need to check anything I say out with current authorities (your Orderly Room or IRP);  BUT - with that proviso in mind, I'll shoot my mouth off anyway.

ALL moves within Canada are "Restricted"  the restriction is lifted once you obtain suitable accomodation in the new location.  

You shouldn't need to contact your Orderly Room for moves - that's what IRP is for (or have they totally screwed the pooch on that one in the last five years?)

PLD I cannot speak to specifically - but if you aren't moving your F&E to a location - you ain't getting PLD for that location.  Period.  Full Stop.  For whoever it was that asked about PLD while on course - get off the Internet, stop looking for free money, and concentrate on your course material.

There are other threads available - look in the Military Administration forums - located here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,40.0.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jul 2009)

LoKe said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't understand at all.
> 
> I don't live in Kingston.  I don't have a house or apartment there, nor do I have single quarters.  I don't have personal effects there, either.  That's where my unit is, and I'll be going back there after the 3 month TD.
> 
> ...



Although people have answered this, after reading thru your posts, I am going to take a guess at your situation.

1.  You are a Reg Frce Comm Research in Navy DEU, who was enrolled in London, On, did BMQ and then was sent to PRETC at CFB Borden.  You are posted to CFB Kingston (CFSCE) who then Attach Posted you to PRETC, CFB Borden while you are waiting for your QL3 course.  If that is the case, then I'll also guess that you are course loaded on the Comm Rsch 120 Apprentice Pt 1 (Unclas), MITE Session 0037 course from 26 Oct - 08 Dec 09.  While waiting for your course, PRETC has a TD tasking for you in Esq.  Am I close?  (this *guess* was made assuming you are just about to leave for your TD, or have recently arrived at it)

If so...

1. You are *posted* to Kingston.  You can only receive PLD when you do NOT occupy SQs, and only to the PLDA (PLD Area) that you are posted to, if you are in a PLDA  (as mentioned several times to you, Kingston does not get PLD, because the PLD was assessed as under $50 monthly, and not payable under the revised PLD policy IIRC).  CCPS is set up that you cannot have SQ deductions AND receive PLD (according to the Clerks, when I was vacating SQs and waiting for PLD to be added to my pay guide, as the Accn folks hadn't ceased my SQ deductions right away).

2.  TD is "temporaty duty", meaning *away from your normal place of duty* but you remain under the Admin control of your current unit.  (AFAIK, that is the main difference between TD and an Attach Posting, neither of which is a POSTING)

3. If you don't have an apartment, any HG & E, etc and are living-in at Base Borden, you are paying R & Q in Borden, right?.  IIRC, that means you will get R & Q for your TD in Esq "on the Crown" as you are paying for it in Borden (I am assuming you didn't have to vacate your SQ in Borden for your TD).  Either way, you will not pay for R & Q for both Borden and Esq.  You are SOL for PLD, and I'll say this as you mentioned "renting" while on TD...do NOT get into a lease in Esq.  

Lastly, in the quote of your post above, you have to read AND include the whole sentence for proper interpretation of the meaning.  The "if the member is authorized to..." part is the key.  On TD, I can guaruntee you are NOT auth'd to move your HG & E.  

* I was bored over lunch and wanted to play Sherlock Holmes as I saw the movie trailor recently.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (29 Jul 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> and I'll say this as you mentioned "renting" while on TD...do NOT get into a lease in Esq.



You mentioned not getting into a lease in Esq.  Is this specifically because of his short duration there, or was it more a statement about leasing in Esq. more generally speaking?  The reason I ask is that, Esq. is going to be in my future as a full posting sooner or later.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jul 2009)

I mentioned it because he is going on TD, not a posting.

Some people may wrongly think the CF will come good if they sign a lease and then have to break it, which is not the case if you are on TD.  Heck, I am not even sure of the rules on that now via IRP if you are in a lease that you have to get out of because of a posting.

I mentioned it,as IMO, the OP seemed to think there was an entitlement to PLD ($800+ for Esq) and assumed that was what he/she was hoping would *help pay the rent* while on TD.

It is easy sometimes for mbrs who don't know the regulations DCBA has to get themselves into a situation whereby they put themselves in financial stress, risking becoming an "administrative burden", which is NOT a good thing.


----------



## Super_wuman (9 Aug 2009)

Hey. I have a question, and I know I will probably get chewed out for it becuase its somewhere on this site already. If it is, I would appreciate if someone could direct me to the site link 

I was wondering how much the army pays you to live off base in Esquimalt. I have a friend in Edmonton and the CF actually pays him almost 500$ a month to live off base. I was wondering what other bases had this, and how much they are. 

Thanks! 
Kaitlyn


----------



## MikeL (9 Aug 2009)

Search the forum for PLD


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Aug 2009)

He doesn't get "paid to live off base."  In some areas of Canada an allowance is paid to members to offset the higher costs of living in those areas.  This allowance is called Post Living Differential (PLD) and it can vary from less than $100 to over $1000 per month.  In many areas there is no PLD rate.

Here is one post from March 2009 to give you an idea of the range of PLD rates:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81682/post-824162.html#msg824162


----------



## Super_wuman (9 Aug 2009)

Thanks very much


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Aug 2009)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Search the forum for PLD



How would she even know what PLD was when she was asking with regard to a friend of hers? If you are going to tell her to do a search at least tell her what she is looking for and what it stands for...

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Stoker (1 Oct 2009)

I did a search and wasn't able to come up with an answer. I'm in the process of shopping for a house, I have been living in the shacks for a number of years. Was wondering if there is any rule on the max distance your residence can be away from your place of employment.


----------



## dangerboy (1 Oct 2009)

It varies from base to base.  Each base has a geographical boundary and if you want to live outside of that you must get approval from your CO (this is from 2008 IRP directive).


----------



## gcclarke (1 Oct 2009)

Both your primary residence and your place of duty need to be within a Post Living Differential Area, which is defined geographically, rather than a simple radius. *Edit: *You do not need to live in the same PLDA as your place of duty. If you live and work in different PLDAs, you will receive the lesser of the two rates applicable. 

The maps of the areas in question appear to be the same ones located here: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/trgb-vdrg-eng.asp

In particular, the Halifax / Shearwater map is located here: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/hs-eng.asp


----------



## MasterInstructor (9 Feb 2010)

While searching I came across with this thread. 

I am from New Westminster BC, which is in Greater Vancouver. PLD rate for Vancouver is approx $1200. I am living common law and have a mortgage. Since Vancouver will remain as my primary residence during basic and QL3, will I be entitled to PLD?

I taught I was not entitled but heard otherwise from somebody but wanted to double check. Clerk at CFRC Vancouver was busy so I could not talk to him, I will try to get a hold of him again. I also don't want to sound stupid when I talk to him.. Any input would be appreciated...


----------



## CallOfDuty (9 Feb 2010)

MI.....you don't start getting PLD until after BMQ.  I was living in Halifax during my BMQ and did my ql3 here.  Thats when I started PLD....when I started my 3's.  However ,I wonder if it's that way for people who do their 3's away from home?  
  You'll receive free rations&quarters + separation pay from your wife.  Thats almost 1000 bucks a month savings your single buddies who live at home with mom won't receive.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Feb 2010)

According to CBI Chapter 205.03*, Definition of Primary Residence:



> the place where the member’s household goods and effects were located on enrolment, *if that place is a place of duty* and the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty;



Since _prior_ to enrolment, you are not considered at a place of duty, I don't see how you can be entitled to PLD.  Of course, I could be wrong.....but that's how I interpret it.  You would not be considered at a "place of duty" until you start BMQ.

*Note: This link may not be accessible on the internet.


----------



## MasterInstructor (9 Feb 2010)

> the place where the member’s household goods and effects were located on enrollment, if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty;



That sentence is what I am having issues understanding... To me it means that, if my place primary residence upon enrollment could be a place of duty in the future and I am not allowed to move my household to my current place of duty "St.Jean" I would qualify. In another words, a person from Whistler, BC  would not qualify because a person can not be posted to Whistler BC, because there is no Canadian Forces Base. I think everything comes down to this sentence. 

I am not trying to be greedy or anything, I did not think about this until yesterday someone told me that they are getting it at BMQ.... They might be in a special situation or he thinks he is getting it but he is not... Maybe confused with Separation Expense...

And thinking about it, it does make sense... Yes I will be saving ~ $1000 compared to single guys however my living expenses for my residence where my wife is living is much higher than somebody from elsewhere in the country except Toronto...

Anyways, I think best thing to do is talk to a Clerk which wont happen till Thursday...


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Feb 2010)

To me, that sentence implies that your primary residence is at *your* place of duty, not *a* place of duty.  And not a "place of duty in the future".  If you are eventually posted there, then you will receive PLD.

Yes, speaking to a clerk is your best bet.  Keep in mind that you should endeavor to get a correct interpretation of the rules.  I would rather not get something and receive it later as a result of an audit or grievance much more than I would like to have to pay it back, as a result of an audit.


----------



## MasterInstructor (15 Feb 2010)

Just a quick update...

I asked  Clerk [name removed by moderator] at CFRC Vancouver, no PLD during BMQ. Just like I originally taught.... 

cheers


----------



## jeffb (15 Feb 2010)

I'm pretty sure that married/common-law members are entitled to receive PLD and SA through BMQ though. When I went through St. Jean last year everyone on my platoon who was married/common law, including myself, did.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Feb 2010)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that married/common-law members are entitled to receive PLD and SA through BMQ though. When I went through St. Jean last year everyone on my platoon who was married/common law, including myself, did.


SA and free R&Q, yes.  PLD?  Not so sure about that.


----------



## MasterInstructor (15 Feb 2010)

If I do get PLD at BMQ, I will post it here for sure... I am planing on asking again in St.Jean...


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Feb 2010)

I didn't think PLD was authorized if you lived in the Shacks. It was only to off set high rent/ purchase prices if living off the economy.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Feb 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> I didn't think PLD was authorized if you lived in the Shacks. It was only to off set high rent/ purchase prices if living off the economy.



If you live in the shacks and single no.  If you primary residence is not where you are serving and you live in the shacks where you are serving, then yes.  I had that happen to me when I was in Moose Jaw and my wife was in Winnipeg.  I got SA + Free R&Q + Winnipeg PLD.


----------



## MasterInstructor (15 Feb 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If you live in the shacks and single no.  If you primary residence is not where you are serving and you live in the shacks where you are serving, then yes.  I had that happen to me when I was in Moose Jaw and my wife was in Winnipeg.  I got SA + Free R&Q + Winnipeg PLD.



What level of training were you doing in Moose Jaw? QL3? 

My wife will be in Vancouver while I will be at Basic and then QL3 in Victoria...


----------



## CallOfDuty (16 Feb 2010)

...supersonicmax is right.....that's exactly what'll happen.  Don't even bother asking for it in St Jean!  
PS--he's a pilot.


----------



## jeffb (17 Feb 2010)

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> ...supersonicmax is right.....that's exactly what'll happen.  Don't even bother asking for it in St Jean!
> PS--he's a pilot.



I'm not a clerk so I'm totally out of my lane when it comes to quoting you a reference or being able to differentiate one situation from another, but what I can tell you is that when I went through St. Jean doing BMOQ starting in Jan of last year, I received SA, free R&Q and PLD for Toronto- Zone 1 to be specific- (as that's where my address was) as a common-law member. 

Frankly, from reading this thread I'm not sure why I was entitled to PLD but as long as it doesn't get clawed back in the future, I'm not complaining.


----------



## CallOfDuty (17 Feb 2010)

..hmmmmm....sounds fishy to me Jeff.  I'm pretty sure you shouldn't have gotten it.


----------



## MasterInstructor (26 Feb 2010)

Hi All 

I just wanted to let you know that I am at BMQ right now. All married/common law recruits were handed out a PLD Application and will be receiving it depending on their geographical location.


----------



## MasterInstructor (4 Apr 2010)

How often PLD rates get updated? When do you think next update/review will be? It looks like last update was in 2008, I was hoping for a review on April 1st but does not look like it happened... 

cheers


----------



## Occam (4 Apr 2010)

Yearly, more or less.  Your guess is as good as mine when the next adjustment will roll out.


----------



## MasterInstructor (4 Apr 2010)

Thanks! I was not sure if there is a set interval or date. I guess, it is whenever they feel nessesary kind of thing...

cheers


----------



## DBF (4 Apr 2010)

CANFORGEN 090/09 CMP 039/09 141802Z MAY 09 

SUBJ: POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL (PLD) 2009/2010 RATES 

REFS: A. CBI 205.45 (POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL) 
B. CBI 205.452 (TRANSITIONAL POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL) 
C. CANFORGEN 061/08 CMP 024/08 311241Z MAR 08 

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO PROMULGATE THE TB APPROVED PLD RATES, EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09 

2. IAW REF A THE FOLLOWING 2009 RATES ARE EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09, READ IN TWO COLUMNS: PLD AREA, 2009 FULL RATE: ALDERGROVE  418 
CALGARY  711 
CAMBRIDGE  71 
COLD LAKE  319 
EDMONTON  684 
GUELPH  167 
HALIFAX  631 
HAMILTON  414 
KAMLOOPS/KELOWNA  525 
KITCHENER  62 
LETHBRIDGE  234 
MEAFORD  77 
MEDICINE HAT  145 
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE       505 
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE  376 
MOOSE JAW  284 
NANAIMO  75 
QUEBEC CITY/VALCARTIER  117 
RED DEER  327 
REGINA  62 
SASKATOON  382 
SEPT-ILES  107 
ST JOHN S  149 
STRATFORD  82 
TORONTO AREA 1  1485 
TORONTO AREA 2  506 
TORONTO AREA 3  522 
TORONTO AREA 4  819 
TORONTO AREA 5  1167 
VANCOUVER  1083 
VICTORIA/ESQUIMALT  816 


3. TRANSITIONAL PLD (TPLD) WAS ESTABLISHED AT LOCATIONS THAT EXPERIENCED DECREASES IN PLD RATES AS A RESULT OF THE NEW PLD METHODOLOGY INTRODUCED EFFECTIVE 1 JUL 07. THE TPLD RATES CAN BE FOUND AT REF B WHERE GROUP A COMPRISES OFFICERS IN THE RANK OF CAPTAIN OR ABOVE, AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS IN THE RANK OF WARRANT OFFICER OR ABOVE AND GROUP B COMPRISES OFFICERS IN THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT OR BELOW, AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS IN THE RANK OF SERGEANT OR BELOW. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE TB APPROVED TPLD RATES EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09, READ IN THREE COLUMNS TPLD AREA, GROUP A FULL RATE, GROUP B FULL RATE: 

TPLD AREA  GROUP A 
FULL RATE     GROUP B 
FULL RATE  
BARRIE/BORDEN  58  87  
BRANTFORD  76  114  
CAMBRIDGE  PLD  85  
CORNERBROOK  55  83  
GRAND FALLS/WINDSOR  89  133  
GUELPH  PLD  245  
HALIFAX  PLD  PLD  
HAMILTON  PLD  PLD  
KINGSTON  NA  16  
KITCHENER  113  170  
LONDON  NA  46  
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE  PLD  PLD  
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE  PLD  404  
NANAIMO  PLD  PLD  
NIAGARA/ST CATHARINES  116  174  
NORTH BAY  NA  6  
OTTAWA/GATINEAU  131  196  
PETERBOROUGH  NA  68  
QUEBEC CITY/VALCARTIER  126  189  
SEPT-ILES  PLD  112  
ST JOHN S  205  308  
ST-HYACINTHE  NA  24  
STRATFORD  138  207  
TORONTO AREA 1  PLD  1586  
TORONTO AREA 2  PLD  670  
TORONTO AREA 3  PLD  543  
TORONTO AREA 4  PLD  1006  
TORONTO AREA 5  PLD  1377  
WINDSOR  221  332  


4. IAW REF B CF PERSONNEL ARE ENTITLED TO THE GREATER OF PLD OR TPLD FOR THEIR LOCATION. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN THOUGH THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS HAVE TPLD RATES, THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE PLD VICE TPLD EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09: CAMBRIDGE  (RANK GROUP A)  
GUELPH  (RANK GROUP A)  
HALIFAX  (RANK GROUP A AND B)  
HAMILTON  (RANK GROUP A AND B)  
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE  (RANK GROUP A AND B)  
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE      (RANK GROUP A)  
NANAIMO  (RANK GROUP A AND B)  
SEPT-ILES  (RANK GROUP A)  
TORONTO AREA 1  (RANK GROUP A)  
TORONTO AREA 2  (RANK GROUP A)  
TORONTO AREA 3  (RANK GROUP A)  
TORONTO AREA 4  (RANK GROUP A)  
TORONTO AREA 5  (RANK GROUP A)  


5. LOCATIONS NOT LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE ARE NOT PLD OR TPLD AREAS AND PERSONNEL AT THESE LOCATIONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EITHER ALLOWANCE 

6. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, PLD RATES MAY NOW BE SUBJECTED TO SIGNIFICANT INCREASES OR DECREASES FROM YEAR-TO-YEAR, CF PERSONNEL ARE HEREBY ADVISED NOT TO MAKE LONG-TERM FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS BASED ON THE ABOVE RATES 

7. SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP.


----------



## Occam (4 Apr 2010)

MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> Thanks! I was not sure if there is a set interval or date. I guess, it is whenever they feel nessesary kind of thing...
> 
> cheers



No, there is no set interval.  I believe the original intention was for an annual adjustment, but a review of the historical rates at this webpage shows there was some variation.  The main page for PLD is here.


----------



## CountDC (6 Apr 2010)

Great - there goes the pay increase again - pay goes up $73, pld goes down $65 and PMQ rate goes up.  Posting back to Halifax is sounding better.  Still haven't figured out how Halifax qualifies for so much compared to Ottawa - cost of living increased for me, rent alone jumped $200, transportation increased, food budget increased (good fresh produce is hard to find), entertainment increased.  Off the top the only thing that didn't increase was the income taxes.

Oh - just remembered - it is because it is not Ottawa - it is NCR which includes Gatineau!  From what they tell me Gatineau drops the cost of living estimate for the NCR a fair amount.

Oh well, next 2 years the same thing happens again.


----------



## Occam (12 Apr 2010)

Good news for many people, including us Ottawawawawans.

R 081701Z APR 10
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 084/10 CMP 039/10
SIC WAS
SUBJ: POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL UPDATE
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL - UPDATE
REFS: A. CBI 205.45 (POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL)
B. CBI 205.452 (TRANSITIONAL POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL)
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO INFORM YOU OF THE STATUS OF THE 
POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL (PLD) ALLOWANCE
2. UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, PLD AND TPLD RATES WILL REMAIN AT THEIR 
2009/10 LEVELS. PLD IS UNDER CONTINUOUS REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT IT IS 
A PRACTICAL AND REASONABLE SUPPORT MEASURE FOR CF PERSONNEL
3. PERSONNEL ARE REMINDED THAT PLD IS SEPARATE FROM PAY AND IS 
INTENDED ONLY AS A CUSHION AGAINST EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE LIVING IN 
A HIGH COST OF LIVING AREA. ACCORDINGLY PLD SHOULD NOT BE FACTORED 
IN WHEN MAKING FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS
4. SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP


----------



## Grunt_031 (12 Apr 2010)

> 2. UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, PLD AND TPLD RATES WILL REMAIN AT THEIR
> 2009/10 LEVELS. PLD IS UNDER CONTINUOUS REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT IT IS
> A PRACTICAL AND REASONABLE SUPPORT MEASURE FOR CF PERSONNEL
> 3. PERSONNEL ARE REMINDED THAT PLD IS SEPARATE FROM PAY AND IS
> ...



Veiled speech for it is going to disappear in these tight financial times for the CF.


----------



## CountDC (12 Apr 2010)

Thanks Grunt - p*ss on our parade.   ;D

My pay actually ended up as an increase because of this change - I get an extra $10 per pay.  Until they pull the rug.


----------



## gcclarke (12 Apr 2010)

Don't they include that particular little paragraph (or words to that effect) in every single message concerning PLD? I mean, yes, the fact of the matter is that it could disappear at any moment, should the decision be made from on high (Treasury Board?). A little warning that one should not, for example, purchase a house expensive enough that you won't be able to afford your mortgage if PLD is reduced or eliminated doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is actually planning on doing so. After all, methinks that doing so would be, politically speaking, a very unwise move for any government that decides to do so.


----------



## CountDC (12 Apr 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> ...... if PLD is reduced or eliminated doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is actually planning on doing so. After all, methinks that doing so would be, politically speaking, a very unwise move for any government that decides to do so.



Ummmm  Do we really have to??  ;D


----------



## jallam (26 Apr 2010)

I did a search for "Comox PLD" and only came up with old posts.

Does anyone know the current PLD  rate if any for the Comox Area?

PM me please if you can help to point me in the right direction.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Apr 2010)

I don't even see Comox on the list:

PLD rates


----------



## perry (26 Apr 2010)

Comox does not get PLD.


----------



## Occam (26 Apr 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I don't even see Comox on the list:
> 
> PLD rates



You don't see it because it's not there.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Apr 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> You don't see it because it's not there.



Well, I didn't want to *assume*!


----------



## aesop081 (26 Apr 2010)

jallam said:
			
		

> current PLD  rate if any for the Comox Area?



Rate for Comox is ZERO.


----------



## krustyrl (26 Apr 2010)

Yes and THAT bites...I'm posted there this APS .!        :rage:



Oh..well.!


----------



## Occam (26 Apr 2010)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Yes and THAT bites...I'm posted there this APS .!        :rage:



Yes, it sure bites to be posted to an area that's been deemed to be less costly than the benchmark CF posting.   ???

I think the purpose of PLD has been lost on some along the way.  It's supposed to compensate you for being posted to higher-than-norm cost of living areas.  If you're in an area which pays high PLD, it means you have higher expenses.  I'm not sure where this disappointment comes from when people get posted to a no or low PLD area.


----------



## krustyrl (26 Apr 2010)

Interesting Occam...where was this info located and deemed by whom.?


----------



## Occam (26 Apr 2010)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Interesting Occam...where was this info located and deemed by whom.?



Everything you wanted to know about PLD but were afraid to ask

The Post Living Differential (PLD) program was introduced on 1 April 2000 to provide a mechanism to stabilize the cost of living of Canadian Forces (CF) members and families, serving in Canada, with respect to regional differences. PLD provides a means for a CF family to enjoy a relative and predictable standard of living no matter where they serve in Canada. The original PLD methodology was developed in the mid-late 90’s; however, the economic conditions under which the previous methodology was derived, roughly a decade ago, are no longer relevant in today’s environment. Following an intensive review, a new PLD methodology has been approved by Treasury Board effective 1 July 2007. Measures have also been approved by Treasury Board to ease the transition to the new methodology.


----------



## ballz (26 Apr 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> Yes, it sure bites to be posted to an area that's been deemed to be less costly than the benchmark CF posting.   ???
> 
> I think the purpose of PLD has been lost on some along the way.  It's supposed to compensate you for being posted to higher-than-norm cost of living areas.  If you're in an area which pays high PLD, it means you have higher expenses.  I'm not sure where this disappointment comes from when people get posted to a no or low PLD area.



My guess is the "somewhere" you speak of is whatever calculations they use to decide that it's more a crapload more expensive to live in Halifax than St. John's, or Toronto than Edmonton, etc etc...

I have friends getting around 650 for living in Halifax, yet I'm getting 149 in St. John's, despite higher housing and gas prices, and most other things that involve shipping (aka groceries). That kind of thing makes a person in my shoes think of it more as extra cash versus something that off-sets costs.

I don't know what goes into the calculations obviously, but this is what the naked eye sees.

EDIT: typo's...


----------



## Occam (26 Apr 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> My guess is the "somewhere" you speak of is whatever calculations they use to decide that it's more a crapload more expensive to live in Halifax than St. John's, or Toronto than Edmonton, etc etc...
> 
> I have friends getting around 650 for living in Halifax, yet I'm getting 149 in St. John's, despite higher housing and gas prices, and most other things that involve shipping (aka groceries). That kind of thing makes a person in my shoes think of it more as extra cash versus something that off-sets costs.
> 
> ...



On what information are you basing your belief that housing is more expensive in St. John's than in Halifax?  Property taxes in St. John's vs. Halifax?  Provincial income tax rates?  

I believe you may find your answer in those criteria.


----------



## ballz (26 Apr 2010)

Real estate:

http://www.stjohnsrealestateonline.com/ says

St. John’s Real Estate:
Average Sale Price is St. John’s: $266,336 for the month of March and the 12 month average $243,532
Mount Pearl Real Estate:
Average Sale Price (12 month average): $221,094
Paradise Real Estate:
Average Sale Price (12 month average): $271,002

and apparently from the Royal Lepage House Price Survey http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2010/08/c8713.html



> "The average price of detached bungalows in Halifax increased by 13.9 per cent (to $246,833) over last year, while standard condominiums increased by 6.1 per cent (to $169,250) and standard two-storey homes were up 6.8 per cent (to $278,267).



which more or less agrees with this one http://www.livingin-canada.com/house-prices-canada.html which says $242k for Halifax.

Property tax: I have no idea about property taxes or the significance of them (since I've never paid them). This could be either way how drastic of a difference could it make on one's yearly income (I ask out of genuine ignorance)?

Income tax: According to Canada Revenue Agency http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html 

Using taxable income of 50,000 and 75,000 and these rates

Newfoundland
7.7% on the first $31,278 of taxable income, +
12.8% on the next $31,278, +
15.5% on the amount over $62,556

Nova Scotia
8.79% on the first $29,590 of taxable income, +
14.95% on the next $29,590, +
16.67% on the next $33,820 +
17.5% on the amount over $93,000

Income tax paid in would be: Newfoundland (4804.83, 8340.81) and Nova Scotia (5652.26, 9661.86) for a difference (847.43, 1321.05). Obviously all this is subjective but it's a small difference. I think the difference would be smaller if you actually did the income tax up properly?

Fuel: Right now gas is about 7-8% higher. canadagasprices.com is an excellent tracking source for things about gas/fuel around Canada. One vehicle over the course of a year may not maybe a huge difference ($128/year for me) but like I said, it has an impact on the cost of groceries, shipping, etc. 

To me the biggest thing is housing prices.

Either way, I don't see the big difference, and I was just answering your question as to where people began to forget that this was to "offset costs," from my own chair. That was all I was trying to do. I am sure, given the formula, I would be shown that Halifax is more expensive, I would just be interested in seeing exactly is considered in that formula and what isn't personally.


----------



## krustyrl (26 Apr 2010)

thx..


----------



## Occam (26 Apr 2010)

I guess it depends on where you get your data.  Real estate sources, such as CREA, have a vested interest in inflating prices.  If you look at MoneySense - they list the average cost of a house in St. John's as $176,500, while it's $234,000 in Halifax.

Using the information at Taxtips, someone earning $60,000 will pay almost $1000 more in NS than in NL.

As far as property taxes go, they're just another factor in the formula.  I looked around for hard data on property tax by city, and there is some but not much.  It points to Halifax being slightly more costly, while St. John's seems to be the lowest of the major Canadian cities.

I agree there is a bit of mystery as to how the rates are arrived at.  Halifax, for a brief period, was expecting to have their PLD erased.  When the actual figures came out, they got an increase from 300-odd to 600-odd bucks per month.  There were a lot of puzzled looks.

The methodology for PLD, and which factors affect it, can be found here.  The exact formula must be a closely guarded secret...   ;D


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (26 Apr 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> As far as property taxes go, they're just another factor in the formula.  I looked around for hard data on property tax by city, and there is some but not much.  It points to Halifax being slightly more costly, while St. John's seems to be the lowest of the major Canadian cities.


Here's the data for Halifax:

A $180,000 house in Halifax will pay approx $2350 in 2010.

Urban General Rate - Residential and Resource Rate $0.702   
Suburban General Rate - Residential and Resource Rate $0.685 
Rural  General Rate - Residential and Resource Rate $0.679

plus

Supplementary 

Former City of Halifax and City of Dartmouth - $0.050 Residential and Resource
Former Town of Bedford and Halifax County - $0.045 Residential and Resource 

plus

Mandatory Provincial Funding

Education - $0.312 for Residential and Resource 
Property Valuation Services - $0.022 for Residential and Resource 
Correction Services - $0.029 for Residential and Resource 
Metro Housing Authority - $0.009 for Residential and Resource

http://www.halifax.ca/revenue/taxbill/index.html


----------



## CountDC (27 Apr 2010)

don't forget that PLD is set by comparing to the NCR now. Using the nice formula they determine how much more an average family  would pay to live in X community compared to the NCR and then set the PLD rate for X accordingly.  Still annoying that Halifax gets so much more than Ottawa - my cost of living increased when we moved here.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2010)

CountDC said:
			
		

> don't forget that PLD is set by comparing to the NCR now. Using the nice formula they determine how much more an average family  would pay to live in X community compared to the NCR and then set the PLD rate for X accordingly.  Still annoying that Halifax gets so much more than Ottawa - my cost of living increased when we moved here.



All I know is that I'm getting $4705.27 back in taxes this year!! Thank to moves from New Brunswick TO Ontario!! Them in NB are wondering how Halifax gets what they do, yet NB gets the grand sum of zero too (same as NCR now).


----------



## gcclarke (27 Apr 2010)

All I know is that I'm looking forward to moving back to Victoria this summer. I'm not planning on buyingcannot afford to buy, and frankly, I don't anticipate my rental costs to be all that much more than what I'm paying now in Ottawa (well, Nepean). The fact That me and the girlfriend have agreed that we could stand to down-grade a tad helps too. 

Of course, I realize that in this case, my costs wouldn't really be anything close to the average costs. But let's face it, I'd be doing this regardless of whether or not we got PLD. I'd just also be getting out of debt a lot slower in the meantime.


----------



## CountDC (27 Apr 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> All I know is that I'm getting $4705.27 back in taxes this year!! Thank to moves from New Brunswick TO Ontario!! Them in NB are wondering how Halifax gets what they do, yet NB gets the grand sum of zero too (same as NCR now).



The only thing that went down for me.  Everything else increased when we moved here.  Even moving into Q's resulted in a $200 rent increase. Price of gas was lower but ended up buying more to get around. Overall the cost of living increased for us and when they combine the sales tax into HST it is going to get even more  fun...


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2010)

CountDC said:
			
		

> The only thing that went down for me.  Everything else increased when we moved here.  Even moving into Q's resulted in a $200 rent increase. Price of gas was lower but ended up buying more to get around. Overall the cost of living increased for us and when they combine the sales tax into HST it is going to get even more  fun...



I believe you; having a brother posted from Ontario to Halifax, Nova Scotia last year - who bought a bigger & much newer home for less dollars, talking about how his family now enjoys life more with the lower output his family now has to spend 'to enjoy life after work" ... combined with his statments as to how he can't *believe* his PLD *actually went up * substantially while his costs went down and he gets to bank even more into his savings account now that he's in Nova Scotia ...

I don't know what the formula is, but it doesn't seem to involve "common sense" in it - quelle surprise.


----------



## Occam (27 Apr 2010)

CountDC said:
			
		

> The only thing that went down for me.  Everything else increased when we moved here.  Even moving into Q's resulted in a $200 rent increase. Price of gas was lower but ended up buying more to get around. Overall the cost of living increased for us and when they combine the sales tax into HST it is going to get even more  fun...



I'm not quite sure how you're paying more.  We moved from the east coast to Ottawa two years ago, and we have way more disposable income than we did before - even with a house that cost twice what we had in Halifax.

Don't forget that the HST in NS is heading to 15% from 13%.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Apr 2010)

Keep in mind PLD is calculated based on past comparisons; situations change in different places.  There's also a policy to keep it from shifting too radically - so a place with a high PLD will see it reduce over several years if things change, vice a sudden hit - but that may also mean other places will see their entitlement grow more slowly, as DND has a set envelope approved by Treasury Board to pay PLD.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Apr 2010)

AV,

PLD in Halifax did not go up last year.  It is the same this year as it was last year...it did go up in '08 though.

And...of my $631 PLD, I see $378 of that in the bank.  My return on my income tax is a whooping $200.  Its not like I am getting any of that back because I overpayed.  Taxes are going UP in NS overall (thanks to all the Bluenosers who voted in a NDP provincial government)...I pay $7 for 4 liters of milk...its not as great as some seem to make it WRT to PLD and living in Halifax area.


----------



## Wookilar (27 Apr 2010)

All I know is that with a move from Kingston to Oromocto, my promotion and raise equaled about $300/month which ended up being an extra $27/pay once the change in provincial taxes got done with it (all other allotments staying the same). And no, I didn't enter a new tax bracket.

House is about the same as Kingston, but groceries and provincial based taxes are way more. Comparing the two locations (and the $0 PLD) I do not undeerstand how Gagetown gets zip with the obvious increases to the cost of living as compared to Kingston (which also gets zip).

What was it on South Park? The Chewbaca defence? Something like that. It does not make sense.

Wook


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Apr 2010)

Damn it!... He's using the Chewbacca defense!


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Apr 2010)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Damn it!... He's using the Chewbacca defense!



(On a more serious note, would anyone be willing to suggest a decent area of Ottawa to buy a starter home in? I'm not at all familiar with the area.)


----------



## gcclarke (27 Apr 2010)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> House is about the same as Kingston, but groceries and provincial based taxes are way more. Comparing the two locations (and the $0 PLD) I do not undeerstand how Gagetown gets zip with the obvious increases to the cost of living as compared to Kingston (which also gets zip).



Simple, they're not comparing Kingston and Gagetown. They're comparing Kingston and the NCR, and then comparing Gagetown and the NCR. It may work out that when they do the calculations, Kingston is $300 a month cheaper to live in than the NCR, whereas Gagetown is $35 more expensive than the NCR (As, in accordance with CBI 205.45(9) PLD is only paid out if it works out to at least $50 a month). Is it unfair? Maybe. But unless you want them to start docking the pay of people posted to cheaper cities, I wouldn't suggest kicking up too much of a fuss about it.

Edit: Removed snarkiness about tax brackets.


----------



## Occam (27 Apr 2010)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> (On a more serious note, would anyone be willing to suggest a decent area of Ottawa to buy a starter home in? I'm not at all familiar with the area.)



From personal experience - Orleans is nice.  Lots of property available, extremely well-serviced by OC Transpo, lots and lots of shopping close by, schools are good from all reports.  Not so great if you're wanting to go to Senators games, which are on the other side of the city.


----------



## CountDC (27 Apr 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure how you're paying more.  We moved from the east coast to Ottawa two years ago, and we have way more disposable income than we did before - even with a house that cost twice what we had in Halifax.
> 
> Don't forget that the HST in NS is heading to 15% from 13%.



yep and the HST here is going to 13% on a lot of items that we never paid the PST on before.  I remember when they brought it into NS and the wallet took a good hit and the stupid rules they had.  Milk no HST - Chocalate Milk HST.

Paying more to start with

Rent - +200
Gas - use a lot more 
Groceries - fresh produce tends to go bad quicker (Lettuce - haven't found a good crispy romaine lettuce yet and what is with all the dirt).
Insurance - went up, can't recall how much exactly but it was a few hundred a year.
Entertainment - almost impossible to take the family out anywhere without paying parking so that is an added expense.  Halifax just about everywhere had discounts for military while Ottawa laughs in your face when you ask.  McD does not get visited too often as much as my daughter likes the place (that is a good one as I hate the place).
Medicine - our share does cost more.
Dental - yep, our share again has cost us more.

Only thing I can think of that went down was the provincial income tax. We have changed our life style to make it work better for us (less fresh produce so we don't end up wasting as much, cycling to work Mar/Apr to Oct/Nov, less shopping trips and museum visits, movies are now at home, more store brand products, etc)

and I agree with Occam - Orleans is a nice area with great shopping and a lot more going in.  If you are a Sens Fan  :threat: then Barrhaven may be a good choice althought the new housing I see there are all on postage stamps.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> AV,
> 
> PLD in Halifax did not go up last year.  It is the same this year as it was last year...it did go up in '08 though.
> 
> And...of my $631 PLD, I see $378 of that in the bank.  My return on my income tax is a whooping $200.  Its not like I am getting any of that back because I overpayed.  Taxes are going UP in NS overall (thanks to all the Bluenosers who voted in a NDP provincial government)...I pay $7 for 4 liters of milk...its not as great as some seem to make it WRT to PLD and living in Halifax area.



What I meant was ... his PLD went UP while moving from Ontario *TO* Nova Scotia last year ... and he is still shocked by that considering how much better off he and his family are now (banking his entire PLD into savings every month) and still managing to enjoy "after work activities more often and better" down there in NS (IE: He is enjoying a much higher standard of living in NS ... and banking the entire PLD). Hmmmmmm.


----------



## armyvern (27 Apr 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Simple, they're not comparing Kingston and Gagetown. They're comparing Kingston and the NCR, and then comparing Gagetown and the NCR. It may work out that when they do the calculations, Kingston is $300 a month cheaper to live in than the NCR, whereas Gagetown is $35 more expensive than the NCR (As, in accordance with CBI 205.45(9) PLD is only paid out if it works out to at least $50 a month). Is it unfair? Maybe. But unless you want them to start docking the pay of people posted to cheaper cities, I wouldn't suggest kicking up too much of a fuss about it.
> 
> Edit: Removed snarkiness about tax brackets.



Oromocto/Freddy cost of living is comparable to Halifax, Nova Scotia - including house prices, taxes, property taxes, food prices, etc. 

If comparing to Ottawa is, as you say, the factor --- please explain how Halifax gets +600 bucks per month and Gagetown gets diddly squat when both are compared to Ottawa.

I'll buy your "you can't compare Gagetown to Kingston" scenario, but how do you explain the huge differences between the two locals (both very very similar) when comparing both to Ottawa?

Like I said earlier - I'm up a *whopping* 4700+ bucks refund in taxes because I moved from NB to Ontario ... and I only paid Ontario taxes the last 4 months of the year.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Apr 2010)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> (On a more serious note, would anyone be willing to suggest a decent area of Ottawa to buy a starter home in? I'm not at all familiar with the area.)



Orleans is good, but I personally like Rockland better (I own a house there - want to rent it?).  You get substantially more house and lot than you would in Orleans.  The community has a lot going for it, and the transit system is great - from my house to NDHQ in 50 minutes (including walking time to bus stop) for $120 a month in a highway cruiser.


----------



## gcclarke (28 Apr 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Oromocto/Freddy cost of living is comparable to Halifax, Nova Scotia - including house prices, taxes, property taxes, food prices, etc.
> 
> If comparing to Ottawa is, as you say, the factor --- please explain how Halifax gets +600 bucks per month and Gagetown gets diddly squat when both are compared to Ottawa.
> 
> ...



All I can say is that perhaps your lifestyle isn't the same as the "standard template" used to calculate the PLD rates. First off, the family used to calculate costs consists of three persons with a single income. If this isn't you, then you're already skewing the numbers. Perhaps you eat out either less frequently or more frequently than the "standard" person does. Maybe you're a vegetarian, or maybe you eat twice the meat that the "normal" person does. Perhaps you have 3 cars, or perhaps you don't have any. Perhaps you buy clothing more or less often. Perhaps you aren't just the perfect rank to be making exactly the same amount as the average salary used when calculating income tax. Perhaps you cut your own hair instead of going to the barbers. Perhaps you decide to send your kids to a private school. Perhaps your idea of recreation is hiking or playing board games at home rather than going out to the movies or the theatre. Maybe you don't smoke or drink. 

Everyone's lifestyle is different, and the task of determining the actual differences in living costs is impossible, as that will be constantly shifting. As I mentioned before, I'm posted to Victoria in a couple months. Victoria has a rather high PLD rate, I presume mostly due to high housing costs. I, however, would certainly not be surprised if I end up paying less for housing there than I currently am paying here in Ottawa. Of course the fact that I do not currently nor plan to have children also helps this. 

Is it fair? Perhaps not, but they don't pull these numbers out of their nowhere. They try to take an extremely complex set of variables and boil it down to a single number. Of course it's going to be inaccurate for most people. For some, this will mean more money in their pocket. For others, it will mean they'll have to cut back. 

But unless we start tailoring the allowances based on these factors, I see no other solution. Of course, we wouldn't be able to do that either, as that would certainly be discrimination upon the basis of marital status, which the Supreme Court has ruled is analogous the those categories in Section 15 of the Charter upon the basis of which discrimination is forbidden.


----------



## Wookilar (28 Apr 2010)

Vern's nailed it on the head.

I'm not comparing Kingston to Gagetown exactly, I'm just comparing them in that they both get $0 when compared to Ottawa. If that's the case, then the costs associated with living in both areas should even out to be approximately the same.

We left Edmonton before everything went insane (too bad, could have made away like bandits on the house  ), went to Kingston where there was a noticeable difference in our cost of living and our lifestyle. After a few years there, and a promotion which should have brought us up a fair bit, a posting to Gagetown skewed everything again.

There are certain things in NB that cost less than ON (school fees are almost nonexistent down here), the majority of your day-to-day operations as a family co much more. There were certain things in Kingston that were cheaper than Edmonton (at the time).

Having lived in these 3 particular locations, for more than long enough to see a few years (ha) in each, I have to say that all these places being $0 when compared to Ottawa is absolute crap. When I left Edmonton it was $0 (yes I know it is changed now but keep up for a second), Kingston $0, Gagetown also $0. While Edmonton has changed drastically due to local extreme market fluctuations, the others have not moved. When looking at these locations (and others i.e. Halifax), and comparing them to Ottawa, how can a few places with so much noticeable disparity all equal $0 when compared to the NCR?

I have a hard time believing that the exact formula for determining PLD is purely statistical in nature. I have a hard time believing that the data used to achieve these numbers are numbers that _most_ rational people would use. If it was purely stats, from the public domain, that are used, why did we have to fight so bloody hard to get Edmonton reexamined? When there was a drastic change in the data used, a reasonable person/system should have adjusted the rates. That's how it is supposed to work.

Someone please tell me that stats are all that's involved. If so, why not give us the formula, the data sets used? What are they afraid of? I don't think the Chinese care how we figure out PLD rates, but the Treasury Board certainly doesn't want us to know.

Wook


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2010)

Well, from the CBI:



> “Standard City” means the cost of living in the National Capital Region (Ottawa/Gatineau), as determined by the Minister in consultation with independent firm(s) with the expertise in the field of cost of living determination. Standard City excludes data from isolated post locations.





> “cost of living” (COL) means the sum of money required to provide for the following categories of household expenditures for a household of three persons, with a household income as may be determined from time to time by the Minister:
> (i) shelter costs;
> (ii) goods and Services – food at home, food away from home, household furnishings, clothing, domestic service (including day-care), medical care, personal care, recreation, tobacco, and alcohol;
> (iii) transportation – operating and owning two automobiles; and
> ...





> (Policy) The purpose of the PLD is to reduce the adverse financial impact on military members and their families when posted to a PLDA (excluding isolated posts) with a COL above the national average. PLD rates represent the monthly differential between the COL at the Standard City and the COL at established PLDAs, grossed-up by the applicable marginal tax rate. PLD rates are taxable and are set annually based on a Treasury Board-approved methodology.




While the exact mathematical formula isn't there, one gets a pretty good sense of what goes in to the calculations.


----------



## ekpiper (28 Apr 2010)

Sorry to branch off of the Gagetown/Kingston thing, but I was wondering if anyone could explain the difference between Transitional PLD and Regular PLD, and when someone is eligible/ineligible for the TPLD.  I ask as I am in Windsor and am being brought in to the Reg Force, and in Windsor there is only a TPLD allowance.

Thanks,
ekpiper


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2010)

TPLD:  Your location was formerly in receipt of PLD.  It is no longer. TPLD is in place for those formerly in receipt of PLD as a series of steps to reduce the amount they receive, rather than a sharp shock all at once.

New people posted in or enrolled do not receive it.


----------



## Occam (28 Apr 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> New people posted in or enrolled do not receive it.



If that's the case, then there's a whole lot of people in the NCR who owe it back...

I'm pretty sure you get it when you're posted in.  Enrolled, no - as you haven't been moved (posted) there.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> If that's the case, then there's a whole lot of people in the NCR who owe it back...
> 
> I'm pretty sure you get it when you're posted in.  Enrolled, no - as you haven't been moved (posted) there.



Mea culpa - CANFORGEN 61-08 has the details.  You are correct.


----------



## Occam (28 Apr 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Mea culpa - CANFORGEN 61-08 has the details.  You are correct.



Whew!  That would've been a rude kick in the ol' wallet!


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (28 Apr 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> TPLD:  Your location was formerly in receipt of PLD.  It is no longer. TPLD is in place for those formerly in receipt of PLD as a series of steps to reduce the amount they receive, rather than a sharp shock all at once.
> 
> New people posted in or enrolled do not receive it.


I think that you're right, depending on COS date and rank, in accordance with CBI 205.452(3):

Subject to paragraph (4), this instruction applies to:
(a) a member of Group A who meets the conditions of CBI 205.45 (Post Living Differential), and who’s principle residence was located in a TPLDA listed in the Table to this instruction at any time after 30 June 2007, but before 1 April 2008; or
(b) a member of Group B who meets the conditions of CBI 205.45 (Post Living Differential), and who’s principle residence was located in a TPLDA listed in the Table to this instruction at any time after 30 June 2007, but before 1 April 2009.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Apr 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What I meant was ... his PLD went UP while moving from Ontario *TO* Nova Scotia last year ... and he is still shocked by that considering how much better off he and his family are now (banking his entire PLD into savings every month) and still managing to enjoy "after work activities more often and better" down there in NS (IE: He is enjoying a much higher standard of living in NS ... and banking the entire PLD). Hmmmmmm.



Gotcha.  I misunderstood that.  Study-brain catching up to me I guess.

I guess it depends on everyone's personal financial state.  I know the PLD sure helps me and Mrs EITS month to month.  

My income tax return this year is a whooping $216.  62k earnings, about 14kish in taxes.  I'd love to get $700 back, if I got $4700 back..zoowie.  

But I'll agree with the comments that the way PLD is assessed now is kinda OTL.


----------



## readytogo (4 Jun 2010)

Can anyone tell me where i can find info on what would be recieved for a recruit living in edmonton with a mortgage and dependants
also what is the R&Q at St. Jean?

just trying to work out a budget for the future which will help me decide between res and reg


----------



## MasterInstructor (4 Jun 2010)

R&Q is approx 600 but you dont pay if you are married / common law with mortgage. (I am not sure about other dependents) 

PLD is 684 for Edmonton

cheers


----------



## readytogo (9 Jun 2010)

gotta love confusion, i spoke to a recruiter yesterday and he told me that i would not pay R&Q but no PLD ???


----------



## GAP (9 Jun 2010)

This from another thread http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92926.0



			
				DBF said:
			
		

> CANFORGEN 090/09 CMP 039/09 141802Z MAY 09
> 
> SUBJ: POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL (PLD) 2009/2010 RATES
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Jun 2010)

MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> I just wanted to let you know that I am at BMQ right now. All married/common law recruits were handed out a PLD Application and will be receiving it depending on their geographical location.



So why only married/common law?  What about a single recruit who is maintaining a primary residence?  I understand that they would not get free R&Q and SA, but they should get PLD.



> A member without dependants who maintains a principal residence at a place of duty while serving on an attached posting, remains entitled to PLD for the duration of the posting, at the rate established in this instruction’s Table for that location’s PLDA.


----------



## 2010newbie (9 Jun 2010)

> TORONTO AREA 1  1485
> TORONTO AREA 2  506
> TORONTO AREA 3  522
> TORONTO AREA 4  819
> TORONTO AREA 5  1167



Is there a link somewhere that delineates these Toronto Areas? I will be living in Whitby while going to school and I am wondering if Whitby is considered part of one of these?


----------



## MasterInstructor (12 Jun 2010)

readytogo said:
			
		

> gotta love confusion, i spoke to a recruiter yesterday and he told me that i would not pay R&Q but no PLD ???



I was told the same thing at CFRC Vancouver by a clerk but like I said, it is part of week 0 admin process, i did not have to ask for i, forms were filled put as a part of admin class...

I have been enjoying Vancouver PLD for some time now... I am now on Grad week!


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (19 Jun 2010)

I would offer that people check and double check before accepting PLD.  Do not take for granted that you think you are entitled.  A soldier of mine was given PLD in Toronto upon enrolment, attended St Jean, then the ATC.  When the soldier arrived in Petawawa at the unit, and processed through the IRPP consultant, they flagged the PLD payments.  It was investigated by the Base Comptroller, consulted with Ottawa.  Result - not entitled and $10,000 taken off the soldiers pay.  Soldier had a spouse as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2010)

Do you know the basis for the recovery?  Reference?

Thats a substantial amount of funds (and I would assume a reasonable repayment plan was put forth from the Unit CoC for approval?).

Its funny how they pick it up if you are receiving PLD but not entitled.  I know of one member of my last unit who was entitled to PLD (Halifax) and had never received it ever.  In fact, he had no idea there WAS such a thing as PLD.  It was another member of the unit who asked something about PLD...he then called over to the pay office.

End result he received PLD for Halifax backdated to...well to whenever PLD for Halifax was first introduced and had a HELL of a time trying to get the paperwork sorted out, mainly with Revenue Canada, as he had to adjust his tax returns for X amount of years.  PITA, but he did get the money in the end, or just over 50% after it was taxed to death.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (19 Jun 2010)

Reference?  Not off hand as we are deployed right now.  Payment plan - yes.  However, what we did do was approach the CM, have the soldier put on IR and back dated the IR so he ended up with enough funds to cover off the error.


----------



## kkramar (23 Jul 2010)

I just had a chat with my file manager a couple days ago and she did mention that I would be getting PLD. But that's something that I'll find out in September, but it would be dreamy if I could get 684 bucks a month for living in Edmonton.

Anyone know if this is actually true???


----------



## MJP (23 Jul 2010)

kkramar said:
			
		

> I just had a chat with my file manager a couple days ago and she did mention that I would be getting PLD. But that's something that I'll find out in September, but it would be dreamy if I could get 684 bucks a month for living in Edmonton.
> 
> Anyone know if this is actually true???



Yes IF you maintained a residence in Edmonton while on training and until you received a posting to another area, you would get PLD.  However by your accounts you aren't going to maintain a residence and therefore would not be eligible.


----------



## kkramar (23 Jul 2010)

Yea I talked to my file manager and it turns out that I am keeping the place.


----------



## lstpierre (3 Aug 2010)

Does anyone know how I can find out where each zone for Toronto is? I have no idea which zone my place is in.


----------



## CLEM512 (19 Aug 2010)

I just got here at Stadacona about a month ago and I noticed a big drop in pay. I guess rations at the A-block galley are 500 and some bucks, and Quarters are 100 and some. That's more than half my pay after taxes! Now I haven't looked into living off base but I heard when you do you receive PLD which is 675, or close anyway. But I've also heard some stories where people didn't receive the PLD for a couple of months. The PMQ I have no idea about the prices and the cost and the PLD but some answers would be appreciated. But...

Which can you save the most money?
Is 500 a month for rations overpriced?
Is it better to just to be posted in A-block so I don't have to walk far to the school?

I know it is a pretty good deal to have the galley there and people cook for you, and then they do the dishes. But sometimes I just want some food that I want to eat instead of eating what ever is there. It wouldn't be so bad if there was just like a little kitchen in A-block where you could cook, like a hostel for a university or something. But anyway, which is the best way to save money?


----------



## gcclarke (19 Aug 2010)

While finding accomodations elsewhere might allow you to decrease your bill for food on a monthly basis, it will also come along with a large increase in the lodging costs. Keeping in mind that PLD is taxable, I do not think that you'll be able to find suitable accomodations for a price low enough to allow you to actually save money by moving out of A block. 

There are other factors too, such as furnishings. Furnished apartments can be obtained, but of course, they cost more. Otherwise you'll looking at a rather large up-front cost. And then there's the transportation thing. Will you be able to find a place within walking distance of the base, or will you have to take a bus, or attempt to arrange for a carpool? There's a lot of little things that pop up that'll cost you money, which you might otherwise not have to spring for when living in.

Which isn't to say that I don't think moving out can be a good idea, but doing so to attempt to save money might not be the best thing.


----------



## kratz (20 Aug 2010)

Your post has hit on the one area missing in A Block, vice Windsor Block...the lack of a kitchenette. Sadly, from a Pre-Med perspective the idea will be denied right away. I have lived in both blocks and as a jr, you have a tough choice to make when it comes to your personal budget. Before complaining, consider that in other bases you would not be allows to "live in". I do not like to resort to the "suck it up" phrase...But...


----------



## Pat in Halifax (20 Aug 2010)

All said,  $600+ for R&Q sounds a little steep especially A Block. Log into EMAA and see what you are actually paying. I know for most, our pay around this time of year seems a little awry as EI and CPP is being topped up. Actually my pay too, went down by about $50 (as has my co-workers) and we have yet to determine what that is all about.


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2010)

And, welcome to Nova Scotia ... check out their provincial tax rate for their brackets when compared to other provinces; me thinks that is also contributing to your lighter wallet; also note that their brackets for higher rates begin at lower incomes than other provinces.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html


----------



## willellis (25 Sep 2010)

Hey guys. I am looking to see if anyone can answer this question by tomorrow! I am moving my family from Nanaimo to Victoria and want to know if Shawnigan Lake is considered in area for Esquimalt PLD. Let me know. Thanks!


----------



## willellis (26 Sep 2010)

Anyone! Like to know in the next 2 hours.  :-\


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Sep 2010)

Why is this posted under Canadian Politics?   ???

Perhaps this map will help you:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/esquimal-eng.asp


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2010)

I don't have an answer, but am wondering why someone would want an answer within two hours on a Sunday morning for something that may require some research on the DWAN?

Then again, why wouldn't this person do their own SEARCH on the site for the information on PLD in Victoria and negate the need to start a new topic on it?

Then again, I am beginning to seriously question the IQs and Common Sense of a vast majority of the residents of my fair city (not Victoria).


----------



## medicineman (26 Sep 2010)

Long and short - yes.

MM


----------



## willellis (26 Sep 2010)

First off, I did a search and did not fond the answers I needed. Second off I needed to know asap on a sundaay because I am looking at a place to rent in Shawnigan lake this afternoon and have to be able to know if I can afford to live there so I let the owners know if I can take the house or not. Third off I am not on base this weekend, I am with my family in Nanaimo, where I do not have access to the DIN. Fourth or all, instead of speculating as to my motives for this new topic, cab you not just trust that perhaps there are reasons beoyond your knowledge and give a yes or know answer. Thanks for the input fellas. BTW, thanks MM


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Sep 2010)

willellis said:
			
		

> First off, I did a search and did not fond the answers I needed.



What, no thanks to me?  I found that map on my first Google search.   :'(


----------



## Occam (26 Sep 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> What, no thanks to me?  I found that map on my first Google search.   :'(



You didn't spoon feed him the answer, Moe!


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Sep 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> You didn't spoon feed him the answer, Moe!



Click on the link I posted.  That map _clearly_ shows Shawnigan Lake in the PLD zone.  Cripes, how much more spoon fed could you get than a visual?    :


----------



## willellis (28 Sep 2010)

Sorry man. When I looked at the thread, there were a bunch of posts and I skimmed at first to see if the answer I needed was there.  Your link was acctually what I was trying to find for quite a while. I knew it was out there, but couldn't find it. I never thought to google it and instead tried searching the DND site.  :. Thanks though. Oh and next time could you use a bigger spoon.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Sep 2010)

willellis said:
			
		

> Thanks though.



You're welcome.



			
				willellis said:
			
		

> Oh and next time could you use a bigger spoon.



Nope, mine are disposable.  You've used yours up.


----------



## Cory13 (13 Nov 2010)

Hey guys!

I will be going to basic training in about 2 months, in the navy and i am still trying to decide a preference on what coast i would like be posted, that being said I hear Victoria is alot more expensive then Halifax but I keep hearing something PLD to help cover, now i read the info on the national defense site but I was wondering if anyone here (preferably someone that gets it of course) can tell me about it in English, what cities get it? is it the same amount for everyone everywhere? how is it calculated?

thanks everyone!


----------



## navymich (13 Nov 2010)

Cory13 said:
			
		

> Hey guys!
> 
> I will be going to basic training in about 2 months, in the navy and i am still trying to decide a preference on what coast i would like be posted, that being said I hear Victoria is alot more expensive then Halifax but I keep hearing something PLD to help cover, now i read the info on the national defense site but I was wondering if anyone here (preferably someone that gets it of course) can tell me about it in English, what cities get it? is it the same amount for everyone everywhere? how is it calculated?
> 
> thanks everyone!



There is a great search function in the forums here.  I typed in "PLD" and found a few threads for you to read through:

Post Living Differential (PLD)

PLD on Enrollment

PLD Rates

Esquimalt PLD Zone


----------



## mad dog 2020 (15 Jan 2011)

I don't have access to DND pubs and was wondering what would the approx. LOA for living out on the economy in Hfx for an OS.  Thanks


----------



## Occam (15 Jan 2011)

$631....and it's not called Living Out Allowance, it's called Post Living Differential, or PLD.  You're paid the same regardless of rank.  There is lots of information on PLD here and here.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (15 Jan 2011)

Thanks much.  
from A retired grunt


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jan 2011)

While its great to have don't count on it, there are murmurings from our ships office its being getting rid of.


----------



## Stoker (18 Jan 2011)

Heard a lot of rumors as well, I really can't see it disappearing all together, what I been hearing its probably going to half of what it is now.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jan 2011)

Of course, it must be the signs of good times to come then.... things getting cheaper.  Hope someone sent NSP and the URB a memo that happy days are here again.  Oh, wait!  That's for them, not us.


----------



## agc (18 Jan 2011)

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> I don't have access to DND pubs and was wondering what would the approx. LOA for living out on the economy in Hfx for an OS.  Thanks



Quite a few DND/CF pubs are available on the internet.  Some allowances are described in CBI 205.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/205-eng.asp


----------



## Stoker (18 Jan 2011)

I think the last time it was assessed it was supposed to be going down, when it was actually assessed it actually went up! Things are no better here. If it does disappear, its a cost cutting measure pure and simple.


----------



## yoman (18 Jan 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> While its great to have don't count on it, there are murmurings from our ships office its being getting rid of.



This past summer the question was brought up to a high ranking officer who was visiting the ship and he said that their were no plans in the immediate future to change/modify PLD. How long immediate future is or if their thinking about it who knows. 

I would hate to see individual members have to suffer financially if it does change and their not ready for it.


----------



## Stoker (18 Jan 2011)

Its nice to say don't count on it, and your not suppose to count on sea pay, Class C etc. The problem is many people do count on it for living out, its hard not to.


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Jan 2011)

I have heard of people counting on estimates from travel claims to pay their new car, rent etc...and freaking out when the money doesn't come fast enough or in a large enough amount. 

Sea Pay/PLD might not be quite the same, but it's still not guaranteed salary at the end of the day. All it takes is a couple pen strokes and it's on the way out.  

If you read the LDA thread here, apparently that is on the way out. RUMINT in that thread mentioned that sea pay might be next...

IMO, I would rather see people lose their sea pay/LDA (and be paid a daily rate when at sea/when in the field) than lose their PLD. I think PLD is more justifiable to the government/public.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Jan 2011)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> RUMINT in that thread mentioned that sea pay might be next...



SDA is a different elephant than LDA and much easier to distinguish who gets it. The issues with who does and does not get LDA are what is leading to its possible downfall and will have little effect if any on sea pay. 

Cant state my sources on this but it was from a rather reliable source who I think we could all trust lol Take it or leave it  :2c:


----------



## Pusser (19 Jan 2011)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> IMO, I would rather see people lose their sea pay/LDA (and be paid a daily rate when at sea/when in the field) than lose their PLD. I think PLD is more justifiable to the government/public.



Actually, precisely the opposite is true.  PLD is a *very* hard sell to the public (particularly the Public Service, who don't receive it) and Treasury Board.  It took us years to get it approved and its continuance has always been a struggle.  Treasury Board's chief objection is that it does not want to be seen in anyway to be using tax dollars to improve anyone's equity.  This is why PLD's predecessor (Accomodations Assistance Allowance - AAA) was only for renters.


I like the idea of SDA being a daily allowance, but that's a topic for another thread.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Jan 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I like the idea of SDA being a daily allowance, but that's a topic for another thread.



I disagree Pusser. I think SDA is about the only thing keeping allot of people committed to the ships and if you remove that compounded with amount of time away some ships spend away plus duty watches I think you would be hard pressed to get people to ships. We don't get much recognition for what we do in the Navy. I think the extra pay goes a very long way to keeping the manning at least where it is.

What they should do is make it easier to remove the pay from those who shouldn't get it but do.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (20 Jan 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> PLD is a very hard sell to the public (particularly the Public Service, who don't receive it) and Treasury Board.  It took us years to get it approved and its continuance has always been a struggle.  Treasury Board's chief objection is that it does not want to be seen in anyway to be using tax dollars to improve anyone's equity.



I'll buy that argument when we get to choose our postings.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jan 2011)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> I'll buy that argument when we get to choose our postings.



Agreed! And go home every night at 3:30!


----------



## Pusser (24 Jan 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I disagree Pusser. I think SDA is about the only thing keeping allot of people committed to the ships and if you remove that compounded with amount of time away some ships spend away plus duty watches I think you would be hard pressed to get people to ships. We don't get much recognition for what we do in the Navy. I think the extra pay goes a very long way to keeping the manning at least where it is.
> 
> What they should do is make it easier to remove the pay from those who shouldn't get it but do.



The purpose of SDA is to compensate people for going to sea and to encourage them to do so.  If you can draw SDA without going to sea (which you can, either as unfit sea or in a designated position), in what way is this an incentive?  If we pay it on a daily basis (as we do CASSDA) then only those who actually go to sea will get it.  In that way it is a true incentive.  Combined with this, I would also eliminate the monthly cap on CASSDA so that those who go to sea a lot, get more than those who don't go as much.  In short, I'm not advocating getting rid of SDA.  I'm simply saying we need to redistribute it so that those who truly deserve it will get it and the more you go to sea, the more you get.  This is not currently the case.


----------



## Pusser (24 Jan 2011)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> I'll buy that argument when we get to choose our postings.



The fact that we do not get to choose our postings is the main reason we were able to get PLD approved.  However, that doesn't mean there isn't still opposition to the concept.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jan 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The purpose of SDA is to compensate people for going to sea and to encourage them to do so.  If you can draw SDA without going to sea (which you can, either as unfit sea or in a designated position), in what way is this an incentive?  If we pay it on a daily basis (as we do CASSDA) then only those who actually go to sea will get it.  In that way it is a true incentive.  Combined with this, I would also eliminate the monthly cap on CASSDA so that those who go to sea a lot, get more than those who don't go as much.  In short, I'm not advocating getting rid of SDA.  I'm simply saying we need to redistribute it so that those who truly deserve it will get it and the more you go to sea, the more you get.  This is not currently the case.



I have no issue with revamping who gets it and I would agree that once labeled as unfit sea your SDA should cease. For ships in refit they only collect the sea pay for 6 months of refit and then it ceases while only garnering point with no cash. 

But doing away with and only issuing it for days while at sea will cause, and I promise it will, a huge discontent in the fleet(s) at all ranks and will greatly effect manning. The draw for some people to be posted to ship is the SDA. All those with 20 + years in will have lost another incentive to stick around and will simply go else where. SDA is also there and justified by our duty watches (home and foreign port) and the long extra hours people put on the grey hulls. I always saw it as my overtime pay.


----------



## agc (24 Jan 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> But doing away with and only issuing it for days while at sea will cause, and I promise it will, a huge discontent in the fleet(s) at all ranks and will greatly effect manning. The draw for some people to be posted to ship is the SDA.



I agree that there will be a lot of discontent, but how many decisions are made that don't cause lots of b*tching and moaning?  I'm not sure that actually amounts to anything, as it's forgotten as soon as something new to complain about happens.

As for manning, I think that it would represent a massive issue of discipline within the Navy, if a few hundred bucks is all that's keeping our sailors at sea.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jan 2011)

agc said:
			
		

> I agree that there will be a lot of discontent, but how many decisions are made that don't cause lots of b*tching and moaning?  I'm not sure that actually amounts to anything, as it's forgotten as soon as something new to complain about happens.
> 
> As for manning, I think that it would represent a massive issue of discipline within the Navy, if a few hundred bucks is all that's keeping our sailors at sea.



I think messing with the SDA will be allot bigger than say what the QMs new dress is for brow watches. You will have some members who have been drawing the SDA for a very long time and are making a sustantial amount off of it suddenly seeing a decrease in pay! Look what happened when ships started getting FSP and the CPO with 20 years sea time and umpteen NATOs was now making less than the LS with 3 land tours under their respective belts while on a CEFCOM mission! 

I think you will see a substantial exit of people who are able to collect a pension (i.e. 20+ years service pers). This will again create a leadership/experience vacuum that the young'ns will have to suddenly fill prematurely.  

And really the amount of people doing pier head jumps and sticking their proverbial finger in the hole that is naval manning right now is at a dangerous level! We need to retain and work to retain not give the member more incentive to leave an already under appreciated service (Navy).


----------



## Pat in Halifax (24 Jan 2011)

SDA to those of us who sail means more than "going to sea" and I dare say that unless you have served in an HR unit or one working up to HR than maybe (as they say), you can learn more by listening than talking. Never mind the sometimes 1 in 7/8 duty watches but the 10-12 hour working days alongside and 18+ hour working days at sea. I am by no means complaining but more trying to make the point.
As for the LS/Cpl making more than the CPO with the HD scale (or what ever it is now called), I was one of those on OP APOLLO when a Cpl Clerk actually chuckled at me (as a PO1) when he saw all my levels were at the lowest-Me with 4+ 6-month NATOs and as I commented to him re ship board life "I have passed more light houses going astern than you have passed telephone poles in your life so shut the f*** up!!"


----------



## mwhy321 (24 Jan 2011)

Back to the original topic of this conversation. PLD of $631 for Halifax?????? Can someone honestly with a straight face argue its $7000 more a year to live in Halifax then the NCR?


----------



## FSTO (24 Jan 2011)

PLDA
MONTHLY PLD (in dollars) AFTER MARCH 2008
PLDA
MONTHLY PLD (in dollars) AFTER MARCH 2008
Regina                                62
Saskatoon                          382
Dundurn-Saskatoon           0
Moose Jaw                         284

I know that Real Estate is not the only factor taken into account when computing PLD. But in Saskatchewan, our property taxes, utilities (electric and natural gas are set by a provincial body) groceries and gasoline are all within a couple of dollars of each other. So I cannot see why there is such a difference between Regina-Moose Jaw- Saskatoon and Dundurn. When I asked DCBA what their methodology was for computing PLD they said that it was confidential and would not release the information.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jan 2011)

Oh to be purple said:
			
		

> Back to the original topic of this conversation. PLD of $631 for Halifax?????? Can someone honestly with a straight face argue its $7000 more a year to live in Halifax then the NCR?



You can have my PLD if I get your taxes and goods and services costs...Fair trade I would say...


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jan 2011)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> SDA to those of us who sail means more than "going to sea" and I dare say that unless you have served in an HR unit or one working up to HR than maybe (as they say), you can learn more by listening than talking. Never mind the sometimes 1 in 7/8 duty watches but the 10-12 hour working days alongside and 18+ hour working days at sea. I am by no means complaining but more trying to make the point.
> As for the LS/Cpl making more than the CPO with the HD scale (or what ever it is now called), I was one of those on OP APOLLO when a Cpl Clerk actually chuckled at me (as a PO1) when he saw all my levels were at the lowest-Me with 4+ 6-month NATOs and as I commented to him re ship board life "I have passed more light houses going astern than you have passed telephone poles in your life so shut the f*** up!!"



I totally agree with you Pat. I had to chuckle when I asked my fellow sup techs with 2 Svc Bn and 1 or 2 RCR (I don't know the difference) how often they went to the field. The reply I got was nothing that I expected. I know a few of them would be shocked to be join a HR ship and see often you get to go home at night. I could see the waste in LDA in that.

As well with the FSP thing I do believe your exact example was the driving factor behind the back dating of FSPs for pers who has served ship born NATOs ect ect ect. Even still we don't get the benefits until we enter "the box" while on deployment. 



			
				Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> SDA to those of us who sail means more than "going to sea" and I dare say that unless you have served in an HR unit or one working up to HR than maybe (as they say), you can learn more by listening than talking.



As I surly hope your not pointing that me ?


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jan 2011)

Oh to be purple said:
			
		

> Back to the original topic of this conversation. PLD of $631 for Halifax?????? Can someone honestly with a straight face argue its $7000 more a year to live in Halifax then the NCR?



What are you paying a month for electricity for example?  I pay over $300 for starters.  Groceries, I bet it's cheaper too for you.  We have the highest Provincial tax rate of anyone as well.  Other things too.  Now I'm not saying you don't pay big money for things, but I think you can look at someone high up in the puzzle palace trying to make a show of something for cutting you off at the knees.


----------



## mwhy321 (24 Jan 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> What are you paying a month for electricity for example?  I pay over $300 for starters.  Groceries, I bet it's cheaper too for you.  We have the highest Provincial tax rate of anyone as well.  Other things too.  Now I'm not saying you don't pay big money for things, but I think you can look at someone high up in the puzzle palace trying to make a show of something for cutting you off at the knees.



I've lived in NS, all be it its been several years, but if things are so much more (which in reality they aren't $631 more), then why no PLD for Greenwood or Sydney?


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jan 2011)

Oh to be purple said:
			
		

> I've lived in NS, all be it its been several years, but if things are so much more (which in reality they aren't $631 more), then why no PLD for Greenwood or Sydney?



Can't say, but some things are not as expensive at those locations as it is here in the Halifax region.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jan 2011)

Oh to be purple said:
			
		

> I've lived in NS, all be it its been several years, but if things are so much more (which in reality they aren't $631 more), then why no PLD for Greenwood or Sydney?



What is several years ? I will tell you when I was posted to Halifax from Kingston I was shocked to see the hit I took on my pay in taxes. Greenwood and Sydney both have cheaper housing and goods and services.


----------



## Figment (24 Jan 2011)

I moved from Halifax to Greenwood so I have an informed opinion on the cost of living differences. At one time housing was cheaper here in the ditch but now a new build starts at $250,000 if you can find one, mostly you get stuck with someone's  junk . An honest builder will be harder to find. So it is really only slightly cheaper. As for goods and services, it is way more expensive because most are "one of" so there is no competition. Even the regulated cost of fuel is more. And because it is a predominately transient community, the property taxes based on assessments are through the roof. My assessment has rose $104,000 in 5 years. Even with the CAP. 
PLD is supposed to be based on a two income family living in Ottawa. Unless your other income also comes from the military you out of luck. There is no industry, only minimum wage jobs like Tim's and McD's. If your spouse is used to having responsibility and job satisfaction it can be a kick in the junk to do a mind numbing job pouring coffee or working in a store where you might get 5 customers all day.
When I asked the WCWO about the lack of good jobs and PLD he told me "that's why so many spouses join the Reserves" great answer, post people to Greenwood to recruit for the Reserves. And you have to buy your own watch that can be set back to 1975.


----------



## Pusser (25 Jan 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> But doing away with and only issuing it for days while at sea will cause, and I promise it will, a huge discontent in the fleet(s) at all ranks and will greatly effect manning. The draw for some people to be posted to ship is the SDA. All those with 20 + years in will have lost another incentive to stick around and will simply go else where. SDA is also there and justified by our duty watches (home and foreign port) and the long extra hours people put on the grey hulls. I always saw it as my overtime pay.


I don't follow you.  My proposal will still see that people who get posted to ships will still draw SDA, so the incentive to go to ships is still there.  I'm only saying that we should pay it differently in order to be more fair.  Right now, the sailors in HR ships get the same as the guys in SR ships.  Shouldn't the guys who go to sea more often get more?  SDA should be paid for doing the job, not for having a posting message.  I've seen too many folks draw SDA for too long without ever once actually leaving the jetty.  Paying it strictly for days at sea would eliminate this.

As for duty watches, they have nothing to do with it.  Treasury Board approved SDA as compensation for a number of "specific factors" associated with the environmental aspects of service at sea.   The requirement to stand duty watches in home or in foreign port is not one of those specific factors.  Duty watches are considered a normal military duty, along the same vein as base duty.  Now, before everybody joins the dogpile on me to say that shipboard duty watches are nothing like Duty PMC at the mess on Tuesday night, I agree, but I didn't make the rules.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jan 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't follow you.  My proposal will still see that people who get posted to ships will still draw SDA, so the incentive to go to ships is still there.  I'm only saying that we should pay it differently in order to be more fair.  Right now, the sailors in HR ships get the same as the guys in SR ships.  Shouldn't the guys who go to sea more often get more?  SDA should be paid for doing the job, not for having a posting message.  I've seen too many folks draw SDA for too long without ever once actually leaving the jetty.  Paying it strictly for days at sea would eliminate this.
> 
> As for duty watches, they have nothing to do with it.  Treasury Board approved SDA as compensation for a number of "specific factors" associated with the environmental aspects of service at sea.   The requirement to stand duty watches in home or in foreign port is not one of those specific factors.  Duty watches are considered a normal military duty, along the same vein as base duty.  Now, before everybody joins the dogpile on me to say that shipboard duty watches are nothing like Duty PMC at the mess on Tuesday night, I agree, but I didn't make the rules.



As long as it stays a monthly allowance not something dolled out per day at sea you will get no gripe from me. And if we do go SDA per day at sea how will that effect the point system ? Will it mean a member has to spend X number of days at sea per month to earn a point for that month ? This is just going to get as complicated and ridiculous as that silly boy scout badge, sea service insignia thing coming out. 

Pusser I would be interested to know your sea experience, not calling you out understand just wondering. I know of all my time while in the Navy and of the 9 years I have posted to ships I have never once heard anyone say "geez those guys on HMCS XXX are getting sea pay and they haven't sailed in X days" nor have I ever thought that as a person. Don't kid yourself this not to be "fair" to members or to create some utopian pay equality, this is a simple money grab and one that isn't deserved. Money is wasted everyday in the CF in much bigger commodities than SDA, why don't we go after some of the real issues and leave the benefits alone.

Don't forget this is not about the ships its about the people within them making it all happen. Very often, too often, people are simply jumping from ship to ship ship to plug holes. This would only create a nightmare for the pay clerk who has to calculate it! I say just leave it as a monthly allowance like it is now and simply tweak it to close the loopholes and tie up the loose ends. As far as I am concerned anyone posted to a sleek greyhounds of death deserves that extra $. As I have said before few people in the CF spend as much time away from home with so little extra incentive as our fine sailors.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (25 Jan 2011)

We're off topic again but quickly-Maybe tie the increments in with SSI. That way, though you may have rec'd SDA for 10 years, if you only actually spent 200 days "at sea", you remain at ...say....Level 1? Just a thought-then they would have something else useful to do with all that data compiled for the SSI....Just me thinking....


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jan 2011)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> We're off topic again but quickly-Maybe tie the increments in with SSI. That way, though you may have rec'd SDA for 10 years, if you only actually spent 200 days "at sea", you remain at ...say....Level 1? Just a thought-then they would have something else useful to do with all that data compiled for the SSI....Just me thinking....



If they go that way one would hope the same data could be used for the tow policies, but we both know how we like to do the same equation multiple times expecting a different answer each time.


----------



## ballz (25 Jan 2011)

WRT how they calculate PLD and the differences between different cities, we had a long-winded discussion about this in another PLD thread, particularly comparing St. John's (149/mth) to Halifax (631/mth). We compared just about everything under the sun, without any convincing evidence that there was much difference in the two cities either which way.

I think we ended up concluding that someone just wrote the different cities down on a piece of paper, dropped the stack down the stairs, and whoever got the furthest down gets the most money. ;D

In reality, I don't think income taxes should play into it. Theoritically, if you pay more income tax, you're receiving more social services. I'm just going to assume they just use the same "basket of goods" used to compute the Consumer Price Index, since it would be easy to do (basically already done for them) and all, until someone can get their hands on the actual method... but that still doesn't explain the difference between St. John's and Halifax.

Anyway I suggest not trying to figure this one out if you don't like headaches and/or smacking your head off the wall.


----------



## FSTO (25 Jan 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> WRT how they calculate PLD and the differences between different cities, we had a long-winded discussion about this in another PLD thread, particularly comparing St. John's (149/mth) to Halifax (631/mth). We compared just about everything under the sun, without any convincing evidence that there was much difference in the two cities either which way.
> 
> I think we ended up concluding that someone just wrote the different cities down on a piece of paper, dropped the stack down the stairs, and whoever got the furthest down gets the most money. ;D
> 
> ...



I hear you buddy, out here in Regina we just figured the person making the decision screwed up and is too embarrassed to admit their mistake.


----------



## Stoker (25 Jan 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't follow you.  My proposal will still see that people who get posted to ships will still draw SDA, so the incentive to go to ships is still there.  I'm only saying that we should pay it differently in order to be more fair.  Right now, the sailors in HR ships get the same as the guys in SR ships.  Shouldn't the guys who go to sea more often get more?  SDA should be paid for doing the job, not for having a posting message.  I've seen too many folks draw SDA for too long without ever once actually leaving the jetty.  Paying it strictly for days at sea would eliminate this.



I have no problem making it more fair as in not paying it to people who are on temp medical cats and so forth. As for not being able to draw it because your ship doesn't go to sea well that's the pick of the draw. I'm not going to begrudge someone who is posted to a ship that has limited sea days, all ships do that over time, it evens out in the end. I don't know what your sea experience is, although I think its interesting to note that it seems some of these proposals come from people who either never sailed in their life or has a limited amount of sea time under the guise to making it "fair". Not to mention it saves a boat load of cash.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Not to mention it saves a boat load of cash.



And that, is exactly what I suspect will be behind the chopping and cutting of any benefits to the troops.  It's all about some bean counter being able to show the system how hot shit they are in saving bucks and allowing treasury to make out like Scrooge McDuck.  Should be worth a promotion to some staff weenie, somewhere.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jan 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And that, is exactly what I suspect will be behind the chopping and cutting of any benefits to the troops.  It's all about some bean counter being able to show the system how hot crap they are in saving bucks and allowing treasury to make out like Scrooge McDuck.  Should be worth a promotion to some staff weenie, somewhere.



In one of my previous posts to Pusser you will see I stated the same as you and Chief Stoker. 

This is a poorly veiled attempt to save $ disguised as a fair way to pay out. Now is this actually happening or are we debating a fictitious event ?


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> In one of my previous posts to Pusser you will see I stated the same as you and Chief Stoker.
> 
> This is a poorly veiled attempt to save $ disguised as a fair way to pay out. Now is this actually happening or are we debating a fictitious event ?



Usually where there is smoke there is fire.  I suspect there is something to this.  I ran into a friend from AthaB today, he told me they were more or less told it is a done deal by the looks of it.  Expect to see it halved this summer and gone in the New Year if what they were told is genuine.


----------



## Stoker (25 Jan 2011)

I have heard from at least 2 years ago that this was being considered.  I fear the writing is on the wall. Parking, SDA, PLD excellent for retention eh?


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I have heard from at least 2 years ago that this was being considered.  I fear the writing is on the wall. Parking, SDA, PLD excellent for retention eh?



Sure makes me a happy Sailor.  Two to twenty five, and if something better comes along, I'm gone.


----------



## Pusser (26 Jan 2011)

Off the top of my head, here is the list of ships in which I have sailed and drawn SDA/CASSDA/CASSUBA

PORTE ST LOUIS
PORTE ST JEAN
FORT STEELE
ORIOLE
CHIGNECTO
COWICHAN
MIRIMICHI
QU'APPELLE
YUKON
SAGUENAY
FRASER
CORMORANT
OKANAGAN
PROTECTEUR
ALGONQUIN

I'll stack my sea service against anybody's.

Where do people get the idea that I'm proposing paying SDA on a daily basis in order to save money?  That has never factored into any part of my thoughts on the subject.  My idea may in fact cost more.  I don't know.  I haven't really looked at that part of it because that is not my motivation.   My only motivation is to put the money where it belongs, in the hands of the sailors going to sea as opposed to the senior officers and chiefs sitting in "designated positions" that rarely, if ever, go.

On another note, although I've been out of that office for about five months now, I have never heard anything on possible changes to SDA.  I was just spit balling on what I'd like to see, not what is in the works.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jan 2011)

> Where do people get the idea that I'm proposing paying SDA on a daily basis in order to save money?



From right here:



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> I like the idea of SDA being a daily allowance, but that's a topic for another thread.



Also if you think would be for anything other than saving money I think you may be sadly mistaken.



> My only motivation is to put the money where it belongs, in the hands of the sailors going to sea as opposed to the senior officers and chiefs sitting in "designated positions" that rarely, if ever, go.



If them getting it means I still get to keep mine and every other current everyday sailor get to keep theirs too, I say let them have it. I would say the amount actually spent for these few people, you allude to, pale in comparison to the amount's wasted by some bureaucrats err senior/flag officers wandering around NDHQ. Cut the money from the tail end not the pointy end is all I am saying.


----------



## Pusser (26 Jan 2011)

You're reading way too much between the lines.  " I like the idea of SDA being a daily allowance," does not in *any* way say or even imply that I'm trying to save the Crown's money.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jan 2011)

You asked: 



> Where do people get the idea that I'm proposing paying SDA on a daily basis in order to save money?



I answered:

Quote from: Pusser on January 19, 2011, 13:08:45


> I like the idea of SDA being a daily allowance, but that's a topic for another thread.



I don't see how that's reading between the lines in anyway. Its pretty plain to me.

I think we've exhausted any other excuse to switch SDA to a daily rate for anything other than a money grab. But Pusser you can go on believing anything you wish. I think this is where we agree to disagree on this subject.

BTW I don't know but I would suspect your probably not involved in this policy making so if you took any of this personally please know I wasn't implying you, Pusser, were some how to blame or at fault for it. Just a simple discussion. If you are involved in the policy making for this well perhaps a little discussion with the sailors its going to effect is in order.


----------



## formerarmybrat23 (4 Feb 2011)

Does anyone have a link to a map of all the PLD areas.........ie one that brakes down exactly were Toronto Area 1 2 and 3 are?
I'm searching for a mbr and its making me crazy!


----------



## Strike (4 Feb 2011)

Here you go...

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pub/cfp-bpf/sec/ppldsca-asivcfg-eng.asp


----------



## Occam (4 Feb 2011)

Cpl  Brat said:
			
		

> Does anyone have a link to a map of all the PLD areas.........ie one that brakes down exactly were Toronto Area 1 2 and 3 are?
> I'm searching for a mbr and its making me crazy!



Map


----------



## formerarmybrat23 (4 Feb 2011)

You guys are life savers!


----------



## rnkelly (22 Feb 2011)

Situation:  Reg force mbr posted to Valcartier but attach posted to Montreal for 10 months, does he receive Val or Montreal PLD during that time.


I assumed that it would be the location of duty (Montreal) but not sure, any reference would be appreciated as well.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Feb 2011)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Situation:  Reg force mbr posted to Valcartier but attach posted to Montreal for 10 months, does he receive Val or Montreal PLD during that time.
> 
> 
> I assumed that it would be the location of duty (Montreal) but not sure, any reference would be appreciated as well.



My read of CBI 205.45 is that you receive it for your residence, not location of duty.  Variables may include whether you're single or marreid, and whether you're married to a civilian or another service member.  Key excerpts (but read the whole policy):



> 205.45(4) (Entitlement – Regular Force) Subject to paragraphs (7) to (19), a member of the Regular Force whose principal residence is located within a PLDA is entitled to the PLD rate for that location established in the Table to this instruction for that area.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



This being said, confirm through your OR - they should have the information needed.


----------



## agc (22 Feb 2011)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Situation:  Reg force mbr posted to Valcartier but attach posted to Montreal for 10 months, does he receive Val or Montreal PLD during that time.
> 
> 
> I assumed that it would be the location of duty (Montreal) but not sure, any reference would be appreciated as well.



Basically the member gets Valcartier PLD unless the residence was auth to be moved to Montreal.

From the CBI


> 205.45( 8 ) (PLD at other than the place of duty) For the purposes of this instruction;
> 
> a. when a PLD rate exists at the location of the principal residence, the member is entitled to the lower of the PLD rate for that PLDA, or the PLD rate established in the Table to this instruction for the PLDA for the member's place of duty when the member;
> 
> ...


----------



## rnkelly (22 Feb 2011)

Thanks, much appreciated.


----------



## ballz (12 Apr 2011)

So I'll be waking up to 8% less net pay on the 15th this month... and it's not due to EI payments kicking back in and whatnot.

My PLD got cut from 149 to 74.50, despite it being more expensive to live in St. John's right now that it ever has been. : 

Also, in "other deductions," I got deducted 53.71 for "PLD ACQUITTANCE ROLL 11-04-04." Any clerk-types know what this is? This is deduction isn't going to continue is it?

And somehow I am having an extra $16 and change deducted as Federal income tax despite making less money now?

So much for the $60 I start saving on car insurance that I was excited about...


----------



## smale436 (12 Apr 2011)

Thanks for starting this thread. I have similar questions. I realize the PLD is split into 2 payments per month(separate from your regular pay)  so I wonder why on the EMAA pay statement it only has 1/2 the PLD added to your base pay. You are lucky in a way. The PLD acquitance roll fee, whatever the heck that is, is $75.24 in Cold Lake.


----------



## ballz (12 Apr 2011)

I think that's just because you're PLD is more... so not so lucky :nod:


----------



## captloadie (12 Apr 2011)

You have to remember that PLD is an amount based on a comparison to to a base level cost of living. So, just because it is more expensive now to live in St Johns than previous years, doesn't mean it is more expensive compared to the baseline. The baseline has obviously increased more than the cost increase where you live, hence, your PLD is decreased. 

The deduction is because they would have paid you the full amount automatically in the pay system (149.00), then needed to adjust for the new amount, so they manually reduced your pay. Why it was - 53.71 vs - 74.50 must have to do the effective date of the policy so that instead of reducing a full 30 days, they only reduced it for 26 days.


----------



## garb811 (12 Apr 2011)

Look for the CANFORGEN. PLD has been delinked from your pay and will be deposited separately starting 1 Apr.  It was another one of those, "announce it on 31 Mar to take effect 1 Apr" things.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (12 Apr 2011)

I saw that CANFORGEN at work last week and knew it would raise eyebrows for those unawares. I meant to post it after getting home that day and forgot-apologies!


----------



## captloadie (12 Apr 2011)

I just received my pay statement today, and there was a pay note on it saying that PLD would be done separate from pay now. I wonder if this means that members will get that anonomous deposit in their bank accounts that has a very non descriptive remark. It took me a week to track down that a deposit for 300ish dollars was from when the ONT government sent everyone money to offset the rising hydro bill.


----------



## ballz (12 Apr 2011)

So why do I still have 74.50 added to my gross pay in "taxable allowances?"

Shouldn't it be 0 if the PLD is going to seperate from pay?


----------



## meni0n (12 Apr 2011)

From what I gather, they will put half of the PLD every two weeks on your pay, deduct taxes, then take the net amount out of your pay and give it to you as a seperate payment, that is why you see a deduction on your pay.


----------



## Strike (12 Apr 2011)

Could someone post this CANFORGEN?  Some (me  ;D) don't have regular access to the DWAN.

Also, anyone have an update on how the different PLD rates have changed?  I'm trying to figure out this whole acquittance roll-thing for Edmonton.


----------



## captloadie (12 Apr 2011)

The CCPS was likely not updated in time for the Apr pay run, so it stayed on. Once again though, if this is a taxable allowance, that they are going to deal separately from pay, are they going to issue separate T4s next year, or will this go in a different box than 14 on the same T4.

And how will they let members know the amount they are supposed to be receiving, if not on a pay statement. Members need to be notified so that if there is an error, they can bring it to the powers that be, instead of finding out 4 years later that they owe thousands of dollars.


----------



## meni0n (12 Apr 2011)

CaptLoadie, it just said it would be done in a seperate payment but I think they will be keeping it on the pay statement hence the acquittance roll so you can see how much you are getting for those two weeks and it makes it easier come tax time.

The acquittance roll is just the net amount PLD you will be getting for the two weeks.


----------



## dangerboy (12 Apr 2011)

Here is the CANFORGEN



> DISBURSEMENT OF PLD/TPLD
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CallOfDuty (12 Apr 2011)

...I did a search, so sorry if it's been posted already, but I just got my pay statement and noticed that PLD is not taxed anymore.  Plus is it supposed to be deposited separately??
  Anyone know more about this?
Cheers
Steve-o


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Apr 2011)

Steve-O- said:
			
		

> ...I did a search, so sorry if it's been posted already, but I just got my pay statement and noticed that PLD is not taxed anymore.  Plus is it supposed to be deposited separately??
> Anyone know more about this?
> Cheers
> Steve-o



Mine is still showing in the Taxable Allowances block.  Someone started a thread here about the same thing.


----------



## CallOfDuty (12 Apr 2011)

Hey, thanks


----------



## muskie (12 Apr 2011)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Here is the CANFORGEN



I don't have access to DWAN can someone tell if PLD's went down in South shore Montreal?

thx


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Apr 2011)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jRpfjk7o3WaRpJfaP1kT83HF14bA?docId=6670335


*Soldier fear loss of cost-of-living allowance following policy revisions*

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press – 1 hour ago

OTTAWA — National Defence has changed a cost-of-living allowance for tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and aircrew, prompting fears the deficit-slashing Harper government intends to eliminate it altogether.

A spokesman for the department's senior policy section denies the benefit will be scrapped and maintains changes to the Post Living Differential Allowance are simply administrative.

But the $150-million-a-year expenditure is a fat target for Defence, which was to restrain costs by $500 million this year and $1 billion in each of the following two years under the latest federal budget.

The benefit used to be included with military paycheques in high-cost cities, but it has been deposited separately since April 1.

Senior non-commissioned officers at several bases have warned the rank and file that is the first step toward possible elimination of the assistance altogether, defence sources told The Canadian Press.

"Learn to live without it because it'll be gone within a year," some sailors were told last week at Canadian Forces Base Halifax.

Their impression was further reinforced by an internal memo reminding those in uniform that the stipend, set based on region and the economy, was meant only as a cushion against high cost.

"Consequently members should not include PLD as income when making financial commitments," said the leaked April 20, 2011, email announcing the changes.

But Cmdr. Huebert Genest, a military spokesman, denied there is a plan to eliminate the allowance, introduced by the Chretien government in April 2000 after a series of stories about poorly paid soldiers relying on food banks.

Despite the denial, the military network has been abuzz with chatter about the differential and whether the Conservatives are prepared to sacrifice it in the quest bring down the country's $40.5-billion deficit.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said it's incumbent on the government to pledge not to tinker with the stipend.

A defence analyst, retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie, said the government would be "crazy" to tamper with it, especially when it's seeking re-election and has staked so much political capital on supporting the troops.

The benefit is "chump change" compared to some of the high-cost equipment acquisitions, MacKenzie said.

"It's beyond stupid to start fooling around with that from the point of view of saving money. I don't have any problem with changing the administrative protocol, the way it's calculated."

MacKenzie said the timing of the change couldn't be worse, given the election and the high deficit.

Kenny said suspicion is further heightened by the recent bungling of a series of benefits and perks, which the department had to suspend because it hadn't sought the proper Treasury Board authority.

Some of those ten of millions of dollars in benefits, including travel-fee reimbursements for troops deployed to different parts of Canada and bonuses for overseas postings, have yet to reinstated.

"The hoops Treasury Board has been putting forward seem to be unusually high and unreasonable," Kenny said. "The government always talks about what it's budgeted to spend on the military. But they never talk about or look at how much they actually spend."

_Copyright © 2011 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved. _


----------



## dapaterson (26 Apr 2011)

"Don't budget based on PLD" is old news, and has been told to troops since PLD was introduced.  The decision to treat PLD and pay as seperate payments is intended to reinforce that message - you see both pay and PLD instead of only one amount, and you remember "That's right, if I'm posted the PLD amount will change."

The Canadian Press article is fearmongering and rumourmongering on a large scale.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Canadian Press article is fearmongering and rumourmongering on a large scale.




...........and even the most isolated hermit should not be suprised that the MSM, trying to manufacture news instead of reporting it, is playing this up during an election.

Of course if it was a liebral or dipper initiative, it would be reported as all well and good and an absolute stroke of genius.


----------



## dimsum (27 Apr 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/somnia/article1999217/

I understand that PLD is not to be relied on when trying to get a house/condo, but there will be quite a few people in a world of financial hurt if this actually goes through.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Apr 2011)

From the article cited:





> [Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, said..] “It's beyond stupid to start fooling around with that from the point of view of saving money....*given the election and the high deficit*.


Exactly.

Do you believe the government is _completely_ incompetent, especially regarding perceptions during an election campaign, or is this yet another example of muckraking media spin? 

That being said, we've been told since Day 1 that PLD isn't guaranteed income. 

I just find it interesting that when the overwhelming number of media stories are reporting Liberal 'losses' to Quebec NDP, there's suddenly an unsubstantiated story of 'Conservatives decide to screw over hapless CF members.'
 :



ps - sorry canada94, that this post may also fail to meet your desire for non-Conservative posts by CF members. Many of us who have been in the CF for more than 20 minutes recall which parties have done us the most damage.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Apr 2011)

Its true we were told here in Halifax that PLD would cease in a year, some were also told SDA would cease or change on 1 April 2011 but that didn't happen *yet* either. I doubt it will be done away with but if it does we will carry on.

When you do anything financial where you need to bring a stub to prove income (i.e. mortgage, car loan, etc) never include your PLD, LDA/SDA/ACA. I stress this to everyone of my new OS/Ptes. They get very starry eyed when see that first pay cheque with SDA and PLD.

In Halifax imagine the person who is getting 800$ SDA + 354 PLD suddenly loosing that! It wont be so bad for those of us who have planed around it, but for others who have built them into their finances, as net income, they will be hurting units!


----------



## bdcasey916 (27 Apr 2011)

Halifax Tar, 
I think that your numbers on the PLD and SDA that you have written in your post are wrong.  New sailors that come in get 297 a month for SDA and PLD is 631 a month.  I have not seen any emails or messages saying the rate is going down and one of my MCpl's has a close friend who is a clerk at CSOR in Stad that has told him they have been told our PLD is not changing


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Apr 2011)

foxhound031 said:
			
		

> Halifax Tar,
> I think that your numbers on the PLD and SDA that you have written in your post are wrong.  New sailors that come in get 297 a month for SDA and PLD is 631 a month.  I have not seen any emails or messages saying the rate is going down and one of my MCpl's has a close friend who is a clerk at CSOR in Stad that has told him they have been told our PLD is not changing



Hey foxhound, 

My numbers are a snap shot of a section of the naval populace I would be most concerned about. I will tell you my pay statement for mid and end Apr lists my PLD at 177 per pay which equals 354. The 800 SDA would account for members with a higher rate vice the new members. I would be more concerned about pers with high rates of SDA that have been collecting it for years than the new OS-LS who is still at the basic rate. The pers with the higher rates of SDA, I would reckon, would be most likely to have built that and the PLD into their net income erroneously.

I would say the discrepancy with your and my PLD rates would be taxes. 

My fault I should have defined it more clearly, but I hope this helps.


----------



## McG (27 Apr 2011)

Having a cost of living allowance is not unique to military pers - it exists for all the public service as well. Scrapping military PLD while leaving the equivalent system in the PS would be horribly bad optics for any governemt.  While the TB may have some secret plan to scrap this pay for everyone, there is no evidence that I have seen to support such a claim.  In fact, all evidence raised in the article can be attributed to the non-stable nature of PLD as a mechanism to compensate for high (and variable year-to-year) geographic costs of living.

The choice to use the NCR as the benchmark location a few years ago would have been a cost saving effort - the largest group of federal public servants is in the NCR so using that location as benchmark significantly reduced the number of people (military & PS) recieving this money.

The warnings not to plan on PLD for major financial decisions has been around as long as PLD has been around.  This is not a forshadowing of a plan to eliminate PLD, it is a recognition that PLD has never been a stable source of income.  Any given location (except the NCR) may see PLD drop or rise from year to year, and PLD can be taken away with a posting message.


----------



## Pusser (27 Apr 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Having a cost of living allowance is not unique to military pers - it exists for all the public service as well. Scrapping military PLD while leaving the equivalent system in the PS would be horribly bad optics for any governemt.  While the TB may have some secret plan to scrap this pay for everyone, there is no evidence that I have seen to support such a claim.  In fact, all evidence raised in the article can be attributed to the non-stable nature of PLD as a mechanism to compensate for high (and variable year-to-year) geographic costs of living.
> 
> The choice to use the NCR as the benchmark location a few years ago would have been a cost saving effort - the largest group of federal public servants is in the NCR so using that location as benchmark significantly reduced the number of people (military & PS) recieving this money.
> 
> The warnings not to plan on PLD for major financial decisions has been around as long as PLD has been around.  This is not a forshadowing of a plan to eliminate PLD, it is a recognition that PLD has never been a stable source of income.  Any given location (except the NCR) may see PLD drop or rise from year to year, and PLD can be taken away with a posting message.



The Public Service does not receive anything similar to PLD.  There may still exist a few pockets of folks affected by regional rates of pay, but the government has largely phased that out.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Apr 2011)

And we, I'll bet my life on it are next.


----------



## Strike (27 Apr 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And we, I'll bet my life on it are next.



And if it is going to happen it won't be until after the election and the government has been accepted, so some time still.

Stop the fear-mongering.


----------



## Pusser (27 Apr 2011)

I get a little tired of the great conspiracy theories.  Why does everybody always think the worst?  Nobody, including Treasury Board members or those involved in compensation and benefits policy at DND, lies awake at night thinking up ways to screw over CF personnel.  This is all just another rumour, without basis in any identified fact.  PLD may well be restructured in an effort to better perform its intended purpose, but a lot of thought has been and will be put into any changes and a lot of effort will be made to eliminate, or at least minimize any potential shafting.   Individual CF members will not be expected to sacrifice more than any other Canadian.  The folks at NDHQ and Treasury Board really do work very hard to produce the best possible outcome.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Apr 2011)

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fipolitics.ca%2F2011%2F04%2F27%2Fmackay-denies-cut-to-cost-of-living-allowance-for-canadian-military%2F&ei=WTG7TcaIKaXc0QGUtbHtBQ&usg=AFQjCNE-pX5Lt6C4irwNXNoCG2IvDZrFUw




*MacKay denies cut to cost of living allowance for Canadian military*

Posted on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 9:19 pm by _Canadian Press _ 
TRURO, N.S. – Defence Minister Peter MacKay says nothing is going to happen to the cost-of-living allowance received by thousands of members of the Canadian military.

The Post Living Differential Allowance goes to servicemen and women who live in high-cost cities.

A change that began April 1 saw that money removed from the paycheques of Forces’ members and deposited separately.

The Canadian Press reported this week that senior non-commissioned officers at several bases have been warning the rank and file that the change is the first step toward possible elimination of the assistance.

MacKay said Wednesday night that the difference is nothing more than an administrative change.

He said the allowance is still being delivered in the same amount but it’s no longer in a lump-sum deposit.

“There is no change to the amount of PLD that is being administered under a Conservative government,” he said while campaigning in his riding of Central Nova.

“There will be no decrease in anyone’s paycheque and, in fact, I think if you speak to members of the Forces, they’ll tell you that their paycheque has been going up under a Conservative government.”

The last federal budget introduced by the Conservative government called for cuts to the Defence Department of $500 million this year and $1 billion in each of the next two years.

But even with the cuts, MacKay said a re-elected Conservative government would not touch the cost-of-living allowance, which amounts to $150 million a year.

“We’re conducting what’s called a strategic review. We’ve already completed one that occurred last year and was submitted to the Treasury Board,” he said.

“That type of review is all about finding efficiencies in internal operating and administrative costs in all government departments.”


----------



## Scoobs (7 May 2011)

Okay, did the search for TPLD and this thread came up.  Here's my situation.  I'm posted to Ottawa, which is a TPLD area.  I'm currently in a TPLD area.  I was told by my current Base's OR that I would lose TPLD, even though I'm going to an area that has it, i.e. Ottawa.  The TPLD in Ottawa is not just chump change, as it is where I am now.  The TPLD, prior to income tax, is around 136 (me thinks !!!) The exact amount doesn't matter, I'm just curious as to why I won't get it.

Being one for actually reading the regs and fine print, I read the applicable orders.  No where in them does it say that you will lose TPLD at a certain date.  This is contrary to the stuff that I'm told.  When I bring this up to all the clerks that I can find, I only get blank stares back, i.e. they really don't know the regs, etc.  Also, no where does it say that I shouldn't get TPLD in a new area after being posted by the military.  Thus, where is this info coming from?  Maybe there are clarification orders or an old CANFORGEN that clarifies this, but I can't find them.  

A point to note, prior to anyone posting "go look at the regs", I am very conversant with the CF's orders due to my previous postings and current posting.  In other words, I'm not a newbie when it comes to mil admin.

Also, I never make plans based on TPLD or PLD, it is "nice" money to have for most of the locations that I have been posted.  I would agree with most in this thread that for places that are much more expensive, removing TPLD or PLD will cause financial hardship for the mbrs.  If it wouldn't, then the obvious rhetorical question would be, "why have it in the first place???"

If it is actually true that I will not receive the Ottawa TPLD, then so be it, but I am one that will demand to see the regs.  I'm not trying to be an a*s, I'm only stating what 13 and a half years of experience has taught me when it comes to financial orders/regs/etc.  If it is true, then the situation would be that someone who hasn't moved from Ottawa in the last 10 years (which is really feasible if the person plays it right) would essentially have a higher income (call it what you want, it is additional money that is taxed at source as income, you can't argue with this).  How can this possibly be interpreted as fair by anyone?  I'm more than aware that rules are not necessarily fair, but this one is so obvious, I am amazed that this has never come up as an issue before???  At my unit I've never heard any of my newly posted in mbrs complaining of this.  Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill or is it really true that I will not be entitled to TPLD in Ottawa when I get there this APS?  If you know the exact reg or ref, please post it here.  It doesn't have to be linked, I just need the ref.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2011)

See CBI 205.452.  It explains the "why" of TPLD.  If you're posted, you're entitled to the PLD at the new location - and if the PLD there is zero, you get zero.  Once you leave the TPLD Area, you lose the entitlement to it.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/205-eng.asp#sec-45


----------



## Scoobs (7 May 2011)

So, I re-read the CBI and I think that I have the two applicable quotes in my case:

205.452(3) (Application) Subject to paragraph (4), this instruction applies to:
a.a member of Group A who meets the conditions of CBI 205.45 (Post Living Differential), and who’s principle residence was located in a TPLDA listed in the Table to this instruction at any time after 30 June 2007, but before 1 April 2008; or
b.a member of Group B who meets the conditions of CBI 205.45 (Post Living Differential), and who’s principle residence was located in a TPLDA listed in the Table to this instruction at any time after 30 June 2007, but before 1 April 2009.

205.452(6) (Cease Date – Transitional Post Living Differential) The entitlement to TPLD shall cease on the earlier day of the following:
a.the member’s principle residence is no longer located within the TPLDA;
b.the member’s PLD in CBI 205.45 (Post Living Differential) is greater than the TPLD in the Table to this instruction;
c.the TPLD monthly rate is 50$ or less; or
d.the effective period for the TPLD in the Table to this instruction has expired.

So, from what I read, because I am leaving "the" TPLD area of my current Base, 205.452(6)a. applies and obviously this means no more TPLD for me at my old Base's rate.  I assume that I will not get any TPLD in Ottawa because of 205.452(3) and that I'm moving into my new residence post 2008 or 2009.  Thus, I do not fall within para a or b of 205.452(3) and thus CBI 205.452 does not apply to me in Ottawa and we all know that no PLD exists for the "standard city" of Ottawa-Gatineau.  Yayyyy, I get screwed again !!!  So, effectively the PLD and TPLD CBIs have created "two" tiers of pay, one for those who are lucky enough to never get posted out of a TPLD area and one for those who are posted !!!  Wasn't this obvious to the higher ups in NDHQ that this would eventually happen??

Also, this may have been asked already in this thread, but why was Ottawa-Gatineau chosen as the "standard city"?   I would like more of an answer than just "there are so many public servants in Ottawa".  What is the rationalization behind this?


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (26 Aug 2011)

Was just curious if some civvie could call the BOR and inquire about a member's PLD status. I thought our info was Protected A or B at least?


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Aug 2011)

Not so much can a civvie call the BOR, rather can the BOR give out the info. To that question, the answer is no. If they have done, complain loudly. A person's specific pay details are covered by privacy regulations.


----------



## RubberTree (26 Aug 2011)

The BOR may not give out info...but rates are accessible online for landlords or roomates willing to do the work.
RT


----------



## CountDC (26 Aug 2011)

When it comes to personel information including pay they can not give it out even to you without verifying your ID.  Over the phone you should be required to provide the PIN/W you have set up on your pay account.  Spouse wants the info? Better have documentation signed by you on file stating you grant them access to your pay.


----------



## Pusser (26 Aug 2011)

The BOR cannot give out specific information on an individual.  However, they can give out general information (e.g. a corporal with X years service normally receives $Y per month and if entitled to PLD may receive $Z per month, etc.  In other words, they can give out information that is publicly available.

In the old days, it was easier to simply provide this information if requested.  Nowadays, they need only direct folks to a website.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (26 Aug 2011)

Can a civvie find out if youre on pld or not? I find it hard to believe that the person im renting from can call the BOR and then ask a PO for information regarding my PLD..


----------



## ballz (26 Aug 2011)

They can't... but they can go online and find out how much a member in your area receives for PLD.

More to the point, why the F**K does your landlord want to know? It's none of his/her business and that's what I'd be making clear to him/her.


----------



## 211RadOp (26 Aug 2011)

It is easy to find out.  I put PLD Rates Halifax in a google seach and the first hit was the DGCB site with the CFG that covers PLD for all of Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Aug 2011)

Reviving necrothread to add this:


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Wanted:  Someone to calculate the latest Post Living Differential formula


Statement of work with more details attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Aug 2011)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Can a civvie find out if youre on pld or not? I find it hard to believe that the person im renting from can call the BOR and then ask a PO for information regarding my PLD..


It sounds like
1)  The BOR _can't_ tell a stranger phoning about _your particular_ PLD status or how much _you_, personally, receive.
2)  The BOR may be able to speak in _general_ terms about how much someone in a certain situation _may_ get.
3)  Other folks here say anyone with access to the internet can find out PLD rates for specific cities/areas.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (26 Aug 2011)

The issue is, i gave my landlord (not really the landlord as this woman lives in the house and i pay my rent to her, aka subletting). 15 days notice that i was moving out. There are numerous reasons for this. Anyway the point is i told her my pld was being cancelled because i was trying to avoid any personal feelings being hurt over me moving out. regardless, i found someone to replace me so there rent starts sept 1st. she contacted the bor to find out if i was receiving pld or not and apparently was told i am. so shes refusing to give me back my deposit (most likely because she spent it) on the grounds that i lied to her.


----------



## Pusser (26 Aug 2011)

Do you have a lease?  

Under the Nova Scotia Landlord and Tenant's Act, a landlord cannot withhold your deposit without reason.  For the most part, the only acceptable reason would be for damages.  Lying about your financial situation is not sufficient reason for her to withhold the deposit - it's none of her business.  However, if you don't have a lease, this could be more difficult to pursue (not impossible, but difficult).  The absence of a lease does not absolve a landlord from following the provisions of the Act, it just makes it more difficult to prove it.

As for the Orderly Room, you should make a formal complaint.  I would start with the Superintendent Clerk, but if he/she brushes it off, enlist the aid of your Chain of Command.  If that fails, call the military police (I'm serious).  Don't let anyone tell you that they can't determine who passed the information until you see a police report.

Disclosure of personal information to a party not authorized to receive it is a dereliction of duty, a breach of trust and in violation of both Government Security Policy and the Privacy Act.  I can think of a number of appropriate charges under the NDA (Sections 129 and 130 immediately come to mind).  For a clerk to discuss personal information with any unauthorized person is TOTALLY unacceptable!


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (26 Aug 2011)

I signed a rental agreement (the standardized one from BC) and the bor has a copy. From what im hearing from the COC it seems that this shouldnt of happened. Couldnt get a hold of the PO today (bor hours on a friday lol) but i will find out next week.


----------



## Zoomie (26 Aug 2011)

Just continue to tell her that your PLD was canceled.  Most probably she didn't call the BOR and is just BSing you.  Play her bluff and see what happens.  Small claims court is your next step - no lawyers needed, just file the complaint and have your day in front of a judge.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Aug 2011)

I don't think lying about your financial situation is a particularly venomous sin in BC. Past Premiers seem to have gotten away with it.  ;D


----------



## ballz (26 Aug 2011)

I can see why you are moving out, she's clearly a bit nuts. I feel bad for the person you have filling your spot, I hope he's not a friend haha.


----------



## Pusser (27 Aug 2011)

I've had some more time to think about this (it's been awhile since I was a landlord and that was in NS, but most provinces have similar rules).  The deposit you pay on renting an apartment is for damages only and even then fair wear and tear doesn't count.  When you leave an apartment, the landlord is required to return the deposit (less damages) PLUS interest.  The landlord cannot withhold the deposit even for non-payment of rent.  In other words, the landlord has to sue you for any non-damage related costs that you may owe.  In many cases, a landlord and tenant can agree to use the damage deposit to cover other expenses, but the landlord cannot make this decision unilaterally.  Like I said, my direct experience is with the NS Landlord and Tenants Act, but I suspect BC's is similar.  You should get yourself a copy (likely available on line) and have a read.  In fact, in NS, one of the provisions of the Act is that the landlord is required to provide a copy to the tenant when he/she moves in.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (27 Aug 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The deposit you pay on renting an apartment is for damages only and even then fair wear and tear doesn't count.  When you leave an apartment, the landlord is required to return the deposit (less damages) PLUS interest.



Yeah the kicker to that which makes me kind of laugh is the fact that no damage inspection was done before I moved in, therefore by law, extuingishing her claim on my deposit. It's such a waste of time and she's basically only doing this because she probably spent the deposit and has no way to get the money back.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Aug 2011)

If you have the time, take her to court. You'll likely scare her into compliance. Read these links to see how easily you can access BC small claims

BC Small Claims Court

Small Claims Rules

You can probably get a summary trial which will be decided in less than an hour.

Send her a registered, receipt required letter formally requesting return of your deposit. Ensure you include the details about the move-in inspection (or lack thereof). Give her a date to act by (two weeks should suffice). If she fails to act, file an action against her with the court. I know it will take some work on your part, but if she gets away with it with you, then she'll try again and again.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (29 Aug 2011)

I hope it doesnt get to that point because then I'd have to also take her to court for my court fees.  :


----------



## jside86 (29 Aug 2011)

good day everyone 

I was just wondering if you find that PLD or post living differantial accros Canada was fair and well design?

For example I am a Cpl that just got posted from edmonton to Wainwright

not that I dont like wainwright but... I lost 684.00$ PLD and 297 field pay comming  from Edmonton to Wainwright

I just Read all the documentation about PLD

and I seriously dont understand why city like Wainwright doesnt have PLD or isolation pay?

Since every other city or town in alberta got it

Edmonton, Calgary, lethbrige, Red deer, even cold lake, they all receive PLD and suffield Get isolation status even if they are 20 away from Medecin Hat

So why here in Wainwright AB where we only have a Wallmart and a CT where when we need something of a specialty like clothing or electronic even furniture, we need to drive ehter one hour to go to Lloydminster or 2 to Edmonton

I own a house in Edmonton and one in Wainwright, and I can tell you it is as expensive if not more to live here in Wainwright than Edmonton
but without the nice 684 .00$ that PLD provide to Edmonton

Here is my point why Wainwright Should have PLD...

1. If you want a house they is not many to chose from and it is expensive I mean 200'000.00$ and more like Edmonton
 and if you want a decent PMQ your payment is going to be as much than a 250 000.00 mortgage...

2. if you need something you need to drive away

3. grocery, gas is the same price if not more expensive than Edmonton

3. utility and city taxe are more expensive at least 10% more

4. for people that rely on spouse income to help paying the mortgage, kid, car ,etc.  employement is limited

so here is all my point fell free to comment


----------



## Strike (29 Aug 2011)

jside86 - I just got this link and can tell you that the 2010 numbers for Wainwright are less than Edmonton, especially when you compare the net property tax.  Sure, houses are expensive compared to other towns of the same size - without a military base - but not compared to Edmonton.

http://www.wainwright.ca/residents/properties.shtml
http://www.edmonton.ca/business/documents/PropertyTax_Final_2010_Final_Report.pdf

I did a quick search on MLS to confirm, and I'll tell you, similar houses in Wainwright sell for about $40-80 grand less than Edmonton.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Aug 2011)

jside86 said:
			
		

> not that I dont like wainwright but... I lost 684.00$ PLD and 297 field pay comming  from Edmonton to Wainwright



Yeah, so ?


----------



## jside86 (29 Aug 2011)

I know the number and I made the math actually the math are pretty easy to be done

Wainwright should receive PLD 

Yes in Edmonton housing is more expansive but look at cold lake, lethbridge and red deer they all receive PLD and house are same price as wainwright and their is more to chose from

And I am not bitching about having no PLD I am just stating a fact 

Not a single military soul living in wainwright is going to tell you different


----------



## Infanteer (29 Aug 2011)

jside86 said:
			
		

> Wainwright should receive PLD



Tell that to the Treasury Board then.


----------



## jside86 (29 Aug 2011)

Good idea 

I was thought writhing a letter to the CLS but what would be the impact???

Treasury board that could be a great idea

Thanks


----------



## Occam (29 Aug 2011)

jside86 said:
			
		

> I was thought writhing a letter to the CLS but what would be the impact???



Well, the immediate impact was me snorting beer out my nostrils...

Further impact would likely be at least several orders of magnitude more unpleasant.


----------



## REDinstaller (29 Aug 2011)

And such a letter has gone forward, but TB can take a long time to action. My former ETQMS was the example stated in the letter as his house in Irma cost over 250,000.


----------



## Strike (29 Aug 2011)

jside86 said:
			
		

> Yes in Edmonton housing is more expansive but look at cold lake, lethbridge and red deer they all receive PLD and house are same price as wainwright and their is more to chose from



I'd like to know where you're getting your housing prices from, but Cold Lake housing prices are much more expensive than Wainwright, according to MLS.  I haven't checked Red Deer or Lethbridge, but I can if you want me to.


----------



## Webgear (29 Aug 2011)

jside86

I am not sure if you are not aware however all three commanders  (CMTC, Base and LFWATC) in Wainwright are pressing this issue with various chains of command.

There is a quality of life board (not sure if this the correct name) on base that is attempting to fix some of the quality of life issues faced on the base such as CANEX hours, banking, and the barber shop price/hours.

I believe the board meetings are posted routine orders and is open for anyone to join or attend.

This issue has been ongoing for years, and will likely not be solved anytime soon. Just enjoy your time in Wainwright and hope that your next posting that has PLD, LDA.

I recommend getting involved in any of the base community events that are upcoming and support your mess. Wainwright is one of my better postings, and my family has enjoyed the base life a lot, you just have to make the best of it.


----------



## Neill McKay (29 Aug 2011)

Something that is true in New Brunswick (but not necessarily in the OP's jurisdiction) is that the deposit is held by the Office of the Rentalsman, not by the landlord.  It's an offence for the landlord to have it at any time, except that he can collect it from the tenant and immediately hand it over to the Rentalsman at the beginning of the lease.  (Tenants have the option of paying it directly to the Rentalsman, if they prefer, and recovering it directly from the Rentalsman when the lease is over.)  This seems to be often overlooked by tenants and landlords, to the advantage of landlords.

It may be worth checking on this in your jurisdiction.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (30 Aug 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> As for the Orderly Room, you should make a formal complaint.  I would start with the Superintendent Clerk, but if he/she brushes it off, enlist the aid of your Chain of Command.  If that fails, call the military police (I'm serious).  Don't let anyone tell you that they can't determine who passed the information until you see a police report.


I'm not sure about the MP complaint route.  Certainly ask the BOR if somebody passed your personal info (as opposed to answering a generic question such as "has PLD been cancelled for town x?") and then decide on your next route.  Note that filing an MP complaint would involve explaining to the MPs about your little white lie and that would form part of the record.

Your landlord doesn't need to call your BOR to verify your PLD "status".  She could Google PLD and she would discover that only the following are not eligible for PLD:

* A member whose principal residence is not in Canada. The specific needs of this individual are addressed through Military Foreign Service benefits.
* A member whose principal residence is located at an isolated post. Where applicable, the specific needs of this individual are addressed through Isolation Allowances.
* A member whose principal residence is a single quarter. Single quarter rates are standardized nationally, that is, they do not change as a result of differences in rental markets.
* A member on Class "B" or "C" Reserve service who was not relocated at public expense to his/her place of duty for the purpose of Reserve service.
* A member whose principal residence is not in a Post Living Differential Area.

Not that your PLD has anything to do with her withholding your damage deposit!!!


----------



## jside86 (30 Aug 2011)

Of course, I was aware that all base commander where working on it...

It just that since PLD seems to be the main subject of discussion around the base 
I though asking people opinion around would be the best idea 

I will enjoy my time in wainwright even if I don't have a PLD 
Even if most of the people I know doesn't understand the idea why someone would want to be posted here
Wainwright is a lovely town with all services

And for the people stating that price is lower in wainwright is lower, yes it is true... Approximately 20 30 g cheaper
But I own two town  house one in Edmhonton one here both in the 230 g mark 

And yes the one in wainwright is newer for same price but still you wont find much under 200 that is decent
And market chose is limited and I mean real limited

I am not complaining of the situation I just have normal question regarding PLD

Thanks everyone


----------



## Pusser (30 Aug 2011)

Note that I said to call the Military Police only after other queries had failed to produce results.  If the Supt Clerk comes back and says that the matter has been thoroughly investigated and he/she is confident that no breach of personal privacy has occurred, I would be prepared to accept that.  I would only bring in the MPs if I felt I was being brushed off and no investigation had occurred.  Make no mistake, if someone has given out personal information of this nature, an offence has occurred.  I will concede that someone could have given out general information (which is acceptable) that has then been interpreted by the landlord to mean something more specific, but a proper investigation will discover that.

Don't let anyone tell you that this is not a serious issue.  Breaching confidentiality of personal records is extrememly serious.  We place a great deal of trust in RMS Clerks and if one of them breaches that trust, the whole occupation loses credibility.  The day to day administration of the CF requires the exchange of personal information amongst parties who need to have it.  Without this exchange, the system breaks down and life gets difficult, if not impossible.  I've had to deal with cases where members have felt their privacy has been breached by the system and the situations were untenable to the point where there was no solution to a problems.  These were nightmares.


----------



## Pusser (30 Aug 2011)

PLD is not strictly about housing costs.  All factors related to the cost of living are taken into consideration, including:

1) housing costs (including rental rates)
2) all taxes (property and income)
3) food - based on a "basket" of staple goods
4) fuel and utility charges

And the list goes on to even include how hilly the terrain is (hilly terrain uses more gas when driving compared to flat areas).  In short, the determination of PLD rates is fairly complex, so it is impossible to only look at isolated factors and make a valid comparison.

Are you sure that Suffield gets Isolation Allowance?  It's not listed in the Isolated Post Instructions (http://hr3.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/pdf/CBI_11_Sec_2.pdf).


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> PLD is not strictly about housing costs.  All factors related to the cost of living are taken into consideration, including:
> 
> 1) housing costs (including rental rates)
> 2) all taxes (property and income)
> ...



In Saskatchewan:

1) housing costs (including rental rates) - Rental and Real Estate costs between Regina and Saskatoon are pretty much the same
2) all taxes (property and income) -  Income and Property Tax for the two cities - equal
3) food - based on a "basket" of staple goods - Food costs - the same
4) fuel and utility charges - Sasktel, Sask Power and Sask Energy charge the same rate no matter where you live in Saskatchewan. Difference for gas is never more than 2 cents a litre

But the PLD for the 3 cities in Saskatchewan:
Moose Jaw - 284
Saskatoon - 382
Regina - 62

Nobody has ever explained to me or my CO why there is such a difference between Regina and the other two cities. Two of the responses have been "its complicated" or "our methodology is confidential". Why can't they say "We screwed up but we are unable to change it until TB says we can" instead of this CWA BS they always toss at us.


----------



## Pusser (30 Aug 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> In Saskatchewan:
> 
> 1) housing costs (including rental rates) - Rental and Real Estate costs between Regina and Saskatoon are pretty much the same
> 2) all taxes (property and income) -  Income and Property Tax for the two cities - equal
> ...



I guess I wasn't clear enough.  The calculation of PLD includes all of these things, but it also includes many other things, which cannot possibly be the same in every location.  No, I don't know all the factors.  I don't work there anymore, but I do know that there are people working very hard on this and no one is trying to screw anyone over.  However, there is a TB approved formula and the numbers are what the numbers are.  When the factors change, so does PLD and TB doesn't mess with that.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I guess I wasn't clear enough.  The calculation of PLD includes all of these things, but it also includes many other things, which cannot possibly be the same in every location.  No, I don't know all the factors.  I don't work there anymore, but I do know that there are people working very hard on this and no one is trying to screw anyone over.  However, there is a TB approved formula and the numbers are what the numbers are.  When the factors change, so does PLD and TB doesn't mess with that.



But what are the "many other things"? Saskatchewan is a pretty homogeneous place and Moose Jaw and Regina are only 45 min apart and there has never been an explanation of how there can be such a difference between two cities. If we got an explanation there would not be all this suspicion and hostility towards the PLD office.


----------



## Grunt_031 (31 Aug 2011)

There are these items to consider because two places may be similar but are never the same:

The household expenditure pattern, including the category weightings, will be based on the Canadian average for a household of similar income and family size, as described in the Statistics Canada Family Expenditure Survey (FAMEX).

Cost of living differences will be determined by the pricing of a representative selection of the items in the FAMEX and any additional items determined by DND as being necessary to meet the CF requirement. As a minimum, the data collected and representative items priced will provide sufficient indication of spatial differences in expenditure by the representative household in the following categories:

   1. income tax - the total combined federal and provincial income tax paid annually;
   2. transportation - total annual cost;
   3. rent for renters and mortgage interest for homeowners;
   4. property (real estate) tax for homeowners;
   5. home maintenance cost for homeowners;
   6. household/renter insurance;
   7. utilities;
   8. goods and services, to include:
         1. food items (consumed at home and away from home);
         2. clothing;
         3. household items, including furniture;
         4. personal care;
         5. medical and dental care;
         6. domestic services, including child-care;
         7. recreation; and
         8. alcohol and tobacco.
   9. expenditure on sales tax, if not included in the pricing of relevant items; and
  10. miscellaneous items, to include expenditures not included elsewhere (e.g., education costs) and savings and investments.

Homeowner costs will be based on:

   1. the home size indicated by the Canadian average expenditure profile;
   2. home purchases for the last 12 months (12 months may be expanded for locations where there is insufficient real estate market activity for meaningful analysis);
   3. the rolling average interest rate for a five-year closed mortgage; and
   4. a 20% down-payment.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Aug 2011)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> 4. a 20% down-payment.



Unless you've banked a 9 month tour worth of money, who the heck as a first time buyer has a 20% downpayment?


----------



## Grunt_031 (31 Aug 2011)

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/db-as/pld-ivc/index-eng.asp


----------



## jside86 (31 Aug 2011)

that is true nobody can pay a down payment when they have a family to feed and a pmq to pay 

20 % its a lot of money for these day


----------



## Zoomie (31 Aug 2011)

I wish I lived in a town with a house that is still in the $200,000 range.  Numerous places that have a heck of a lot higher costs associated with living there are not on the PLD list.  The last two three places I have lived have been without the padding of extra money.  Comox, Portage and now here in Oklahoma City.  Portage is/was just as desolate sounding as Wainwright.


----------



## jside86 (1 Sep 2011)

...

You wont find any decent House in wainwright under the 300 400 G and market is limited

for 240 and up is available some townhouse or duplex so yes housing is expensive



			
				Zoomie said:
			
		

> I wish I lived in a town with a house that is still in the $200,000 range.  Numerous places that have a heck of a lot higher costs associated with living there are not on the PLD list.  The last two three places I have lived have been without the padding of extra money.  Comox, Portage and now here in Oklahoma City.  Portage is/was just as desolate sounding as Wainwright.


----------



## Pusser (1 Sep 2011)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I wish I lived in a town with a house that is still in the $200,000 range.  Numerous places that have a heck of a lot higher costs associated with living there are not on the PLD list.  The last two three places I have lived have been without the padding of extra money.  Comox, Portage and now here in Oklahoma City.  Portage is/was just as desolate sounding as Wainwright.



It's a little unfair to put Oklahoma City on this list.  When serving in a foreign country you're entitled to Foreign Service Premium, Salary Equalization Factor, and Shelter Allowance/Share.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (8 Sep 2011)

Just an update..my ex landlord refuses to give back my deposit so I've attached my forwarding address to her door (took a pic) which is the legal thing to do because I plan on taking her to court. She "invites" me to pursue legal action and said that she will get a WRITTEN STATEMENT from the PO at the ORDERLY ROOM that my PLD was in fact not cancelled and that I lied to her. Wtf? Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else?


----------



## ballz (8 Sep 2011)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Just an update..my ex landlord refuses to give back my deposit so I've attached my forwarding address to her door (took a pic) which is the legal thing to do because I plan on taking her to court. She "invites" me to pursue legal action and said that she will get a WRITTEN STATEMENT from the PO at the ORDERLY ROOM that my PLD was in fact not cancelled and that I lied to her. Wtf? Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else?



It is ridiculous, she's a complete nutter (like I said, hope it's not a good friend of yours that is replacing you) but 

1. Ask for a copy. I doubt she'll be able to get that, but if she can, then you've got exactly what you need to take serious action on the military side of things (depending how it's worded of course).

2. Don't worry, the judge will just laugh at her reason for withholding the damage deposit.

These kind of scenarios always remind me of that Verizon phone call where every single person the poor guy talked to could not understand the difference between 0.01 dollars and .01 cents. Very frustrating stuff, try not to let it drive you mad!

EDIT: Thanks for the update though, please continue to do so in the future!


----------



## armyvern (8 Sep 2011)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Just an update..my ex landlord refuses to give back my deposit so I've attached my forwarding address to her door (took a pic) which is the legal thing to do because I plan on taking her to court. She "invites" me to pursue legal action and said that she will get a WRITTEN STATEMENT from the PO at the ORDERLY ROOM  that my PLD was in fact not cancelled and that I lied to her. Wtf? Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else?



Well now ... that narrows down the search for her source somewhat ...

I'd be saying, "OK, let's go get it right now then ..."


----------



## QORvanweert (8 Sep 2011)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Just an update..my ex landlord refuses to give back my deposit so I've attached my forwarding address to her door (took a pic) which is the legal thing to do because I plan on taking her to court. She "invites" me to pursue legal action and said that she will get a WRITTEN STATEMENT from the PO at the ORDERLY ROOM that my PLD was in fact not cancelled and that I lied to her. Wtf? Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else?



I recently sued Canadian Tire and won, so don't be afraid of calling her Small Claims court bluff. Assuming you are located in BC you have several avenues of recourse: 
http://www.rto.gov.bc.ca/content/rightsresponsibilities/security.aspx
"1.2.2 When does the tenant get the security deposit and pet deposit back?
A landlord must return the security deposit or pet damage deposit within 15 days of the tenancy ending or receiving the tenant's forwarding address in writing, whichever is later. The landlord may keep some or all of the deposit if they have the tenant's written consent or a valid Monetary Order from the Residential Tenancy Branch that can be applied against the deposit.

A landlord must provide interest on the security deposit and pet damage deposit. The interest may be calculated on the Residential Tenancy Branch's free Deposit Interest Rate Calculator.

A landlord's or tenant's right to make a claim for a security deposit or pet damage deposit is affected by their participation in the move-in and move-out condition inspections. Claims for damages to the rental unit may be made independently of a claim for the Security Deposit.

Security deposits paid to landlords on or before December 31, 2003 may be retained until the end of the tenancy; however, a landlord who does not return or file a claim against the deposit at the end of the tenancy may be required to pay the tenant double the amount of the deposit."

She clearly does not have a Residential Tenancy Branch order to hold your deposit as this would involve claiming it which can't be done without a move in report. She actually owes you double and you need to go grieve this immediately otherwise you are never going to see your money again. Small Claims' clerks won't even look at your case if you haven't already gone through the Housing Board. You mention several times that you are concerned that she has already spent the money. While it seems like a petty fear, you can rest assured that unless she is an incorporated property manager, she owns something of value so one way or another you will get your deposit back. I cannot comment on the BOR fiasco as there are members here far more qualified to do so. I do admonish you for not just biting the bullet and being honest in the first place. She is clearly just bluffing but you lost the moral high ground once you lied about why you were leaving, regardless of how good your intentions were. As someone who has been through the legal system I would very strongly caution you against fudging the truth for other people's feelings, especially since your recourse will inevitably be so difficult. Best of luck and if you want more links just pm me.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (9 Sep 2011)

Update: She sent me an email stating that she spoke to the tenant's board and was advised that she has no claim to my deposit, so she's mailing it to me at the address i provided.

 ;D


----------



## ballz (9 Sep 2011)

Glad to hear it worked out for you and you avoided most of the fuss.


----------



## Strike (10 Sep 2011)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Update: She sent me an email stating that she spoke to the tenant's board and was advised that she has no claim to my deposit, so she's mailing it to me at the address i provided.
> 
> ;D



Tell her you want the interest.   >


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Sep 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Tell her you want the interest.   >



Hey, don't laugh.  At my new apartment, I paid last month's rent.  If they get more than $50 interest on it, they pay it to me and give me an income tax receipt.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Sep 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Tell her you want the interest.   >



Keep after her for it. You don't want to move away and have to sort this out long distance.


----------



## CountDC (12 Sep 2011)

Good that the money issue seems to be worked out.

Now about the PO (grrrrr) in the OR.  Please do not drop that issue.  There is no way a RMS PO should be discussing a members pay with someone like that and they need to be straightened out on that one.  The only answer the PO should have given was "sorry Ma'am but I am not allowed to discuss his pay with you, you will have to talk to him. Have a nice day" click.  Been there, done it.


----------



## teenwolf (29 Dec 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> PLD is not strictly about housing costs.  All factors related to the cost of living are taken into consideration, including:
> 
> 1) housing costs (including rental rates)
> 2) all taxes (property and income)
> ...



People need to heed the above; and also remember that many other factors are also considered. The biggest problem with PLD right now is that the rates haven't been updated since 2009. It's supposed to be done annually.


----------



## Tow Tripod (29 Dec 2011)

Ahhh, Wainwright the posting to the Abyss! 6 months left. Just like a tour!


----------



## Pusser (29 Dec 2011)

teenwolf said:
			
		

> People need to heed the above; and also remember that many other factors are also considered. The biggest problem with PLD right now is that the *rates haven't been updated since 2009*. It's supposed to be done annually.



Where did you get this information?  Keep in mind that they are *reviewed* annually.  "Review" does not mean raised, lowered or changed at all.  Rates can be reviewed and left as is.

It's also important to remember that just because the cost of living goes up or down in a given location does not mean an automatic increase or decrease in PLD.  What matters is the increase/decrease of a given area compared to the baseline.  If the cost of living goes up across the country, PLD essentially stays the same.  General increases in cost of living are covered by general pay increases, not PLD.  Furthermore if the cost of living in one location goes up, but at a lower rate than the baseline, then the PLD at that location will actually go down.  Conversely, if the cost of living at a given location decreases at lower rate than the baseline, then PLD will go up at that location.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Dec 2011)

PLD is easy if your are posted to the baseline............. :nod:


----------



## Occam (29 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> PLD is easy if your are posted the baseline............. :nod:



I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say there.


----------



## Zoomie (29 Dec 2011)

I think he is inferring to the lack of PLD in Ottawa as all PLD is based on the associative cost of living in the NCR.


----------



## teenwolf (1 Jan 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Where did you get this information?  Keep in mind that they are *reviewed* annually.  "Review" does not mean raised, lowered or changed at all.  Rates can be reviewed and left as is.
> 
> It's also important to remember that just because the cost of living goes up or down in a given location does not mean an automatic increase or decrease in PLD.  What matters is the increase/decrease of a given area compared to the baseline.  If the cost of living goes up across the country, PLD essentially stays the same.  General increases in cost of living are covered by general pay increases, not PLD.  Furthermore if the cost of living in one location goes up, but at a lower rate than the baseline, then the PLD at that location will actually go down.  Conversely, if the cost of living at a given location decreases at lower rate than the baseline, then PLD will go up at that location.



After the updated PLD methodology there was a msg released in 2008 (CANFORGEN 061/08 - CMP - 311241Z MAR 08) that specified PLD rates. In 2009, another msg (CANFORGEN 090/09 - CMP - 141802Z MAY 09) was released that specified PLD rates (Note: the rates didn't change from 2008, but the 2009 rates were still specified). In 2010, another msg (CANFORGEN 084/10 CMP 039/10 081701Z APR 10) was released that didn't specify rates and stated that PLD rates will remain at their 2009/2010 level until further notice. There was no PLD message released for 2011. The latest msg does state that PLD is under continuous review; however, I interpret the "until further notice" comment and the lack of a 2011 msg to mean that PLD rates are frozen. Otherwise, why would they deviate from the 2008 and 2009 msg format and state in 2010 that rates will remain the same until further notice? Why not release a msg for 2011? Keeping with the 2008 and 2009 course of action, there should have been a 2010 and 2011 msg specifying rates, regardless if they changed or not. One logical answer here is that the program is, once again, under review and there's no intent to change rates until the program review is completed.

In regard to general increases in cost of living are covered by general pay increases, we have yet to receive one for 2011/2012.


----------



## CountDC (3 Jan 2012)

why release a message listing what has already been stated in a prior message when you can just say the rates will stay the same?

Why release a message in 2011 when you stated in 2010 those rates will remain in effect until further notice?

or one logical answer is that over all they have found the cost of living has increased almost by the same amount everywhere with such a small difference to make it not worth the hasssle to update and release new rates.

pay increase - I do not think that what was said meant we would get them every year simply that they are what is meant to help off set the overall cost of living increae not PLD which is area specific compared to the NCR. I also do not expect to see one until next year after more unions hopefully reach agreements.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jan 2012)

....or maybe there's just a new guy in charge of the office that doesn't feel he has to push out useless messages just so someone else knows he's in the office doing his job


----------



## teenwolf (9 Jan 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> why release a message listing what has already been stated in a prior message when you can just say the rates will stay the same?



They did it prior to 2010.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Why release a message in 2011 when you stated in 2010 those rates will remain in effect until further notice?



Looks like you missed the point and your circular reasoning adds nothing.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> or one logical answer is that over all they have found the cost of living has increased almost by the same amount everywhere with such a small difference to make it not worth the hasssle to update and release new rates.



Releasing msgs is what we do in the military. And annual PLD msgs were the normal course of action prior to the freeze.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2012)

teenwolf,

In 2010 the message stated what the rates were, until further notice.

There has been no new message, thus no further notice.

Don't like it ? Too f****g bad.



> They did it prior to 2010



We used to do allot of things we don't do anymore...........


Move along.


----------



## teenwolf (9 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> teenwolf,
> 
> In 2010 the message stated what the rates were, until further notice.
> 
> ...



Wow! That's all I can say.

My whole point was that PLD is UFN, which I interpret to mean freeze. I cited my reasons in post #29. You can take them for what they are or move along.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jan 2012)

What I noticed on my mid-Jan PS is that PLD (for me) is taxed at 42%.  Not to say I am complaining, I know mbrs in places aren't getting ANY at all.  

Just noting the rate it is actually taxed at.


----------



## teenwolf (9 Jan 2012)

I've noticed the same thing. Mine was taxed at 39% prior to Jan. The latest statement has it taxed at 44%.


----------



## Pusser (9 Jan 2012)

It's taxed at whatever *your* tax rate is.  Folks who make more money will see more taken off in tax - just like your salary.  If they take off too much, you'll get it back on your tax return.  If they don't take off enough...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jan 2012)

I think the important think to note is that it is 42%.  

Therefore, IMO....PLD is much more attractive sounding than it is anything.  Sure, looks like a great thing...only they are actually getting almost half of it back.

"We have posted you to an area with a high cost of living.  Here is XX dollars to help offset the cost to you imposed by the CF.  Whoops!  I need half of that back!"   :blotto:

 ^-^


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2012)

Would you rather have 58% of my PLD ?

Mine is $0

Living here ain't cheap either.

Quit yur bitchin'


----------



## FSTO (9 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Would you rather have 58% of my PLD ?
> 
> Mine is $0
> 
> ...





How long have you been in Ottawa? It appears that time in the centre has made you a little ornery.


----------



## Pusser (9 Jan 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think the important think to note is that it is 42%.
> 
> Therefore, IMO....PLD is much more attractive sounding than it is anything.  Sure, looks like a great thing...only they are actually getting almost half of it back.
> 
> ...



Except that one of the factors calculated into the PLD rate is the fact that you will have to pay tax on it.  Thus, if it were tax-free, it would be less.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Would you rather have 58% of my PLD ?
> 
> Mine is $0
> 
> ...



Who's bitching?  I am questioning the logic behind identifying that the COL in some areas is high, so CF mbrs receive $ because of that, but in reality only seeing slightly over half of that amount in actual $$ per month.  Therefore, PLD looks much more beneficial on paper and in reports then it actually is to the mbr.

Maybe you missed this post:



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What I noticed on my mid-Jan PS is that PLD (for me) is taxed at 42%.  Not to say I am complaining, I know mbrs in places aren't getting ANY at all.
> 
> Just noting the rate it is actually taxed at.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2012)

The  ;D was missing but, you can send me the half that you do get.

Between that and AICRA, you're doing fine.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Except that one of the factors calculated into the PLD rate is the fact that you will have to pay tax on it.


  Thus, if it were tax-free, it would be less.


So then in reality, the actual COL difference for Halifax is $364 a month from the baseline.  What the PLD system has done then, is calculated the gross amount of $ needed to be paid, before tax, so that the mbr receives the actual amount, which is -42% tax in NS??



> Thus, if it were tax-free, it would be less.



Agreed.  Personally, I'd rather have it lower and tax free.  But thats me.   

So what is the reason for making it taxable at a higher rate instead of making it tax free at a lower rate, IF the amount of $$ in the mbr's bank account is the same on each pay? 

I am NOT complaining I, personally, am taxed at 42%.  I get $ from PLD, and it helps alot.  I spent 5 years in Halifax making far less then I am now (on Cl B wages with no PLD). 

My biggest beef with PLD was how, previous to this tax year, it was lumped in under "income" and now it will be a 'taxable benefit".  So my biggest beef with PLD in general actually was changed a year ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The  ;D was missing but, you can send me the half that you do get.
> 
> Between that and AICRA, you're doing fine.



Agreed, I have nothing to complain about and am not on a *personal* level.  I lived in the same area for years making Cl B Sgt pay with no PLD, so I appreciate the extra $ per month.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So what is the reason for making it taxable at a higher rate instead of making it tax free at a lower rate, IF the amount of $$ in the mbr's bank account is the same on each pay?



CRA sets the rules for what's taxable and what's not.  The CF has to follow those rules.  Thus, for PLD, when the CF went to Treasury Board for approval, the tax implications would have been considered and integrated into the submission.

The CF doesn't set pay scales or meal rates or PLD rates or allowances - that's all done by Treasury Board.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2012)

Ack!


----------



## CountDC (10 Jan 2012)

teenwolf said:
			
		

> They did it prior to 2010.



 :rofl:



			
				teenwolf said:
			
		

> Looks like you missed the point and your circular reasoning adds nothing.



 :rofl:  No circular reasoning there just logic - give it a try.

Looks to me like you have missed the point.  Perhaps a little info on msgs - they are to be as short and precise to the point as possible. The 2010 msg met this standard by stating rates have not changed instead of listing them all again and specified as you pointed out - until further notice - thus no need for another msg until there is a change.  



			
				teenwolf said:
			
		

> Releasing msgs is what we do in the military. And annual PLD msgs were the normal course of action prior to the freeze.


 :rofl:
 Yes that is what my whole military career has been about - releasing msgs. 

What freeze? Do you have a msg on that freeze? I haven't seen one nor has any other clerk or for that matter anyone I know.


LOL EIS - I agree with you unfortunately CRA doesn't.


----------



## gashbag (10 Jan 2012)

My only beef with PLD is what I refer to as "the pot" and before I make people grumpy this is my guess so correct me if I am wrong........

The Pot is a predetermined, set amount of money as designated by the treasury Board. So when COL rates change across the country example the COL rises all across the board, they can't simply increase the  PLD rates for everyone but instead like robin hood "they take from the rich and give to the poor" so even though you COL increased, it may have increased less than somewhere else so your PLD goes down so theirs can go up.

Been a while since I've seen PLD, but last time I remember the rates changing ours went down so someone elses could go up.  I think :2c:


----------



## MJP (10 Jan 2012)

gashbag said:
			
		

> My only beef with PLD is what I refer to as "the pot" and before I make people grumpy this is my guess so correct me if I am wrong........



I think your totally wrong....wait no I don't think, I know you are.  Rates are determined through a fairly complex set of parameters with Ottawa as the baseline.  No one area gets more at the expense of another.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jan 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Rates are determined through a fairly complex set of parameters with Ottawa as the baseline.



Is Ottawa the right baseline, though? It seems like it was just an arbitrary location chosen simply as it was the capital. The cynic in me wants to say Ottawa was chosen because the greatest proportion of CF members work in the NCR region and its easy to save cash when you lump all those members in with PLD as 0.


----------



## MJP (10 Jan 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is Ottawa the right baseline, though? It seems like it was just an arbitrary location chosen simply as it was the capital. The cynic in me wants to say Ottawa was chosen because the greatest proportion of CF members work in the NCR region and its easy to save cash when you lump all those members in with PLD as 0.



That I don't know, but judging from my friends that are posted there they think along the same lines that you posted.


----------



## CountDC (11 Jan 2012)

just a correction - Ottawa isn't the baseline, the NCR is.

My own opinion is the baseline should be the city with the lowest cost of living to really achieve what I understood the goal to be.  As it stands now if the col is higher than the NCR the member gets pld and if the col is lower then bonus for the member.


----------



## MJP (11 Jan 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> just a correction - Ottawa isn't the baseline, the NCR is.
> 
> My own opinion is the baseline should be the city with the lowest cost of living to really achieve what I understood the goal to be.  As it stands now if the col is higher than the NCR the member gets pld and if the col is lower then bonus for the member.



oops my bad very true NCR it is.  

Funny when they announced they were changing to a baseline for PLD, I thought for sure a slow growth city like Winnipeg or the like would have been constituted as baseline.


----------



## GAP (11 Jan 2012)

Is not the NCR and Ottawa one and the same as far as PLD go, or does stuff like Gatineau come into it?


----------



## MJP (11 Jan 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Is not the NCR and Ottawa one and the same as far as PLD go, or does stuff like Gatineau come into it?



The NCR is a fairly large area which includes Gatineau.  I had a map with the geographic boundaries at one time but can't find it now.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jan 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> just a correction - Ottawa isn't the baseline, the NCR is.
> 
> My own opinion is the baseline should be the city with the lowest cost of living to really achieve what I understood the goal to be.  As it stands now if the col is higher than the NCR the member gets pld and if the col is lower then bonus for the member.



True that; I guarantee they aren't deducting any money from a CF member's baseline pay if they are living in a lower cost of living area than the NCR. Therefore anyone living in the NCR was certainly shafted when they (the majority of our CF posns) became the "ZERO". The beancounters saved a fortune didn't they?


----------



## gashbag (11 Jan 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> I think your totally wrong....wait no I don't think, I know you are.  Rates are determined through a fairly complex set of parameters with Ottawa as the baseline.  No one area gets more at the expense of another.



Thanx for the info, to most of us PLD is just another one of those great mysteries


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2012)

Do you think the other people living in the NCR should get a COL adjustment?  How about all the civvies living in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc?  I doubt very much that they get "PLD".  

PLD/AAA/whatever is another nice like perk that some of us get.  Obviously there are other people who manage to live in those same cities, making less money than us -yet  somehow they still manage.

It's called making a budget and being reasonable with your life choices.   If I live in Greenwood I know that I can buy a 10 acre property and 3000+ Sqft home for mid 200's -  I shouldn't expect to get the same in Comox.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jan 2012)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Do you think the other people living in the NCR should get a COL adjustment?  How about all the civvies living in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc?  I doubt very much that they get "PLD".



Civvies get to pick where they work, we get forced to remote/expensive markets with no rhyme or reason. With that logic, should we get rid of the 100% Home Equity loss benefit because civvies don't get it?

PLD is a perk, yes. But its a perk we get because we have unlimited liability to the Queen and Government of Canada, civvies can just say "I'm not doing that" and quit.


----------



## Tow Tripod (12 Jan 2012)

PLD is a perk, yes. But its a perk we get because we have unlimited liability to the Queen and Government of Canada, civvies can just say "I'm not doing that" and quit.

Puckchaser, it should be no surprise that it's not just civvies that say " I'm not doing that" and quit. Some people will wait for pension needs but many are just a walking away.


----------



## CountDC (13 Jan 2012)

PLD is a perk to help us maintain the same standard of living regardless of where the military sends us.  Thus when Pte Jones leaves Greenwood for Toronto he (hopefully) does not have to move his family into a bachelor pad on skid row and line up at the food bank so his son can play hockey.

Back in the late 80's a friend of mine worked at the dockyards as a shipwright.  The union was going through some discussion on pay equity at the time and one of the issues was that the shipwrights in BC were paid more than Halifax.  Of course they did not feel this was fair as they had the same qualifications, same designation and were doing the same work for less pay.  It was explained to them that the pay was higher as the cost of living was higher.  Don't know if it is still like that but at one point at least some of the civvies were in a sense paid PLD in the form of higher wages.

Oh - at the time they were told the pay would never be the same straight across the board as the thought was that there would be a mass request for transfer to the area with the lower cost of living and they would have trouble filling positions in the higher area. I couldn't see it myself but some people....


----------



## Pusser (13 Jan 2012)

For years, the Public Service did have regional rates of pay, but to the best of my knowledge that is being (or has been) phased out.

The East Coast and West Coast dockyard unions are a little different though.  Hindsight is only 20/20 when it's convenient sometimes.  The first thing to realize is that each coast has it's own union and thus bargains separately with Treasury Board.  Before the 80s there had been a need to reduce costs.  The West Coast union accepted more layoffs in order to reduce costs, but in exchange, received higher rates of pay for the remainder.  The East Coast accepted lower pay in exchange for fewer layoffs.  In effect, the East Coast union was not treated badly.  They got what they asked for and then quickly forgot a few details.


----------



## Trouble (21 Jan 2012)

PLD is an allowance NOT an entitlement, initiated to try and help elevate higher costs from one province/area to the next. There are multiple factors and calculations used to determine the rates for certain areas.  Picture a bullseye with one black dot in the middle, and a large circle around it. The dot in the middle is the centre of the geographical area,  any bases or military establishments that fall within that outer circle are entitled to PLD for that geographical area.  The military does not want members becoming dependent on it. It is not a part of your pay that's why it is not included in a statement of earnings or an employment verification used when applying for a mortgage or a loan.  The same as any other allowance it can be reduced or even eliminated at any time.  That is why the changes were made in regards to it being deposited separately. Prior to April 2011 PLD was added to your pay and deposited in one payment. Now you amount is divided in 2 (mid & end month) added to your pay then taxed, the remaining PLD amount after taxes is then subtracted from your pay (PLD acquittance roll) and deposited separately.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jan 2012)

Trouble said:
			
		

> PLD is an allowance NOT an entitlement, initiated to try and help elevate higher costs from one province/area to the next.



Thanks. I don't know how we ever managed managed without your insights.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jan 2012)

Trouble said:
			
		

> PLD is an allowance NOT an entitlement, initiated to try and help elevate higher costs from one province/area to the next. There are multiple factors and calculations used to determine the rates for certain areas.  Picture a bullseye with one black dot in the middle, and a large circle around it. The dot in the middle is the centre of the geographical area,  any bases or military establishments that fall within that outer circle are entitled to PLD for that geographical area.  The military does not want members becoming dependent on it. It is not a part of your pay that's why it is not included in a statement of earnings or an employment verification used when applying for a mortgage or a loan.  The same as any other allowance it can be reduced or even eliminated at any time.  That is why the changes were made in regards to it being deposited separately. Prior to April 2011 PLD was added to your pay and deposited in one payment. Now you amount is divided in 2 (mid & end month) added to your pay then taxed, the remaining PLD amount after taxes is then subtracted from your pay (PLD acquittance roll) and deposited separately.



This forum isn't like a Recruit briefing 1st week at CFLRS, just so you know.  Pretty much everything you said is common knowledge.


----------



## GAP (21 Jan 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This forum isn't like a Recruit briefing 1st week at CFLRS, just so you know.  Pretty much everything you said is common knowledge.



You would think so, but post after post on a variety of topics that have been explained repeatedly fail to have an impact on the craniums of some......

So....while it may be common knowledge to you and yours, that might not be the case for others...


----------



## s_other (21 Jan 2012)

Trouble said:
			
		

> The same as any other allowance it can be reduced or even eliminated at any time.  That is why the changes were made in regards to it being deposited separately.



I've heard this line of reasoning before, but it still makes little sense.  Why not perform this same practice with all the allowances??  It's obvious they're tracking PLD separately for a reason, and it's certainly not so it can be read easier on your pay stub.


----------



## Occam (21 Jan 2012)

s_other said:
			
		

> I've heard this line of reasoning before, but it still makes little sense.  Why not perform this same practice with all the allowances??  It's obvious they're tracking PLD separately for a reason, and it's certainly not so it can be read easier on your pay stub.



I'm quite certain it was just as easy to track before the change as it is after the change.  The figures are simply displayed on your pay stub in a different location.


----------



## CountDC (23 Jan 2012)

and I am quite certain you are right.  The change really did not make a difference in tracking and does simply make it stand out on your pay statement.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jan 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> and I am quite certain you are right.  The change really did not make a difference in tracking and _*does simply make it stand out on your pay statement. * _



Which is the stated intent - to make it clear that PLD is not part of your pay, and should not be relied on when making long-term financial decisions, as it is subject to change.


----------



## opcougar (28 Feb 2012)

For the Log and admin folks here, need your help wrt to the quote email I received today

"Unfortunately there was an error that was made in authorizing your PLD.  The Brantford  PLD rate as of 1 Apr 08 is $0.  If you were not in receipt of PLD before 1 Apr 08, you are not entitled to TPLD.

As you were actually not entitled to it,  there will be a recovery on your pay.  Because PLD is now paid as an Acquittance Roll, we won't know the exact amount before the pay is "Dropped" around 1 March 2012.  We realize that this is very frustrating to you but unfortunately we must action this recovery.  "

Considering I didn't know my entitlements when joined and only went by what was told to me by recruiting, and the units have served at, what are my options in this case? If there is a memo that needs to be written, does anybody have a template pls?

thx in advance


----------



## Grunt_031 (28 Feb 2012)

Good luck. I feel your pain. In the old days you did not have any advance warning until you received your pay and a big chuck was missing. In my experience you will need to pay this back. You can usually soften the blow by requesting by memo thru the CoC to pay back in installments. Your admin staff usually are on your side and will help take the sting out, but in the end if you where not entitled to it, the crown will get her money back. And "I didn't know or wasn't told" will not help. It is your duty to be acquainted the the QR&O's and DOAD's and is more than likely written in your PDR part 1.


----------



## SentryMAn (28 Feb 2012)

Talk to your units pay clerks if possible.

They like to take it all out in one chunk but if you can be level headed and negotiate they may spread it over a few pays if it is a large sum.

Other then that you will be paying the money back from my experience in a similar "over pay" situation.


----------



## MJP (28 Feb 2012)

I have read and helped on a few redresses on situations similar to this one.  In every case regardless of the circumstances of the overpayment, the mbr had to repay the amounts. 

You are entitled to repay the amount you got overpaid by the amount of time it was your account was overpaid, but you have to ask for it.  So if you got overpaid for 10 months, then you can pay it back over ten months.  There is actual direction on this but I don't have access to the DIN to find the documentation.


----------



## CountDC (28 Feb 2012)

Don't waste time with a redress - it will have to be paid back.

Here is a link that will help if you have access:  http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/cfa-oaf/203-03-eng.asp

and if you don't then a little info:

 QR&O 203.04 requires that every officer and non-commissioned member be acquainted with the rates of pay, allowances and other financial benefits and expenses to which they may be entitled, and with the conditions governing their issue.

and the big section you need:

CFAO 203-3

SECTION 2 -- EXTENSION OF RECOVERY PERIOD
7. Recovery of an overpayment, advance of unearned pay and allowances, or deduction for dependants' medical care or dental treatment shall normally be made either in one sum or by monthly deductions in the pay account. In the case of monthly deductions, the amount may be recovered over the greater of:

a. a period not exceeding six months; or 

b. a period equal to the period over which the overpayment was made.

The accounting officer shall notify Director Pay Services 5 (DPS 5), by message, of the recovery period and rate.

8. If a recovery period that exceeds the CO's authority is considered warranted, the CO shall submit a request to the parent command headquarters (CHQ) including:

a. the amount to be recovered and details of the circumstances which led to the overpayment, efforts, if any, the member made or should have made to prevent or minimize the overpayment and action taken to prevent recurrence of a similar overpayment; 

b. the recommended rate and period of recovery -- the recovery rate which, based on assessment of the member's financial situation will liquidate the debit balance as soon as possible without causing the member undue financial hardship; 

c. confirmation that recovery is being made currently at the rate recommended for approval in subparagraph b, and the recovery commencement date; and 

d. a detailed statement supporting the recommendation for extended recovery at subparagraph b. The statement shall show the member's gross pay and allowances, recurring deductions and budgeted monthly expenditures. 

9. The parent CHQ shall review the request, make sure it is properly documented, add its recommendation, and then send it to NDHQ/DPS for decision.

10. The decision to approve or deny an extended recovery period for an overpayment, advance of unearned pay and allowances, or deduction for dependants' medical care or dental treatment is based primarily on the member's ability to repay. For an overpayment, the decision is also influenced by the circumstances leading to it, in particular the member's action, if any, required under paragraph 4. Submissions received by NDHQ/DPS with insufficient information will be returned through the parent CHQ to the unit for further substantiation.


Now for my recommendation:

Do a memo to the  CO/Compt requesting that the recovery be done over a period equal to the period over which the overpayment was made.  I highly doubt you will get a better deal - I have never seen one given.  Address it through the pay office and get it done yesterday.  Once they have received it all recovery action should stop until they get the response back.  This can be important because sometimes the answer takes several weeks giving the member a bit of breathing room to prepare for the lost pay.  Remember you will be losing the PLD amount off your pay plus paying back what you were paid - ie if you recieved $100 a month you lose $200 plus a month.  

If you can prove that it will cause extreme and unreasonable hardship on your family then by all means try for a longer period.  Note that not being able to afford rogers extreme internet does not qualify.  You would have to prove that you could not afford the basics of life.

and a correction - note that no where in there does it say you are entitled to repay the amount over the period it was overpaid.  You can request it and the CO (although I have always seen the Compt) can (and always has) approve it.  If they were to do one lump then a redress would most likely pass as I am sure you could argue the amount would meet the test of the above paragraph.

Now get that memo in.  here is a basic format (I just know someone is going to jump on something - havent done a memo in awhile):

7000-1 (PERS)

DATE

CO (thru Fin O)

RECOVERY OF PLD OVERPAYMENT

Refs:  A. email subj from/to date
B. CFAO 203-3 section 2 Para 7 (b)

1.   I, rank name sn, hereby req recovery in ref A be actioned IAW with ref B.

2.  Request the recovery be actioned starting  month year over xxx pay periods that corresponds to the period of the overpayment.  If approved I also req that the pay office notify me of the monthly amount to be deducted and my net monthly pay so I can properly budget.

3.  For your consideration and approval.

respectfully;





<sign>
name
rank


----------



## MJP (28 Feb 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> and a correction - note that no where in there does it say you are entitled to repay the amount over the period it was overpaid.  You can request it and the CO (although I have always seen the Compt) can (and always has) approve it.  If they were to do one lump then a redress would most likely pass as I am sure you could argue the amount would meet the test of the above paragraph.



Thanks for the clarifications.  I have never seen a member turned down for repayment over a fixed period, so I figured it was an entitlement. I always let the experts deal with it after I help the mbr draft up a memo.


----------



## opcougar (28 Feb 2012)

Thank you everyone, especially CountDC

Really appreciate the input and the advice from everyone. The first I did was go see the OR to sign a cancellation of PLD form. It has not been stopped on the system, and have been told that by the end of the week, I should know the complete figure

Right now we have an estimate of 3,037 in PLD that was piad out to me over 4yrs. I am not going to fight the error as advised by everyone here, but rather pursue the memo route asking to have it paid back over the same period of time.

Cheers


----------



## SentryMAn (28 Feb 2012)

Somewhere on the DIN there is a site that has proper memo writing guidelines which will be a great help to you.  I do not have access but if you do a din search it should come up handily.

You really don't want to have the memo kicked back to you for corrections.  The above listed memo is a good guideline as well.


----------



## captloadie (29 Feb 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Don't waste time with a redress - it will have to be paid back.



This is absolutely poor advice. 

Yes, you'll have to pay it back. But, the Grievance board is now recommending to the CDS to uphold several grievances where the member was not at fault for an overpayment, as there is an option for a ministerial waiver on the books, it is just never used. Grieve the decision, and in the end if changes arise from the Board's decision, you might get your money back. Now, this was based on substantial amounts paid over years, so each individual case may be handled differently.


----------



## MJP (29 Feb 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> This is absolutely poor advice.
> 
> Yes, you'll have to pay it back. But, the Grievance board is now recommending to the CDS to uphold several grievances where the member was not at fault for an overpayment, as there is an option for a ministerial waiver on the books, it is just never used. Grieve the decision, and in the end if changes arise from the Board's decision, you might get your money back. Now, this was based on substantial amounts paid over years, so each individual case may be handled differently.



Can you throw the links up for them.  Not challenging you, just want them in the bookmarks along with my myriad of other common redress grievances I use.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Feb 2012)

I just looked through the decisions on the grievance board, and unless there are some new CDS decisions on the board I don't see anything that the CDS is allowing people to have debt written-off due to overpayment that was not the griever's fault.


----------



## opcougar (29 Feb 2012)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> Somewhere on the DIN there is a site that has proper memo writing guidelines which will be a great help to you.  I do not have access but if you do a din search it should come up handily.
> 
> You really don't want to have the memo kicked back to you for corrections.  The above listed memo is a good guideline as well.



Thx...I can't seem to find it. If someone happens to find it, pls cut and paste it here for us

cheers


----------



## captloadie (29 Feb 2012)

Sorry, here are the links.

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2011-094.html


http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2011-091.html


http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2011-093.html

PC - I said that the Board had made the recommendation, not that the CDS had approved it. Yes, the CDS could disagree with the Board, but there is no harm from submitting a grievance.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Feb 2012)

The Grievance Board needs some remedial lessons.  The CDS cannot order that a DND directive on remissions be drafted; that's outside the CDS' authority and outside the CF's mandate.  The DM is responsible for that.

However, that is not to say that remission orders to TB can not be drafted and submitted for certain cases.


----------



## Occam (29 Feb 2012)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Thx...I can't seem to find it. If someone happens to find it, pls cut and paste it here for us
> 
> cheers



Try this for military writing guidelines, including memos - http://lfcms.kingston.mil.ca/Document.aspx?DocID=143000440174759

DWAN only, sorry no internet link available.


----------



## opcougar (29 Feb 2012)

Update:

So here is the reference sent with the original email I rx'd

Refs:  A.  http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/pdf/205_e.pdf (CBI 205.45)
B.  http://admfincs.mil.ca/qr_o/vol3/ch203_e.asp#203.04 (QR&O 203.04)

My wife God bless her ( I am always complaining about her keeping everything and creating clutter ) sent me the below info ( msg I rx'd at the time showing that I'll get PLD ) with a CANFORGEN #. My place of residence at the time of Joining ( Brantford is on that list effective 2007), so that contradicts the Ref A above that states $0 for Brantford

So if anyone else finds themselves in this situation anytime soon, you might want to refer to this CANFORGEN


-------------------------------

RAAUZYUW RCCPJAW4003 1351232-UUUU--RCCRUNA.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC
R 141802Z MAY 09
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 090/09 CMP 039/09
SIC WAS
SUBJ: POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL (PLD) 2009/2010 RATES
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. CBI 205.45 (POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL)
B. CBI 205.452 (TRANSITIONAL POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL)
C. CANFORGEN 061/08 CMP 024/08 311241Z MAR 08
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO PROMULGATE THE TB APPROVED PLD 
RATES, EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09.
2. IAW REF A THE FOLLOWING 2009 RATES ARE EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09, READ 
IN TWO COLUMNS: PLD AREA, 2009 FULL RATE:
ALDERGROVE, 418
CALGARY, 711
CAMBRIDGE, 71
COLD LAKE, 319
EDMONTON, 684
GUELPH, 167
HALIFAX, 631
HAMILTON, 414
KAMLOOPS/KELOWNA, 525
KITCHENER, 62
LETHBRIDGE, 234
MEAFORD, 77
MEDICINE HAT, 145
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE, 505
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE, 376
MOOSE JAW, 284
NANAIMO, 75
QUEBEC CITY/VALCARTIER, 117
RED DEER, 327
REGINA, 62
SASKATOON, 382
SEPT-ILES, 107
ST JOHN S, 149
STRATFORD, 82
TORONTO AREA 1, 1485
TORONTO AREA 2, 506
TORONTO AREA 3, 522
TORONTO AREA 4, 819
TORONTO AREA 5, 1167
VANCOUVER, 1083
VICTORIA/ESQUIMALT, 816
3.  TRANSITIONAL PLD (TPLD) WAS ESTABLISHED AT LOCATIONS THAT 
EXPERIENCED DECREASES IN PLD RATES AS A RESULT OF THE NEW PLD 
METHODOLOGY INTRODUCED EFFECTIVE 1 JUL 07.  THE TPLD RATES CAN BE 
FOUND AT REF B WHERE GROUP A COMPRISES OFFICERS IN THE RANK OF 
CAPTAIN OR ABOVE, AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS IN THE RANK OF 
WARRANT OFFICER OR ABOVE AND GROUP B COMPRISES OFFICERS IN THE RANK 
OF LIEUTENANT OR BELOW, AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS IN THE RANK OF 
SERGEANT OR BELOW. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE TB APPROVED TPLD RATES 
EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09, READ IN THREE COLUMNS TPLD AREA, GROUP A FULL 
RATE, GROUP B FULL RATE:
BARRIE/BORDEN, 58, 87
BRANTFORD, 76, 114
CAMBRIDGE, PLD, 85
CORNERBROOK, 55, 83
GRAND FALL/WINDSOR, 89, 133
GUELPH, PLD, 245
HALIFAX, PLD, PLD
HAMILTON, PLD, PLD
KINGSTON, NA, 16
KITCHENER, 113, 170
LONDON, NA, 46
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE, PLD, PLD
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE, PLD, 404
NANAIMO, PLD, PLD
NIAGARA/ST CATHARINES, 116, 174
NORTH BAY, NA, 6
OTTAWA/GATINEAU, 131, 196
PETERBOROUGH, NA, 68
QUEBEC CITY/VALCARTIER, 126, 189
SEPT-ILES, PLD, 112
ST JOHN S, 205, 308
ST-HYACINTHE, NA, 24
STRATFORD, 138, 207
TORONTO AREA 1, PLD, 1586
TORONTO AREA 2, PLD, 670
TORONTO AREA 3, PLD, 543
TORONTO AREA 4, PLD, 1006
TORONTO AREA 5, PLD, 1377
WINDOR, 221, 332
4. IAW REF B CF PERSONNEL ARE ENTITLED TO THE GREATER OF PLD OR TPLD 
 FOR THEIR LOCATION. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN THOUGH THE FOLLOWING 
LOCATIONS HAVE TPLD RATES, THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE PLD VICE 
TPLD EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09:
CAMBRIDGE (RANK GROUP A)
GUELPH (RANK GROUP A)
HALIFAX (RANK GROUP A AND B)
HAMILTON (RANK GROUP A AND B)
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE (RANK GROUP A AND B)
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE (RANK GROUP A)
NANAIMO (RANK GROUP A AND B)
SEPT-ILES (RANK GROUP A)
TORONTO AREA 1 (RANK GROUP A)
TORONTO AREA 2 (RANK GROUP A)
TORONTO AREA 3 (RANK GROUP A)
TORONTO AREA 4 (RANK GROUP A)
TORONTO AREA 5 (RANK GROUP A)
5. LOCATIONS NOT LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE ARE NOT PLD OR TPLD AREAS 
AND PERSONNEL AT THESE LOCATIONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EITHER 
ALLOWANCE.
6. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, PLD RATES MAY NOW BE SUBJECTED TO 
SIGNIFICANT INCREASES OR DECREASES FROM YEAR-TO-YEAR, CF PERSONNEL 
ARE HEREBY ADVISED NOT TO MAKE LONG-TERM FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS BASED 
ON THE ABOVE RATES.
7. SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP
END OF ENGLISH TEXT,


----------



## CountDC (29 Feb 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> This is absolutely poor advice.
> 
> Yes, you'll have to pay it back. But, the Grievance board is now recommending to the CDS to uphold several grievances where the member was not at fault for an overpayment, as there is an option for a ministerial waiver on the books, it is just never used. Grieve the decision, and in the end if changes arise from the Board's decision, you might get your money back. Now, this was based on substantial amounts paid over years, so each individual case may be handled differently.



Based on what?  Board recommendations that go no where?

Unless you can show one case of a member having an overpayment of pay and/allowances written off I will stand by my statement.  In 27 years including 3 years recently dealing with grievances I have yet to see anyone win this type of case.  Grievances are a long drawn out and painful process not to be taken lightly.  I recommend that people really look carefully at what they are grieving and if they really think they have a chance.  Personally I also think they should consider if it is right -grieving something just cause you can is not always the right thing to do.

The comment not at fault is a tough one.  As indicated in my prior - the regulations view is that we are at fault when receiving a payment we are not entitled to.  We are expected to know our pay entitlements and report anything out of the norm thus how can we not be at fault?  Don't waste time with "it is the clerks fault"  we got that covered when we made the member responsible for his own pay.  OUR screw up, YOUR fault ring a bell?  Personally hate it but I have seen many clerks use it.


----------



## Pusser (29 Feb 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Based on what?  Board recommendations that go no where?
> 
> Unless you can show one case of a member having an overpayment of pay and/allowances written off I will stand by my statement.  In 27 years including 3 years recently dealing with grievances I have yet to see anyone win this type of case.  Grievances are a long drawn out and painful process not to be taken lightly.  I recommend that people really look carefully at what they are grieving and if they really think they have a chance.  Personally I also think they should consider if it is right -grieving something just cause you can is not always the right thing to do.
> 
> The comment not at fault is a tough one.  As indicated in my prior - the regulations view is that we are at fault when receiving a payment we are not entitled to.  We are expected to know our pay entitlements and report anything out of the norm thus how can we not be at fault?  Don't waste time with "it is the clerks fault"  we got that covered when we made the member responsible for his own pay.  OUR screw up, YOUR fault ring a bell?  Personally hate it but I have seen many clerks use it.



Actually, I have seen recovery action cancelled in cases where the "system" has screwed up and overpaid a member, so yes, it can and does happen.  Please note that these weren't cases where I "heard from someone, who was told by someone else...."  These were cases in which I did some of the actual staff work (some of my proudest moments).  However, it is very situation dependent and there are many factors to consider, so it is impossible to say one way or the other whether this particular case would win or lose.  Nevertheless, it may be worth a shot to grieve if the member truly feels he has been mistreated.  Much of the case would depend on what actions the member took to ensure that he was not overpaid.

Please note that the cases to which I'm referring to had nothing to do with PLD (which is a bag of snakes in its own right) and dealt mostly with the misapplication of regulations that were not financial unto themselves, but had a domino effect that resulted in overpayments.  By fixing the misapplication of the other regulations, we negated the requirement to recover the overpayment (which theoretically no longer existed).


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Mar 2012)

This from Question Period yesterday:


> *Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):*  Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Forces are worried that the post living differential, or PLD, could be cut in half come April 1. The PLD helps military families cope with the high cost of living in certain Canadian cities.
> 
> It is worth noting that, in most cases, Canadian Forces members do not choose their assignments. We demand incredible sacrifices of our military personnel and their families. They deserve a straight answer from the government. Will the PLD be cut or not?
> 
> ...


----------



## FSTO (10 Mar 2012)

Can we at least get a cost of living increase?

Usually there is a yearly update on PLD, even if only to say there is no increase/decrease. But correct me if I am wrong but hasn't it been a couple of years since the last one?


----------



## aesop081 (10 Mar 2012)

FSTO said:
			
		

> But correct me if I am wrong but hasn't it been a couple of years since the last one?



You are correct but the last one said "no change until further notice".


----------



## Stoker (10 Mar 2012)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Can we at least get a cost of living increase?
> 
> Usually there is a yearly update on PLD, even if only to say there is no increase/decrease. But correct me if I am wrong but hasn't it been a couple of years since the last one?



I think it was a couple of years since we had an update. I think the wage increase we are suppose to be getting will be an excuse to drop the PLD. At least he's being questioned on this.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2012)

> *Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC)*:  Mr. Speaker, that is more prebudget speculation from the member opposite. *There has been no decision taken on this issue.*




Now that the budget date has been announced all "decisons," even those that have been made and are firmly in place, albeit pending release of the budget, "have not been taken" and are not "taken," by convention,, until the budget is brought down in the HoC. Many governments, including this one have ignored that _convention_, when it suits them, but it is still an 'honest' parliamentary answer: budget confidentiality rules.


----------



## Adam (11 Mar 2012)

Removed in accordance with site owner direction.

*Milnet.ca Staff*

I wonder how many Reg force members with more than 20 years in will release before their severance vanishes?   Could be a lot of promotions and postings next year.


----------



## Occam (11 Mar 2012)

I don't think anyone's severance is going to vanish, as I understand it.  In the Public Service, those public servants who belong to unions who negotiated away their severance pay didn't lose their severance benefits, they will just cease to accumulate any further growth to their severance benefit.  Those entering the PS as members of those particular unions would not have entitlement to severance from square one.


----------



## Stoker (11 Mar 2012)

Adam said:
			
		

> Removed in accordance with site owner direction.
> 
> *Milnet.ca Staff*
> 
> I wonder how many Reg force members with more than 20 years in will release before their severance vanishes?   Could be a lot of promotions and postings next year.



From what has been briefed whoever currently qualified for the severance will still receive it up until April 1st, anyone just getting won't be getting one. I think this puts us in line with the public service, didn't they give up theirs  some time ago? No word on if the reserve gratuity will be affected.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Mar 2012)

> Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Forces are worried that the post living differential, or PLD, could be cut in half come April 1. The PLD helps military families cope with the high cost of living in certain Canadian cities.



The NDP concerned about CF members? Now I know the rapture is soon upon us!


----------



## aesop081 (11 Mar 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The NDP concerned about CF members? Now I know the rapture is soon upon us!



You can relax about the rapture. The NDP still doesn't give a rat's behind.


----------



## Stoker (11 Mar 2012)

So why is there this move to bring us more inline with the PS anyways? We are certainly in a lot of ways different, no union and other differences. Will these changes and possible elimination and reduction of benefits drive people away?


----------



## aesop081 (11 Mar 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So why is there this move to bring us more inline with the PS anyways?



We've generaly been pretty happy to play the "the PS gets a raise, we get a raise" card the last few years. No sense expecting to have our cake and eat it too.


----------



## Stoker (11 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We've generaly been pretty happy to play the "the PS gets a raise, we get a raise" card the last few years. No sense expecting to have our cake and eat it too.



No I suppose, but sometimes the wait is just as bad especially when the PS has to settle all contracts before we see anything.


----------



## dogger1936 (11 Mar 2012)

So our severance pay upon is no longer after 1 april? Sorry if i'm not following here folks.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Mar 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No I suppose, but sometimes the wait is just as bad especially when the PS has to settle all contracts before we see anything.



To be honest, the PLD system is fooked to begin with and needs serious revamping. If it takes cancelling the whole thing to get it seriously looked at, i could live with that.

I'm posted to the standard city and i find nothing more irritating than as costs here go up, PLD remains at zero and that some people still get TPLD is another sore spot.

I can't wait for the budget to come down so my posting message can get cut and i can get the F out of here.


----------



## Stoker (11 Mar 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> So our severance pay upon is no longer after 1 april? Sorry if i'm not following here folks.



Proposal is as of 1st April no more severance for anyone new joining. If you qualify its based on the 1st of April 2012, it doesn't grow after that. 
Of course this obviously not official.


----------



## dogger1936 (11 Mar 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Proposal is as of 1st April no more severance for anyone new joining. If you qualify its based on the 1st of April 2012, it doesn't grow after that.



Thanks brother.


----------



## Pusser (11 Mar 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Proposal is as of 1st April no more severance for anyone new joining. If you qualify its based on the 1st of April 2012, it doesn't grow after that.



What is your source for this?  I've heard nothing other than folks (mostly on here) speculating that since the Public Service lost it, we're going to lose it.  That's hardly a credible source.


----------



## Stoker (11 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What is your source for this?  I've heard nothing other than folks (mostly on here) speculating that since the Public Service lost it, we're going to lose it.  That's hardly a credible source.



PM incoming


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What is your source for this?  I've heard nothing other than folks (mostly on here) speculating that since the Public Service lost it, we're going to lose it.  That's hardly a credible source.



First off, the Public Service did not lose it.  One of three PS unions gave it up......Not all the PS unions.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> First off, the Public Service did not lose it.  One of three PS unions gave it up......Not all the PS unions.



As did Public Service Executives and at least one other group.  The GoC is working hard to remove that long-term liability from their books, and in the future pay only when someone is terminated, not when they retire.


----------



## Occam (11 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> First off, the Public Service did not lose it.  One of three PS unions gave it up......Not all the PS unions.



To be clear, PSAC gave it up.  They're the largest - 95,000 of its 172,000 members were affected by the severance pay deal.  There are actually 17 other federal public service unions.


----------



## exabedtech (11 Mar 2012)

PLD is and always has been a mess.  A windfall for some, a point of contention for others.  Inequality in compensation is always going to be a huge sore point no matter what they ever do with it.  Don't think so?  Just check out the 'double dipping' thread.  
I'd support the gov't dropping it entirely and providing housing as they once did many years ago at a subsidized rate across the country.
I could list off examples of where PLD rates are retarded, but we all know them.  No doubt there are a dozen conspiracy theories as to why one city would get it while another down the road wouldn't, but I suspect the real reason comes down to the over burdensome manner in which it is calculated.

No, housing is not an easy problem to solve, but it is solvable.  DND owns plenty of land already and has been doing construction since before the Rideau Canal.  

PLD is a ridiculously complicated and horribly administered program.  Was it a Liberal invention?????  Time to drop it.


----------



## Pusser (12 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> PLD is and always has been a mess.  A windfall for some, a point of contention for others.  Inequality in compensation is always going to be a huge sore point no matter what they ever do with it.  Don't think so?  Just check out the 'double dipping' thread.
> I'd support the gov't dropping it entirely and *providing housing as they once did many years ago at a subsidized rate across the country.*
> I could list off examples of where PLD rates are retarded, but we all know them.  No doubt there are a dozen conspiracy theories as to why one city would get it while another down the road wouldn't, but I suspect the real reason comes down to the over burdensome manner in which it is calculated.
> 
> ...



BITE YOUR TONGUE!  HARD!

With a few obvious exceptions (i.e. isolated or short term postings), DND should get out of the housing business.  PLD is a much better solution and it has enabled many to get out of PMQs, into the housing market and start to build equity.  It's not perfect, but it is a far sight better than the PMQ dependency we're still living with.  I've seen too many folks retire after 35 years with nothing to show for it, but a box full of pay guides showing how much they paid for their PMQs.  Furthermore, if housing is brought back into the pay and compensation package (a it was when it was subsidized) it also means less pay in our pockets.  I would rather have the money to invest in the house that I plan to own outright by the time I retire.  The solution is to fix PLD and not waste money on housing (money that is better spent on equipment and other infrastructure).


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Mar 2012)

That's a great idea for someone who's been in the CF for a few years and has a tour to pay some debt off, but are you going to tell the new private with 2 kids and some college/university debt that they have to go buy a house with no down payment, but its ok that he will get 9 bucks a month (in Kingston anyway) PLD? PLD was broken as soon as Ottawa was made the baseline. But that's no reason to destroy all the PMQs that some of us choose to live in right now. The CF should provide the option, but I agree it should not be at a subsidized rate, the rates simply should not be calculated as they are now. Military housing does not meet the standards of most rentals available on the market and its pricing should not be compared to the civilian market.


----------



## PiperDown (12 Mar 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> he will get 9 bucks a month (in Kingston anyway) PLD?



9 bucks ? I have been here 3 years, and haven't received a cent of PLD.

k... back on topic now


----------



## meni0n (12 Mar 2012)

My question would be,  how will the frozen severance pay be calculated when the time comes to retire. Let's say I choose to retire in 16 years and have about 8 years of severance accumulated.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2012)

Isn't it one week for each year of service ?


----------



## dapaterson (12 Mar 2012)

meni0n said:
			
		

> My question would be,  how will the frozen severance pay be calculated when the time comes to retire. Let's say I choose to retire in 16 years and have about 8 years of severance accumulated.



For the public service, it went like this:

You could take the severance amount today at your current rate of pay; or

You can wait until you retire, and get the same number of days of pay at your rate of pay on retirement; or

A mix of both.


Ignore the third option for the sake of this discussion.

It means if you take it today, you'd get the number of days calculated for you at your current rank and IPC.  If you wait, you'll get them at your rank and IPC on retirement.

Keep in mind that the money is taxable in your hads, so 30-50% of it will go back to the governmetn (unless you've got unused RRSP room - you should be able to roll it over tax free into RRSPs if you have the room).


----------



## dapaterson (12 Mar 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's a great idea for someone who's been in the CF for a few years and has a tour to pay some debt off, but are you going to tell the new private with 2 kids and some college/university debt that they have to go buy a house with no down payment, but its ok that he will get 9 bucks a month (in Kingston anyway) PLD? PLD was broken as soon as Ottawa was made the baseline. But that's no reason to destroy all the PMQs that some of us choose to live in right now. The CF should provide the option, but I agree it should not be at a subsidized rate, the rates simply should not be calculated as they are now. Military housing does not meet the standards of most rentals available on the market and its pricing should not be compared to the civilian market.



The market does a great job of correcting.  If the PMQs are that horrible, no one will stay in them. 

CF pay scales are public information.  People join up knowing full well what their pay is going to be.  If they can't manage their money (or if they've chosen to have a family larger than they can support on their pay) it's not the job of the CF to bail them out with additional subsidies and indirect payments.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Mar 2012)

Then on the same token its not the CF's job to ensure they have equity in a home later on. PMQs are great to start your family in and get settled before you buy your first home. Forcing every CF member to live on the economy is just going to further boost every small town that has a base to rely more and more on the military member's money.


----------



## MJP (12 Mar 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Forcing every CF member to live on the economy is just going to further boost every small town that has a base to rely more and more on the military member's money.



That argument isn't very sound.  There are very few towns that rely solely on the CF as a majority of their economic base.  Even if they do and the CF leaves, so what?  Towns have withered away and towns have been revived  before and surprisingly it has little impact on Canada as a whole.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Mar 2012)

I don't think Petawawa and Pembroke would be quite so large without all those military families posted nearby, and highly doubtful that houses would cost over $200K.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> That argument isn't very sound.  There are very few towns that rely solely on the CF as a majority of their economic base.  Even if they do and the CF leaves, so what?  Towns have withered away and towns have been revived  before and surprisingly it has little impact on Canada as a whole.



HUH?  Have you been to Petawawa/Pembroke or Moose Jaw?  The CF has significant monitary affect on just these two locations alone.  What about Cold Lake, Bagotville, and so many other locations (other than large metropolitan locations like Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Edmonton, and Victoria) which are bases of significant size in proximity to smaller cities and towns?

Pay the CF member in $2 paper bills and survey the local and take a survey as to what is being placed in business cash registers and you will find the real effect of a CF base on a local economy.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Pay the CF member in $2 paper bills and survey the local and take a survey as to what is being placed in business cash registers and you will find the real effect of a CF base on a local economy.



If we still had them.     IIRC, they did that in Petawawa and the local businesses had a huge intake of $2 bills.


----------



## MJP (12 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> HUH?  Have you been to Petawawa/Pembroke or Moose Jaw?  The CF has significant monitary affect on just these two locations alone.  What about Cold Lake, Bagotville, and so many other locations (other than large metropolitan locations like Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Edmonton, and Victoria) which are bases of significant size in proximity to smaller cities and towns?
> 
> Pay the CF member in $2 paper bills and survey the local and take a survey as to what is being placed in business cash registers and you will find the real effect of a CF base on a local economy.



I think you have an overinflated sense of what the CF brings to many communities.  There are some communities that yes are built around the CF economy but they are the outliers not the norm.  I was mostly referring to places that could be closed down not large bases that are not going anywhere.   I am quite sure that Pet, Bagotville, Cold Lake (although oil is now the reigning king in Cold Lake not the CF) et al are here for the forseeable future.  PC seemed to be alluding that local economies would be linked to the CF if we forced folks to live on the economy.  I am saying that that is a silly argument to make when talking about PLD, PMQs and living on the economy as it doesn't matter.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Mar 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> If we still had them.     IIRC, they did that in Petawawa and the local businesses had a huge intake of $2 bills.



We were paid in two dollar bills on an end month pay sometime in the Jan-Mar 1959 time frame in Petawawa. There had been quite a bit in the Pembroke Observer on the theme that the camp should be closed and the land opened for development. The practical impact of one two week pay period on Pembroke's economy saw the end of that theory.

And this is not an urban legend. I was a 19-year-old gunner in Petawawa and saw first hand the shopping bags full of two dollar bills in the stores in Pembroke. For maximum impact an end month pay was selected that fell on a Friday. The end month was important as in those pay parade days, the mid month was done to the nearest five below half the net monthly entitlement, while the end month paid to the nearest dollar below the balance. (In this case the end month obviously was to the nearest two bucks.)


----------



## Pusser (12 Mar 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's a great idea for someone who's been in the CF for a few years and has a tour to pay some debt off, but are you going to tell the new private with 2 kids and some college/university debt that they have to go buy a house with no down payment, but its ok that he will get 9 bucks a month (in Kingston anyway) PLD? PLD was broken as soon as Ottawa was made the baseline. But that's no reason to destroy all the PMQs that some of us choose to live in right now. The CF should provide the option, but I agree it should not be at a subsidized rate, the rates simply should not be calculated as they are now. Military housing does not meet the standards of most rentals available on the market and its pricing should not be compared to the civilian market.



I said no such thing.  My point is that PMQs become a trap that some folks seem to become dependent upon.  The key is to live within your means and not rely upon a tour to pay off debt.  The CF pays its members equally and is not responsible for their lifestyle choices.  I've never bought into the argument that CF housing doesn't meet the local standard and so should be cheaper.  If members feel they're being charged too much and they can get better value for their money, they are free to move out and spend their rent money elsewhere.  It's worth noting that neither the CF nor DND assess the local market or how PMQs fit into it.  This is done by the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2012)

How many Bases have been tearing down PMQs?

Whole PMQ "patches" have disappeared in some locations.   

However, as Pusser states: "PMQs become a trap that some folks seem to become dependent upon".  One should look at the long term and what they will have after the CF.  They won't be living in PMQs. A home is a major expense.  Do not face that huge finacial burden at the end of your career by starting to invest over a long term in a home now.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How many Bases have been tearing down PMQs?



Gagetown, Edmonton, Greenwood, Comox, ......................


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2012)

I once heard somewhere that renting is the better financial option IF, at the end you are saving the difference and interest etc etc that you would have as opposed to buying.  But most people live in the moment.


----------



## captloadie (12 Mar 2012)

We have to be careful about putting home ownership on a pedestal and insisting it is what everyone should strive for. Not everyone can nor should buy a house. There are times that people should strongly consider renting. It is for these times that I think there should be MQs, kept in decent shape, at rented at market levels. Especially in those locations where the military isn't one of the large employers.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I once heard somewhere that renting is the better financial option IF, at the end you are saving the difference and interest etc etc that you would have as opposed to buying.  But most people live in the moment.



Before I bought my first home (a condo in Ottawa), I compared what I was paying in rent with the monthly costs for the condo.  Renting came out ahead, in the short term.  Longer term, however, assuming no growth in property value, the value of the condo would outstrip the value of the investments - as I recall, the break-even point was at year 5.

By the time I sold, 7 years later, not only was the asset worth mroe than equivalent savings would have been worth, but property values had doubled - so I was far, far ahead by ownign vs renting.

Too many people forget that a home is an asset as well as a residence - including some financial planners.


----------



## captloadie (12 Mar 2012)

/tangent
And too many people (especially in the recent past) forget that like any asset, you can end up with much less than you invested. We in the military are fairly insulated from the "real world" regarding realestate. Ask some on here, Heavyreader comes to mind, what happens when you get caught in a bubble, and the Gov't isn't there to cover your behind.
/tangent

I agree with CA, and think that we should scrap the current system and start over.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Mar 2012)

DAP: 





> By the time I sold, 7 years later, not only was the asset worth more than equivalent savings would have been worth, but property values had doubled - so I was far, far ahead by owning vs renting.



Tax Free!


----------



## Sub_Guy (12 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Gagetown, Edmonton, Greenwood, Comox, ......................



Although in Comox there are (or at least were) plans to build two duplex units, and a new row house structure.  The designs are quite nice, the row house units have a couple 4 bedroom 2400 sq ft unit with ensuite washroom.

I realize building 6 new units does not make up for the numerous buildings they tore down, but it is better than nothing.


----------



## Jungle (12 Mar 2012)

Dataperson is right; if you are in a location for 5 years or more, buy. I lived in PMQs for 3 different periods of time, and I have owned 5 houses so far (in the process of negociating the building of my 6th, as I am posted this summer, if they ever cut the &*%*$ messages) and came out much better after having owned then when I rented. You cannot make a profit on an apt.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Gagetown, Edmonton, Greenwood, Comox, ......................



Kingston and Ottawa too, but good news, they recycled all those homes and saved money!


----------



## armyvern (12 Mar 2012)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> 9 bucks ? I have been here 3 years, and haven't received a cent of PLD.
> 
> k... back on topic now



That's cause people like you and I went there after the baseline was set.


----------



## armyvern (12 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I once heard somewhere that renting is the better financial option IF, at the end you are saving the difference and interest etc etc that you would have as opposed to buying.  But most people live in the moment.



This is me currently. So, I pay my rent instead of paying interest to the bank. I put the difference between my rent and a mortgage into an account. Eventually, I'll just buy the house - cash. And, it won't be taking 20 or 25 years either.

(Edited to add: I already own a house in Oromocto; not where I am posted to nor where I live)


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Mar 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> To be clear, PSAC gave it up.  They're the largest - 95,000 of its 172,000 members were affected by the severance pay deal.  There are actually 17 other federal public service unions.


IIRC they were given something in line of pay level increases in exchange for the surrender.  The apprentices in FMF came out a little better somewhat.  My memory is a little fuzzy as I honestly did not pay too close attention to it as it was a public service matter and did not apply to me.


----------



## Pusser (12 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I once heard somewhere that renting is the better financial option IF, at the end you are saving the difference and interest etc etc that you would have as opposed to buying.



This CAN be true, but it mostly depends on the personal discipline of the individual to actually save the money.  It is often very difficult to avoid toy accumulation vice saving for a future home.  Years ago in Halifax, the biggest request coming out the PMQ complexes was not for more bedrooms, but for more parking spaces (for 2nd car, RV, boat, ATV, etc).  Another thing to consider is how much of a difference there actually is to be saved between rent and a mortgage.  Can you rent a three bedroom house for sufficiently less than a mortgage for buying one?  In my experience, the answer is no.  Before we had kids, my wife and I bought an older two bedroom house.  Over time, as the family has grown, we've bought successively larger houses - building equity the whole way


----------



## ballz (13 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> By the time I sold, 7 years later, not only was the asset worth mroe than equivalent savings would have been worth, but property values had doubled - so I was far, far ahead by ownign vs renting.
> 
> Too many people forget that a home is an asset as well as a residence - including some financial planners.



And thus we have the Canadian housing bubble, where people are purchasing houses not based on their value as an asset but adding in their "future value" to the purchase price (sounds like a share-price formula right?). When you start selling/buying houses like they're on the stock market, the real estate market eventually becomes volatile like stock market. Enjoy the bubble before it bursts everyone.

One of the things that doesn't get enough credit for causing the Great Recession is the people that didn't lose their homes. No, instead, they lost $200,000 and more of their equity, so they had to abruptly stop spending  and starting saving as much as they could since they were about to retire.

A house is an asset which historically didn't decline in value, largely because people bought a home, paid it off, retired, and maybe downsized as they got older. Now that people have started treating it like an investment, the real estate market is going to do the same thing.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> And thus we have the Canadian housing bubble, where people are purchasing houses not based on their value as an asset but adding in their "future value" to the purchase price (sounds like a share-price formula right?). When you start selling/buying houses like they're on the stock market, the real estate market eventually becomes volatile like stock market. Enjoy the bubble before it bursts everyone.
> 
> One of the things that doesn't get enough credit for causing the Great Recession is the people that didn't lose their homes. No, instead, they lost $200,000 and more of their equity, so they had to abruptly stop spending  and starting saving as much as they could since they were about to retire.
> 
> A house is an asset which historically didn't decline in value, largely because people bought a home, paid it off, retired, and maybe downsized as they got older. Now that people have started treating it like an investment, the real estate market is going to do the same thing.



To be fair, through dumb luck I managed to buy in near the bottom of the market in Ottawa at the time (when 1 Bdr condos were selling for under $40K).  But I bought it first and foremost as a place to live; equity was a side effect.


----------



## ballz (13 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To be fair, through dumb luck I managed to buy in near the bottom of the market in Ottawa at the time (when 1 Bdr condos were selling for under $40K).  But I bought it first and foremost as a place to live; equity was a side effect.



Yes, and that's fine, my family was pretty fortunate to have bought a 20' wide trailer upon arriving to Fort Mac in 2002, and then it tripled in value in 3 years and honestly that's been the driver for most of my dad's wealth, through mostly dumb luck. And there's been a lot of wealth that's been created in Canada in the last 10-15 years.

The problem is it's creating a scary precedent that everyone should purchase a house ASAP, and a lot of people are confidently giving advice to buy buy buy based on this anomaly (which is basically what you were doing from what I can tell). People are factoring in "future value" into their purchase price, and that should be done with shares and bonds, not houses. It's causing caused a housing bubble in Canada.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Mar 2012)

That was not my intended message:  I bought because it made sense vs renting and saving the difference - it put me further ahead.

Frankly, if you don't do the math before making a major purchase like that, you deserve what you get.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (13 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes, and that's fine, my family was pretty fortunate to have bought a 20' wide trailer upon arriving to Fort Mac in 2002, and then it tripled in value in 3 years and honestly that's been the driver for most of my dad's wealth, through mostly dumb luck. And there's been a lot of wealth that's been created in Canada in the last 10-15 years.
> 
> The problem is it's creating a scary precedent that everyone should purchase a house ASAP, and a lot of people are confidently giving advice to buy buy buy based on this anomaly (which is basically what you were doing from what I can tell). People are factoring in "future value" into their purchase price, and that should be done with shares and bonds, not houses. It's causing caused a housing bubble in Canada.



You have to remember something - You are going to have to pay to live somewhere. My thinking when I bought my first house in 1987:
I can pay a landlord $800/month or I can pay a mortgage. After paying a landlord for a year, I have nothing to show. If things get bad in a year as a homeowner, I can sell (this assumes no or negligible loss-more oft than not though, a gain) and have 'something'. Investments are another kettle of fish. You can still buy RRSPs with a mortgage. Let me tell you too; my wife and I just made our last mortgage payment a little over a year ago and the mental load lifted off our shoulders is great. It is a sum of $$$ to fall back on if needed but more importantly, we 'live for free' so to speak and now can dump MUCH more into investments/RRSP...and even maybe real estate????


----------



## ballz (13 Mar 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> You have to remember something - You are going to have to pay to live somewhere.



This is actually part of the argument for renting. You wouldn't say this



			
				Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> After paying a landlord for a year, I have nothing to show.



about the food you ate over the last year would you? You needed it to live. Same goes for a house.

I want to be clear, I am not advocating for renting or for buying. It's a personal decision and the important thing is doing the math, as DAP said. Personally, I am planning on buying, but that's a lifestyle choice, it's not an investment. It's an investment if you plan on renting it out, etc, which is a whole different ball game because then it's generating revenue.



			
				Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> If things get bad in a year as a homeowner, I can sell (this assumes no or negligible loss-more oft than not though, a gain) and have 'something'.



This isn't entirely accurate. Just a hypothetical, but if you buy a $300,000 house with $30,000 down and a $270,000 mortgage, and "things get bad" and you have to sell within 3 years, chances are it didn't just get bad for you, chances are the housing market has dropped. In the first three years of payments you have paid almost nothing on the actual principal (despite paying more per month than if you were renting), and perhaps the market dropped 10-15%, and now the house is worth less/about the same as your mortgage. Not a great spot to be in, and that $30,000 + (mortgage payment minus rent paypents, multiplied by 36 months) is gone too, completely wasted (unlike the cost of rent, which isn't "wasted" because like we agreed on, you need a place to live).


----------



## Pat in Halifax (13 Mar 2012)

True but for the food thing? Where ever you live, PMQs, apartment, house ... your car, you will still have to eat.
As for the rest, you need to do your homework, watch the trends, talk to a real estate lawyer and agent. Don't buy where a dump is going in-that kind of thing. My parents were real estate agents and I wont lie - Their advice helped me immensely. They had two main rules I recall:
1. Don't expect your first house (or even second or third) to be your dream house, and
2. What you want to do to your newly purchased home, do over time and accept that you WILL NOT get it all done.
A way to help pay down principal is to pay an extra $100 a month (or whatever you can afford) -this drops your amortization dramatically.  Some bank's online mortgage calculators will allow you do do this and it is amazing how much you can save in the end.
It is like anything else, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. 

And yes, right now, real estate is not as predictable as it was even 6-7 years ago but on average, if you get sound advice, do it right and accept that you are not going to get EXACTLY what you want, you should not be in the hole if you need to resell within a couple years of buying.

PS. I am a stoker and not a real estate guru and the above is based on personel experience, knowledge and understanding only.


----------



## ballz (13 Mar 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> True but for the food thing? Where ever you live, PMQs, apartment, house ... your car, you will still have to eat.



I don't understand what your rebuttal is? You seem to be indicating that you have "choices" on where you live. I can only respond by saying you have choices on what you eat as well, oats or Lobster, etc. Lobster is a lifestyle choice, oats is a necessity.



			
				Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> 1. Don't expect your first house (or even second or third) to be your dream house, and
> 2. What you want to do to your newly purchased home, do over time and accept that you WILL NOT get it all done.



Sound advice, something that the post-materialist generations have increasingly lost perspective on, and it could have saved them a lot of grief if they had some prior to 2008.

EDIT to add: I, also, am just an armchair economist/financial analyst basing my opinions on my own knowledge and understanding.


----------



## Harris (13 Mar 2012)

Along with this issue is the trend I've seen lately where friends of mine will purchase a house way out of their price range but justify it by saying that they can afford the mortgage amount and re-sell the house later to make a profit.  They wind up being house poor as every $ goes into paying for it every month.

I on the other hand bought a house about 1/2 the price the banks said I could afford and make double payments.  As a result I've beat a 25 yr mortgage down to 9 in just over 8 years.  There was no way I'd ever consider renting.  Other friends of mine rent and pay more than I do a month for 1/2 the living space.  But they wanted to be close to downtown.  I live 1/2 hour away.  Huge price difference.


----------



## Jungle (13 Mar 2012)

Seriously, if you could make money with the food you eat, would you ?

Now you can manage the exception and say "some people lose" in ownership, but the majority will make money.


----------



## exabedtech (13 Mar 2012)

Renting and buying both have their merits and depend heavily on luck and circumstance.  I once made over 140K on a home I owned for less than 2 years and once lost 45K on a home I owned for 5 years, so unless if you have a gift for seeing into the future, you have to make the best call you can based on the information and finances available to you.
Military housing should always be available for those who need it.  Yes, there are WOs out there who have lived in them for 20 years that are dirt poor, but we all make our own choices in life and you cannot mandate financial savy.

We have military installations in every region and every market.  Not all careers are the same, but mine led me to be posted to 6 or 7 locations at least a time zone apart.  For a young soldier, young family, single parent or someone who knows they will only be there a short time, PMQs may be the best option. 

The military needs to make these units available for as long as they choose to post people IMHO.  I don't think its much to ask that if you tell me to move my family, you at least make it possible for me to secure housing.  

PLD is a senseless benefit on most cases.  Sure, it is a godsend if you are posted to Toronto where a house may cost $500k but sell overnight, but its useless in Wainwright where a house may cost $300k and not sell for months.
As with any benefit, those in receipt will be in favour, those not in receipt will tend to be against.  Highest PLD I ever received was the $20 a month they gave me in North Bay.  No, that wasn't quite enough to help save for a down payment or get my kids into Harvard and yet while housing may have been less than Toronto absolutely everything else would have cost much more and no way was there a $1400 a month difference in housing costs.

They've had sufficient time to figure out a formula for PLD if one were possible and yet it still makes no sense.  It should be dropped entirely.  If military pay rates are low, PLD is the wrong way to address it.  If PLD exists to balance housing costs, then offer affordable and available housing.  Those who choose not to use that housing and make a purchase have done just that - made a choice.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (13 Mar 2012)

PLD is a little more than that. As someone on IR from Halifax, I still get PLD as my 'home' is in Halifax. Last year (I was bored), I did up my income tax and did a provincial return for NS and ON (just to see the differences) and I pay a little under $3000 more in NS tax than ON-about what PLD works out to be in a year. I actually find groceries cheaper in Halifax than here to be honest with you but car/apt insurance is ridiculously expensive here.
Agreed, the PLD system needs an overhaul.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Mar 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> PLD is a little more than that. As someone on IR from Halifax, I still get PLD as my 'home' is in Halifax. Last year (I was bored), I did up my income tax and did a provincial return for NS and ON (just to see the differences) and I pay a little under $3000 more in NS tax than ON-about what PLD works out to be in a year. I actually find groceries cheaper in Halifax than here to be honest with you but car/apt insurance is ridiculously expensive here.



WRT to the yellow text in the quote, this is why I said in a different thread last month words to the effect of "PLD looks better than it really is" or words to that effect.

 :2c:


----------



## GAP (13 Mar 2012)

Is that not the whole purpose of PLD.....a overall levelling...?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Mar 2012)

I suppose the concept is overall leveling, but is it actually working?  I don't have nearly enough knowledge on COL across the board at different bases/Wings, but I know as a resident of NS, my income tax is considerably higher than say, Alberta, based on the info found at this link.

Based on the info there (haven't verified it for accuracy), using $60k as income amount, in Ont I would have paid $12,194;  Alberta $13,015 and NS is $15,128.  

PLD, although $631 before taxes, actually turns into $365ish after taxes.  I don't know about other provinces, but COL seems high here in NS.  I pay just under $1.40/L for diesel.   I nearly blew a gasket at the price of stuff like chicken at the grocery store.  Metro Transit rates are likely going up, Halifax Bridge Commission is raising toll costs Apr 1st, etc.  COL is on the rise, but I make the same $ I did 2 years ago.

I am sure it is similar across the board for everyone.

Again, not complaining about PLD, it really helps me for sure.  I guess the point is its not like I am rolling on $ here because of PLD, it just helps make ends meet.  

If PLD is cut here in Halifax, or anywhere, there are going to be some families who really feel it.  

 :2c:, again I don't know or pretend to understand the formula/rules/rationale for PLD and the like.


----------



## ballz (14 Mar 2012)

We should probably move a lot of this stuff to the PLD superthread. Anyway...

I've never understood the argument about taxes... I don't think PLD should be factoring that in. Those extra taxes are going to the provincial government and municipalities you live in, and *in theory* provide you whether better social programs, better roads, etc. Of course, in practice, every province has specific challenges to meet so sometimes it may not feel as such, but this is why we use a decentralized system, and why you get to vote for your provincial government as well. IIRC, when using a "consumer basket of goods" to calculate the standard of living and whatnot, taxes aren't included for this exact reason, and I'd be a little stumped if they did factor in taxes to the PLD equation.

When it comes to a high COL because of high taxes due to wasteful government spending, Newfoundland has got to be up there with the worst of them, and I've always used the example of St. John's vs Halifax to demonstrate how out of whack the PLD formula is (which is all, of course, in the PLD superthread somewhere).


----------



## dapaterson (14 Mar 2012)

There's the larger question of why CF members declare a primary residence, vote in the elections there, yet pay taxes where they are currently posted.  

Shouldn't CF members pay taxes in the province where they have declared their residence (the US military does this)?

And the logical follow on - shouldn't IPR moves only be permitted to the place where you've declared your residence?


----------



## ballz (14 Mar 2012)

Here is how Canada's consumer basket of goods is weighted...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-cpi-basket-of-goods-and-services/article2307734/

I'd still like to know more details on it, but I always find they are hard to find. Interesting to note though, is that Food, Shelter, and Transportation make up for 64.1%, so if the PLD formula has any correlation to it (I can't think of any logical reason that it wouldn't... but perhaps by now I should know better...) those 3 things *should* be able to explain why, by and large, why one place is getting more than another.

Thinking of Halifax and Edmonton who have similar rates.... the price of shelter (the biggest factor of all) is definitely higher in Edmonton, but transportation and food is definitely cheaper.

Thinking of Halifax and St. John's who are about $500 different, I am still stumped ???


----------



## armyvern (14 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There's the larger question of why CF members declare a primary residence, vote in the elections there, yet pay taxes where they are currently posted.
> 
> Shouldn't CF members pay taxes in the province where they have declared their residence (the US military does this)?
> 
> And the logical follow on - shouldn't IPR moves only be permitted to the place where you've declared your residence?



Here's my situation.

I'm posted to Kingston and 9er D is in Quebec. He has the residence, I'm the unaccompanied. Because our primary residence is in Quebec, we both have to file Quebec taxes. Quebec taxes are deducted from my pay in Ontario.

Because he is posted in Quebec, he gets PLD. I do not - even though I am paying the much-higher Quebec tax rate. If we were both posted "in" Quebec, we would both get PLD although mine would be at the reduced rate. So, I pay Quebec taxes etc, yet receive no offset via any 'partial to the partial' PLD - somewhat understandable as I only spend weekends there ... but the taxes here will irritate the hell out of anyone sane!!

So, if PLD is based partially upon the tax rate one is paying upon their income ... you'd think that 'partially' would apply when one is indeed paying the increased tax rate. It doesn't.

Utopia - a place we're all looking for.  8)


----------



## Infanteer (14 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There's the larger question of why CF members declare a primary residence, vote in the elections there, yet pay taxes where they are currently posted.
> 
> Shouldn't CF members pay taxes in the province where they have declared their residence (the US military does this)?
> 
> And the logical follow on - shouldn't IPR moves only be permitted to the place where you've declared your residence?



How is primary residence declared?  On the Tax Return.  If so, my primary residence and my posting are the same place.  My "ordinary residence" is, at this time, in BC because I haven't bothered to change my Statement of Ordinary Residence since I enrolled.  There is nothing to say I couldn't change my SOR to match my primary residence where I pay taxes as well.

Perhaps an updated SOR needs to be part of a posting?  Is that legal?


----------



## armyvern (14 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How is primary residence declared?  On the Tax Return.  If so, my primary residence and my posting are the same place.  My "ordinary residence" is, at this time, in BC because I haven't bothered to change my Statement of Ordinary Residence since I enrolled.  There is nothing to say I couldn't change my SOR to match my primary residence where I pay taxes as well.
> 
> Perhaps an updated SOR needs to be part of a posting?  Is that legal?



Good catch; I missed that in his post.

We indeed vote for candidates in the riding location that is identified as our "Ordinary Residence" (usually our home towns or the location where we joined the CF), not at our "Primary Residence".

Primary Residence is the location we reside at during our postings and pay taxes at. That's why IPR pays for the move. Our Primary Residence moves with us ... our Ordinary Residence does not.

Of course, the two places could be the same location for a posting or two, but in the vast majority of cases are not.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Mar 2012)

I don't know legalities, but I thought checking the address box on your tax return was stating your primary residence.

The Statement of Ordinary Residence is handy for people posted overseas to, say, Germany so that they are able to remain part of the Canadian body politic for the purpose of voting.  But dapaterson raises a good point; if I'm paying taxes in Manitoba, why should I be entitled to cast a vote in Nova Scotia?  Perhaps posting within Canada should require a mandatory SOR - it is merely a clerical matter to get one's ordinary residence changed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> We were paid in two dollar bills on an end month pay sometime in the Jan-Mar 1959 time frame in Petawawa. There had been quite a bit in the Pembroke Observer on the theme that the camp should be closed and the land opened for development. The practical impact of one two week pay period on Pembroke's economy saw the end of that theory.
> 
> And this is not an urban legend. I was a 19-year-old gunner in Petawawa and saw first hand the shopping bags full of two dollar bills in the stores in Pembroke. For maximum impact an end month pay was selected that fell on a Friday. The end month was important as in those pay parade days, the mid month was done to the nearest five below half the net monthly entitlement, while the end month paid to the nearest dollar below the balance. (In this case the end month obviously was to the nearest two bucks.)



They did that with us in the early 70's also, IIRC. Same scenario. Pembroke was whining that they really didn't need the military to survive. Paid us as much in $50 bills as possible. It was impossible to get change in either Pet or Pembroke by 20:00 on Friday. Bars ran us tabs all weekend.

We lost control of those tactics when we moved to banking\ vice Friday Pay Parades.


----------



## armyvern (14 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know legalities, but I thought checking the address box on your tax return was stating your primary residence.
> 
> The Statement of Ordinary Residence is handy for people posted overseas to, say, Germany so that they are able to remain part of the Canadian body politic for the purpose of voting.  But dapaterson raises a good point; if I'm paying taxes in Manitoba, why should I be entitled to cast a vote in Nova Scotia?  Perhaps posting within Canada should require a mandatory SOR - it is merely a clerical matter to get one's ordinary residence changed.



I know a few people who do update their SORs with postings; most do not. IIRC, there was a message out a few years ago with the technicalities of SORs.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Mar 2012)

Well, both my "ordinary residence" riding and my "primary residence" ridings are quite boring (better chance of seeing the sun explode then seeing things change in these places).  I'm going to find one of those ridings that was decided by a vote or two and change my SOR to that!   >


----------



## armyvern (14 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, both my "ordinary residence" riding and my "primary residence" ridings are quite boring (better chance of seeing the sun explode then seeing things change in these places).  I'm going to find one of those ridings that was decided by a vote or two and change my SOR to that!   >



I want to keep my OR exactly where it is ... I am one of the few anti-NDP voters there.  :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson (14 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How is primary residence declared?  On the Tax Return.  If so, my primary residence and my posting are the same place.  My "ordinary residence" is, at this time, in BC because I haven't bothered to change my Statement of Ordinary Residence since I enrolled.  There is nothing to say I couldn't change my SOR to match my primary residence where I pay taxes as well.
> 
> Perhaps an updated SOR needs to be part of a posting?  Is that legal?



My point is that if you are claiming to be "ordinarily resident" in BC for electoral purposes you should also be paying income taxes based on that place of residence - you're only in Alberta because the military obliges you to be there.

And, on release, the military should offer to send you back to the place where you are ordinarily resident or leave you where you are.  The current system is absurd - the CF will pay you to move across the street on release if you choose to do so - and if you're in a service couple, once your spouse retires the CF will pay to move you back across the street to your old house.


----------



## armyvern (14 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My point is that if you are claiming to be "ordinarily resident" in BC for electoral purposes you should also be paying income taxes based on that place of residence - you're only in Alberta because the military obliges you to be there.
> 
> And, on release, the military should offer to send you back to the place where you are ordinarily resident or leave you where you are.  The current system is absurd - the CF will pay you to move across the street on release if you choose to do so - and if you're in a service couple, once your spouse retires the CF will pay to move you back across the street to your old house.



But the Ordinary Resident (of) and Primary Resident (of) are two different things with two totally different definitions but you are treating them as if they are the same and have the same implications. I am oridnarily a resident of, but am currently a resident of ... 

Taxes go to the place you are utilizing services paid for with those taxes (ie: resident); votes go to the place where  you choose (ie: place on your SOR - it must be a place you have resided in and you have the option to move it with you or continue to vote in your hometown etc where you joined as that is where your "roots" are). I believe that, once retired, you must move your OR to where you've retired at if it's not already there.

Forcing CF members (and this is not applicable to just CF members either, but many more who *temporarily* [that's a key word] move as part of their job requirements) to change would, sometimes, see them disqualified from voting due to "residential requirements" for time-lengths etc this _denying_ them of their right, as a citizen, to vote. When posted, some provinces have minimum time periods before some benefits kick in - such as healthcare. NB is a good example: posted there on July 1st? Your kids do not qualify until 90 days later and you must use the previous provinces health card etc until then if services are required.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Mar 2012)

The challenge is that you are now voting in elections in which you have no financial stake.  And in the palce where you are temporarily residing you have no voice.

So, if you livei n a location where the Raving Loony Clown Party is in power, you are denied the right to vote; they may make decisions that directly impact on you and may raise your taxes.  On the other hand, back home, where you ordinarily reside, the Sensible Shoes Party is in power and cutting taxes; you accrue no benefit from your vote.

"No Taxation Without Representation" is good policy.  Right now, however, CF members moved at the Crown's expense to another province are taxed without representation at the provincial level.


----------



## armyvern (14 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge is that you are now voting in elections in which you have no financial stake.  And in the palce where you are temporarily residing you have no voice.
> 
> So, if you livei n a location where the Raving Loony Clown Party is in power, you are denied the right to vote; they may make decisions that directly impact on you and may raise your taxes.  On the other hand, back home, where you ordinarily reside, the Sensible Shoes Party is in power and cutting taxes; you accrue no benefit from your vote.
> 
> "No Taxation Without Representation" is good policy.  Right now, however, CF members moved at the Crown's expense to another province are taxed without representation at the provincial level.



I'd counter argue that I do indeed have a stake in long-term policies etc being discussed, debated and voted upon in my hometown as that is where I plan on retiring to at this point of the game. What happens there now can affect me in the long-term ... once these short-term, _temporary_, moves with the CF are done. 

And besides, the CF can offset the short-term financial impacts of temporary moves where costs increase through local or provincial policies and/or pricing in which you have no say (vote) by implementing some type of offsetting system for such if members posted there temporarily experience such ... ooops - that's what PLD does in those locations. Offsets for those difference in taxes, costs, cost of living.


----------



## Jed (14 Mar 2012)

I support changing the policy so that all Reg pers would cast their vote in the riding of the incumbent PM.  8)
Now that would give the military a true voice in the Nation's affairs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I support changing the policy so that all Reg pers would *cast their vote in the riding of the incumbent PM*.  8)


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....


----------



## Pusser (15 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge is that you are now voting in elections in which you have no financial stake.  And in the palce where you are temporarily residing you have no voice.
> 
> So, if you livei n a location where the Raving Loony Clown Party is in power, you are denied the right to vote; they may make decisions that directly impact on you and may raise your taxes.  On the other hand, back home, where you ordinarily reside, the Sensible Shoes Party is in power and cutting taxes; you accrue no benefit from your vote.
> 
> "No Taxation Without Representation" is good policy.  Right now, however, CF members moved at the Crown's expense to another province are taxed without representation at the provincial level.



Changing the SOR rules won't help this.  The SOR only applies to federal elections, not provincial or municipal ones.  In order to vote in a provincial or municipal election, you have to meet the local requirements.  It is your current residence that matters in this case.  The fact that your SOR is on the other side of the country is irrelevant.  As an aside, I have arrived in a province on the brink of a provincial election a number of times and never had a problem voting in that election.

On another note, Ontario has now waived the 90 residency requirement for health care for military families on posting to Ontario.


----------



## Pusser (15 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Here's my situation.
> 
> I'm posted to Kingston and 9er D is in Quebec. He has the residence, I'm the unaccompanied. Because our primary residence is in Quebec, we both have to file Quebec taxes. Quebec taxes are deducted from my pay in Ontario.
> 
> ...



You should check on this.  As a Married Service Couple, you are NOT on IR.  You have simply been posted without most of your stuff.  I would argue that your primary residence is now in Ontario and that you should be paying taxes accordingly.  This is not an IRP issue.  It's a pay issue, so talk to your OR about this.  If I'm right, you should also be able to go back and re-do your income tax returns from the point you left Quebec and get some money back.

It's worth looking into.


----------



## exgunnertdo (15 Mar 2012)

Married Service Couple here too.  When my husband was on "IR" (yes, not technically IR, I know), he got no PLD and I got the 100% rate for where I (and the DHG&E) were located.  Around that time (early 2007) there was a CANFORGEN I think, clarifying this exact issue for MSCs, and pay offices all across Canada had to fix it, and in our case, claw back some PLD from my husband.  Sure they paid me some extra PLD (the difference between 75% and 100%) but in our case that was negligible.  



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> You should check on this.  As a Married Service Couple, you are NOT on IR.  You have simply been posted without most of your stuff.  I would argue that your primary residence is now in Ontario and that you should be paying taxes accordingly.  This is not an IRP issue.  It's a pay issue, so talk to your OR about this.  If I'm right, you should also be able to go back and re-do your income tax returns from the point you left Quebec and get some money back.
> 
> It's worth looking into.



My only point is that I think this issue has worked its way through the system, and "they" have decided this is the correct way to do it for separated MSCs.  It's not an error that Vern's pay office is making.    

Edit to add - Or if you're saying she can pay tax as an Ontario resident, then you may be right.  In that case, convincing the province of Quebec might be harder than convincing the OR.  They won't give up their tax money easily.


----------



## armyvern (15 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> On another note, Ontario has now waived the 90 residency requirement for health care for military families on posting to Ontario.



Wow; actual progress!!


----------



## armyvern (15 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> You should check on this.  As a Married Service Couple, you are NOT on IR.  You have simply been posted without most of your stuff.  I would argue that your primary residence is now in Ontario and that you should be paying taxes accordingly.  This is not an IRP issue.  It's a pay issue, so talk to your OR about this.  If I'm right, you should also be able to go back and re-do your income tax returns from the point you left Quebec and get some money back.
> 
> It's worth looking into.



I realize that I am NOT IR ... but I do collect the 'benefits' associated with such (believe it was noted by me that MSC are not IR in this very thread just last week).

This is my 4th posting in this manner. I can assure you that I have checked with Revenue Canada and have received from them, in writing, that my taxes must be filed based upon my "primary residence" and that, in my case, my PR is where my household goods and effects are located.

Point of note: I have never been posted to Quebec. I was unaccompanied in Borden while 9erD was in Pet, I then got posted to Kingston unaccompanied while he remained in Pet. He has since been posted to Quebec and the F&E moved there with him - thus, that is where our household sits officially at this point in time.


Edited to add: I know that I have previously posted on this site, too, about what Revenue Canada has to say about where IR (or MSC posted unaccompanied --- it's just EASIER to type out "IR") have to pay their taxes at and pointed out that the member does NOT get to choose the cheaper of the places, but must file based upon where the F&E is physically located. The CF covers our "unaccompanied", and IR, expenses precisely because we are posted "away from our actual place of residence".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Mar 2012)

Content removed in accordance with site owner direction.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Mar 2012)

The key here is, that while the 150M ceiling will stay the same, allocation by city probably will change.  If I was a betting man, that would mean, for example, a reduction in Edmonton, but increase (from 0) in Wainwright....


----------



## McG (17 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Wow; actual progress!!


Not so much.  The previous Province was always on the hook until the new one accepted you.  Ontario waiving the 90 day requirement was closely linked in time to the introduction of user fees.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Perhaps an updated SOR needs to be part of a posting?  Is that legal?


After a bunch of surprised individuals during the last federal election, my unit has added the SOR as a document to review during the annual readiness verification.  We cannot insist that people change their vote to thier current address (and we shouldn't), but a lot of people do eventually decide they have developed more roots in their current location than where they first joined. If they are not reminded of the SOR, then they forget and become surprised that they cannot vote locally at election time.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know legalities, but I thought checking the address box on your tax return was stating your primary residence.


The box on the tax forms is for voting residence - it does not apply to military with an SOR.
Really, the form should give a third option of "I am a military elector."


----------



## CountDC (22 Mar 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Kingston and Ottawa too, but good news, they recycled all those homes and saved money!



and Ottawa is also building new ones - couple new ranch style with built in garages.

Myself I am happy that the PMQ's are here.  When I looked around Ottawa the housing I was shown was horrible for more money than what I was leaving in Halifax and I was losing the PLD.  It was like taking a double cut in my real spending factor - higher rent and less money.  I ended with a PMQ that was close to what I had in Halifax and it only cost $200 more.  

PMQ's is not really about providing subsidized housing anymore but ensuring that there is some housing that meets a standard when members are posted.  In some locations rather than have a "PMQ" area CFHA has contracted with a local landlord to provide housing as a PMQ (to my knowledge this is locations that only need one unit).  

Also it's not always a matter of not able to afford your family - sometimes the family you could afford at location X becomes a financial stress when posted to location y.  Now I wonder - how many people truly sat down and looked at every possible posting location in the CF and assessed the financial situation if they were posted there prior to having children?


----------



## CountDC (22 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Here's my situation.
> 
> I'm posted to Kingston and 9er D is in Quebec. He has the residence, I'm the unaccompanied. Because our primary residence is in Quebec, we both have to file Quebec taxes. Quebec taxes are deducted from my pay in Ontario.
> 
> ...



I would guess that you are getting SE?    Just to clarify - if you were posted in Quebec drawing the PLD both of you would be at the reduced rate.


----------



## CountDC (22 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Perhaps an updated SOR needs to be part of a posting?  Is that legal?



You can do an updated SOR anytime you want.  If there is an election coming up then there are guidlines on when the new SOR while take effect.


----------



## Pusser (11 Apr 2012)

All SORs take effect 60 days after completion.  This automatically means they will not be valid for any election that has already been called.  By law, federal election campaigns are only 60 days long, so if an election is called, the earliest your SOR can take effect is the day after the vote takes place.


----------



## Silver-Maj (27 Apr 2012)

first I would like to say I base my comment on chatting..

PLD can help, true story! Is it a nice thing when life is more expensive from places to places..  
Why if so, when  posted to a place offering housing to people that generally get better income... (oil-rigue).. pld disappear ? ? ?
I just got told that *moving from Edmonton* where I rent a PMQ and pay 800$/month`s; would have to defray 1600$/month`s *to Wainwright* ???  WTF /* losing pld +*

I dont get it...
By any chance`s ...are we gonna have pld in Wainwright??


----------



## dangerboy (27 Apr 2012)

Silver-Maj said:
			
		

> By any chance`s ...are we gonna have pld in Wainwright??



I would not count on it.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Apr 2012)

Your rent for a PMQ in Wainwright is $1600, or is that your mortgage?

If that's your PMQ rent, it demonstrates a huge problem with the way PMQ rent is calculated, not PLD. Though, PLD is stupid the way its calculated as well.


----------



## seadog70 (21 Aug 2012)

did a search and didn't find it, so here's my question. Does anyone know where I can find a map of the various areas that PLD occurs in? I am trying to find out what the coverage area is for my posting after QL3, and I just found out that I may be entitled to some retroactive pay regarding PLD due to where I was living/ currently maintain my primary residence. I came across a map awhile ago, but can't seem to find it anywhere now.


----------



## Occam (21 Aug 2012)

It's only available on the DWAN.  A listing of the geographical boundaries for various cities is at http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/travel/engraph/geographical_boundaries_e.asp?sidesection=2&sidecat=7

I'm guessing you're in Esquimalt.  The boundaries for Esquimalt are:

Western boundary: 

Start and include San Simon Point; 

Thence due north to include the west of Youbou (48º 52'N, 124º 14'W); 

North western boundary: 

From Youbou proceed north east to include Ladysmith (49º 4' N, 124º 53'W); and 

Coastal boundary: 

From Ladysmith proceed south and west along the shoreline of south east Vancouver Island to San Simon Point.

There's a map, but I'll let you look it up on the website.


----------



## seadog70 (21 Aug 2012)

appreciated, thanks Occam


----------



## seadog70 (29 Aug 2012)

OK, might be a shot in the dark here, went to my BOR today to find out if my primary residence falls within the geographical boundaries and they couldn't find it. Does anyone know the geographical boundaries for the Kamloops/Kelowna area ? It is a stated PLD area, but we can't seem to find the area boundaries. And for those who may be wondering, those two cities aren't really that close, and it wouldn't make any "sense" to have them in the same geo-boundary area. Any help on this greatly appreciated.


----------



## ditchpig041 (29 Aug 2012)

Seadog....

You off there as a recruiter? If so, it is a BEAUTIFUL area!! Bring a snow shovel and bug spray.....

If you have DIN access, the address is http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/travel/engraph/geographical_boundaries_e.asp?sidesection=2&sidecat=7

That being said, out of all the groups there, there appears to be no "Kamloops / Kelowna" area in there.  

The British Columbia Dragoons
720 Lawrence Avenue 
Kelowna, British Columbia
V1Y 6L9

Phone: 250-712-4227


These guys are the local reserves in the area.  Perhaps if you give them a call, they can hook up some information and send it your way too.


Good luck!


----------



## ditchpig041 (29 Aug 2012)

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO PROMULGATE THE TB APPROVED PLD RATES, EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09. 


IAW REF A THE FOLLOWING 2009 RATES ARE EFFECTIVE 1 APR 09, READ IN TWO COLUMNS: PLD AREA, 2009 FULL RATE: 
ALDERGROVE, 418
CALGARY, 711
CAMBRIDGE, 71
COLD LAKE, 319
EDMONTON, 684
GUELPH, 167
HALIFAX, 631
HAMILTON, 414
KAMLOOPS/KELOWNA, 525
KITCHENER, 62
LETHBRIDGE, 234
MEAFORD, 77
MEDICINE HAT, 145
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE, 505
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE, 376
MOOSE JAW, 284
NANAIMO, 75
QUEBEC CITY/VALCARTIER, 117
RED DEER, 327
REGINA, 62
SASKATOON, 382
SEPT-ILES, 107
ST JOHN S, 149
STRATFORD, 82
TORONTO AREA 1, 1485
TORONTO AREA 2, 506
TORONTO AREA 3, 522
TORONTO AREA 4, 819
TORONTO AREA 5, 1167
VANCOUVER, 1083
VICTORIA/ESQUIMALT, 816


Its an older CANFORGEN, but it DOES state 525 for Kamloops / Kelowna


----------



## seadog70 (29 Aug 2012)

Thanks brothers, actually I'm moving out of the area and am trying to find out if where my "primary residence" is falls in the PLDA. I know the city itself falls within the PLDA, just not sure of the boundaries on it. Weird that my BOR was having trouble finding it, the actual city didn't seem to be on the list showing various geographical boundaries, but there were other cities missing too.


----------



## KatFleming (29 Aug 2012)

I'm wondering on PLD in Trenton/Borden or Kingston? Any chance in hell?
And any idea on PMQ cost?

We're being sent most likely to Trenton in approx 4 weeks, com posting.

Any info appreciated


----------



## seadog70 (29 Aug 2012)

as of April, 2008; Trenton- 0, Borden- 0, Kingston-0
PMQ rates, no idea.


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Aug 2012)

KatFleming said:
			
		

> I'm wondering on PLD in Trenton/Borden or Kingston? Any chance in hell?
> And any idea on PMQ cost?
> 
> We're being sent most likely to Trenton in approx 4 weeks, com posting.
> ...



CFHA Info about homes in Trenton


----------



## KatFleming (30 Aug 2012)

THanks for the info guys. We're posting on a compassionate ( though was the last thing we wanted). We tried to get a reg slot this season but due to situation THEY decided compassionate. We're currently Greenwood, NS and financially it is TIGHT here. One income 2 kids. I have a Business degree along with being a chef, no work here for me at all Trust me I have tried, have taken on numerous jobs that are fill ins and one day thing just to make ends meet. 
Rent here is cheap, we're talking less than $500 for our Q. The oil heat and the hydro is what kills you. Food, gasoline, daily stuff are pretty steep too. 
Noticed the rent for Q's in Trenton are quite high ( though nothing compared to out west ), but I know the food is cheaper. Are the utilities cheaper back in ON? I grew up there but we haven't been posted there and haven't lived there in years now. Just hoping it will even out for us and I know my employment issues shouldn't be a problem there. 
Am I worrying for nothing?

Just a worried wife lol


----------



## ditchpig041 (22 Sep 2012)

Hey Seadog....

Any luck getting the answers you were after?


----------



## hathway (30 Oct 2012)

lost my PLD because I have rations and quarter, ask the MPSS staff said because there is a Lt Col send a email saying if a member have ration and quarter then PLD have to stop.  :crybaby: :crybaby:

any one knows what to do???? any help will be very appreciated


----------



## mariomike (30 Oct 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> lost my PLD because I have rations and quarter, ask the MPSS staff said because there is a Lt Col send a email saying if a member have ration and quarter then PLD have to stop.  :crybaby: :crybaby:
> 
> any one knows what to do???? any help will be very appreciated



You might find some helpful information here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34108.0


----------



## MJP (30 Oct 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> lost my PLD because I have rations and quarter, ask the MPSS staff said because there is a Lt Col send a email saying if a member have ration and quarter then PLD have to stop.  :crybaby: :crybaby:
> 
> any one knows what to do???? any help will be very appreciated



The removal of PLD in your case is correct.  Those in single quarters have no entitlement to PLD.

From CBI 205.45

205.45(4) (Entitlement – Regular Force) Subject to paragraphs (7) to (19), a member of the Regular Force whose principal residence is located within a PLDA is entitled to the PLD rate for that location established in the Table to this instruction for that area.

principal residence” (résidence principale)
    means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants, and is situated at: 

Have a read at http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/205-eng.asp#sec-45


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Oct 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> lost my PLD because I have rations and quarter, ask the MPSS staff said because there is a Lt Col send a email saying if a member have ration and quarter then PLD have to stop.  :crybaby: :crybaby:
> 
> any one knows what to do???? any help will be very appreciated



Your profile says you're in Kingston... you're upset at the 8 dollars a month you're losing in PLD?


----------



## Drag (30 Oct 2012)

However, if the mbr is attached posted to CFSCE for training, or is on IR he would still be entitled to PLD... The OP needs to provide more information/clarification.


----------



## hathway (30 Oct 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> The removal of PLD in your case is correct.  Those in single quarters have no entitlement to PLD.
> 
> From CBI 205.45
> 
> ...



thank you for your reply at this point i believe the principle of residence is not my temporary single quarter


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Oct 2012)

“principal residence” (résidence principale)
means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants, and is situated at:

1. the member’s place of duty, if their household goods and effects are located at that place;

2. the member’s former place of duty, if the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty;

3. the place where the member’s household goods and effects were located on enrolment, if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty; or

4. any other place of duty, selected place of residence or designated alternate location, if the member is authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to that place, except for the purpose of release or transfer to the Reserve Force.


----------



## hathway (30 Oct 2012)

D3 said:
			
		

> However, if the mbr is attached posted to CFSCE for training, or is on IR he would still be entitled to PLD... The OP needs to provide more information/clarification.



Thank you  
My PLD took off when I was on my BMQ at St-Jean Montreal , my principal residence was in Toronto, now I am in Kingston


----------



## hathway (30 Oct 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> Thank you
> My PLD took off when I was on my BMQ at St-Jean Montreal , my principal residence was in Toronto, now I am in Kingston



All other mbr in Kingston has same situation like me posted from other place to Kingston for training still had their PLD not only one or two I mean all of them, get so confused do not know what to do now ??? ???


----------



## MJP (30 Oct 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> All other mbr in Kingston has same situation like me posted from other place to Kingston for training still had their PLD not only one or two I mean all of them, get so confused do not know what to do now ??? ???



Are you married/CL?  Do you maintain a residence in Toronto?  Where is your furniture & effects (storage, in Toronto, in Kingston)?  How are you posted (IR, Attached etc).  We need more info or we can't help further.


----------



## hathway (30 Oct 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Are you married/CL?  Do you maintain a residence in Toronto?  Where is your furniture & effects (storage, in Toronto, in Kingston)?  How are you posted (IR, Attached etc).  We need more info or we can't help further.


THANKS 
I am married and have a house in Toronto, I was posted right after my BMQ, and they took my PLD off when I was in my BMQ at St-Jean


----------



## MJP (31 Oct 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> THANKS
> I am married and have a house in Toronto, I was posted right after my BMQ, and they took my PLD off when I was in my BMQ at St-Jean



If you enrolled as married (or got married after the fact) and maintained a residence in Toronto that you had when you enrolled then you should still be entitled to PLD.  

If you think you are entitled to PLD, I would go to your orderly room (through crse staff if applicable) and ask to them to process the paperwork.  If they refuse ask why and get them to show you the policy.  Emails are not policy.  Be polite, don't get mad and if you get no joy involve your CoC.


----------



## hathway (31 Oct 2012)

Thank you, appreciate for your help, I had my PLD for 2years when was in school, I will ask them show me the policy. By the way what is crse staff?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Oct 2012)

Crse staff = Course Staff.  You must know what Course Staff means if you've been to St Jean and Kingston.


----------



## hathway (31 Oct 2012)

These is part of the email I got from the MPSS clerk which I think they interpreted wrong   

On 14 Aug 12, a PLD clarification was sent down from DCBA.  

LCol Larouche stated that "after further review it has been confirmed that the intent of CBI 205.45 in regards to PLD for a member who is prohibited posted on enrolment and maintaining a residence in a PLDA is not entitled to PLD if occupying quarters at the place of duty of the Prohibited Posting."

What this means is that because you are in receipt of Separation Expense (Free R & Q and incidentals for the duration of your course) you are not entitled to PLD based on the clarification.


----------



## hathway (31 Oct 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> These is part of the email I got from the MPSS clerk which I think they interpreted wrong
> 
> On 14 Aug 12, a PLD clarification was sent down from DCBA.
> 
> ...



what I understand for prohibited posted is the mbr can not be posted for some reason and occupying quarter at the same time at his principal residence so I am not the same, and the clerk was misunderstanding, I am right or not??????


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Oct 2012)

Prohibited posted means you can't bring your household and family with you. The clarification is pretty clear (hence its a clarification). You are prohibited posted, occupying quarters where you are prohibited posted, therefore are ineligible for PLD where you maintain a residence in a PLD area (Toronto in your case).


----------



## hathway (31 Oct 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Prohibited posted means you can't bring your household and family with you. The clarification is pretty clear (hence its a clarification). You are prohibited posted, occupying quarters where you are prohibited posted, therefore are ineligible for PLD where you maintain a residence in a PLD area (Toronto in your case).



in that case at Kingston we have almost every one ( except me ) have their PLD and same time occupying quarters and rations too ??? ??? ???


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Oct 2012)

You'd have to ask your OR through your course staff why you are being singled out. Just make sure you find someone else on course that is A. Prohibited posted, B. Has a residence maintained in a PLD area, C. is in quarters, D. currently collecting PLD for that area.

You'll end up having yours back or having theirs taken away.


----------



## hathway (31 Oct 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You'd have to ask your OR through your course staff why you are being singled out. Just make sure you find someone else on course that is A. Prohibited posted, B. Has a residence maintained in a PLD area, C. is in quarters, D. currently collecting PLD for that area.
> 
> You'll end up having yours back or having theirs takenway.


that sounds not good....I will be buddy f***ker > > :facepalm: :facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> that sounds not good....I will be buddy f***ker > > :facepalm: :facepalm:



.....or get a commendation, in these austere times, for saving your school a whole hockey sock of money. Thereby, enhancing your career and promotion opportunities to the point where your losses today are far outdone by your gains in the future. 

Either way, the 'ringknocker' thing is passe in these times and you're not likely to have many real buddies by the time you graduate anyway. The only time that ring comes out is when the wearer wants something from you ;D


----------



## MJP (31 Oct 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Prohibited posted means you can't bring your household and family with you. The clarification is pretty clear (hence its a clarification). You are prohibited posted, occupying quarters where you are prohibited posted, therefore are ineligible for PLD where you maintain a residence in a PLD area (Toronto in your case).



That doesn't make sense to me.  My Google Fu is weak but I couldn't find what being on prohibited post entails.  I will do a better search tomorrow pm when a) have time b) can get on the DIN.

Nothing in the CBI on PLD excludes him.  An email from someone is not policy regardless of rank.  They should be able to show him the policy as it is written.


----------



## hathway (31 Oct 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> That doesn't make sense to me.  My Google Fu is weak but I couldn't find what being on prohibited post entails.  I will do a better search tomorrow pm when a) have time b) can get on the DIN.
> 
> Nothing in the CBI on PLD excludes him.  An email from someone is not policy regardless of rank.  They should be able to show him the policy as it is written.



I will talk to MPSS staff tomorrow to ask to see the policy


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Nov 2012)

IIRC, a mbr is entitled to PLD when they are prohibited posted and their D, HG and E is in a PLDA.  The key is where the D, HG and E is, not the mbr.  I found this specific ref in the CBIs and printed it for a friend who is prohibited posted to a loc in Ont, and has his D, HG and E in the Halifax PLDA.  He is also attending trg at a CF TE, in SQ and getting R & Q at public expense.

I am not at work now, but I believe I still have the email I sent to him with the exact CBI ref.


----------



## hathway (1 Nov 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IIRC, a mbr is entitled to PLD when they are prohibited posted and their D, HG and E is in a PLDA.  The key is where the D, HG and E is, not the mbr.  I found this specific ref in the CBIs and printed it for a friend who is prohibited posted to a loc in Ont, and has his D, HG and E in the Halifax PLDA.  He is also attending trg at a CF TE, in SQ and getting R & Q at public expense.
> 
> I am not at work now, but I believe I still have the email I sent to him with the exact CBI ref.


Great this is a super good news, if you can find the material would please send it over to me? Thanks very appreciate   :bowing:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Nov 2012)

I will but also need to review current CBIs for clarity etc.  But, I don't recall changes in PLD entitlement being addressed recently.

Stand by to stand by!  ;D


----------



## hathway (1 Nov 2012)

All I have is the email there is no policy attached, and I can't find any new policy through DIN


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Nov 2012)

Look at the CBIs.  CBIs are the trump cards.


----------



## DAA (6 Nov 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The key is where the D, HG and E is, not the mbr.



Is someone having a brain fart?  Eye in the Sky is correct.....PLD is based on the location where your DHG&E was last moved at "public expense" or on your "place of enrolment".  Based on your circumstances (ie; Prohibited Posting and undergoing training) and provided that DND has never moved your family from the Toronto area, then you are entitled to PLD for that area.

I think the problem may be in your current Bases interpretation of the regulation given the recent changes to SE/IR that were announced and then delayed.

If you were married at the time of your enrolment and have NEVER been authorized to relocate your family (DHG&E), then you should be paid PLD until such time that you are occupation qualified and authorized to move your family to your first posting for employment.


----------



## hathway (6 Nov 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Is someone having a brain fart?  Eye in the Sky is correct.....PLD is based on the location where your DHG&E was last moved at "public expense" or on your "place of enrolment".  Based on your circumstances (ie; Prohibited Posting and undergoing training) and provided that DND has never moved your family from the Toronto area, then you are entitled to PLD for that area.
> 
> I think the problem may be in your current Bases interpretation of the regulation given the recent changes to SE/IR that were announced and then delayed.
> 
> If you were married at the time of your enrolment and have NEVER been authorized to relocate your family (DHG&E), then you should be paid PLD until such time that you are occupation qualified and authorized to move your family to your first posting for employment.



I was married and had two kids when i was enrolled, and had PLD since then just when I was send to St-Jean for BMQ, the MPSS on St-Jean stopped my PLD, because there is an email from DCBA indicating 
 "after further review it has been confirmed that the intent of CBI 205.45 in regards to PLD for a member who is prohibited posted on enrolment and maintaining a residence in a PLDA is not entitled to PLD if occupying quarters at the place of duty of the Prohibited Posting."


----------



## hathway (6 Nov 2012)

I believe there should be other people involved too


----------



## DAA (7 Nov 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> I was married and had two kids when i was enrolled, and had PLD since then just when I was send to St-Jean for BMQ, the MPSS on St-Jean stopped my PLD, because there is an email from DCBA indicating
> "after further review it has been confirmed that the intent of CBI 205.45 in regards to PLD for a member who is prohibited posted on enrolment and maintaining a residence in a PLDA is not entitled to PLD if occupying quarters at the place of duty of the Prohibited Posting."



That makes NO sense what so ever....think about!  What else are you going to occupy while on a Prohibited Posting?  You have no other option but to occupy quarters........


----------



## Strike (7 Nov 2012)

Actually, as I read it, it makes quite a bit of sense.  If you keep the residence where you were recruited and it's in a PLDA, you will not get PLD for that residence if you are prohibited posted elsewhere because that is where you were recruited.  Now, if you and your family were posted to Area A, which is in a PLDA, and then you were prohibited posted to Area B, you would still get PLD for Area A because it is in a location away from where you were recruited.

The point of PLD is to provide a bit of help to offset the costs of living in an area WHERE THE CF POSTED YOU.  If you still have a residence in the area where you were recruited, the CF didn't send you there.  That's where you started so why should they give you extra money?

Now, if you were to finish all your training and then the CF were to post you to the area which happens to be where you were recruited, you would likely be eligible for PLD.


----------



## DAA (7 Nov 2012)

CBI 205.45(1) (Definitions) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this instruction:  

“principal residence” (résidence principale)means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants, and is situated at: 

iii.the place where the member’s household goods and effects were located on enrolment, if that place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense to their place of duty;

For all intense purposes, your place of enrolment is considered to be your first place of duty.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Actually, as I read it, it makes quite a bit of sense.  If you keep the residence where you were recruited and it's in a PLDA, you will not get PLD for that residence if you are prohibited posted elsewhere because that is where you were recruited.  Now, if you and your family were posted to Area A, which is in a PLDA, and then you were prohibited posted to Area B, you would still get PLD for Area A because it is in a location away from where you were recruited.
> 
> The point of PLD is to provide a bit of help to offset the costs of living in an area WHERE THE CF POSTED YOU.  If you still have a residence in the area where you were recruited, the CF didn't send you there.  That's where you started so why should they give you extra money?
> 
> Now, if you were to finish all your training and then the CF were to post you to the area which happens to be where you were recruited, you would likely be eligible for PLD.



Quick addition....the mbr I was referring to in a previous post was a CT Res --> Reg.  He never moved D GH & E, his place of enrolment to the Regs is Hfx...and is entitled to PLD.  He was not moved to Hfx on enrolment.   :2c:


----------



## Strike (7 Nov 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Quick addition....the mbr I was referring to in a previous post was a CT Res --> Reg.  He never moved D GH & E, his place of enrolment to the Regs is Hfx...and is entitled to PLD.  He was not moved to Hfx on enrolment.   :2c:



But is that where he is working?  Or was he getting PLD on enrollment while being prohibited posted somewhere else?


----------



## hathway (7 Nov 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> CBI 205.45(1) (Definitions) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this instruction:
> 
> “principal residence” (résidence principale)means a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependants, and is situated at:
> 
> ...



in my case the place of enrolment and place of duty is same because I was enrolled at Toronto and went to collage at toronto too, and I had my PLD for two years already, just after i finished my school and posted to St-Jean to do my BMQ they stopped it. so I was entitled for my PLD before


----------



## DAA (7 Nov 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> in my case the place of enrolment and place of duty is same because I was enrolled at Toronto and went to collage at toronto too, and I had my PLD for two years already, just after i finished my school and posted to St-Jean to do my BMQ they stopped it. so I was entitled for my PLD before



Makes no difference.  You continue to be entitled to PLD until such time as DND/CF authorize a paid move and you exercise that entitlement.  It cannot be stopped until that time.  So if you enrolled in Toronto, went to school there and then go on your BMQ, you are still entitled to PLD provided your marital status has not changed and you continue to maintain a principle residence for your dependants.  The only way I can see PLD being ceased, would be if you moved your family into a relatives residence, in which case you're no longer maintaining a residence.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Nov 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Makes no difference.  You continue to be entitled to PLD until such time as DND/CF authorize a paid move and you exercise that entitlement.  It cannot be stopped until that time.  So if you enrolled in Toronto, went to school there and then go on your BMQ, you are still entitled to PLD provided your marital status has not changed and you continue to maintain a principle residence for your dependants.  The only way I can see PLD being ceased, would be if you moved your family into a relatives residence, in which case you're no longer maintaining a residence.



Hi DAA, why would that change?  If he was entitled to PLD, why does change of address, for his family, cause a loss of PLD?  

dileas

tess


----------



## hathway (7 Nov 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Makes no difference.  You continue to be entitled to PLD until such time as DND/CF authorize a paid move and you exercise that entitlement.  It cannot be stopped until that time.  So if you enrolled in Toronto, went to school there and then go on your BMQ, you are still entitled to PLD provided your marital status has not changed and you continue to maintain a principle residence for your dependants.  The only way I can see PLD being ceased, would be if you moved your family into a relatives residence, in which case you're no longer maintaining a residence.



I didn't change anything at all


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> But is that where he is working?  Or was he getting PLD on enrollment while being prohibited posted somewhere else?



He is Prohibited Posted to an Army TE in Ontario.  D, HG, and E are in Halifax.  He is in SQ with R & Q at public expense.


----------



## DAA (8 Nov 2012)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Hi DAA, why would that change?  If he was entitled to PLD, why does change of address, for his family, cause a loss of PLD?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



The key to PLD is that you must be "maintaining" a principle residence for your dependants.  If you move them into a relatives residence, then it is assumed that you have no commitments and thus no "direct" out of pocket expenses similar to those that would be incurred had you maintained a house or apartment (ie; Rental or Lease Agreement, Mortgage, Hydro, Water, Gas, Phone, etc).  I have seen PLD ceased on a number of occasions in instances such as this.  A relatives home or friend for that matter, cannot be considered as a "principle" residence as the CF member has no "vested interested" in the property.

I think what we are seeing here, is a result of the changes to SE/IR benefits and someone reading too far into the regulations.

Sample - you are married with children, living in an apartment in Toronto.  Enrol in the CF and would then be posted Prohibited to undergo training.  Provided your family remains in that apartment and you continue to maintain the expenses associated with that, you are entitled to PLD at the time of enrolment.  Nothing will change until you are occupation qualified and "authorized" a funded relocation to your new place of duty, provided you remain Married/CL.

This issue in particular as it deals with new enrolments was addressed 10-15 years ago during the transition from AAA (Accommodation Assistance Allowance) to PLD.  Someone is obviously trying to reinvent the wheel.

Another example, a current serving member living in Toronto is posted to Kingston but proceeds unaccompanied (iR) leaving his family behind in Toronto and then occupies quarters in Kingston.  They would still be entitled to PLD for the Toronto area until such a time as they relocate their DHG&E to their new place of duty.


----------



## DAA (16 Nov 2012)

Oh pooh pooh.....after more research into this, DCBA has in fact changed the regulations regarding PLD entitlements at the time of enrolment.  Hence, the previous statement earlier of:

"after further review it has been confirmed that the intent of CBI 205.45 in regards to PLD for a member who is prohibited posted on enrolment and maintaining a residence in a PLDA is not entitled to PLD if occupying quarters at the place of duty of the Prohibited Posting."

At the end of the day, there is no longer any entitlement to PLD at the time of enrolment.  :-(


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2012)

Just an honest question, is DCBA the AA for changes to CBIs?


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just an honest question, is DCBA the AA for changes to CBIs?



No.  Per the NDA, pay & benefits are approved by the Treasury Board.

Internal to DND, DCBA and DPPD do the legwork of writing submissions, based on Governement direction, for comp & ben.  They are under DGCB, part of CMP.

Submissions are reviewed by the VCDS and ADM(Fin CS) staff, then are approved internal to DND by lawyers, VCDS, Chief Financial Officer, DM, MND, and then sent to the board for approval.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2012)

So, who is then responsible for this change in PLD policy?   I think they need a kick in the 'nads.


----------



## hathway (17 Nov 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Oh pooh pooh.....after more research into this, DCBA has in fact changed the regulations regarding PLD entitlements at the time of enrolment.  Hence, the previous statement earlier of:
> 
> "after further review it has been confirmed that the intent of CBI 205.45 in regards to PLD for a member who is prohibited posted on enrolment and maintaining a residence in a PLDA is not entitled to PLD if occupying quarters at the place of duty of the Prohibited Posting."
> 
> At the end of the day, there is no longer any entitlement to PLD at the time of enrolment.  :-(


Thanks for your reply, where did you find this info? This is new to me.


----------



## DAA (19 Nov 2012)

hathway said:
			
		

> Thanks for your reply, where did you find this info? This is new to me.



New to me as well!!!  Got it from the "horses mouth" .  I would expect to see changes to the CBI shortly based on this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Nov 2012)

Hold on a second...right now the CBIs says there IS an entitlement to PLD???


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Nov 2012)

I copied the PLD FAQ page today.  Interesting.  Read the last scenario.

Also, a review of CANFORGENs today reveal no update to the CBI in question.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Nov 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.  Per the NDA, pay & benefits are approved by the Treasury Board.
> 
> Internal to DND, DCBA and DPPD do the legwork of writing submissions, based on Governement direction, for comp & ben.  They are under DGCB, part of CMP.
> 
> Submissions are reviewed by the VCDS and ADM(Fin CS) staff, then are approved internal to DND by lawyers, VCDS, Chief Financial Officer, DM, MND, and then sent to the board for approval.



Reading thru this nice and slow to make sure I got all the big words  ;D right, I don't see where DCBA has the authority to cease the entitlement, if one existed IAW the CBI, pending a change to the CBI that *may* be coming.  Mbr's entitled now remain entitled until such time as the CBI is amended by the AA (TB) and would not be grandfathered back in time.  

Am I on the wrong target AND a horrible grouping on this?


----------



## armyvern (19 Nov 2012)

Someone brought up in conversation with me today, that as I am prohibited posted, 1/2 of a Svc Couple, that because he and our DF&E are located in Montreal, that I should be receiving partial-PLD. I am not, but is anyone knowledgeable on that particular issue?


----------



## hathway (19 Nov 2012)

got email from MPSS clerk my PLD issue is passed to her MCpl but will be delayed because they have other stuff to finish first


----------



## hathway (3 Dec 2012)

just heard PLD had a new policy now if your D F& E are not moved by DND then you are not entitle for the PLD in that area which means if you were lived there before your enrollment or you moved your D F&E by you self you not entitle for PLD and it started on Aug this year. I don't have the policy with me but one of my buddy asked to pay back over 3000$, is anyone have any idea this new change????


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Dec 2012)

Ask  your OR for the CBI that states this.  Or the CANFORGEN.  I can tell you the CBI didn't last week.  One of the larger bases Comptroller org is of the same opinion I am.


----------



## hathway (3 Dec 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ask  your OR for the CBI that states this.  Or the CANFORGEN.  I can tell you the CBI didn't last week.  One of the larger bases Comptroller org is of the same opinion I am.



will inform every one once i got any info


----------



## CFMP1970 (7 Apr 2013)

I was in for only a few years and each OR I went to re-engaged my PLD paperwork (as each respective OR did not have the info).  They ALL stated that I was entitled to PLD since day one of BMQ.  Everybody began the paperwork but nobody finished it.

My recent base began my PLD paperwork, yet again, and stated that I was eligible.

During my final appointment with release (last day), I was told I was NOT eligible for that very reason-that the DND did not move my D F&E.  

It just doesn't make sense.  If the policy came into effect in 2012, then those who were enrolled and entitled PRIOR to it coming into effect should still be eligible for the duration of when the above policy was not in effect. 

Here is my case.

-Lived in GTA, enrolled, attened BMQ in St. Jean
-Maintained primary residence in GTA (on IR)
-QL3 in Borden, still maintained primary residence in GTA (on IR)
-Posted to Trenton, still maintained primary residence in GTA (on IR)

If me not being eligible to receive PLD is not correct, could somebody please shed some light?


Thank you for reading.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Apr 2013)

You are entitled to PLD for Toronto if you're posted to Trenton? I understand getting it for your QL3/PAT period, but the other part sounds like why the rumours keep coming that they want to kill PLD.


----------



## hathway (7 Apr 2013)

While I wrote a redressing gravance waiting for the result may have the answer soon, you could do the same thing


----------



## Shamrock (7 Apr 2013)

CFMP1970 said:
			
		

> I was in for only a few years and each OR I went to re-engaged my PLD paperwork (as each respective OR did not have the info).  They ALL stated that I was entitled to PLD since day one of BMQ.  Everybody began the paperwork but nobody finished it.
> 
> My recent base began my PLD paperwork, yet again, and stated that I was eligible.
> 
> ...



Were your HG&E in the GTA when you enrolled? Did you enrol from Toronto? In which PLD zone did they reside?


----------



## kratz (7 Apr 2013)

hathway said:
			
		

> While I wrote a redressing gravance waiting for the result may have the answer soon, you could do the same thing



My condolances.


----------



## DAA (8 Apr 2013)

hathway said:
			
		

> While I wrote a redressing gravance waiting for the result may have the answer soon, you could do the same thing



I'd be interested to hear the outcome as well!  The last time I questioned this exact scenario (ie; entitlement to PLD at the time of enrolment), this is what came back:

a.  if the residence occupied by the members dependants isn't as a result of an approved and funded CF relocation, then the CF isn't responsible for the application and or payment of PLD

It would seem to fly in the face of CBI 205.45(1), "Principal Residence" (iii) but when you look at the definition of "Place of Duty" as defined in CBI 208.80, I can see where the interpretation is coming from.

But that is why we have the ability to "grieve" matters such as this.  Good luck and keep us posted!!!


----------



## Spooks (8 Apr 2013)

CFMP1970 said:
			
		

> Here is my case.
> 
> -Lived in GTA, enrolled, attened BMQ in St. Jean
> -Maintained primary residence in GTA (on IR)
> ...



Well, I'll post you my scenario and then the answer I got with reasoning. Not saying my case is the same as yours, but maybe it'll help

-Attach-posted to Rocky Mountain Rangers (Kamloops)
-Living in Penticton to carry out my Occupational Therapy and be closer to more specialized care (distance 240km)
-Administered out of Kelowna with the BCDs (Distance 66km from Pen)
-Kamloops and Kelowna both received $360/mo for PLD
-Initially received Kamloops PLD
-PLD retracted and repaid citing that I was further than the 60km limit of my location of posting (Pen to Kamloops was 240km)
-Sought out ways to fix this as Pen was just as pricey as Kamloops and Kelowna to live in
-Entertained be attach-posted to BCDs (since I learned that I did not need to be attach-posted to a unit of similar trade)
-Informed that I would still not receive PLD as I was 6km outside the bubble (Pen to Kelowna was 66km)
-Investigated other avenues and it came down to the fact I -chose- to live in Pen, even though it was on my posting message
-Argument shutdown and I sucked it up for 3yrs

Ergo, what I am seeing:
-You were posted around ON and -chose- to keep your residence in GTA (for whatever reason - family, paid mortgage, really cool home, etc)
-You are eligible for the PLD in the specific city you are posted
-You chose to live outside of the 60km bubble from your city of posting
::Thus not entitled to PLD

This is what I got from many discussions with my CoC


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2013)

One of the rules WRT to PLD is you have to reside _inside the PLDA_ IIRC.  I knew a guy who was posted to Folly Mountain and lived in Truro NS.  When FM closed he was posted to Halifax but didn't want to sell the house, etc as he was 2 years from retirement.  He requested auth to live outside Halifax geo boundary and was granted but had to sign stating he knew this would disqual him from PLD.


----------



## DAA (9 Apr 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> One of the rules WRT to PLD is you have to reside _inside the PLDA_ IIRC.  I knew a guy who was posted to Folly Mountain and lived in Truro NS.  When FM closed he was posted to Halifax but didn't want to sell the house, etc as he was 2 years from retirement.  He requested auth to live outside Halifax geo boundary and was granted but had to sign stating he knew this would disqual him from PLD.



Was he aware that he may have been entitled to SCA (Special Commuting Allowance)?  I hope so......


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2013)

Yes.  Actually balanced out IIRC.


----------



## DAA (9 Apr 2013)

Well those grievances for PLD are working really well...........DCBA 3-3 001/13

"DGCB has been notified of potential misinterpretation of policies at blah blah blah (CBI 205.45 (PLD)......."

and the bad news at para 3.....

"Action is being taken by DGCB to identify PLD/TPLD overpayments to serving and former CAF personnel where no authority exists, back to 1 Apr 07".........

Start saving your pennies.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Apr 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> Well those grievances for PLD are working really well...........DCBA 3-3 001/13
> 
> "DGCB has been notified of potential misinterpretation of policies at blah blah blah (CBI 205.45 (PLD)......."
> 
> ...



Now, speaking as a long-time Union steward, I see this as a good thing,................the first thing the Govt. does when it thinks it's about to take one full frontal is to distract you with some " OH YEA??"s.


----------



## DAA (9 Apr 2013)

It's funny.  Years ago people complained that it took too long to implement changes to regulations, CFAO's, because CFAO's were guided by QR&O's and to make any dramatic change to the CFAO usually required a change to the QR&O which in turn required Royal Assent.  So they decided to create CBI's and deal with the Treasury Board instead, out of simplicity and to provide a more "timely" change to entitlements which would benefit the CF.

Now look at where we are and what is happening around us....


----------



## pickles41 (23 Apr 2013)

I have a question re: PLD in Halifax.

How long does it take for the approval for PLD to be processed and go through? Can it be applied for from where I currently reside?


----------



## mariomike (23 Apr 2013)

You may find answers here.

The PLD Merged Thread- Read Here First  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34108.0.html


----------



## DAA (23 Apr 2013)

pickles41 said:
			
		

> I have a question re: PLD in Halifax.
> 
> How long does it take for the approval for PLD to be processed and go through? Can it be applied for from where I currently reside?



Fill out the form at your local Orderly Room in Halifax and they input the information into CCPS.  You generally should start receiving it within 30 days.

You cannot fill the forms out in advance.  They will be part of your "inclearance" process when you arrive.


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Apr 2013)

Given that the OP asked about application from where they currently reside, I'm guessing they might not be in Halifax yet.   :dunno:


----------



## PAdm (23 Apr 2013)

Just remember it is taxable; it is not part your pay (meaning an income letter to get a mortgage will not include this amount); and Hfx is knowingly artificially high and will be cut in half (my guess) when the MND leaves this portfolio.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2013)

From the media ....


> Junior members of the military at the air base in Cold Lake, Alta., have to take second jobs to make ends meet, says a new report from the military ombudsman.
> 
> Pierre Daigle investigated the sky-high cost of living in the resource-rich region of Alberta after complaints from people posted to 4 Wing, a major jet-fighter base.
> 
> ...



.... and recommendations from the CF Ombudsman's latest report:


> In order to help address the issues identified in this report, the following nine recommendations are made:
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Immediately re-establish a TBS-led PLD for Cold Lake which reflects the Cold Lake economic environment.
> [*]Establish Cold Lake as a priority in the national RHU accommodation strategy.
> ...


----------



## Quirky (10 Jul 2013)

IMO, if you cut PMQ rent in half you solve most of these issues with Cost of Living and horrid attrition of young personnel coming in. If you want to take the risk of buying property in town that is your own financial choice, but why punish those who chose to live in Q's? I believe this has to be solved within the next few years or else the operational capability of the Wing will be limited drastically, the affects are already starting to hit the gun squadrons...


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jul 2013)

PMQ rent is ridiculous everywhere. CFHA Kingston is charging $1200 for a 3 bdrm with no basement now. No way a small family can save up for a house when they're slaved to those rent rates, and theres nothing but increases here because the houses immediately beside the base are $500,000+ due to proximity to the water.


----------



## Cbbmtt (10 Jul 2013)

Stacked said:
			
		

> My PMQ rent in Esquimalt is reasonable. $835 for a 3 bedroom town house near the water.   However other PMQ's in my area (the single house/duplex) are around 1250-1300.



The difference being, you can rent a 3 bedroom in Kingston off base for the same rate as the PMQ. In Esquimalt the PMQ is 1250-1300 for a single house where you will be paying up and over $2000 for a house in Esquimalt. Some of the PMQ's aren't really saving troops that much money.

Kingston has the raw end of the deal on the PMQ in my opinion. Haven't looked up the Alta PMQ's


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2013)

More on the PLD, this time at Cold Lake, in this article which is reproduced without comment under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Free press_:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/military-staff-in-cold-lake-forced-to-find-second-jobs-214868501.html


> Military staff in Cold Lake forced to find second jobs
> 
> By: Murray Brewster
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2013)

PAdm said:
			
		

> Just remember it is taxable; it is not part your pay (meaning an income letter to get a mortgage will not include this amount); and Hfx is knowingly artificially high and will be cut in half (my guess) when the MND leaves this portfolio.



Taxed fairly stiffly; of the $631 you see about $182/pay run.

Considering the amount of income tax payable in NS compared to say, Ont, for a Cpl/LS...PLD doesn't actually cover it.  I can't agree with the PLD being 'high' based on that.  

However, having said that, COL in the Valley is also comparable to HRM (IMO) and there is no PLD there so.... :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## TCM621 (10 Jul 2013)

Quirky said:
			
		

> IMO, if you cut PMQ rent in half you solve most of these issues with Cost of Living and horrid attrition of young personnel coming in. If you want to take the risk of buying property in town that is your own financial choice, but why punish those who chose to live in Q's? I believe this has to be solved within the next few years or else the operational capability of the Wing will be limited drastically, the affects are already starting to hit the gun squadrons...



General Blondin spoke about this at a town hall a few months ago. The problem is that the CF doesn't control the rent in the PMQs. They are tied to the rental cost in the community. He, and the CF, were exploring regaining control of PMQs in order to lower prices and ensure they meet standards. As he put it, the PMQs in Cold Lake are so shitty his wife would allow his family to live there and they cost more than a large house at many other bases.


----------



## stokerwes (10 Jul 2013)

I lived in NS for 20+ years. When I was posted to Ontario the difference between taxes and everything else was tremendously lower. I lost sea pay (highest level) and PLD and my wife was still able to take a year off of work and still live comfortably.
I don't think PLD in Halifax is high enough! I lost approx 1600/month (before tax) and still have a quality of life that is better than I had in Halifax.
 :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jul 2013)

I wonder if part of the solution to PLD would be to have a similar system to the US military for tax purposes: Military members declare their province of residence, and they pay the tax according to that province's rate, even link it to your SOR for voting. Take a bit of the financial hit off being posted to Que/NS/Man for everyone.


----------



## PAdm (10 Jul 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I wonder if part of the solution to PLD would be to have a similar system to the US military for tax purposes: Military members declare their province of residence, and they pay the tax according to that province's rate, even link it to your SOR for voting. Take a bit of the financial hit off being posted to Que/NS/Man for everyone.



I would like a "citizen of Canada" approach where we pay a Fed and average Prov tax, but have a hybrid status to make interprovincial moves seamless. I know, impossible but provincial residency is a nuisance.


----------



## stokerwes (14 Jul 2013)

PAdm said:
			
		

> I would like a "citizen of Canada" approach where we pay a Fed and average Prov tax, but have a hybrid status to make interprovincial moves seamless. I know, impossible but provincial residency is a nuisance.


Yes it would be nice. I remember a few times I was out of country for more than 10 months of the year and still paying provincial taxes.


----------



## donaldk (17 Jul 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I wonder if part of the solution to PLD would be to have a similar system to the US military for tax purposes: Military members declare their province of residence, and they pay the tax according to that province's rate, even link it to your SOR for voting. Take a bit of the financial hit off being posted to Que/NS/Man for everyone.



Agreed.  I wouldn't be so opposed to a Quebec posting then (... although it isn't much worse then NS)


----------



## dimsum (22 Jul 2013)

Another article about the pay v. expenses discrepancy at CFB Cold Lake.  



> I was dismayed to read the recent reports of military members at CFB Cold Lake being forced to take on second jobs due to an apparent incongruence in cost of living and wages earned by junior ranks.
> 
> Canadian Forces ombudsman Pierre Daigle has reportedly found that one-third of the squadron posted to Cold Lake are forced to take on second jobs because of financial constraints. Apparently, the number of soldiers reported to be in this unfortunate position may have been understated.



If even somewhat true, I'm surprised that anyone stays more than a few years before getting out of the CF, especially in the Fighter tech trades who supposedly are posted there for 10+ years.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/McKay+living+wage+would+boost+soldiers+morale/8686168/story.html


----------



## Wookilar (22 Jul 2013)

I would have to say that we do make a "living wage."

An untrained Pte, basically unskilled labour, makes over $30K. Cpl 4 makes almost $60K at the journeyman-trade level. That's before any of the spec trades get their spec pay (which is considerable).

While Mr McKay hits it on the head in asking for a PLD review, he misses the boat by directly asking for more pay (which will be rejected outright. But I suspect he already knows that).

More pay is not the way to go (IMHO).

A PLD system that is actually responsive along with a Treasury Board that actually looks after us (instead of strictly the bottom line) is what we need.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2013)

A "responsive" PLD will mean more volatility in PLD; it would likely mean significant decreases in some places.  And as no government ever wants to be seen as reducing benefits (and this one, particularly not to the military) that's a non-starter.


----------



## MikeL (22 Jul 2013)

Out of curiosity, does Cold lake have much Single Quarters and PMQs available? Is the cost of living only high off base in Cold Lake, or is it just as expensive to have a PMQ there?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2013)

Remember, SQs and PMQs are supposed to be market priced; there is not supposed to be a subsidy.  I recall the MND announcing a freeze at Cold Lake last year, but prices will still be somewhat high.


----------



## captloadie (22 Jul 2013)

There are single quarters and RHU's available. Up until this month, all single quarters were with room mates. There is now the option to get your own room for an extra $210/ mth. There are at least 300 single members living in RHUs, doubling and tripling up by choice. Rent for RHUs runs between 900-1500 I believe, and is about 100-150% below market value, so the rates increase annually and whenever someone moves out. The average house price in Cold Lake is about 365K, with recent members posted in saying they couldn't fine decent family housing for under 400K. Rents are ridiculous in town. They range from $800/mth for an illegal apartment (1 room in the basement with some shared access), to 2400+/mth for any type of house/condo. Add into that the additional cost of living (more for groceries, daycare, vehicle/home maintenance) and you quickly get the picture.

Also, there is a large gap in the quality of life between the different MOCs. Not everyone is a pilot or gets spec pay. A lot of the support trades (read Log), and DND civilians are trying to get by on significantly less, and honestly I'm not sure how single members, or one income families are doing it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jul 2013)

Then it's time for the Govt. to start leaning on the local politicians, since I'm sure most of them just happen to have rental properties, about moving the base where personal can afford to live.

.............here in Guelph a few years ago when the University talked about building a ton more student rental places on it's own property there was, just coincidentally I'm sure, a quick drop in apartment/room rental costs.


----------



## captloadie (22 Jul 2013)

We work pretty closely with the city here, and they aren't necessarily the bad guys. With oil and gas companies moving in, some  paying up to $4000/mth for a living allowance, everyone is taking advantage where they can. There have been talk of putting camps on the outskirts of the city, but this is meeting with alot of push back from those who have a stake in the game (developers, property owners, etc).


----------



## MJP (22 Jul 2013)

Sounds very similar to Edmonton in 2005-07 were any affordable housing for young families had multiple bidders and the rental vacancy rate was under .5%.  Well I have no hope for a pay raise, I would like to think that the Govt will do a PLD review sooner rather than later.  The downside of that is as Dapa has pointed out it will mean cuts for certain areas.  Which is the way PLD is suppose to be in that it moves up and down dependant on the situation in a certain area.  However it probably means we get to see more "poor down trodden" mbrs or thier wifes on the news complaining about the mean military cutting their pay.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2013)

MJP said:
			
		

> Sounds very similar to Edmonton in 2005-07 were any affordable housing for young families had multiple bidders and the rental vacancy rate was under .5%.  Well I have no hope for a pay raise, I would like to think that the Govt will do a PLD review sooner rather than later.  The downside of that is as Dapa has pointed out it will mean cuts for certain areas.  Which is the way PLD is suppose to be in that it moves up and down dependant on the situation in a certain area.  However it probably means we get to see more "poor down trodden" mbrs or thier wifes on the news complaining about the mean military cutting their pay.




We, Canada, are, as I have said before, "overdue a comprehensive review of ranks and trades (and trade levels) and the qualifications and pay for both." The existing _system_, if it deserves that name, is like Topsy, from _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, it "just growed." It has one very, very good feature: it is "benchmarked" to the public service which means that the fruitless pay reviews of the 1950s and '60s are things of the past ~ there is a "system" for setting out base pay scales. The actual benchmarks may need to be reviewed and adjusted but the principle is sound. Things like PLDs also "just growed" to make up for inadequacies‎ in the basic system.

There needs to be a thoroughgoing review to determine what the basic rank/trade/pay requirements might be. One interesting question will be: are they the same for all services?

That same review needs to define _allowances_, of all sorts, and why and how they are paid.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (22 Jul 2013)

ER,

So are you advocating more of a tasked based pay scale (Cpl Infantry different from Cpl AVS from Cpl Sup Tech from Cpl Veh Tech,  from LS Boatswain) similar to civi street or a review of our current rank based pay system to try and improve the situation?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2013)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> ER,
> 
> So are you advocating more of a tasked based pay scale (Cpl Infantry different from Cpl AVS from Cpl Sup Tech from Cpl Veh Tech,  from LS Boatswain) similar to civi street or a review of our current rank based pay system to try and improve the situation?




I'm not "advocating" much of anything except that I think ~ I'm sure ~ that, after 45 years, a pay structure review is past due, but:

     My _opinion_ is that leadership and/or technical management/supervision skills ought to be prerequisites for promotion to *any* rank ~ which is why I find favour with the US Army's
     _specialist_ grades and with our trade groups. Leaders ought to be paid more than specialists. Combat leadership, in F Ech or even A2 Ech, exacts a physical and mental toll, it ought to be rewarded. 

     It is also my _opinion_ that we ought to be prepared to pay a premium for certain high skill and high (civilian) value trades and specialities ~ we are in a "business," of sorts, after all.

     In a long career I was never upset that people who flew aircraft or sailed ships (especially ships that went under the water intentionally) or kept me healthy were paid more than me. I was, equally, content, that an
     officer of the same rank and classification as me who made his living sleeping on the ground while I slept in my own warm, dry (accompanied) bed was getting an allowance.

     I believed, when I served, and I still believe now, that officers who are Commanding Officers or who command formations (MOGs, brigades, wings) should be paid a command allowance. I *know* that along
     with the many pleasures and privileges of command there are costs - monetary and other.

My list could go on and on and on ... which is why you want a team - military and civilian and the latter from government and the private sector - to do a formal, determined and complete review.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not "advocating" much of anything except that I think ~ I'm sure ~ that, after 45 years, a pay structure review is past due, but:
> 
> My _opinion_ is that leadership and/or technical management/supervision skills ought to be prerequisites for promotion to *any* rank ~ which is why I find favour with the US Army's
> _specialist_ grades and with our trade groups. Leaders ought to be paid more than specialists. Combat leadership, in F Ech or even A2 Ech, exacts a physical and mental toll, it ought to be rewarded.
> ...



ER I like where your headed with this.  But just to make sure my giprock brain is onside with you, are you saying *Rank+UIC+Trade+Responsibility Level = Pay Rate ?*


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2013)

However, right now many of those elements are part of the pay - but averaged out across everyone.

Thus, any such pay restructure will see winners and losers: the LCol commanding 1 RCHA would see more, while his desk driving peers in Ottawa would see less.  SImilarly, the bilingual bonus would stop being part of everyone's base pay, and only be given to those who (a) are bilingual and (b) are filling a position where it is required.

A similar sort of model was proposed in the early 90s and fizzled and went nowhere - because no one will ever acknowledge that they are overpaid, and thus deserving of a reduction to permit those in more strenuous positions to be paid more.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ER I like where your headed with this.  But just to make sure my giprock brain is onside with you, are you saying *Rank+UIC+Trade+Responsibility Level = Pay Rate ?*




I wouldn't want to prejudge the _right_ answer. That's certainly a way to go.

The pay and allowances _system_ must be:

     1.  A _system_ that can be managed to meet the needs of the country;

     2. *Fair* to the employer (government) and employees (you folks) alike;

     3. _Sensible_ ~ able to be understood, if not loved, by all ranks;

     4. NOT _carved in stone_ because in 25 to 35 years it, too, will need a thoroughgoing review; and

     5. *Competitive* so that we can hire and retain the people we need and want.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Jul 2013)

Very interesting.  Just to play devils advocate for you, how would you counter the argument that geo area and UIC  and level of responsibility are all out of a members control but, under my interpretation of your proposal, they could have very adverse effects on ones pay. 

Again I like where your going with this and in an alternate reality where this is implemented I see CMs being inundated with requests for postings at high pay UICs.  Perhaps our whole approach to postings and promotions needs to be looked and dissected too.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2013)

But we already have that impact with Sea Pay and PLD - get posted to a shore billet and the change of UIC means you lose Sea Pay; get posted further ashore and you'll cease receiving PLD.

If CMs can handle that issue, then further changes should not be too much of a stretch.


----------



## MikeL (22 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My _opinion_ is that leadership and/or technical management/supervision skills ought to be prerequisites for promotion to *any* rank ~ which is why I find favour with the US Army's
> _specialist_ grades and with our trade groups. Leaders ought to be paid more than specialists. Combat leadership, in F Ech or even A2 Ech, exacts a physical and mental toll, it ought to be rewarded.



In the US Army those in the E4 pay grade are paid the same, regardless if they are a Specialist or Corporal. AFAIK, in the US Army a Specialist is just a E4 that isn't a NCO/leader, where as a Corporal is a NCO/leader.


> Specialist or Corporal (E4)	$23,756 >2 years experience 	$27,659 4 years experience	$28,840 6 years experience


http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money/basic-pay-active-duty-soldiers.html


Back in the 1950s - 1985 when there were different Specialist grades (4-9 at it's peak), AFAIK they were paid the same as Corporal(E4) and the various Sergeants(E5-E9) as they all shared the same pay grades - This is just based off a quick search, so I could be wrong.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jul 2013)

This has the making of a first class train wreck, especially if the department/forces/government caves to public pressure and throws a band aid and lots of money at the issue without a lot of thought.

Edward and maybe a few others are old enough to remember the five pay fields created for the NCM trades circa 1966 as part of the integration process. It then got screwed up with the first reduction in the number or trades and then the second stage when the MND decreed that there would be 100 trades as this would be a clear signal that the integration and unification project was a success. The pay field system caused all sorts of resentment, especially among the trades placed in the bottom two fields - three and four. As I recall, pipers were in 3 and musicians were in 4, while the combat arms had arbitrarily placed in 5. It was reported that if the combat arms had been assessed by the same standards used for the other trades, they would not even qualify for 3, as they fit none of the industrial criteria used by the designers. I think MPs were in a low field along with MSE Ops, Supply Techs and Cooks, for whatever that is worth.

Eventually the thing was scrapped in favour of one pay scale with specialist pay.

The officer thing got screwed up too, but not as badly except that there was a drain on pilots as the airline industry boomed, so pilots got a huge raise, unlike other aircrew officer classifications. 

If there is a lesson, it is that the structure may need a hard look, but it should be done unemotionally and without outside pressure. (In 1979 there was a huge press tempest when it was revealed that Pat Mitchell, the Comd 1 CMBG, had set up a system to help his young soldiers and young officers qualify for welfare as they could not survive in Calgary under the existing pay scales. The then CDS was all set to make a horrible example of Pat, after having announced that army generals in Western Canada should not be circumventing the pay system. Fortunately Senator Stan Waters - LGen ret and ex-FSSF and PPCLI - got PM Clark to publicly state that he saw nothing wrong with officers looking after their troops.)


----------



## Quirky (22 Jul 2013)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> I would have to say that we do make a "living wage."
> 
> An untrained Pte, basically unskilled labour, makes over $30K. Cpl 4 makes almost $60K at the journeyman-trade level. That's before any of the spec trades get their spec pay (which is considerable).
> 
> ...



Yup, there is nothing wrong with our base pay scale and I'd say it's pretty competitive. However I'd like to see a few changed made within the trades - e.i. qual-based pay increases. For example, why should a POM and A Level Cpl make the same amount of money when the latter has significantly more responsibility, both in maintenance and leadership. I'd like to see spec pay kick in after a tech gets his A Levels rather than his QL5s. This would eliminate the lazy-POM syndrome and would force techs (not all) to actually give a damn about their jobs. 

For the Cold Lake issue, I don't see a solution happening anytime soon with the oil industry right next door. People are getting fed-up with the overall situation here and it's at a tipping point right now. I know that our unit is currently operating well below where we should be man-power wise. Quals and experience keep aircraft flying and the dozen or so qualified people, like myself, who are still here are getting tired it.


----------



## McG (22 Jul 2013)

MJP said:
			
		

> Sounds very similar to Edmonton in 2005-07 were any affordable housing for young families had multiple bidders and the rental vacancy rate was under .5%.


Yep.  Like Edmonton, that market will also hit a peak or plateau and it will see a plummet with CAF homeowners loosing big dollars.  Hopefully, someone is planning for that even as the current crisis is addressed.  Maybe there is a common answer to solve or ameliorate both the current and future problems.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jul 2013)

I thought CL screened as semi-isolated and that semi-isolated and isolated postings don't qual for PLD because they fall under isolated/semi benefits.

Am I out to lunch?


----------



## Ostrozac (22 Jul 2013)

There are financial benefits for isolated postings, but there are only six isolated locations. Alert, Goose Bay, Iqaluit, Masset, Whitehorse and Yellowknife.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/11-eng.asp

I have seen Cold Lake often referred to as "Semi-Isolated", but I've also seen career managers post members there without going through the OUTCAN-style screening that you need to do for Yellowknife. I don't know if I've even seen an official definition for the term "Semi-Isolated".


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> Yep.  Like Edmonton, that market will also hit a peak or plateau and it will see a plummet with CAF homeowners loosing big dollars.  Hopefully, someone is planning for that even as the current crisis is addressed.  Maybe there is a common answer to solve or ameliorate both the current and future problems.



Treasury board is planning for it, they've got all the red ink and DENIED stamps ready for the HEA loss applications.


----------



## ARMY_101 (31 Aug 2013)

Does anyone know when/why Ottawa was removed from being eligible for PLD?


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Aug 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know when/why Ottawa was removed from being eligible for PLD?



Ottawa was removed because it was determined as the new baseline for PLD.


----------



## ARMY_101 (1 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Ottawa was removed because it was determined as the new baseline for PLD.



Any idea on the year? From this thread it's sounding like maybe 2009-2010?

And any information on why they would choose a city with a highly inflated housing market as the baseline for determining whether other cities were also inflated?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> And any information on why they would choose a city with a highly inflated housing market as the baseline for determining whether other cities were also inflated?



Which city with a highly inflated housing market would you suggest as being the baseline?


----------



## Ostrozac (1 Sep 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Any idea on the year? From this thread it's sounding like maybe 2009-2010?
> 
> And any information on why they would choose a city with a highly inflated housing market as the baseline for determining whether other cities were also inflated?



That Ottawa-Gatineau-NCR was to be the new baseline was announced in 2007, I believe. As to why the NCR was picked -- I've heard two credible stories. One possible explanation is that Ottawa is the baseline for the civil service pay that our pay packages are tied to, and therefore if we were to baseline PLD on a location like Fredericton, that may not be cool with Treasury Board. Another credible theory I've heard is that CFSU(O) is our largest single garrison, therefore why not baseline based on the largest base? I'm not sure about the second explanation -- I've seen conflicting numbers that suggest that CFB Halifax may actually be our biggest base.

Internal communication on PLD has been very shaky, for an allowance that was supposed to be adjusted and updated regularly.


----------



## ARMY_101 (1 Sep 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Which city with a highly inflated housing market would you suggest as being the baseline?



I wouldn't suggest it be tied to any inflated market, especially not Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal. It should be tied to a relatively stable city that isn't seeing its housing market explode (and won't see its market crash in the next 3-5 years). Finding that city is beyond my education or pay grade, but it certainly shouldn't be one of the five most overheated markets.

The average Canadian house is going for $380,000 these days according to this and this, driven up no doubt by the increase in $500,000+ price tags in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal.

According to this TD Bank report: the average home affordability was about 26% of household income from 2000-2010. From here, base the PLD amount around the difference between the individual's household income (their rate of affordability) and the market they live in.

A corporal making $50,000 per year (for rounding sake) spending $2,000 per month on a mortgage should be helped a whole lot more than a Captain making $75,000 spending the same amount on a mortgage. This would account for the difference in income as well as geographic differences.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Sep 2013)

I know this is going to raise the hackles of the "I'm entitled to my entitlements crowd," but does the Cpl....or even the Capt...._need_ to spend 26% of their income on housing? 

When starting out, housing-wise, we bought much smaller than many people we knew. As the investment grew, we traded up.  When posted to Ottawa, I commuted from out of town where real estate prices weren't as stupid.  You choose your lifestyle.

If Cpl Bloggins chooses to buy an overpriced, multi-bedroom, insta-house in the latest, trendy Ottawa sub-division -- ie, if 'keeping up with the Jones' trumps living within ones' means, that is a self-inflicted wound.



The added bonus of living within means is that, when the soon-to-be "ex" gets the house, it's a less-painful financial loss


----------



## ARMY_101 (1 Sep 2013)

$1000 per month on a mortgage isn't unreasonable in a growing number of cities; rent is easily that price or more for a basic one bedroom apartment, so why not spend it on owning property?


----------



## Journeyman (1 Sep 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> $1000 per month on a mortgage isn't unreasonable in a growing number of cities; rent is easily that price or more for a basic one bedroom apartment, so why not spend it on owning property?


I absolutely agree.


However, _you_ said





			
				ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> A corporal making $50,000 per year (for rounding sake) spending *$2,000* per month on a mortgage.....


----------



## ARMY_101 (1 Sep 2013)

I was using two different examples, with one being clearly more affordable and easier for a Cpl to afford.

My point was, instead of PLD being tied to geographic region and receiving money based on that city, that it be tied to salary while still accounting for the market.

$1000 per month for a Cpl's mortgage puts his housing affordability right around 25%. Assuming $1000 is the average in the area, if the Cpl cannot find housing and ends up in a house with a $1200 per month mortgage, then the PLD covers the $200 difference.

A Capt, on the other hand, would not get $200/month to help with his $1200 mortgage.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Sep 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> My point was, instead of PLD being tied to geographic region and receiving money based on that city, that it be tied to salary while still accounting for the market.


And _my_ point was, because the Treasury Board doesn't determine our pay that way.....no matter how much one may wish otherwise, it's best to work within reality, and consider other options to live within one's means.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Sep 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I was using two different examples, with one being clearly more affordable and easier for a Cpl to afford.
> 
> My point was, instead of PLD being tied to geographic region and receiving money based on that city, that it be tied to salary while still accounting for the market.
> 
> ...



Why even bother having pay scales then??  Let's just say EVERYONE gets the same pay.............


----------



## ARMY_101 (1 Sep 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Why even bother having pay scales then??  Let's just say EVERYONE gets the same pay.............



A Colonel is paid more than a Private because the former's work experience, qualifications, and value to the organization are significantly more than the latter.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Sep 2013)

Swing and a miss...............


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Sep 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> A Colonel is paid more than a Private because the former's work experience, qualifications, and value to the organization are significantly more than the latter.



Which you would dilute by giving him no PLD....


----------



## ARMY_101 (1 Sep 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Which you would dilute by giving him no PLD....



Is PLD not to compensate for higher-than-average expenses in a city compared to another city? A bag of milk for a Colonel is the same as for a Corporal, but one has significantly more resources (i.e. a higher salary) than the other.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Sep 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Is PLD not to compensate for higher-than-average expenses in a city compared to another city? A bag of milk for a Colonel is the same as for a Corporal, but one has significantly more resources (i.e. a higher salary) than the other.



Why would a Cpl get PLD, but not a Col? 

PLD is not supposed to be a form of income supplement/welfare for those members with lower incomes.


----------



## stokerwes (2 Sep 2013)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Why would a Cpl get PLD, but not a Col?
> 
> PLD is not supposed to be a form of income supplement/welfare for those members with lower incomes.



I agree. Either everyone should get PLD in the area or none. 
I do also agree that the PLD should be more flexible to changing economies. Several years to review a system that is supposed to reflect the cost of living in areas is too long.


----------



## ARMY_101 (10 Sep 2013)

From CANFORGEN 084/10:



> PERSONNEL ARE REMINDED THAT PLD IS SEPARATE FROM PAY AND IS INTENDED ONLY AS A* CUSHION AGAINST EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE LIVING IN A HIGH COST OF LIVING AREA.* ACCORDINGLY PLD SHOULD NOT BE FACTORED IN WHEN MAKING FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS.


----------



## TCM621 (10 Sep 2013)

Why can'tI find PLD rates for Comox, Bagotville, Greenwood or Trenton? However, I can Find trail BC, Sarnia On and red deer alberta.


----------



## Ostrozac (10 Sep 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Why can't I find PLD rates for Comox, Bagotville, Greenwood or Trenton?



Because none of those bases are PLD areas. PLD is supposed to be awarded for named locations considered more expensive than the NCR -- those four communities aren't on the list.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Why can'tI find PLD rates for Comox, Bagotville, Greenwood or Trenton? However, I can Find trail BC, Sarnia On and red deer alberta.



If there is no rate for a location, the rate is zero.  Listings include "zero" only for places that at one time were in receipt of PLD.

Other locations appear because there are personnel posted to those locations who are therefore entitled to PLD.


----------



## TCM621 (10 Sep 2013)

A lot of the place never had PLD. Gander, Trail, Chiliwack, etc were never in reciept of PLD.


----------



## peterpan (10 Sep 2013)

Why is there no PLD in Greenwood? It is only 1 hour from Halifax, which has PLD? income tax is the same GST is the same gas in a bit more and land taxes and housing is about par ( with the exeption you get a bit more land)?


----------



## TCM621 (10 Sep 2013)

Comox is similar.  Living in Comox is still very expensive.


----------



## PAdm (11 Sep 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> A lot of the place never had PLD. Gander, Trail, Chiliwack, etc were never in reciept of PLD.



Not only is Gander expensive, the reality is you see empty shelves in the grocery store, especially when the ferry is tied up. So we can debate the price of chicken or milk, but it has to be avail for purchase to have that debate.  And don't own a VW as there is no dealer so you will drive 3.5 hours to St John's.


----------



## mkil (23 Sep 2013)

I have looked through this thread and others, but still have a question. My husband and I will be house hunting in Halifax soon and our real estate agent has asked us to put together a pre-trip shopping list. My question is: what is the geographic area for Halifax that is eligible for PLD? It is not unusual for people to commute 50 km into the city, but I am assuming that isn't part of the area. Any information is helpful!


----------



## Stoker (23 Sep 2013)

mkil said:
			
		

> I have looked through this thread and others, but still have a question. My husband and I will be house hunting in Halifax soon and our real estate agent has asked us to put together a pre-trip shopping list. My question is: what is the geographic area for Halifax that is eligible for PLD? It is not unusual for people to commute 50 km into the city, but I am assuming that isn't part of the area. Any information is helpful!



There is a map of HRM and a PLD "bubble" drawn around it, not sure where to access it though.  With all the cutbacks in Halifax right now, lots of pers are bracing for the PLD to be cut back severely or disappear all together. I hope it doesn't but who knows.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Sep 2013)

The PLDA bubble is, AFAIK, the same map as the geographical boundaries.  If you go to the DIN/DWAN DCBA site, they are available there.  As an example, I worked with a guy who lived in Milford and he was in the PLDA/geo boundary (north of Hfx).  As far as 'how far west of Hfx', I think its about Newport Corner as I knew a guy who had a PMQ there.  Not sure on the East and South Boundaries.

I'd send you the link or info (I believe the Hfx info includes a map) but I'm on leave for the next bit.  Maybe someone else can help?

Good luck on the HHT!


----------



## MJP (23 Sep 2013)

mkil said:
			
		

> I have looked through this thread and others, but still have a question. My husband and I will be house hunting in Halifax soon and our real estate agent has asked us to put together a pre-trip shopping list. My question is: what is the geographic area for Halifax that is eligible for PLD? It is not unusual for people to commute 50 km into the city, but I am assuming that isn't part of the area. Any information is helpful!



Geographical boundaries for most places.

http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/travel/engraph/geographical_boundaries_e.asp?sidesection=2&sidecat=7


----------



## mkil (23 Sep 2013)

Thank you very much! Truly appreciated beyond belief! I am still new to the CF, so navigating the DWAN is still tricky. Cheers!


----------



## Sub_Guy (30 Sep 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Comox is similar.  Living in Comox is still very expensive.



For real estate yes,  nearly everything else is cheaper!

Perhaps someone can explain to me why Halifax gets more than Cold Lake?

Those who administer the PLD would have more credibility if they made the formula PUBLIC


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Sep 2013)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone can explain to me why Halifax gets more than Cold Lake?



Halifax doesn't fit the formula, but the former MND was from Nova Scotia so....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2013)

Which has nothing to do with PLD for Halifax.

Tax in NS is very high compared to other province.  http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Scroll down on that page for the provincial rates.  But for quick ref, I pay 7.5% more tax than I would in Alberta.  My PLD when I was in Hfx was approx. $190/pay cycle and didn't even really cover the difference in taxes from say, someone in Trenton.


----------



## MJP (30 Sep 2013)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone can explain to me why Halifax gets more than Cold Lake?
> 
> Those who administer the PLD would have more credibility if they made the formula PUBLIC



They have not revised the PLD rates in more than a few years.  Cold Lake much like Edmonton in the 2006/7 time frame shot up quite dramatically in a short period of time.  Last CANFORGEN on PLD was CANFORGEN 084/10 CMP 039/10 081701Z APR 10, so there is a significant time gap.  I would hope that it is being reviewed as it seems Cold Lake pers are hurting.


----------



## Hattie56 (17 Nov 2013)

I've read throughh this topic, but, can't seem to find the answer I'm looking for. I've read through this forum that new recruits aren't eligible for PLD at allif you don't have ql3 done by a certain date. Is this true?


----------



## smale436 (17 Nov 2013)

No that is not true. It has nothing to do with QL3 dates.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Nov 2013)

Hattie56 said:
			
		

> I've read throughh this topic, but, can't seem to find the answer I'm looking for. I've read through this forum that new recruits aren't eligible for PLD at allif you don't have ql3 done by a certain date. Is this true?



Where did you read that on this forum and if it is here somewhere...read down a little farther in that thread, I am sure someone would have corrected the poster.


----------



## rstokes02 (11 Dec 2013)

Can some one please tell me where I can find the list of PLD rates for across the country, seeing as they vary and I have a few subordinates that are being posted this year and are curious what the rates are at the bases that they may potentially be going to.


----------



## DAA (11 Dec 2013)

CBI 205.45


----------



## dapaterson (11 Dec 2013)

Keep in mind that there has not been a change to PLD rates for a number of years.  Thus, when they do change, the differences may be significant.

I would be very cautious about making plans based on current rates.


----------



## captloadie (11 Dec 2013)

And ensure that they understand the difference between an area getting PLD and an area getting TPLD. Newly posted in members to a TPLD area do not receive PLD, only those members who were there before the area was designated as a TPLD area are eligible.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (11 Dec 2013)

Hattie56 said:
			
		

> I've read throughh this topic, but, can't seem to find the answer I'm looking for. I've read through this forum that new recruits aren't eligible for PLD at allif you don't have ql3 done by a certain date. Is this true?



I transferred over in Aug 13 and was told that untrained recruits are no longer entitled to PLD, (policy change in Ottawa).  You become eligible for PLD once you become "trained in trade", for most trades OFP or QL3.  For me, 4 years of University then a 4 month trade course.


----------



## Pusser (12 Dec 2013)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> I transferred over in Aug 13 and was told that untrained recruits are no longer entitled to PLD, (policy change in Ottawa).  You become eligible for PLD once you become "trained in trade", for most trades OFP or QL3.  For me, 4 years of University then a 4 month trade course.



What question did you ask and what was your understanding of the answer?  Your basic assertion that you don't become entitled to PLD until "trained in trade" (the more correct term would actually be "occupation qualified") is false.  As has been stated elsewhere, PLD has nothing to do with level of qualification or career status.  Entitlement is entirely based on the location of your primary residence.  Having said that, newly enrolled personnel who are still in the training system MAY not be entitled because their primary residence is often a single quarter.  If that is the case, then no, there is no entitlement to PLD, but that is because they are resident in a single quarter, not because of their career/qualification status.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (12 Dec 2013)

When I put in my application form for PLD and then came back the next week to see if it was actioned I was told that there is a policy change stating untrained recruits are no longer eligible for PLD.  That they will become eligible once they are "trained in trade" or OFP "Operationally Function Point".  I then spoke to the Chief Clerk as as a Reservist the week prior I was entitled to PLD but now not so as a Regular force member.  I was then told she would send my file up to Ottawa for review.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (12 Dec 2013)

...and yes I have my own residence surrounded by personnel enjoying the benefits of PLD.


----------



## Pusser (12 Dec 2013)

If you were a reservist who CT'd to the Regular Force, you may not be eligible because you generally cannot claim PLD unless you are *posted* (i.e. for the most part moved at public expense) into a PLD location.  If you simply did a CT, then the system regards you as serving at place of enrollment (i.e. you have *not* been moved).  And if you haven't *moved*, then the system says you haven't suffered a hardship (i.e. the relative cost of living from your perspecive hasn't changed)because your circumstances have not changed; therefore, you are not entitled to PLD.  This is a problem in many cases where folks' first postings have been the places where they enrolled.  It's a particular problem for CTs.

I am not defending this logic, because I don't agree with it and I think it is extremely flawed.  However, that's where we are at the moment.  I also know that there has been some effort to try and fix some of these anomalies.   Unfortunately, the entire benefit is under threat from Treasury Board and so there is a real reluctance by the Department to open a can of worms. 

If you were to be posted away for training and then *posted* back to the same location, then you would be eligble for PLD (but not TPLD).  This may by why some folks seem to think that PLD eligibility is related to occupation qualification.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (12 Dec 2013)

Unfortunately that is not the case anymore, (at least as briefed to and explained to me).  I will attempt to dig up my e-mails.  In 2008 my wife switched from Res to Reg through ROTP as a Reservist not entitled to PLD (from the local area) and day one began collecting PLD (as did her peers in the same circumstance).  All of the CT's I assisted with, (the latest not including my own but an ROTP entry to MAR Eng O, Aug '12), were Reservists from the local area, staying in the area and who began/continued collecting PLD.  CT's normally get posted to the BTL/ULO section of whichever base they will be serving at, so there is a posting involved.  It is entirely possible to be ATP'd to a local BTL so that members do not have to sit in a PAT platoon for 4 months on a different coast waiting for a course.

This seems to be a new cost saving measure, unfortunately on the backs of those who would need the help the most, (I do not place myself in that group as I was fortunate enough to keep rank pay and incentive WO Basic IPC 2 but check out the pay for a Private/OCdt).  Again I will try and get the e-mailed "official" response, but the PLD policy has been changed or my OR is completely out of the loop.


----------



## DAA (12 Dec 2013)

The revised ruling came down from DCBA over a year ago and basically states,  "If your primary residence isn't as a result of a CF funded relocation (ie; cost move), then the CF isn't responsible for the payment of PLD."

So, that immediately eliminated the payment of PLD for new enrolments (ie; married pers) and restricted CT's unless they were "posted" to the geographical location were they CT'd from.

For the most part, the benefit is tied to a cost move or authorized relocation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Dec 2013)

That's all well and good DCBA made this ruling but what does the CBI state.  DCBA doesn't trump CBIs.

CBI's state something along the line of "if primary residence is in PLD and member's D HG and E is in the PLDA, they are entitled to PLD, or words to that effect.  I'd have to look at the CBI.

I assisted a friend who CTd a few years ago in Hfx with this; was posted restricted to TE in On, then AP'd back to Hfx BTL.  D HG & E were in Hfx PLDA.  After they looked thru the CBI he put in front of them, PLD was paid.

Unless the CBI has changed....


----------



## DAA (12 Dec 2013)

Nope, the CBI has not changed recently.  Nevertheless, there is nothing preventing an Orderly Room, located within a PLD area, to pay a CF member PLD, whether or not the entitlement exists.  So in cases where the situation is not "black and white" (ie; someone is posted in and relocates their family), they really should be seeking clarification.

There is nothing worse, than paying out benefits, only to find out there was no entitlement and the CF member has to pay it back.

DCBA is the OPI for CBI's.  CBI's were created as a means for DND/CF to be able to implement benefit changes quicker without having to go through the long drawn out process of amending a CFAO.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Dec 2013)

You mean QR&O.  CFAOs are policy and relatively easy to amend. Key word being relatively.


----------



## DAA (12 Dec 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You mean QR&O.  CFAOs are policy and relatively easy to amend. Key word being relatively.



You could be right but my "old school" thinking is "CFAO's amplify QR&O's".  So I know in some but not all cases, it was a nightmare to change any CFAO benefit that was tied to a QR&O.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Dec 2013)

CBI is based on TB policy though isn't it?  If a CBI says "there is an entitlement", DCBA can't contravene that and say "no there isn't!".  Well they can but it wouldn't stand up to review (ie MGERC).


----------



## dapaterson (12 Dec 2013)

Correct - CFAOs amplify QR&Os.  So you usually can't amend the CFAO (or now, replace it with some other form or order) without amending the QR&O (or CBI).  And since CBIs go to TB, and QR&Os go to the governor in council, they make CFAO amendments seem relatively painless.


----------



## DAA (12 Dec 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Correct - CFAOs amplify QR&Os.  So you usually can't amend the CFAO (or now, replace it with some other form or order) without amending the QR&O (or CBI).  And since CBIs go to TB, and QR&Os go to the governor in council, they make CFAO amendments seem relatively painless.



Sounds like the CBI plan has come back to bite them in the bum......lol


----------



## winks2872 (23 Jan 2014)

Looks like something is in the works. This was posted yesterday:

From: 

http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/rec/045-eng.html



Post Living Differential and Transitional Post Living Differential

Case number
•2011-032 (F&R Date: 2011–06–29)
Issue
As a result of changes to Post Living Differential (PLD) and Transitional PLD (TPLD) policies, some Canadian Forces (CF) members living in the National Capital Region (NCR), who were posted to the area before 1 April 2008, continue to receive TPLD to compensate for higher cost of living while others, posted to the NCR after 1 April 2008, do not receive the benefit.  The current application of the PLD/TPLD has created a system of "haves" and "have nots".  This unfairness is not limited to the NCR.  Rather, there are other TPLD areas in Canada which are affected in the same way.

Recommendation
The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct a review of the TPLD concept to determine whether it is to be fully implemented or if the CF will simply revert to the PLD construct as it existed prior to the policy changes which led to the current unfairness.  The aim must be to restore fairness in each PLD/TPLD area by providing equal benefits to all CF personnel posted to the same areas.

Final Authority Decision
The CDS was satisfied that DGCB was currently reviewing this issue with TB. Nonetheless, in an attempt to expedite this process, the CDS directed that the CMP liaise with them to verify the current status of TPLD, with a view to determining its future and to restore quality among those affected.

Date modified: 2014-01-22


----------



## McG (14 May 2014)

That has got to hurt.  


> *Clawbacks leave two Nova Scotia navy families high and dry*
> Beverley Ware
> The Chronicle Herald
> 13 May 2014
> ...


http://m.thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1207258-clawbacks-leave-two-nova-scotia-navy-families-high-and-dry


----------



## DAA (14 May 2014)

Chances are, when this guy arrived in Halifax, during in-clearances he was handed a bunch of forms to fill out and sign, which he did.  Problem being, nobody took the time to verify that the location he was living in, was within the geographical boundaries of the Base.

This problem is more common that some people think and there are probably alot more out there who are currently receiving PLD and not entitled to it.  My curiousity in all of this would be two fold, (1) why did this take 13 years to discover;  and (2) what transpired that caused someone, somewhere to take a closer look at this specific instance?

I'm sure at the end of the day, they just quoted QR&O 203.04, which is pretty much a "catch all" when it comes to recovering any type of overpayment.


----------



## Tibbson (14 May 2014)

My situation is somewhat the opposite but just as frustrating.  When I got posted into Halifax (funny how it's the same base as this issue) I was handed a mitt full of forms and completed them all, including the PLD.  About 6 months later (I had been away on course for much of that time) I noted I still was not getting PLD and went in to get the situation addressed.  After another couple of months, and another set of paperwork, they started it but they refused to go back and catch up what I was behind.  I didn't cause the issue in the first place but it took me the better part of 2 years to get the 7 months of missing PLD payments caught up.  The individual RMS clerks I was dealing with were great but they just kept getting stonewalled by higher until I took it higher then that.   I got to the point I almost regretted bring it up in the first place and even applying for PLD.  I can well imagine how frustrated these two members are


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 May 2014)

In a related note, did they not just say in the MATA/PATA debacle that they can't recover anything after 6 years as per CA legislation?  How are they able to go back 13 years?


----------



## CountDC (14 May 2014)

Was wondering about that.  Legislation restricts them to 7 years so why are they taking 13?  Then again has he raised this point as I would guess he was one of the mbrs caught up in the Sea Allowance audits and should be aware of this.


"The Rissescos live in Vaughan, just outside Windsor. They were told their home is on the wrong side of Highway 14, though that is not written in any policy or description"

Funny though that when I look up the boundaries I find this http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/travel/engraph/halifax_e.asp?sidesection=2&sidecat=8:

Description:
 ■Starting and including Tangier;
 ■Thence in a straight line north west to Middle Musquodoboit;
 ■Thence in a straight line north west to Stewiacke (southern shore of the Stewiacke river);
 ■Thence in a straight line north west to Kennetcook;
 ■Thence in a straight line south west to Windsor (eastern shore of the Avon River);
 ■*Thence south west along Hwy 14 to Chester (including eastern side only of Hwy 14 between Windsor and Vaughan*, then both sides of Hwy 14 to Chester) ;
 ■Thence proceed east along the coastline to Tangier. 

and MARLANTORD 6-3 which says the same thing http://halifax.mil.ca/N02/FES/EAC/library/6-3_e.doc. 

Guess it is written somewhere after all.


----------



## dapaterson (14 May 2014)

However, when was the policy issued?  When were the boundaries defined?  There are many questions that need to be asked and assessed.


----------



## DAA (14 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, when was the policy issued?  When were the boundaries defined?  There are many questions that need to be asked and assessed.



I agree.  Grandfathering just might come into play and may have never even been a consideration.  In some circumstances, where the Geographical Boundaries were reasonbly defined and then subsequently changed, it normally doesn't impact on those who then find themselves "outside" of the NEW geographical boundaries.

Without knowing the full circumstances, everything is mere speculation.


----------



## cupper (14 May 2014)

I find it interesting that the problem is occurring on a clearly definable and easily recognizable part of the boundary, whereas the rest of the boundary is set by straight lines running from municipality to municipality. With the straight line sections the start and end points are ambiguous as to where they are located in the municipality. And across the distances we are dealing with you could easily be out an amount significant enough to put one's home inside or outside the line.

And what happens when the line passes through the property. If the driveway and street are on the wrong side of the line do you not get the benefit, even though the front door is on the right side of the line?


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 May 2014)

I find situations like this incredibly frustrating; I can see ceasing something like PLD if they do a review and find something like this, but recovering overpayments that were previously approved by a SME seems unnecessarily punitive, regardless of the FAA requirements.

I'm trying to imagine what would happen if a private company tried this, and nothing but a lawsuit springs to mind.

In a bedroom lawyer note, found that the Canada Labour code allows for employers to deduct overpayment of *wages* (not benefits)
from an employees pay  (here) .  But as they always tell you that PLD is an entitlement and not to rely on it as part of your pay, and it's classified as an allowance and found under 'benefits' on the CBI page  (here), are they actually allowed to recover overpayments of benefits from your pay?  Or does the pretty generic para in the FAA overule that?  Seems like dirty pool that they seem to hold private companies to a higher standard, as it seems like employees have to agree to paying back overpayment of benefits.

This stuff happens far too often as well, and at no point does the pay/benefits system take any responsibility when they make a mistake.

I remember years ago a DEO was posted from St. Jean to Halifax under a normal IRP posting as per the message the mangler cut (which incidentally was also the standard for RMC/ROTP graduates at the time).  Some colonel decided after the fact that he wasn't entitled to it as he wasn't trade qualified, and this guy got hit with a bill for over $50k after being in uniform for about six months and following the orders he got.  I think it eventually got quashed after some pretty high level intervention, and he quit shortly thereafter.  It was pretty stupid.  They also at no point made any attempt to recover anthing from the RMC graduates, who were no further ahead in their trades training, so there was a double standard on top of it.

{/end rant}  Just saying things like this don't exactly help retention... :2c:


----------



## DAA (14 May 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I find situations like this incredibly frustrating; I can see ceasing something like PLD if they do a review and find something like this, but recovering overpayments that were previously approved by a SME seems unnecessarily punitive, regardless of the FAA requirements.
> 
> I'm trying to imagine what would happen if a private company tried this, and nothing but a lawsuit springs to mind.
> 
> ...



The FAA doesn't really come into play in cases such as this and you really can't compare private sector to public sector, it's night and day, apples and oranges.

Depending on the circumstance and how an individual was remunerated (ie; was it through a claim or by regular payroll), determines the means of recovery.  So if you were paid a benefit through your Pay Account that you were not entitled to, it is recovered through your Pay Account and generally, at the same rate in which it was paid out.  If it's a claim, reimbursement is normally by cheque but if a CF member refuses to reimburse, then it will just come out of their pay.

So the process, looks pretty much like this...........

Pte/Cpl Jones tells you that you are entitled to X and gives you the paperwork to fill out.  You do that and sign.  Pte/Cpl Jones inputs that info into the Pay System for approval.  It then get's passed to MCpl/Sgt Smith who reviews it, signs off and "presses" the approval button.  Voila, you are now in receipt of a benefit/allowance.  Simple as that!!!

There is no liability on the part of your Admin Staff, QR&O 203.04 summed up (every Offr and NCM will acquaint themselves with their rates of pay and allowances,,,,,,,etc etc).  Which pushes the onus back on YOU.

I hear what you are saying and have heard it many many times before.  Drives me up the wall........when I used to see something like this.


----------



## dapaterson (14 May 2014)

FAA should come into play.  Clerks, every month, certified that things were kosher.  When, it is alleged, they were not.

So why are we not holding the clerks from 2001 accountable for not doing their job properly?


----------



## Tibbson (14 May 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> There is no liability on the part of your Admin Staff, QR&O 203.04 summed up (every Offr and NCM will acquaint themselves with their rates of pay and allowances,,,,,,,etc etc).  Which pushes the onus back on YOU.



I always found it rather ironic that the average service member was supposed to just know the system and be ultimately responsible for the smooth administration of their own pay matters when many RMS clerks cannot figure it out .  And that is intended to be a comment about the complexity of various aspects of the system, not a slam on RMS clerks who should be the SMEs.


----------



## Tibbson (14 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> FAA should come into play.  Clerks, every month, certified that things were kosher.  When, it is alleged, they were not.
> 
> So why are we not holding the clerks from 2001 accountable for not doing their job properly?



Hold them responsible how?  For making a mistake or interpreting a policy that perhaps was different then what it is today?  Oops, mistakes happen.  It sucks but this would be no where near a Sec 124 "neglegent performance of a military duty" matter.


----------



## DAA (14 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> FAA should come into play.  Clerks, every month, certified that things were kosher.  When, it is alleged, they were not.
> 
> So why are we not holding the clerks from 2001 accountable for not doing their job properly?



Give me a bit, to look at the FAA closer before commenting further on this point.  Processing payroll, is a rather simplified task which does not involve drilling down to the nuts and bolts, and is all about numbers.  If your bi-monthly pay entitlement is either above or below a pre-determined "threshold", then it is looked at closer to determine "why", with the sole intent of preventing both over/under payments.

So once the payroll review is completed and approved for processing, that's it.  It's a done deal.

Someone does have to sign off on this and in some cases, the person signing.....doesn't even have access to CCPS.  But yet, the checks are in the boxes and they are satisfied with the review that has taken place.  So the "intent" of the FAA has been followed.  Checks and balances.  You really can't expect "Capt White" to review each and every pay account of every member within their AOR, prior to approving the payroll, especially when said approval doesn't reach them until the very last day.



			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I always found it rather ironic that the average service member was supposed to just know the system and be ultimately responsible for the smooth administration of their own pay matters when many RMS clerks cannot figure it out .  And that is intended to be a comment about the complexity of various aspects of the system, not a slam on RMS clerks who should be the SMEs.



That should be a SLAM and I would push it to that level.  It's their job, to figure it out!!!  Yes, the occupation is complex and depending on the job they are in, it is there responsiblity and duty to learn it.....

PS - which leads me directly back to the original post and makes me think to myself....."Receiving PLD since 2001,  It was never challenged in 13 years.  Must have met the checks and balances for payroll reviews over all this time.  And best of all "Why did someone, suddenly decide to have a much CLOSER look, at just exactly where this person was living?"   Things like this, just don't hapen by accident.....


----------



## Tibbson (14 May 2014)

Any JAG will agree that next to meeting the elements of the offence for a 129 charge, meeting them for a 124 charge is just as difficult.  It couldn't be proved in R v Semrao and took years of investigation and trial to prove in R v Watts, both of which should have been "slam dunks".  The legal differences between what constitutes neglegence vice an error are huge .


----------



## garb811 (14 May 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> ...
> There is no liability on the part of your Admin Staff, QR&O 203.04 summed up (every Offr and NCM will acquaint themselves with their rates of pay and allowances,,,,,,,etc etc).  Which pushes the onus back on YOU.
> ...


But of course, when the member does identify a problem, takes it to the pay office and is told all is fine and nothing is corrected, the member is still held accountable when someone actually does "discover" the problem.  Of course, it is simple to say that the member should have been smart and simply banked the money they thought they were being overpaid for the day it comes, but when the pay clerk tells you all is good despite what you think, the SME's word is the one you go with.


----------



## dapaterson (14 May 2014)

garb811 said:
			
		

> But of course, when the member does identify a problem, takes it to the pay office and is told all is fine and nothing is corrected, the member is still held accountable when someone actually does "discover" the problem.  Of course, it is simple to say that the member should have been smart and simply banked the money they thought they were being overpaid for the day it comes, but when the pay clerk tells you all is good despite what you think, the SME's word is the one you go with.



My current pay problem is on hold; seems the folks in DMPAP don't know what to do, and they're awaiting the CRA instructions.  Which highlights the absurdity that can arise in this sort of situation: I'm expected to know more than the "experts".  (And did, and flagged it, and explained it, and it's now nearly three months and I'm still waiting for their corrective action...)


----------



## Strike (15 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My current pay problem is on hold; seems the folks in DMPAP don't know what to do, and they're awaiting the CRA instructions.  Which highlights the absurdity that can arise in this sort of situation: I'm expected to know more than the "experts".  (And did, and flagged it, and explained it, and it's now nearly three months and I'm still waiting for their corrective action...)



No surprise. They still haven't sorted out the MATA/PATA pay issue yet.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 May 2014)

From today's Halifax Chronicle Herald.

Bruce MacKinnon Cartoon


----------



## DAA (15 May 2014)

Strike said:
			
		

> No surprise. They still haven't sorted out the MATA/PATA pay issue yet.



Actually, I believe they have resolved this.  Instructions were issued around 8 May indicating that recovery action will most likely not take place and given the circumstances surrounding this, the CF is pursuing a "remission order".

If anyone wants a copy of the direction, PM me......


----------



## CountDC (15 May 2014)

Yes mata/pata resolved and I save some money.

Usually these get picked up when someone living near them brings it up.  The old "how come I don't get it but my neighbour Bloggins is".  Of course there is always the possibilty that someone had mentioned it the member before and they were quite happy to stay quite as long as the money was coming in.  Not too often that members come in complaining about getting money although they are real quick when missing money.  

I can't recall any changes to the boundaries so believe those were the ones in effect at the time.  We used to have a copy posted in the counter area when I was there.  Regardless the article says there is nothing in writing when there is and has been for a long time so that is a false statement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 May 2014)

if you are forced to return money earned in previous years, then the department is required to issue you updated T4's to reflect the changes to your incomes and taxes. This used to trigger a report to the auditor General, something our compensation branch tried to avoid. Not sure if it still does. I also know in the PS someone having a wage clawback is entitled to notice and options for the payback, also not sure if this applies to the Forces.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Hold them responsible how?  For making a mistake or interpreting a policy that perhaps was different then what it is today?  Oops, mistakes happen.  It sucks but this would be no where near a Sec 124 "neglegent performance of a military duty" matter.



Who was the approving signature on the original PLD paperwork?  He/she and everyone else involved could be placed on RMs then.

Most of us in the CF have to face ramifications if we are not up to snuff in our performance...why would RMS be any different?


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 May 2014)

I guess I just find it generally annoying that "overpayment" spans everything in the spectrum from claiming something you weren't entitled to (ie fraud) to situations like this, where SMEs said you were entitled to it, then a different SME says you aren't, and goes back to reclaim it all.  I would call a situation like this an honest mistake vice an overpayment, as the member was taking the payment in good faith, based on the fact that the SMEs said he was supposed to get it.

Personally, I would think that the fair thing to do in cases like this is for the pay system to accept some responsibility and either simply stop the benefits and write off most or all of it (from the six year mark forward) or recover some of the recent benefit only.  It's not like they said he was supposed to get 100 dollars but deposited 200; they told him he was supposed to get PLD then changed their minds 13 years later.  I don't think the taxpayers would have a problem with this either; I'm sure that DND writes off far stupider stuff in much larger amounts annually without batting an eye.

Just venting really; can't do anything to change the system.  Also have a lot of sympathy for the pay clerks, as the regulations are pretty labyrinthine, and they are typically just the bearers of bad news.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> Someone does have to sign off on this and in some cases, the person signing.....doesn't even have access to CCPS.  But yet, the checks are in the boxes and they are satisfied with the review that has taken place.  So the "intent" of the FAA has been followed.  Checks and balances.  You really can't expect "Capt White" to review each and every pay account of every member within their AOR, prior to approving the payroll, especially when said approval doesn't reach them until the very last day.



As QR & Os were brought up, IMO these ones should be brought into the fold as well then:

QR & O, Vol I, Ch 4, Art 4.02  as it pertains to Capt White...who may delegate his/her authority, but not his/her responsibility.

4.02 - GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICERS

An officer shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce:

i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act,  (5 June 2008),
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the officer's duties;

And for the NCM folks under him/her...

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 5, Art 5.01

5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

A non-commissioned member shall:
a. become acquainted with, observe and enforce i. the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

I've had to deal with the 3 main BORs (12 Wing, Dckyard and Stad) in the past and I got into the habit of going in with references printed, pertinent section highlighted and most times, I knew the policy better than the people I spoke to and would have to say "no, you are wrong".   Then spend time showing them, not that I was right, but the POLICY was "right".  I also found most people thin-skinned and overly sensitive to what was really their lack of knowledge in their own field.  

IMO, the people who are screwing up and causing hardship and/or stress should be accountable for their lack of performance IAW CAF and trade standards.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 May 2014)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Regardless the article says there is nothing in writing when there is and has been for a long time so that is a false statement.



And the article also states this:



> Rissesco was being garnisheed the $400 a month he had been receiving for the benefit, plus he no longer gets the payment, which meant an $800 reduction in his monthly pay



Which is also false.  He's being garnisheed $400 to repay the PLD, but not getting the benefit does _not_ equal an $800 reduction in his monthly pay.  There's only a $400 reduction in his pay and he is no longer receiving a _benefit_ to which (it seems) he's not entitled.

Of course, that may be the way it was described to the person who wrote the article, but it is still not accurate.

And yes, I agree that he shouldn't be on the hook for a 13 year old mistake.  They should have just stopped paying the benefit and be done with it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2014)

I think something that has gotten missed in the thread to date is the involvement of the MEGRC, which has completed the file and presented it's Findings and Recommendations to the FA.  

Here is a summary of the Finding and Recommendations from the MEGRC.

Not sure how many people have had a grievance go to the (former CFGB) MEGRC, but I can attest to the unbiased, complete and thorough nature in which they process a file, and that there are several levels of review it goes thru just in that organization, including JAG, etc.

In short, they have all the details to analyze, and saying that, here is a quote from the F & Summary:

_The Committee observed that the Boundary description indicated that it proceeded from one community to another without any indication as to whether the community was included within the Boundary in whole or in part. In the area of the grievor's residence, the Highway formed the Boundary and included both sides of the road at certain points which were not well defined. The Committee observed that the Boundary description failed to describe what and how much on the outside portion of the Highway was considered to be included inside the Boundary in those areas where both sides were included.

The Committee considered that there was a fundamental lack of logic in the manner in which the CF authorities defined the Boundary and found that the current manner of administering the Boundary in the area where it bisects the grievor's Township was highly subjective and unfair.

Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor's residence should be considered to be within the Boundary as it was described in the amended version issued in May 2002, and that the grievor has been entitled to receive the PLD benefit since 2002 and continues to be so entitled._

Of course, the CDS as FA is not bound to the F & R, but this is certainly a point in the grievors corner.  If the CDS denies, it will be interesting to see the argument against from the FA.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 May 2014)

And this point from the same link:

"The Committee noted that the CF is statute barred from recovering the PLD benefits paid in 2001–2002 since that is *beyond the six-year time limit*."


----------



## cupper (15 May 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> He's being garnisheed $400 to repay the PLD, but not getting the benefit does _not_ equal an $800 reduction in his monthly pay.  There's only a $400 reduction in his pay and he is no longer receiving a _benefit_ to which (it seems) he's not entitled.



Regardless of how you want to put it, He has $800 less per pay coming in than before the error was found, which could well be a hardship for he and his family. That is the point that was trying to be made. 

If they only stopped paying the benefit, the reduction would only be $400 per pay.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 May 2014)

I understand that.  But it's still not a *pay* reduction.  It's a loss of a benefit.

Yeah, I know....semantics.  But whatever outrages the public and sells newspapers right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I understand that.  But it's still not a *pay* reduction.  It's a loss of a benefit.
> 
> Yeah, I know....semantics.  But whatever outrages the public and sells newspapers right?



Bullseye!


----------



## donaldk (15 May 2014)

What boggles my mind is how the system is trying to recover 13 years when already a previous grievance cites a 6 year recovery limitation, and current tax laws permit 10 years max for adjustments after the former 6 year limit was bumped in 2004.  This is on top of what already has been brought up in here about RMS.

10 year limit on tax adjustment/recovery: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmplntsdspts/lmttnprd-eng.html

Formerly was 6 years: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/04/30/cra-racing-to-collect-tax-debt-before-10-year-limit-expires/

I had my share of pay errors like most on here and sometimes they were not hard to fix with the RMS folks, and others had to be taken up direct with the centre.  My last pay error was in my favour and occurred when I CT/OT'd from a ResF MS IPC 4 to RegF SLt pay group D IPC 3.  CT cell messed up the ETP message, which caused HRMS to change my rank directly from MS to SLt, and not go MS -> NCdt -> A/SLT -> SLt.  This caused the programming for CBI 204 provisions relevant to SCP/UTPNCM to not kick on and I was on a basic pay rate at $2400/month for 1 year instead of $5000/month.   After dealing with the BOR at S90, I got fed up, reviewed the MHRRP and called DMPAP at the 1 year mark, sent them my ETP and pointed out the CBI, and a friendly civi on thier end pointed out the clerical mistake in the ETP message by email.  Using this email chain I replied to DMCA 7 who subsequently amended by ETP 4 times over 3 months and apologized by a follow on email for the mess up.    In this entire process, no RMS clerk was of useful assistance!


----------



## DAA (15 May 2014)

donaldk said:
			
		

> I had my share of pay errors like most on here and sometimes they were not hard to fix with the RMS folks, and others had to be taken up direct with the centre.  My last pay error was in my favour and occurred when I CT/OT'd from a ResF MS IPC 4 to RegF SLt pay group D IPC 3.  CT cell messed up the ETP message, which caused HRMS to change my rank directly from MS to SLt, and not go MS -> NCdt -> A/SLT -> SLt.  This caused the programming for CBI 204 provisions relevant to SCP/UTPNCM to not kick on and I was on a basic pay rate at $2400/month for 1 year instead of $5000/month.   After dealing with the BOR at S90, I got fed up, reviewed the MHRRP and called DMPAP at the 1 year mark, sent them my ETP and pointed out the CBI, and a friendly civi on thier end pointed out the clerical mistake in the ETP message by email.  Using this email chain I replied to DMCA 7 who subsequently amended by ETP 4 times over 3 months and apologized by a follow on email for the mess up.    In this entire process, no RMS clerk was of useful assistance!



If I'm reading this correct, it looks like your issues were with DMCPG 5 (formerly known as DMCA 7) but still, your local OR could and should have provided help.  Yes, ETP/Tranfers messages are a "sticking" point, right across the board.

But something that will probably "shock" you.....your Broker at DMCPG (DMCA 7) and the people you were dealing with through the process........probably weren't RMS Clks, believe it or not.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (15 May 2014)

donaldk said:
			
		

> What boggles my mind is how the system is trying to recover 13 years when already a previous grievance cites a 6 year recovery limitation, and current tax laws permit 10 years max for adjustments after the former 6 year limit was bumped in 2004.  This is on top of what already has been brought up in here about RMS.



$51,000.00 / 12 Months / $660 PLD Halifax Zone = ~6.4 years of PLD.

I don't remember when the PLD increased to it's current rate, but this is around what PLD currently pays out over ~6 years.  Bottom line it would be nice to see this system take the hit for this oversight, but you have to wonder how many cans of worms that would in turn open up.


----------



## Strike (16 May 2014)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> $51,000.00 / 12 Months / $660 PLD Halifax Zone = ~6.4 years of PLD.
> 
> I don't remember when the PLD increased to it's current rate, but this is around what PLD currently pays out over ~6 years.  Bottom line it would be nice to see this system take the hit for this oversight, but you have to wonder how many cans of worms that would in turn open up.



They are recovering the amount after taxes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 May 2014)

Nuances, QR&Os, NDA and whatever else you want to throw into it.

Before taxes, after taxes, claimed losses and gains, in the end, none of it has anything to do with the situation.

Early on, the member identified a potential problem. He was told everything was okey dokey. He accepted the SMEs word, as is allowable.

15 years later someone decides there was an error. Instead of trying to figure who was at fault, and hold them accountable, they download it to the member.

That is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

If I was the person being persecuted, I would have my wife bring a suit against the Feds for malfeasants, financial abuse, loss of earnings, loss of use of earnings, court costs and interest to start.

Lawyers fees would eat up most of it, but ensuring that those putzes that made the initial and retroactive decision would be called and asked to answer for their total incompetence and total lack of compassion for a persons situation. Hopefully, it would effectively end their careers.

I hate faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

This appears to be a scene straight out of Brazil -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)


----------



## Strike (16 May 2014)

And was there never an audit done on this person's pay that might have caught this?  Heck, mine usually gets checked every three years or so, whether or not I'm posted.  In fact, it's usually because of these audits that I find I'm owed a few bucks here or there.


----------



## Sub_Guy (16 May 2014)

And yet I was just told that they are NOT going to follow up with the MATA/PATA claw back.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 May 2014)

Because it's a political bomb waiting to go off and it shows total failure on the admin side. When the error was discovered and size realized, someone should have gone up the line and said "Boss we have a problem" At which point the seniors should have weighed the consequences of the various option. This is the stage that divides the leaders/thinkers from the process monkeys. Sadly more and more systems are designed for the benefits of process monkeys and poorly thought out databases rather than for people who know their jobs and take pride in doing it well.


----------



## Shamrock (16 May 2014)

Can the individual not make a claim for this under the DAOD 7004 series?


----------



## CountDC (16 May 2014)

The question on when did he move there and did he notify the pay office is a good point and raises another question.  Was he moved there by DND?  If he was then it should have been picked up at that time that he was moving to a location outside the boundaries and proper steps taken then - ie the request and approval to live outside the boundaries needed in order for DND to move him there.  If he moved there on his own after PLD was started for a residence within the boundary and didn't notify the pay office at the time then that changes things and puts more of the onus on him. 

It sure would be interesting to see the entire file on this case.

recceguy:

"Early on, the member identified a potential problem. He was told everything was okey dokey. He accepted the SMEs word, as is allowable."

I don't see that anywheres, am I just missing it or are you mixing up someone elses case?


----------



## Crispy Bacon (16 May 2014)

I wonder how this member's case will play out considering this announcement from CMP.


----------



## donaldk (16 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> I wonder how this member's case will play out considering this announcement from CMP.



As your other post mentions PLD errors for specific zones in Ontario, I think DND will continue to dig a hole into this PLD case.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2014)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> $51,000.00 / 12 Months / $660 PLD Halifax Zone = ~6.4 years of PLD.
> 
> I don't remember when the PLD increased to it's current rate, but this is around what PLD currently pays out over ~6 years.  Bottom line it would be nice to see this system take the hit for this oversight, but you have to wonder how many cans of worms that would in turn open up.



Halifax PLD is $631 month.  Might change the math some.


----------



## Sigs Pig (18 May 2014)

An update



> *N.S. navy family facing $51K clawback wins small victory
> Leading Seaman Jeffrey Rissesco being forced to pay back housing allowance*
> 
> A member of the Canadian navy living in Nova Scotia is getting a slight financial reprieve from the $51,000 the military is trying to claw back from his pay.
> ...


CBC News

ME


----------



## DAA (18 May 2014)

The thing I see, something such as this, is not limited to just this one person or two or three.  There are alot more out there, who are receiving PLD and actually have no entitlement to it.  So until DND/CF decide to initiate a complete audit, it really can't be considered as a "systemic" issue and therefore won't be considered for write-off.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/115131/post-1309172#msg1309172

Of the three overpayment issues addressed in the link above, the first one was a system/programming anamoly so really no ones fault but the other two could probably be attributed to "human" error".  All three of which are apparently being "waived" but then again, the dollar value is relatively low and could be considered negligible.

Regarding Land Duty, Aircrew, Sea Duty and other environmental allowance calculations.  I brought up a calculation anomoly to DCBA over 5 years ago, that their spreadsheet/taught methodology didn't conform to the regulation the way it was written and the result was the potential for "underpayments" occurring.  Which I still believe may be happening today.  They told me to "stick it where the sun doesn't shine".........


----------



## Ostrozac (19 May 2014)

Question -- are the geographic boundaries of our various garrisons completely harmonized with the PLD zones? And if so, then shouldn't an adjustment to a boundary definition result in a recalculation of PLD for the entire zone?

I'm thinking that, since Garrison Halifax believed that the member in question lived within the PLD zone, then his house value (and those of his neighbors) would have been included in the data that led to the PLD rate. Remove that neighbourhood, and the PLD rate for the entire area would have been calculated based on bad data.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> The thing I see, something such as this, is not limited to just this one person or two or three.  There are alot more out there, who are receiving PLD and actually have no entitlement to it.  So until DND/CF decide to initiate a complete audit, it really can't be considered as a "systemic" issue and therefore won't be considered for write-off.
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/115131/post-1309172#msg1309172
> 
> ...



DAA- I just forced an audit of both my SDA and Aircrew allowance, because neither made sense, based on the CBI.

It took me a year to get the audit results (which had to gomto Ottawa), but the bad news is that I have been overpaid nearly 1k of aircrew allowance.

The good news is that they have underpaid my SDA to the tune of nearly 5k.


----------



## DAA (19 May 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> DAA- I just forced an audit of both my SDA and Aircrew allowance, because neither made sense, based on the CBI.
> It took me a year to get the audit results (which had to gomto Ottawa), but the bad news is that I have been overpaid nearly 1k of aircrew allowance.
> The good news is that they have underpaid my SDA to the tune of nearly 5k.



I'm happy for you, take the money and run, run fast......and far.......  But the probable truth is, you were most likely not overpaid ACA.  Just a thought......


----------



## 421_434_226 (19 May 2014)

Hmmmm, wonder if I should get an audit done on the PLD I use to receive when in North Bay, you know DAA that $6/month that we use to get.


----------



## cupper (19 May 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> DAA- I just forced an audit of both my SDA and Aircrew allowance, because neither made sense, based on the CBI.
> 
> It took me a year to get the audit results (which had to gomto Ottawa), but the bad news is that I have been overpaid nearly 1k of aircrew allowance.
> 
> The good news is that they have underpaid my SDA to the tune of nearly 5k.



But in their infinite wisdom, they will pay you the $5K you were shorted, then realizing that they forgot to deduct for the overage on the ACA will proceed to deduct $2K back over time, since you were really only supposed to be paid $4K in the first place. ;D


----------



## Patrick Berrea (21 May 2014)

This is a perfect example as to why the Fin and Admin clerks should have never been merged. Yes mistakes did happen, but where less common. 

If you had a problem and went to the OR, the first question was "Admin or Pay?" Then you went to the specific clerk that most times knew the regulation with out actually having to search the DIN or PAM's. 

Never to late to change some past mistakes. If we can change the way back for Army officers Ranks, we can at least make a change back that would be beneficiall to the CAF.


----------



## CountDC (21 May 2014)

Didnt help that so many of the Fin clks pulled the plug and most of the training is geared towards admin.   When it comes to fin it is hard to find anyone that actually knows anything other than what the computer tells them.  Over the last 10 years I have tested many clerks with one simple question - if the computer system went down and you had to calculate a mbrs pay how would you do it.  Everytime the answer was - I would look at what they received last pay and issue that to them.  Next question - how would you do that when the system is down?  deers, headlights.    I get weird looks because I have an adding machine and use it, including running a ribbon on occassions.  What a silly and quaint idea.

We certainly need more fin training but in all honesty I am not sure that would have helped in this case.  No matter what training you have if you are not going to check a page and confirm that the mbr is within the boundary it doesn't matter.


----------



## DaveM12 (5 Jun 2014)

Does anyone have a current link to a map of the PLD zones for Toronto?  I've found a few olders posts but none the links are active and google is coming up short. 

Thanks.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Jun 2014)

Not sure if this will work....


----------



## upandatom (11 Jul 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> There are single quarters and RHU's available. Up until this month, all single quarters were with room mates. There is now the option to get your own room for an extra $210/ mth. There are at least 300 single members living in RHUs, doubling and tripling up by choice. Rent for RHUs runs between 900-1500 I believe, and is about 100-150% below market value, so the rates increase annually and whenever someone moves out. The average house price in Cold Lake is about 365K, with recent members posted in saying they couldn't fine decent family housing for under 400K. Rents are ridiculous in town. They range from $800/mth for an illegal apartment (1 room in the basement with some shared access), to 2400+/mth for any type of house/condo. Add into that the additional cost of living (more for groceries, daycare, vehicle/home maintenance) and you quickly get the picture.
> 
> Also, there is a large gap in the quality of life between the different MOCs. Not everyone is a pilot or gets spec pay. A lot of the support trades (read Log), and DND civilians are trying to get by on significantly less, and honestly I'm not sure how single members, or one income families are doing it.


Disclaimer- I realise this may be an old post, but whatever, this issue is hitting particularly close to home with the "we will send you wherever even if you have to claim bankruptcy"

Starters, 
A posting is not a course, the fact that members are cohabitating in the same room is beyond me. Thats ridiculous. They want family to become a huge part of Military life now. Cant start dating, living, being with someone if you have a roommate, IN the same damn room. There becomes a point when someone wants to start a family, find a wife, Cold Lake is bad enough for that possibility now, I cant believe it if its "hey baby come over while my roommate watches."

I more then understand the need and the push to get Military members living off of the local economy. However, low cost PMQ housing is the best way to do it. You have members save money by living in AFFORDABLE housing, those with the families bank coin, save and buy at their next posting taking advantage of IRP Benefits. You can not do that overpaying for a house that has horrible insulation. I do not know what the food cost is etc there, I can not comment on that, I do know how much a medium coffee costs, and that brings me to my next point;  

Cold Lake is not the only problem, Look at soaring gas prices in Quebec, been steady at what for 1.45- 1.50 for a good three weeks to a month now. The PMQs are dead in the middle of St Jean and Montreal. those travelling either way are burning through fuel like no tomorrow. Units Schedules are different to alleviate travel time so that takes out the possiblity of Car Pooling, 
There is no relative difference in the cost of an Apartment on the South Shore, or on the island. The only difference is is the travel time to and from work, and the related fuel costs. South Shore for whatever reason recieves less PLD, 319, on the Island its 505. (on the island you get taxed down to 280, so you receive a benefit and get taxed HEAVY on that benefit for getting that benefit)
Add in the ridiculous tax rate- for what?? nothing, I have yet to see any benefits of those taxes that came with two provincial elections, concrete portions of highways falling onto cars, and people burning the Canadian Flag. 
I am all for a Canadian Wide Military Equivalent Tax Rate, or you are taxed out of your home province where you enlisted. 

FYI- Tax Rate wise, a quebec medium Coffee is 20 cents more. 

Before I get bombarded here, 
I know we are paid well (some trades need boosts for sure). But that pay doesnt always work out to what we need. The cost on the families that are seperated because they simply can not afford to live together in those provinces, the fuel, the vehicle maintenance, flights etc. Adds up. IT forces alot of families of good soldiers, airmen and seaman to release. 

The CAF used to thrive as a whole with the close knit PMQ community. Canex thrived, Bases Economies thrived, there was a sense of neighbourhood in them. CAF needs that, especially for the Junior Ranks.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (13 Jul 2014)

How does this changed policy apply to those posted back to the geographic area they joined from? 

Say a member enrolled in Edmonton, was posted to Shilo and then posted back to Edmonton, are they entitled to PLD, or do they not get it because that's where they enrolled from?


----------



## Tibbson (13 Jul 2014)

I have a subordinate who was posted to our base that has PLD and although he bought a house in the area he didnt get PLD.  He claims he filled out the forms but he never got it and didnt follow it up.  Once it came up around the lunch room I had him follow up and he had to resubmit the forms but now they say he will only get it from the time he submitted the forms, not the date he got posted here and bought his house.  He's out about a years worth of PLD as a rsult.  I'm unable to find a policy and all the clerk will tell him is "thats the rule".  I'm going to get a bit more engaged to try to assist themember but does anyone have any similar experience to draw from and is he actually restricted from claming "back PLD"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jul 2014)

Ask the clerk to show the reference that authorizes this.  There is only one CBI for PLD that I know of.  

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page#sec-45

Print this off, go the OR with him and ask them to show you in the CBI where it says that.  If they still don't see the light, a memo up the CofC would be where I go next.  Informal might work, but I would bet 2 months pay that if the mbr has to submit a grievance, he will win it.

I'm wondering if this BOR is Hfx (based on my own experiences and that of a few others I knew).  I found that admin org to be the worst I'd ever dealt with.  Sorry to anyone who works there but its the truth.  I often knew admin policy better than the person I was dealing with and there were multiple screw-ups I then had to submit memo's to correct and chase my tail.  

FWIW, when I was posted to Shearwater in 2007 or so, the Sgt I was working for had never received PLD, actually didn't know what we were talking about.  He went to the WOR and asked about it.  They audited his pay and sure enough, he had never received PLD and had been posted to the Halifax PLDA since PLD had come to be.  Required paperwork was done and the next month, the mbr received PLD for the entire period, minus taxes and it was quite a bit of $.  Obviously he wasn't penalized for not receiving it when he should have.

If I were this member, I wouldn't hesitate to submit a grievance if this isn't resolved with common sense by the BOR CofC.


----------



## DAA (13 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I have a subordinate who was posted to our base that has PLD and although he bought a house in the area he didnt get PLD.  He claims he filled out the forms but he never got it and didnt follow it up.  Once it came up around the lunch room I had him follow up and he had to resubmit the forms but now they say he will only get it from the time he submitted the forms, not the date he got posted here and bought his house.  He's out about a years worth of PLD as a rsult.  I'm unable to find a policy and all the clerk will tell him is "thats the rule".  I'm going to get a bit more engaged to try to assist themember but does anyone have any similar experience to draw from and is he actually restricted from claming "back PLD"?



He's entitled to the benefit from the date he arrived in the PLD area for duty and NOT based on when the forms/request were submitted.  It's a simple entry in to CCPS, a couple clicks and the system will pay it all the way back to the effective date.


----------



## upandatom (14 Jul 2014)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> How does this changed policy apply to those posted back to the geographic area they joined from?
> 
> Say a member enrolled in Edmonton, was posted to Shilo and then posted back to Edmonton, are they entitled to PLD, or do they not get it because that's where they enrolled from?



Enrollment Geographic Area does not matter, its where the CAF sends you.

There should be an geographic area specific team, say a week long study, that is conducted once a year, in winter time to see how much each base costs to live/work at. 
-rent
-food
-taxes
-fuel
-utilities
With the treasury board being more preceptive to the input, as opposed to a bunch of red tape bullshit and review.

I will say this again. 

There is no reason why one Cpl in one posting should have a better quality of life then Cpl in another posting because the latter drew the short straw. They should have the exact same take home every payday, Taxes included. You dont do this you breed a culture of Haves and Have nots.


----------



## Cbbmtt (16 Jul 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Enrollment Geographic Area does not matter, its where the CAF sends you.
> 
> There should be an geographic area specific team, say a week long study, that is conducted once a year, in winter time to see how much each base costs to live/work at.
> -rent
> ...



I agree with you on this regarding costs of living such as heating and accomodations. However, an airport in the civie world that has very few planes going through it usually pays less for an ATC, however with the Forces you get the same pay no matter what work load you have.

I'm currently on PAT awaiting my course in September and I'm in Comox. The cost of living is higher, however the weather and location is 10x's better than that of say Greenwood. However, in Greenwood you are saving a lot of money on lodging. Does the guy in Comox deserve to get more PLD to make it more even with the guy in Greenwood?

What I'm trying to say is that I have no clue how they can rate a location based on just money spent?


----------



## stealthylizard (16 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I have a subordinate who was posted to our base that has PLD and although he bought a house in the area he didnt get PLD.  He claims he filled out the forms but he never got it and didnt follow it up.  Once it came up around the lunch room I had him follow up and he had to resubmit the forms but now they say he will only get it from the time he submitted the forms, not the date he got posted here and bought his house.  He's out about a years worth of PLD as a rsult.  I'm unable to find a policy and all the clerk will tell him is "thats the rule".  I'm going to get a bit more engaged to try to assist themember but does anyone have any similar experience to draw from and is he actually restricted from claming "back PLD"?



When I was in Edmonton, I wasn't getting PLD (paperwork got lost in the shuffle somewhere between 1VP and 3 VP).  When I was going through my release, it all got sorted out, and I received 8 months "back PLD", along with getting my rations/quarters paid back for the same period.

Lesson I learned, always check your pay stubs.  I hadn't run into any monetary difficulties because I still had money in the bank from Afghanistan.


----------



## DAA (16 Jul 2014)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> How does this changed policy apply to those posted back to the geographic area they joined from?
> 
> Say a member enrolled in Edmonton, was posted to Shilo and then posted back to Edmonton, are they entitled to PLD, or do they not get it because that's where they enrolled from?



You are entitled to PLD based on the location you are "posted" to.  Location of enrolment, no longer has any bearing on this.  At one time it did but it doesn't any longer.  The only change was to the "interpretation" of the policy and  how it was being applied to NEW enrolments while they were attending BMQ.

So if you happened to live in and were enrolled in Toronto, went to BMQ in St Jean, then went to Borden for QL3 training and happened to be posted back to Toronto, you're entitled to PLD.  Regardless of marital status nor whether or not you relocated DHG&E.


----------



## upandatom (17 Jul 2014)

TB, needs to get its head out of its Ass. 

Dragging feet on matter such as this is ridiculous. (When it deals with peoples money and pay, sure as shit should be handled ASAP)
(FYI for those that dont know, the ACISS side of the house has been waiting approximately 3 years for word about spec pay, while still doing the exact same job, because of TB and the beurocratic bullshit pertaining to it)

WRT to PLD, 
There needs to be a location orientated team, based in that area/base/wing, that takes into account the local economical pressures and the local NON Military populace and the cost of living. A brief review done every year by that team that interviews, analyzes, and looks at the cost to live in that area, which includes housing, taxes, school etc. 

I know the Income of the civilian population in Cold Lake is higher then the average military income. No way should military members be taking second jobs for the need to, to pay heating bills, etc. 

The volunteers would have to be from all walks of military life, Single, Married, Divorced, etc.  Service couples, Single income and dual income homes. 

Dont take into account a gucci posting as opposed to a could be bad one (Comox/Cold Lake or Trenton, Bagotville) 

Look at the cost of that run of the mill 3 bedroom house for that family in Comox, Compare it to the cost of an equivalent (Quality equivalent as well, dont just be looking at the shittiest houses on the market) in trenton, in Ottawa, in Petawawa, wherever, do proper cost comparisons. 

and then in turn, Look at the cost of the money the members are paying if they are seperated from family, ie single fathers away from their children etc. 

This all needs to be taken into consideration. Thats how you would compare cost difference,


----------



## stokerwes (17 Jul 2014)

Feel for you on the Spec pay issue. Mar. Eng.have been going the same process about three years as well. The PLD has been "under review" forever. Its just a matter of time before its gone though, in my opinion. TB can cherry pick which directives apply to DND, specifically CAF.2


----------



## Jlhwtp1 (1 Sep 2014)

Had a similar thing happen to myself upon retirment and attempting to recover closing costs. I was out about $29,000 give or take. I was frustrated at first, looked to blame, but solely in the end the problem lay upon the guy in the mirror. When allowances change it was my duty to read those silky sop posted everywhere.


----------



## messenger (15 Sep 2014)

Hi all,

I found this in the OR.

I hand wrote the hwy numbers in red.

Messenger.


----------



## DAA (15 Sep 2014)

:goodpost:


I do believe that that would be the current map.


----------



## flatlander13 (2 Nov 2014)

Just received a posting message for Petawawa. Can someone tell me if Pet gets PLD? I don't see it listed in CBI 205.45, unless it falls under Ottawa. Thanks!


----------



## 63 Delta (2 Nov 2014)

No it doesnt. The cost of living is reasonable in Petawawa.


----------



## flatlander13 (2 Nov 2014)

Thanks for the quick reply, Hulk.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> There needs to be a location orientated team, based in that area/base/wing, that takes into account the local economical pressures and the local NON Military populace and the cost of living. A brief review done every year by that team that interviews, analyzes, and looks at the cost to live in that area, which includes housing, taxes, school etc.



On that note, an update:  CF's looking for someone to do a "Cost of Living Survey" to help figure out PLD rates:


> .... In June 2000, the Treasury Board of Canada approved a cost of living allowance for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) called Post Living Differential (PLD). This allowance has evolved since its inception. Today, qualifying CAF personnel will be compensated by PLD if their overall cost of living is greater than the simple average of all major Canadian Armed Forces members posted to the location will form a Standard City: the baseline for determining the differential at all designated areas. A cost of living survey – based on the CAF-determined family size and household income – of all CAF locations in Canada is required on an annual basis to determine the PLD amount payable.  Surveys for PLD for fiscal year 2015/2016 are required to be done in the January-February 2015 period to support a recalculated PLD rate effective 1 April 2015. Surveys in subsequent fiscal years are required to be done in the October-November period to support a recalculated PLD rate effective 1 April the following calendar year ....


More (including which cities they'll be checking) in the attached Statement of Work.


----------



## TCM621 (21 Nov 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> TB, needs to get its head out of its ***.
> 
> Dragging feet on matter such as this is ridiculous. (When it deals with peoples money and pay, sure as crap should be handled ASAP)
> (FYI for those that dont know, the ACISS side of the house has been waiting approximately 3 years for word about spec pay, while still doing the exact same job, because of TB and the beurocratic bullshit pertaining to it)
> ...


TB's head is out of its ass. They are not doing this because they are ill informed. This is either a purposeful course of action or they are so incompetent and useless that Canadians should be frightened about who holds the purse strings in this country.


----------



## Sub_Guy (24 Nov 2014)

CAF Standard City Baseline: This report is to provide a simple average of all major
Canadian Armed Forces locations- 20 or more Canadian Armed Forces members posted
to the location- will form the Standard City: the baseline for determining the differential at
all designated areas.

I wonder what will be considered the new "standard city"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2014)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> CAF Standard City Baseline: This report is to provide a simple average of all major
> Canadian Armed Forces locations- 20 or more Canadian Armed Forces members posted
> to the location- will form the Standard City: the baseline for determining the differential at
> all designated areas.
> ...



Likely the one that is the most that has the highest PLD benefits at this time.   8)


----------



## MJP (24 Nov 2014)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I wonder what will be considered the new "standard city"?



Pure speculation but Winnipeg seems to fit the bill.  Moderate cost of living increases on par with national inflation and a real estate market that is generally stable (although 2006-2012 had some unprecedended increases.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2014)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> CAF Standard City Baseline: This report is to provide a simple average of all major Canadian Armed Forces locations- 20 or more Canadian Armed Forces members posted to the location- will form the Standard City: the baseline for determining the differential at all designated areas.
> 
> I wonder what will be considered the new "standard city"?


The way I'm reading it (as clunkily written as it is) is that they'll take the average of places with +20 CF folks living there as a "CAF Standard City Baseline".

Although I wrestle with read bureaucratese daily, I stand to be corrected.


----------



## Occam (24 Nov 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The way I'm reading it (as clunkily written as it is) is that they'll take the average of places with +20 CF folks living there as a "CAF Standard City Baseline".
> 
> Although I wrestle with read bureaucratese daily, I stand to be corrected.



I'd take it as the report is to calculate the average of all places with >20 CF pers, and the city that ends up being nearest that average will end up as the Standard City.  Yes, the wording of the SOW needs some major surgery.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Nov 2014)

As long as its regularly updated, any change is a good change.


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Nov 2014)

It'd also be nice if they made all the information available to the members, as suggested in an onbudsman report a few years ago.

I would really like to see how they come up with the numbers.


----------



## Sub_Guy (26 Nov 2014)

Old methodology

The cost of living will be based on a representative CF household defined as: 
a. gross income based on the average CF salary; and
b. family size as determined from the CF personnel records or periodic surveys of CF members. Current representative family size of three persons is derived from the 1998 CF Household Survey.

The household expenditure pattern, including the category weightings, will be based on the Canadian average for a household of similar income and family size, as described in the Statistics Canada Family Expenditure Survey (FAMEX).
Cost of living differences will be determined by the pricing of a representative selection of the items in the FAMEX and any additional items determined by DND as being necessary to meet the CF requirement. As a minimum, the data collected and representative items priced will provide sufficient indication of spatial differences in expenditure by the representative household in the following categories: 
a. income tax - the total combined federal and provincial income tax paid annually; 
b. transportation - total annual cost; 
c. rent for renters and mortgage interest for homeowners;
d. property (real estate) tax for homeowners; 
e. home maintenance cost for homeowners;
f. household/renter insurance; 
g. utilities;
h. goods and services, to include: 
(1) food items (consumed at home and away from home); 
(2) clothing; 
(3) household items, including furniture; 
(4) personal care; 
(5) medical and dental care; 
(6) domestic services, including child-care; 
(7) recreation; and 
( 8 ) alcohol and tobacco. 
i. expenditure on sales tax, if not included in the pricing of relevant items; and
j. miscellaneous items, to include expenditures not included elsewhere (e.g., education costs) and savings and investments. 
Homeowner costs will be based on: 
a. the home size indicated by the Canadian average expenditure profile; 
b. home purchases for the last 12 months (12 months may be expanded for locations where there is insufficient real estate market activity for meaningful analysis); 
c. the rolling average interest rate for a five-year closed mortgage; and 
d. a 20% down-payment. 

*And the NEW*

The cost of living survey will focus on the communities within designated areas, see attachment 1
to the Statement of Work, where CAF members normally reside. As a minimum, the data collected and
representative items priced will provide sufficient indication of spatial differences in expenditure by the
representative household in the following components:
a*. Shelter (Rental Only):   <-------  Rental only..... *   
b. Goods and Services;
c. Transportation; and
d. Taxation


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Nov 2014)

Oh my. That is going to make things interesting. Especially in places where there is no appreciable rental market...


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Nov 2014)

Interesting that Page 25 of the SOW includes Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Iqaluit -- even though all three locations are currently exempt from PLD and receive isolation allowances instead.

The same list includes Ottawa, Ottawa-Gatineau, and Gatineau. Which seems to me a strong indicator that they haven't made up their mind about whether the NCR will be one rate (as it is now, $0 on both sides) or will be two rates divided by the river.

And given the recent issues in Halifax with members and units not knowing the exact geographical boundaries of the garrison, and therefore members getting PLD clawed back, I really hope that the accurate geographical boundaries of all locations are provided in an annex to the SOW.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And given the recent issues in Halifax with members and units not knowing the exact geographical boundaries of the garrison, and therefore members getting PLD clawed back, I really hope that the accurate geographical boundaries of all locations are provided in an annex to the SOW.


I hope these things are defined _somewhere_, because there are no maps in the RFP at all (see whole pkg attached).


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Nov 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As long as its regularly updated, any change is a good change.



Only if you are looking for the system to be fairer.  Right now we spend more on PLD than the TB envelope allows, which means, on the whole, less money will be dispensed for PLD.  Mind you, some savings will come from the indefensible rank-based reductions, that will see some ranks receive 50% of the allowance, and others 0%.


----------



## DAA (26 Nov 2014)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Only if you are looking for the system to be fairer.  Right now we spend more on PLD than the TB envelope allows, which means, on the whole, less money will be dispensed for PLD.  Mind you, some savings will come from the indefensible rank-based reductions, that will see some ranks receive 50% of the allowance, and others 0%.



Am I reading this correctly?  As in a full pendulum swing from the "AAA" days, where the allowance was paid not just based on family size but "rank" (ie; higher ranks got more $$$) and now we may very well be going back to a system where "rank" and or salary level will be factored into the equation?  Something along the lines of, the higher the rank, the more income you earn, therefore, the less PLD you shall receive?


----------



## MissMercury (21 Jan 2015)

Hi All,

Just wondering if anyone has current info on what bases get PLD and how much? 

Thanks!


----------



## DAA (21 Jan 2015)

CBI 205.45   ---->  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page#sec-45


----------



## rocksteady (14 Feb 2015)

Anyone know what the accomodation assistance allowance is for Yellowknife?

MCpl
x2 dependants
Reg Force

I'm not sure how to calculate it. 

Thx!

CBI 205.43
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page#sec-45


----------



## Duckman54 (19 Feb 2015)

Here's hoping the April/2015 re-calc  (according to final pages of the SOW pdf) will include some new cities?
I'm Reg Force on OJT at a Reserve unit (Rocky Mtn Rangers B-Coy, Prince George BC) with a COL undoubtedly above the current baseline.

Kamloops (Rocky Mtn Rangers A-Coy) and Kelowna (BC Dragoons) are both solely reserve units, and have been included on the PLD table, and Prince George is pretty much identical to Kamloops in terms of costs. I know bcz I lived in Kamloops 7 yrs before moving to PG 3 yrs ago.

...not holding my breath, tho...

Although not a huge deal (already lived here before enrollment), it would be nice as I took quite a pay cut to join the Forces, and after 2 yrs of a lower wage my family is starting to feel the pinch!

Just wondering if there was a way to appeal for inclusion? Or is it simply "if your town ain't on the list, you're BEAT!" kinda thing?

'Greg.


----------



## Cbbmtt (20 Feb 2015)

If your city is not on the list, no dice.

I have a question as well, I understand that if you are co-habitating with another force member you are entitled to 75% of PLD. Do they take taxes based off or your income or is it like your posting allowance where they take like 48%?


----------



## Pusser (26 Feb 2015)

Cbbmtt said:
			
		

> I have a question as well, I understand that if you are co-habitating with another force member you are entitled to 75% of PLD. Do they take taxes based off or your income or is it like your posting allowance where they take like 48%?



Your taxes are based on your total income.  Whatever they withhold when you receive PLD (or any other allowance for that matter) is an estimate based on what your expected total income for that year is going to be.  In the case of Posting Allowance, Brookfield tends to withhold the maximum simply to ensure you don't underpay and end up owing it later.  It all comes out in the wash when you file your income tax return.  If you've overpaid, you'll get it back and if you've underpaid, you will owe.  If you want to reduce the amount of money withheld, go to your pay office and ensure that your TD1 is up to date and accurate.  This could mean that you receive more money in your bank account twice a month - of course it could also mean that you income tax refund will be smaller as well (i.e. because you've already received that money over the course of the year).

In a perfect world, if your TD1 is accurate, your income tax refund or amount owing come tax time, should actually be zero (but we don't live in a perfect world  )


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Mar 2015)

Anyone heard an ETA on the updated PLD rates that are supposed to be effective 1 Apr 15 as per the SOW posted earlier?


----------



## Ostrozac (21 Mar 2015)

It'll most likely be announced several month late -- and then allowances backdated to 1 April 2015. If we're lucky, there will be Transitional PLD for locations that have reduced rates. That's what happened the last time. But it isn't automatic, especially if the intent is to reduce overall PLD expenditures, as TPLD bucks against that trend. After all, there are still pers collecting TPLD for Ottawa/Gatineau/NCR, even though it's at zero-rate for new members posted in.


----------



## winterstorm35 (2 Apr 2015)

anything new on pld?


----------



## winterstorm35 (2 Apr 2015)

Also would like to know if Halifax is that expensive as a posting?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Apr 2015)

NS taxes are high. Housing is okay in the right areas IMO.  Expect to lose 48% of Hfx PLD to taxes.  Parking sucks.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Apr 2015)

Food's expensive, hydro is outrageous.  It's not necessarily cheap to live here.  Folks leave here to go inland to places like Ottawa for example, lose PLD and SDA but find they have more money in their pockets nevertheless.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Apr 2015)

Yup, and the PLD looks good at $631/month.   I saw about $180 of that per pay after taxes.  People who are posted from Comox to Greenwod say they have about $600 a month less in their accounts after taxes etc.

Worst part is watching the provincial government piss away money on stupid shit like the Yarmouth fery and Bluenose resoration.   :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Apr 2015)

Agreed on the Bluenose in particular.  Dexter should be tarred and feathered for that fiasco.  Yup, my wallet wishes I had never asked to be posted here so long long ago.


----------



## 277to081 (3 Apr 2015)

Amen, no offence intended to people who love or are from the maritimes, but I can't stand living here. Pay the most taxes with the least to show for it. 

As for living in the Valley: 
- No PLD at all.
- Car maintenance is increased due to the horrendous road conditions, it is impossible to avoid the potholes. 
- My NS Power bill for a two month period, just after moving here 5 years ago, was over $1200. 
- It is damn near impossible to find anyone to do any work or service for you that can do a professional job and will show up on time or even at all.
- I hope you like Pizza, because that is all you get for restaurant choices. Although there are one or two decent other spots around, you get tired of picking between pasta jax and sushi fang every time without having to drive 40 min to Wolfville.

I am a BC guy though, so I guess I am a little biased, but I did live in Ottawa for a while and that is a fantastic place to live. I was actually there during the PLD transition where Ottawa was supposed to be the baseline at 0$ and they were supposed to deny PLD to people posted in and decrease everyone else by a 1/3 each year, over the next 3-4 years. That apparently changed though, they did deny new people posted in, but they didn't decrease anyone else's that was already there. So I went on making a couple hundred extra a month in PLD, while the new guy sitting next to me, doing the exact same job, got nothing. That didn't make sense to me.


----------



## Cbbmtt (8 Apr 2015)

Just moved from Comox to Moose Jaw. I was like yeah PLD!!! But then I realized the Provincial taxes are 6% higher so I lost $170 a month to taxes and PLD is $284 - Tax is $194 so really I'm getting an additional $24.

I've got nothing to complain about however compared to Nova Scotia, so I'll just hold my tongue. But I will definatly say that I was shocked that the cost of living here in the middle of the prairies was equal to Comox. I really thought it would be cheaper.


----------



## upandatom (8 Apr 2015)

Cbbmtt said:
			
		

> Just moved from Comox to Moose Jaw. I was like yeah PLD!!! But then I realized the Provincial taxes are 6% higher so I lost $170 a month to taxes and PLD is $284 - Tax is $194 so really I'm getting an additional $24.
> 
> I've got nothing to complain about however compared to Nova Scotia, so I'll just hold my tongue. But I will definatly say that I was shocked that the cost of living here in the middle of the prairies was equal to Comox. I really thought it would be cheaper.



You arent even heating your home yet.......


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Apr 2015)

277to081 said:
			
		

> Amen, no offence intended to people who love or are from the maritimes, but I can't stand living here. Pay the most taxes with the least to show for it.
> 
> As for living in the Valley:
> - No PLD at all.
> ...



I am a NS guy, and everything you said about ZX is spot on..  I'd love to get back to BC.

I find it odd that the PLD system hasn't been revamped, I am not saying we deserve it in Greenwood, but Halifax pulling in over $600?  When there are communities in the Halifax geographical PLD zone that are just as cheap (real estate wise) as Greenwood.   I am looking forward to the results of the new PLD survey


----------



## upandatom (8 Apr 2015)

It wont get changed within a reasonable time frame that will allow the people that are currently affected much relief. 

Isn't the TB out of bounds for the next 8 months due to a restructuring or modernizing of how they do things?


----------



## dapaterson (8 Apr 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> It wont get changed within a reasonable time frame that will allow the people that are currently affected much relief.
> 
> Isn't the TB out of bounds for the next 8 months due to a restructuring or modernizing of how they do things?



Any restrictions on TB in the next little while would be due to an election being called.

Generally, TB meets weekly, from mid-January through early June (with possibly a week or two off), then resumes sitting from mid-September through early December (again, with possibly a week or two off).  Urgent matters and emergencies are sometimes addressed by extraordinary meetings, but the Secretariat that supports TB is very good at enforcing "a lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part".

An election in October would mean the last sitting would likely be in early June, and not resume again until early November.  The November sittings would be filled with some routine business of government, possibly together with some high priorities announced by the government in their speech from the throne.

Thus, unless something gets approved by June, it's unlikely it will be approved until late in the year (or possibly next year).


----------



## BigDaddyFatback (9 Apr 2015)

Just got Aprils pay statement. Anyone know why pld from July 2007 to July 2010 has been clawed back? $583.83 was taken off my pay. Then a credit of 390, related to pld also. Looks like im missing almost $200 for some reason. I was in kingston at the time and I thought that was the agreed pld at that time.


----------



## 421_434_226 (9 Apr 2015)

They got $228 from me with a credit of $144, something about Remission Order PLD, wonder if they would have sent me a bill if I had remained retired.


----------



## DAA (9 Apr 2015)

I'd suggest paying a visit to your local Orderly Room and obtaining a more detailed explanation of just what those deducations were for.

There was guidance issued quite sometime ago about all this but back then, I don't think there was an intent to recover these funds.  Maybe something changed.


----------



## upandatom (9 Apr 2015)

Yeah what was with that, 
I have been out for 3 months now, and received that "paystub" with no explanation what the hell it was about.

If you do the math, it adds up that the Remission Order PLD+ Income tax deducted + CPP + EI should work out the total PLD allowance "Clawback"?
Ie- mine was 657.07 
122.74 taxes, 32.53 CPP 12.35 EI and 489.45 Remission order.

The 657.07 was clawed back, So in turn it being a taxable benefit, 
167.80 is refunded back, and the Remission order covers the rest of it bringing it too 657 to balance out.


----------



## BigDaddyFatback (9 Apr 2015)

Just got this info sent to me from DAA, credit to him/her.

**** - para 3 has been omitted, as it dealt with MATA/PATA allowances.

1.      The purpose of this email is to provide an update on the way forward with regards to discrepancies in the payment of specific benefits and allowances.
2.      As previously communicated, the periodic review of various financial transactions identified discrepancies in the administration of Maternity and Parental benefits (MATA/PATA), Post Living Differential (PLD) and payment of environmental allowances to many serving and released Regular Force and Reserve Force Class C members.  These errors have resulted in both underpayments and overpayments of MATA/PATA and overpayments only of PLD and/or environmental allowances.  Where there have been underpayments, those payments will be made to the affected members shortly after the release of the Admin AIG in the coming weeks.  Where there have been overpayments, there is no intent to recover these funds. The Department and the CAF are seeking the required financial approvals and mechanisms to make such intent a reality in these three specific cases identified in the review. 
4.      With regard to issue #2 - Post Living differential (PLD), as of 1 Jul 07, for locations where the amount of PLD was under 50 dollars a month, PLD was no longer to be paid. However, payments continued for those located in Kingston, London, and North Bay, Ontario; Nanaimo, British Columbia; and St-Hyacinthe, Quebec.  Consequently, 3,250 personnel were overpaid an average of 362 dollars and there is no intent to recover.

5.      With regard to issue #3 - Land Duty Allowance (LDA), Paratroop Allowance (PARATPA) and Rescue Specialist Allowance (RESSPECA) were erroneously and simultaneously paid with hardship allowance (HA) and/or risk allowance (RA) since.  These errors were discovered in 2013.  Contrary to regulations, these benefits cannot be paid concurrently.  As a result, 1,197 personnel were overpaid an average of 231 dollars and the majority of these overpayments occurred while personnel were deployed to Afghanistan.  There is no intent to recover this money


----------



## misratah500 (6 Jun 2015)

Anyone know when we can expect to hear anything on the changes to this. Do you guys think it's getting cut or phased out?


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jun 2015)

If they phase it out, you might as well close Edmonton, anything near Vancouver, and Toronto bases/units. Troops cannot afford to live there without it.


----------



## Ostrozac (6 Jun 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If they phase it out, you might as well close Edmonton, anything near Vancouver, and Toronto bases/units. Troops cannot afford to live there without it.



Yep. That's what's called a second order effect. If the decision is ever made for zero PLD, then a large number of units would have to move, and the Navy would take yet another major hit to it's retention rates.

As far as I'm tracking, no decision has been made yet. But it's a normal thing to wargame out what the impacts of any decision could be.


----------



## molsonman (17 Jun 2015)

What sites/sources are you using to track current information about PLD?


----------



## molsonman (26 Aug 2015)

Any current information on the status of PLD?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Aug 2015)

Yes.  There is an election on 19 Oct.

That is all.


----------



## Bucky (14 Mar 2016)

I can't help but notice that the maps in this thread aren't accessible anymore. Is there a link (DWAN or Internet) where I can figure out which geographical areas correspond to the "zones" in and around Toronto? 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## CountDC (15 Mar 2016)

Try this as it just worked for me:

cmp-cpm.mil.ca/assets/cmp_intranet/docs/en/gb-toronto.doc


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2016)

Or navigate to the list like this:

CMP Homepage

Benefits dropdown - Generic Benefits

Relocation Management

Geographical Boundaries

You will then have a list of locations.

http://cmp-cpm.mil.ca/en/benefits/geographical-boundaries.page


----------



## biscuitlee (8 Aug 2016)

Is there any way I can take a look at those "zones" without DWAN access? I've done quite a bit of digging, and it's surprisingly hard to find


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2016)

As far as I know, the information is only posted to the DWAN.


----------



## biscuitlee (8 Aug 2016)

I'm guessing it's unclass? If someone can post it here or email it to me that would be much appreciated


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2016)

Some are avail on Intranet...try your google-fu for the area you're looking for....PLDA are (usually) almost a match to Geo Boundaries...not perfect but something.

http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Kingston/EN/Facilities/Yacht%20Club/CFBGeoBoundaries/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## Danny78 (20 Aug 2016)

Hi, another guy looking for the Toronto area 1 map boundaries if anyone has it? No dwan access currently. Thanks!


----------



## Lumber (31 Aug 2016)

Wow. What  thread. I had to open it up in "print view" so I could search the whole document at once.

Alas, didn't find _quite_ what I was looking for.

I have a peculiar situation, and instead of hashing it all out, I'm trying to find specific answers to particular parts of my conundrum.

1. Definition of "place of duty". The CBI is pretty clear: "means the place at which an officer or non-commissioned member usually performs their normal military duties". What's interesting is that term "posting" or "posted" anywhere. 

Let's say a member is officially posted to unit A, but is being employed every day at unit B, and unit B is outside of the geographical area of unit A. Further, this member is not attach-posted or on TD at unit B, they are just spending there days working there. 

Is there official "place of duty" Unit B? IAW the definition, it would appear so, but after reading through this thread, there seems to have been a few "clarifications" over the years from DCBA that seem to contradict the CBIs.


----------



## Ostrozac (31 Aug 2016)

(((Heavily redacted from my original comment, I found Chapter 6 of CFTDI, which was untitled, but solves the issue, the subtext of CFTDI seems to be that if you're on duty outside the geographical boundaries of your place of duty, then you're on TD)))

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/temp-duty-travel-instructions.page

Intuitively, duty travel outside the geographical boundaries should be covered by something, CFTPO, TD Instruction, Attach Posting Instruction, something.  And if you're posted to 3RCR Petawawa but your job everyday is at Connaught Range NCR -- then your career manager should post you to the NCR. You driving from Pet to Connaught every day makes no sense.

This is complicated by the fact that geographical boundaries are of inconsistent size, and I seem to remember that at least one overlapped -- is it still the case that the town of Renfrew is inside both Petawawa and the NCR's geographical boundaries? Or did I imagine that one?

All of this applies only to the Reg Force -- I served on RSS and I still don't pretend to understand how geographical boundaries intersect with Primary Reserve units, especially units that have sub-units in multiple locations.


----------



## Lumber (1 Sep 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Intuitively, duty travel outside the geographical boundaries should be covered by something, CFTPO, TD Instruction, Attach Posting Instruction, something.  And if you're posted to 3RCR Petawawa but your job everyday is at Connaught Range NCR -- then your career manager should post you to the NCR. You driving from Pet to Connaught every day makes no sense.



Ok I'm about to complicate the sh*t out of your scenario, but it mirrors my actual situation almost exactly (well, not MY situation, but the situation of someone working for me).

Anyways, following your example, the member just came back from a prohibited posting in Gagetown doing phase training. He is now on a prohibited posting in Petawawa. His principle residence the entire time has been his parent's house, which is where he lived when he enrolled. Guess where his principle residence is? The NCR! So, his chain of command in Petawawa, realizing that they had no work for him there, simply told him to go live with his parents, and work at the Connaught range until further notice.

Posted Prohibited to a Unit in Petawawa (Unit A);
Works Every Day at Connaught Range (Unit B);
Lives at his principle residence (within geographic bounds of Unit B); so
Is his "place of duty" Unit A or Unit B?


----------



## CountDC (1 Sep 2016)

fun.  Sounds to me like his temporary place of duty is B as he has been given a temporary workplace change by his chain of command.  Trying to find the regulation on this - I know CFTDI covers it in part 5 but there should be something in CFAO/DAODs.  Don't see him getting any benefits out of it though as his residence is in the NCR.  Travel is less than going to Pet so no mileage there, PLD will be based on his residence and the NCR does not get PLD (except those that have been there forever still getting TPLD).


----------



## captloadie (1 Sep 2016)

If he is Reg Force, why don't they just attach post him to a unit in Ottawa? There are no financial implications for the unit, especially if the member chooses to live at home with his parents. We do it all the time in the RCAF when members are awaiting training but want to be close to their families. Hell sometimes we even post someone to their new unit, then attach post them back to their previous unit until APS if it meets everyone's needs.


----------



## Lumber (1 Sep 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> fun.  Sounds to me like his temporary place of duty is B as he has been given a temporary workplace change by his chain of command.  Trying to find the regulation on this - I know CFTDI covers it in part 5 but there should be something in CFAO/DAODs.  Don't see him getting any benefits out of it though as his residence is in the NCR.  Travel is less than going to Pet so no mileage there, PLD will be based on his residence and the NCR does not get PLD (except those that have been there forever still getting TPLD).



In the real scenario, both Units A and B are in PLDAs that have PLD. 



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> If he is Reg Force, why don't they just attach post him to a unit in Ottawa? There are no financial implications for the unit, especially if the member chooses to live at home with his parents. We do it all the time in the RCAF when members are awaiting training but want to be close to their families. Hell sometimes we even post someone to their new unit, then attach post them back to their previous unit until APS if it meets everyone's needs.



Ha! That's funny, because in the real scenario this *IS* a member of the RCAF!


----------



## CountDC (1 Sep 2016)

I thought you only get it for the NCR if you were posted there prior to it becoming the baseline.  Anyone new posted there doesn't get it as it is not a PLD area.


----------



## Lumber (1 Sep 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I thought you only get it for the NCR if you were posted there prior to it becoming the baseline.  Anyone new posted there doesn't get it as it is not a PLD area.



The PET/NCR is a made up scenario that Ostrozac came up with. 

The real scenario involves a member of the RCAF on prohibited posting to Base A but who is working and living in the geographic boundaries of Base B (without being formally attach posted to base B). 

It's a matter of should he get PLD or TD or not.

Cheers


----------



## CountDC (1 Sep 2016)

duh - didn't click.  

TD - no as he is staying at his place of residence.

PLD is more fun.  Can't get it for Point A as his residence isn't there.  

Point B is a possible:

CBI 205.45(4) (Entitlement – Regular Force) Subject to paragraphs (7) to (19), a member of the Regular Force whose principal residence is located within a PLDA is entitled to the PLD rate for that location established in the Table to this instruction for that area.  

place of duty has the same meaning as in CBI 209.80 (Application and Definitions). which states:

place of duty
means the place at which an officer or non-commissioned member usually performs their normal military duties and includes any place in the surrounding geographical area that is determined to be part thereof by the Chief of the Defence Staff or such other officer as the Chief of the Defence Staff may designate

Soo - by theory it would seem the mbr should be getting the PLD for area B.

as a side on pld, saw this today:

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-news-events-media-letters/response-from-cds-status-of-pld-freeze-22-sept-2015.page

22 September 2015

Mr. Gary Walbourne
Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman
Department of National Defence
100 Metcalfe St, 12th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 5M1



Dear Mr. Walbourne,

Thank you for your correspondence of 31 July 2015 regarding the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) efforts toward renewing the Post Living Differential (PLD) and Transitional Post Living Differential (TPLD) benefits, and requesting an update regarding the timeline for decision and implementation.

Since this office’s last correspondence to you on 27 February 2013, the CAF has worked with Treasury Board (TB) officials and have come to a consensus on most aspects of a new PLD methodology that will better reflect the actual cost of living variances at CAF locations across Canada (less isolated Posts), continue to normalize the CAF standard of living, beresponsive to annual changes in costs of living, and be fair to all CAF personnel.

This very important benefit remains a high priority for CAF. Early this year, CAF had submitted a revised proposal – with updated PLD rates – and sought MND support to advance the file. Concurrently, TBS staff had reviewed the contractor-provided cost of living data and signalled their concurrence with the new rates. As a result the Parliament being dissolved on August 2 2015, progress towards a renewed policy approval and implementation is in abeyance until after the federal election.

As the renewal of this program remains under negotiations with TBS and the Government of Canada, we are unfortunately neither in a position to disclose further information nor to provide timelines for implementation. These restrictions equally limit the information that can be shared with CAF personnel.

Notwithstanding, CAF command teams have continued to reassure their personnel of the priority CAF places on the renewal of the PLD program and that considerable CAF effort continues to be applied towards this initiative.

Thank you again for your letter and you very genuine concerns for the welfare of our CAF members.

Sincerely,



J.H. Vance
General

cc: DM, VCDS, CMP


----------



## Lumber (1 Sep 2016)

> Notwithstanding, CAF command teams have continued to reassure their personnel of the priority CAF places on the renewal of the PLD program and that considerable CAF effort continues to be applied towards this initiative.



Really? There was already a process in place to review PLD rates every... 3 years wasn't it? They just... didn't. Cost of living is not the same as 2008. At a minimum, just give all the PLD rates an increase based on the annual inflation rate since 2008, and the reassess once you've got your new methodology. 

Plus, the election is a year past. If this is such a priority, why isn't anything being done about it?

I mean, they did announce $30bn in new spending, didn't they?

Alas, I digress. 



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Soo - by theory it would seem the mbr should be getting the PLD for area B.



This was my take. I'm waiting for the member's OR to get back to me.


----------



## FdAmbCpl (1 Sep 2016)

Looking for some information! 

I was posted to Edmonton with my service spouse from ottawa while I am still on Mata leave. I'm getting alot of different answer about whether I am entitled to pld while still on Mata,  the latest being it is already incorporated into my top up, but I'm getting the exact same amount as when I was in a no pld area. Can someone please point me in the right direction?


----------



## dapaterson (1 Sep 2016)

The CBI on MATA/PATA is poorly written in terms of what is considered an "eligible allowance".  (CBI 205.461).  I think that PLD is only included if you are in receipt of it before going on MATA/PATA, but the definition of "eligible allowances" is written in a way that I can see how there could be confusion. (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page#sec-461)


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

From iAsk:


> This question comes from several members and has continued to be of great interest.
> 
> They ask: When will the Post Living Differential, or PLD rates be adjusted? Will the current structure be assessed or changed to better meet the changing cost of living standards for CAF members to compensate for the reality of the 2016 market, as the current rates were established in 2008?
> 
> ...


----------



## MOOXE (18 Jan 2017)

Toronto PLD Map


----------



## BrewsKampbell (3 Feb 2017)

Hey team,

I'm getting back in and being posted to 3 CDSB Det Wainwright. I currently live in Gibbons AB, about 20km North of CFB Edmonton, I'm not authorized to move until after I complete my new trades QL3. I know if your not authorized to move your principle residence you can collect PLD if it falls within an area but my question is does Gibbons fall into such an area? I'm not sure what the boundaries are.

Cheers.


----------



## MJP (4 Feb 2017)

TrunkMonkey315 said:
			
		

> Hey team,
> 
> I'm getting back in and being posted to 3 CDSB Det Wainwright. I currently live in Gibbons AB, about 20km North of CFB Edmonton, I'm not authorized to move until after I complete my new trades QL3. I know if your not authorized to move your principle residence you can collect PLD if it falls within an area but my question is does Gibbons fall into such an area? I'm not sure what the boundaries are.
> 
> Cheers.



Lots of folks live up that way so you should be good.  I only say should because I can't access the actual boundaries right now.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Feb 2017)

I did see something at work on Thursday wrt PLD.  It is going under a review at the present and they say it will soon be released.  Changes "may" be coming to where you are and therefore don't be surprised if your levels change.  (Hopefully for the better as shit isn't getting any cheaper for anyone)


----------



## krimynal (23 Feb 2017)

Hey guys , bringing back an old question.

I searched for PLD in Comox , some people say it is 0$ ( which I believe ) but then I saw someone here saying it was 684$ yet I can't find if this is true or not. 

Just want to know before I select my 3 postings , because this will weight in my choices ! thanks !


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2017)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page

Have a look at 205.45 - Post Living Differential (PLD)

1.  I would never pick a posting based on PLD.  It could disappear at anytime.  Just saying.

2.  Look at other things for Comox as well, like the entire COL in the area.  What is the average mortgage, apartment, what are PMQ rates, etc.  Same hold true for any location.


----------



## krimynal (23 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page
> 
> Have a look at 205.45 - Post Living Differential (PLD)
> 
> ...



Yeah I would never base my posting looking at only PLD , actually I always looked at Realtor.ca to all the location I am interested in , I am also looking at PMQ rates to the different bases too. 

I am just wondering , right now I am on course with my PMQ at 815$ with 0 PLD , I was just checking if it would still be the same ball game or if it would differ a bit.  

Just to have a talk with the wifey and bring up every pros and cons with her !


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2017)

Good sight for checking PMQ types, rates, etc.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-support-services-housing/locations-styles.page

Provincial tax rates, energy costs are pretty important to consider as well.   :nod:


----------



## krimynal (23 Feb 2017)

yeah , Basically I am currently debating different posting locations

- Petawawa ( working on the chinook looks like a LOT of fun )
- Gagetown ( not going to lie , houses are pretty cheap and nice place to start a family )
- Bagotville ( girlfriend family is from Quebec and the house are still pretty affordable )
- Edmonton ( Always wanted to be there but houses are quite expensive )
- Comox ( well it's a dream location , I always dreamed of living next to the ocean and the outdoors , but it's not cheap by any mean )

My course should be done in July , we have to give our posting choice in like 1 month so I got to fix myself.  I have a girlfriend that is currently Pregnant and is due in August .... so that also put in some thinking of it's own. 

That's why I am really thinking about all the places possible. 

Someone here told me to pick a place to live and not a place to work , and I find it's a good advice ! haha


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Feb 2017)

krimynal said:
			
		

> - Comox ( well it's a dream location , I always dreamed of living next to the ocean and the outdoors , but it's not cheap by any mean )



Houses aren't cheap in Comox, but nearly everything else is.  Comox has everything at your doorstep.

I moved from Comox to Greenwood in 2013.  I lost close to $600 a month off my pay in taxes after stepping foot in NS.   That's not chump change brother.  So you really have to look at everything.

I know there are many factors to look at, but right now if you are looking for a first posting, Comox would be a good choice, IMHO.  The options are there, buy a condo, townhouse or rent a q.   

You won't be there forever.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I moved from Comox to Greenwood in 2013.  I lost close to $600 a month off my pay in taxes after stepping foot in NS.



And Nova Scotia thanks you for your hard earned tax dollars.   :nod:


----------



## Bradboy (18 Mar 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I did see something at work on Thursday wrt PLD.  It is going under a review at the present and they say it will soon be released.  Changes "may" be coming to where you are and therefore don't be surprised if your levels change.  (Hopefully for the better as crap isn't getting any cheaper for anyone)



Any update on this? Just found out I'm posted to Comox and curious if it has made the list for PLD yet.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Mar 2017)

Bradboy said:
			
		

> Any update on this? Just found out I'm posted to Comox and curious if it has made the list for PLD yet.



No, sorry not a peep as yet.  I'm hoping that no news, will translate into good news.


----------



## Bradboy (18 Mar 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, sorry not a peep as yet.  I'm hoping that no news, will translate into good news.



Okay please advise when you hear something!


----------



## sailoraye123 (17 Sep 2017)

Hi,

      I've recently heard about the federal government looking for ways to save money with cutbacks... I was told from one of my collages that pld was on the table with one of the options being to get rid of pld and lad, and give all members an extra sum of money... anybody hear of anything like this or pld getting relooked at..




Cheers


----------



## ballz (17 Sep 2017)

sailoraye123 said:
			
		

> anybody hear of anything like this or pld getting relooked at..



Only about twice a year since I enrolled...


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (18 Sep 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> Only about twice a year since I enrolled...



^ This. Same thing for me since 2010, our Chief and PO's kept saying PLD was going away..


----------



## CountDC (18 Sep 2017)

Yep - been the rumour since it started and some members of the public service cried foul about it.  I think the rumours start with the few of them that don't understand why we get it and they don't.


----------



## Quirky (18 Sep 2017)

PLD just needs to be cut already. We aren't doing enough to drive people out of the military and this would help things along.


----------



## CountDC (18 Sep 2017)

I agree, as long as it takes another 5 years to happen. [


----------



## sailoraye123 (10 Dec 2017)

Has anyone heard anymore on this front? A rumour I heard was a decision would be reached by dec 1 2017...


----------



## kratz (10 Dec 2017)

That is what rumours are worth...nothing.

Unless a CANFORGEN is released, don't bank on rumours.


----------



## Steve_D (16 Dec 2017)

Trying to squash a rumour is like trying to un-ring a bell


----------



## CountDC (28 Dec 2017)

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-news-events-media-letters/response_from_mnd_regarding_pld.page

Hasn't really been that long and I am sure the MND with the CDS will have it all sorted in no time ............ rly:


----------



## WEng87 (22 Mar 2018)

Got a quick question for the Clerk folks in the house...

I'm currently in Zone 1 PLD in Toronto.... Looks like my VOT is actually going to happen, while I will lose my appointment (Master Seaman) and my spec pay...  

My question is, while I am in Borden on my QL3, will I lose my PLD even with my primary residence and dependants remaining here in Toronto?

Thanks in Advance.


----------



## Lumber (23 Mar 2018)

WEng87 said:
			
		

> Got a quick question for the Clerk folks in the house...
> 
> I'm currently in Zone 1 PLD in Toronto.... Looks like my VOT is actually going to happen, while I will lose my appointment (Master Seaman) and my spec pay...
> 
> ...



No. If your primary residence is occupied and is in Toronto, you will not lose your Toronto PLD while on course.

In fact, they just made an update to what is considered "occupied". It used to be that for your residence to be considered "occupied", you or your dependants had to actually be residing there. So, if YOU were single, you would lose your PLD, because while you're in Borden, your residence would be "unoccupied". However, they've changed the rule to be that it is considered occupied if your HG&E reside there. So, even if the house/apartment is not being lived in, it's still considered occupied if your HG&E are located there.


----------



## WEng87 (23 Mar 2018)

Thank You! Much appreciated.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Apr 2022)

Reviving a Necro Thread 









						Canadian Armed Forces members call for cost of living allowance adjustments
					

Some members of the Canadian Armed Forces are calling on their superiors and the federal government to adjust a cost of living allowance.



					vancouver.citynews.ca


----------



## Stoker (9 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Reviving a Necro Thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder if the old arguments that if we complain too much it will be cancelled or any update you may lose it in your area or have it decrease......


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Apr 2022)

Stoker said:


> I wonder if the old arguments that if we complain too much it will be cancelled or any update you may lose it in your area or have it decrease......



Je ne sais pas.


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Apr 2022)

Another easy way to pump those defence spending numbers!

Kind of insane NCR is still zero; it's not much behind Victoria and some other markets in housing costs, and heating isn't cheap when it's winter for 5-6 months.


----------



## Stoker (9 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Another easy way to pump those defence spending numbers!
> 
> Kind of insane NCR is still zero; it's not much behind Victoria and some other markets in housing costs, and heating isn't cheap when it's winter for 5-6 months.


The only good thing I heard lately was the willingness to allow people to remote work in Halifax or Esquimalt even though those locations are also expensive and getting worse.


----------



## Quirky (9 Apr 2022)

It's insane how your salary stays the same, not factoring taxes, but the COL can drop or increase dramatically depending where you go. Nevermind likely losing the dual income of your spouse who also has to find work just because the military "needs to post you". Release memo it is.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2022)

In conjunction with PLD, I wish there was consideration to a baseline tax rate that all members posted would pay regardless of primo once of duty/residence to equal out some of the disparity.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> In conjunction with PLD, I wish there was consideration to a baseline tax rate that all members posted would pay regardless of primo once of duty/residence to equal out some of the disparity.


Should be taxed at the rate of the Province of your enrolment. If someone takes an IPR posting, their tax rate changes to that Province if different.

The problem is getting the Provinces to sign on because there's massive implications to healthcare funding.


----------



## dimsum (10 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Should be taxed at the rate of the Province of your enrolment. If someone takes an IPR posting, their tax rate changes to that Province if different.
> 
> The problem is getting the Provinces to sign on because there's massive implications to healthcare funding.



Acknowledging your point about funding, OUTCAN folks already have that precedent - they fall under Deemed Residents and pay a specific rate (can't recall which prov it's based off now).  

I'm just spitballing but maybe that can be expanded to include all CAF members and dependents.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> Acknowledging your point about funding, OUTCAN folks already have that precedent - they fall under Deemed Residents and pay a specific rate (can't recall which prov it's based off now).
> 
> I'm just spitballing but maybe that can be expanded to include all CAF members and dependents.


Didn't know that was a thing but definitely something we should use as a nexus to help our members.


----------



## dimsum (10 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Didn't know that was a thing but definitely something we should use as a nexus to help our members.








						Government employees outside Canada - Canada.ca
					

Information for employees of the government of Canada who are posted abroad.




					www.canada.ca
				




Basically, you pay a federal surtax instead of the provincial/territorial tax.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Should be taxed at the rate of the Province of your enrolment. If someone takes an IPR posting, their tax rate changes to that Province if different.
> 
> The problem is getting the Provinces to sign on because there's massive implications to healthcare funding.



This would just disadvantage some people but in a different way;  person enrolled in NS, posted to BC has higher COL and higher provincial taxes.  Person enrolled in BC, posted to NS....lower COL (housing comes to mind immediately) and lower taxes as well.

This is why I suggest a baseline federal tax rate for people who are employed in the Fed govt/CAF who are subj to mandatory moves.  It would even the playing field;  maybe not perfectly, but better than the current status IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm just spitballing but maybe that can be expanded to include all CAF members and dependents.



All Fed Govt who are subj to mandatory moves?


----------



## dimsum (10 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> All Fed Govt who are subj to mandatory moves?


The job of being the cat-herder getting all the various agencies to agree on one policy is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> This would just disadvantage some people but in a different way;  person enrolled in NS, posted to BC has higher COL and higher provincial taxes.  Person enrolled in BC, posted to NS....lower COL (housing comes to mind immediately) and lower taxes as well.
> 
> This is why I suggest a baseline federal tax rate for people who are employed in the Fed govt/CAF who are subj to mandatory moves.  It would even the playing field;  maybe not perfectly, but better than the current status IMO.


There is already a taxation scheme for folks posted OUTCAN without ties to their last province of residence.  I don’t think it would be too too hard to implement, but I am not sure there are any willingness to do this. I don’t understand why I have to pay for healthcare when I don’t have access to said healthcare system.


----------



## Weinie (10 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> There is already a taxation scheme for folks posted OUTCAN without ties to their last province of residence.  I don’t think it would be too too hard to implement, but I am not sure there are any willingness to do this. *I don’t understand why I have to pay for healthcare when I don’t have access to said healthcare system.*


I don't begrudge paying for health care, having had three of my kids go to CHEO. EI, on the other hand, burns me.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Apr 2022)

Weinie said:


> I don't begrudge paying for health care, having had three of my kids go to CHEO. EI, on the other hand, burns me.


Sure but there could at least be a deduction given the members don’t even have access…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

dimsum said:


> The job of being the cat-herder getting all the various agencies to agree on one policy is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.



Neither would I, but I don't see the CAF (small group in the employ of the Fed Govt) getting a gucci taxes setup while other fed employees aren't included.  OTOH, I'd be worried about what the big unions might trade away to get this type of deal thru.

I'd completely expect there would be some significant trade-off with the TB for this to ever be close to possible.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Sure but there could at least be a deduction given the members don’t even have access…



At least in my province of residence, a significant portion of specialist medical services are only available thru the civilian system.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> At least in my province of residence, a significant portion of specialist medical services are only available thru the civilian system.


To which the CAF pays for at an exorbitant rate….


----------



## brihard (11 Apr 2022)

Weinie said:


> I don't begrudge paying for health care, having had three of my kids go to CHEO. EI, on the other hand, burns me.


Didn’t EI pay maternal/parental leave benefits for those three kids?


----------



## Weinie (11 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> Didn’t EI pay maternal/parental leave benefits for those three kids?


Some of it. The Forces topped up the difference to I believe 90 or 95 percent, and my wife had to pay back substantially on her pension. I will not ever be able to draw EI, as it would be offset by my pension benefits. Having paid in to it for more than 40 years, it would be nice to see some payback.


----------



## Furniture (11 Apr 2022)

The latest I heard was that they are in negotiations with TB, but nothing more can be said because in the past leaks from the negotiations have scuttled the whole thing. 

As for remote work, it's an imperfect solution they can implement now to stem the bleeding. For a lot of office jobs it makes sense to have people work remote when necessary, the only down side being it's one less person on site for all the other duties/jobs in the office.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> The latest I heard was that they are in negotiations with TB, but nothing more can be said because in the past leaks from the negotiations have scuttled the whole thing.
> 
> As for remote work, it's an imperfect solution they can implement now to stem the bleeding. For a lot of office jobs it makes sense to have people work remote when necessary, the only down side being it's one less person on site for all the other duties/jobs in the office.


Perhaps it’s time to revisit those other duties/jobs in the office?


----------



## dimsum (11 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps it’s time to revisit those other duties/jobs in the office?


----------



## Furniture (11 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps it’s time to revisit those other duties/jobs in the office?


If you don't have three secondary duties are you even trying to get promoted? 

It certainly isn't an insurmountable obstacle, but it is a consideration. Things like SLOCs, Fire Warden, parades, etc., are all jobs that can only be done by someone onsite, so it just requires rebalancing work in other areas, and for supervisors to be conscious of it when assigning tasks.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Apr 2022)

Weinie said:


> Some of it. The Forces topped up the difference to I believe 90 or 95 percent, and my wife had to pay back substantially on her pension. I will not ever be able to draw EI, as it would be offset by my pension benefits. Having paid in to it for more than 40 years, it would be nice to see some payback.


Pension contributions are the same rate; the difference is that they were not withheld at source while she was in receipt of EI and the CAF top-up.  So it became a lump sum all at once instead of being spread over a year.


----------



## Weinie (11 Apr 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Pension contributions are the same rate; the difference is that they were not withheld at source while she was in receipt of EI and the CAF top-up.  So it became a lump sum all at once instead of being spread over a year.


Yup.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Apr 2022)

Zoomie said:


> To which the CAF pays for at an exorbitant rate….



The CAF recently (last year or two?) stopped paying the out of province rate for services.  I wonder if specialty services were included?  I know we don’t seem to get any priority access anymore.


----------



## CountDC (11 Apr 2022)

The NCR is zero as it is the baseline for PLD.   If they ever get around to updating the PLD there will be changes that people don't like.  Toronto and Vancouver would lose a large amount as the NCR is much closer on par with them on COL.  

Tax differences between the locations is part of the formula along with all the other items factored in to calculating the PLD.

TB for years wanted to do away with PLD and some in the public service doesn't support us having it as they don't get it.


----------



## Quirky (11 Apr 2022)

CountDC said:


> TB for years wanted to do away with PLD and some in the public service doesn't support us having it as they don't get it.



Public service aren't forced to re-locate nearly as much as military do, so therefore they can pound sand. Maybe we can introduce a program for them as well where they are moved across the country, just because, have to uproot their lives, sell their homes, have their kids lose friends and force one spouse to lose their job. Rinse-repeat every 3-5 years.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Apr 2022)

Not to mention losses on house sales that the govt isn’t required to reimburse …


----------



## dapaterson (11 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Not to mention losses on house sales that the govt isn’t required to reimburse …





> 8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)​
> A member is entitled to be assisted for any financial loss incurred in relation to the sale of their principal residence if the sale price is less than the purchase price paid by the member.
> Despite the definition of purchase price in Section 1.4, in relation to a principal residence that was a new home construction, the purchase price is the sum of the costs:
> identified in the Building Agreement; and
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Apr 2022)

HEA?  Pffffft.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/soldier-neil-dodsworth-drops-lawsuit-1.3718713
		


and



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-military-member-loses-bid-to-recover-losses-linked-to-home-sale-1.3067036
		


Neither of those stories should give mbrs the warm, comfy feeling.  How many people were forced to move during COVID, paying significantly inflated prices?  And could face the same situation those 2 mbr's did?

Having done a move very recently and then a IR posting shortly after, dealing with the CAFRP and BGRS is something I will make efforts to avoid at almost any cost in the few remaining years of service I have left.


----------



## Quirky (11 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> How many people were forced to move during COVID, paying significantly inflated prices? And could face the same situation those 2 mbr's did?



Housing prices will never drop so that's not an issue.

/s


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Apr 2022)

If interest rates take a hike...(when interest rates take a hike...).

I was on the "CAF Relocation FB group" when we moved;  people were getting some insanely low interest rates APS 2020.  Those rates can't hold the low forever.

I'm not a housing market expert, but all I saw was conditions for major issues in the near future being created.  Overpriced houses, bought with no conditions, with extremely low interest rates....doesn't sound like a formula for stability in the near future.

There was also more than a few people on the FB group who were dealing with HEA and losses on home sales who were pretty stressed out.  Mbr looses X amount on sale of principal residence, CAF pays out Y amount which doesn't cover the total loss, mbr also pays taxes on Z amount of the allowance they got.


----------



## CountDC (16 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> There was also more than a few people on the FB group who were dealing with HEA and losses on home sales who were pretty stressed out.  Mbr looses X amount on sale of principal residence, CAF pays out Y amount which doesn't cover the total loss, mbr also pays taxes on Z amount of the allowance they got.



Some that state losses on home sales don't actually have a loss.  Remember one redress I dealt with where the member felt he suffered a loss due to the renovations he had made and the real estate agents "assessed" value that he did not get on the home sale.   Redress was rejected as he had actually made something like 50K more than he had paid for the house a few years prior.     It isn't a loss when you get more than you paid nor does a real estate agent assessment count.  At least it wasn't at that time.     

Anyone else hear that PLD is getting worked on now and is to be replaced?   Haven't heard any details other than that but it was from a reliable source in a briefing.


----------



## Furniture (16 May 2022)

CountDC said:


> Some that state losses on home sales don't actually have a loss.  Remember one redress I dealt with where the member felt he suffered a loss due to the renovations he had made and the real estate agents "assessed" value that he did not get on the home sale.   Redress was rejected as he had actually made something like 50K more than he had paid for the house a few years prior.     It isn't a loss when you get more than you paid nor does a real estate agent assessment count.  At least it wasn't at that time.
> 
> Anyone else hear that PLD is getting worked on now and is to be replaced?   Haven't heard any details other than that but it was from a reliable source in a briefing.


I was told that details are being held in tight control, as leaks have caused the entire process to derail before.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 May 2022)

Updating PLD would be great; there are a lot of folks posted to the NCR this summer that can't afford to live within an hour of work (which can be withing 30-40 km as the crow flies but long with traffic). Even renting is crazy, and folks are all the way out in Russell/Prescott/Renfrew area, or heading up towards Maniwaki on the QC side.

The only plus side is that with the hybrid work at $2/litre for gas (with a somewhat broken transit system) if they can a lot of orgs are only doing partial returns to work, otherwise it would be brutal for anyone coming in, even if they are in the six figure range for salary. The average house price is close to $1M, with even townhouses north of $500-600k. It's insane.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 May 2022)

I don't think a negative adjustment to any PLD area is going to be well received.  It's not like the cost of living has gone down.

I really hope Ottawa gets something.  That's long overdue.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (16 May 2022)

Most people I talk to are of the belief that we will lose PLD before we see any more locations become applicable. TBS and most of the PS Unions seem to hate when we get any form of "perk" they don't get; regardless if the conditions of our employment differ greatly from theirs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Most people I talk to are of the belief that we will lose PLD before we see any more locations become applicable. TBS and most of the PS Unions seem to hate when we get any form of "perk" they don't get; regardless if the conditions of our employment differ greatly from theirs.



No doubt.  My hope is that we have GO/FOs explaining any negative adjustment will probably decimate certain geographic areas.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Most people I talk to are of the belief that we will lose PLD before we see any more locations become applicable. TBS and most of the PS Unions seem to hate when we get any form of "perk" they don't get; regardless if the conditions of our employment differ greatly from theirs.


As an aside this is a typically Canadian attitude. Whining is a sacred tradition in Canada.

In the province of MB the Liquor and Lotteries merged. In the old days unsellable liquor was given or sold at a really good rate to employees. When the merge happened the Lotteries people whined and now the liquor is tossed out. Well done a$$holes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> No doubt.  My hope is that we have GO/FOs explaining any negative adjustment will probably decimate certain geographic areas.



The problem is, the mass of GOFOs are in Ottawa.  They’ll fight to benefit themselves.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The problem is, the mass of GOFOs are in Ottawa.  They’ll fight to benefit themselves.



Maybe I have Stockholm syndrome but I want to believe some of them still want to work for us all.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 May 2022)

At this point for me, I’ll have to wait to see their actions in the near future.  Sad, really but there’s not much faith at the tactical level from what I can see.  I have heard a lot of “they f$$k up, we do DLN trg and more “mandatory” trg” comments lately.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> At this point for me, I’ll have to wait to see their actions in the near future.  Sad, really but there’s not much faith at the tactical level from what I can see.  I have heard a lot of “they f$$k up, we do DLN trg and more “mandatory” trg” comments lately.



No disagreement.  Any negative move with PLD will probably cause the utter breakdown of the release sections across the country, they'd simply be overrun.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 May 2022)

For those who don’t release, I am sure the level of presenteeism will increase accordingly.

This will be another significant dissatisfaction for people already tired of the nauss, the ridiculous amount of “mandatory training”, retro pay raises always; cost of living is ramping up fast and there’s talk of reducing peoples disposable income.  SMH.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (16 May 2022)

It's becoming harder and harder to toe the line and motivate the troops when you know it's not a benefit to any of them. 

The remedial trg. The culling of benefits that have little impact to those up top, but would bankrupt a Cpl/Pte. I had to staff up 2 requests for civilian employment today for troops because they cannot afford not to. 

When my people have to choose before rent and food, but PLD is on the chopping block because "well its something we aren't mandated to provide..." I think reality has been skewed for our "leaders" at the puzzle palace. 

If a full time, salaried military member is unable to make rent or afford groceries, and therefore has to work evenings and weekends to make ends me; we have failed immeasurably to support our people.


----------



## dimsum (17 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I had to staff up 2 requests for civilian employment today for troops because they cannot afford not to.


Some reporter:








I would love to see the grievance if a member is TD'd, therefore unable to work their second job, and losing their house because of it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Maybe I have Stockholm syndrome but I want to believe some of them still want to work for us all.


I've heard the idea of PLD floated for lower ranks for the NCR (and some other areas with high cost of living) which would have zero benefit for senior people but be a big help for people struggling.

If TBS or PMO isn't onboard though it goes nowhere, so sometimes stories like that hitting the paper is the only thing that seems to get the OGDs onboard.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 May 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I've heard the idea of PLD floated for lower ranks for the NCR (and some other areas with high cost of living) which would have zero benefit for senior people but be a big help for people struggling.
> 
> If TBS or PMO isn't onboard though it goes nowhere, so sometimes stories like that hitting the paper is the only thing that seems to get the OGDs onboard.



I really hope those it Ottawa get some relief.  I've never been posted there but I can't imagine it's financially easy.


----------



## QV (17 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> No disagreement. Any negative move with PLD will probably cause the utter breakdown of the release sections across the country, they'd simply be overrun.



And that's why it is time consuming and difficult to promptly release from the CAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 May 2022)

QV said:


> And that's why it is time consuming and difficult to promptly release from the CAF.



Je comprend.  It's good to be on the 30/30 plan now.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I really hope those it Ottawa get some relief.  I've never been posted there but I can't imagine it's financially easy.


Many many years ago the CAF was in this very pickle or at least close to it. In the late 70s if you lived in Calgary the corporals/privates that were married often had to work second jobs - and some were reported to be on welfare. 

It did not look very good in the papers.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Many many years ago the CAF was in this very pickle or at least close to it. In the late 70s if you lived in Calgary the corporals/privates that were married often had to work second jobs - and some were reported to be on welfare.
> 
> It did not look very good in the papers.



Isn't it something like that that caused the big pay bump in the mid 90s ?  

I remember it being talked about when I joined the reserves back then.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2022)

I think there was a story about a LS using food banks etc in Esquimalt that preceded PLD.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Many many years ago the CAF was in this very pickle or at least close to it. In the late 70s if you lived in Calgary the corporals/privates that were married often had to work second jobs - and some were reported to be on welfare.
> 
> It did not look very good in the papers.



Such as the frontpage headline in The Calgary Herald 19 October 1979   

"Troops on march to welfare"








						Barcode Required - ProQuest
					

Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.




					www.proquest.com


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 May 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Such as the frontpage headline in The Calgary Herald 19 October 1979
> 
> "Troops on march to welfare"
> 
> ...



I can't imagine a current GO/FO speaking so earnestly to the press as those in your article.


----------



## dimsum (18 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I can't imagine a current GO/FO speaking so earnestly to the press as those in your article.


Especially not if PLD, etc is on the table with TB.

I'd keep my mouth shut too.


----------



## OldTanker (18 May 2022)

I was in Calgary during that time. The big problem we had was the pay for junior ranks was never designed to support a family, but was enough to keep a single soldier in beer and cigarettes. Once we started to see privates getting married and having children, the pay was simply inadequate. As a married Lieutenant with a child I can tell you we lived from payday to payday as well. We also had a generation of general officers who had wartime experience and were less inclined to be "politically correct". I knew Pat Mitchell and this was very much in keeping with his personality.


----------



## CountDC (18 May 2022)

Could be interesting to see the final results.   The NCR is the current baseline so Ottawa gets nothing but supposedly the new look program replacing PLD will be of benefit to members posted to Ottawa.   Guess I will read about in the news as with the way they drag everything out I will be retired before it happens.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I can't imagine a current GO/FO speaking so earnestly to the press as those in your article.


But it was Pat Mitchell. He spoke up regardless.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I can't imagine a current GO/FO speaking so earnestly to the press as those in your article.



Though BGen Mitchell expressed his opinion openly to the press, when the fit hit the shan back then, he had already (IIRC - _I was a Cpl back then, in Calgary_) been raked over the coals more than once by the wives at public meetings.  Still, his comments to the press were more candid than can be found from the current generation of GOFOs. As well, the second page of the article provides a good quote from the then BAdmO (LCol Winfield) - ". . . a reading of my commissioning scroll dictates that the well-being of my troops must reign supreme . . . and I don't like my troops to be Canada's working poor."



One of my memories from that period was of a Bde Comd's Annual Inspection (while Mitchell was Bde Comd) of 1 Fd Amb.  While he was going down the ranks, occasionally stopping to speak to soldiers, he asked one of our MSE Ops (_a Cpl, much older than the average Cpl, Czech immigrant, didn't really give a f**k about military BS_) his opinion about a recent pay increase (yes, we did get pay increases, but a couple of percentage points of f**k all was still f**k all).  Slav's response was "my pay didn't go up much, but you must have gotten a good f**king raise".  The general chuckled, but the Bde RSM and our RSM were left sputtering.


----------



## Oldarmyguy77 (20 May 2022)

I'm an old guy, with almost  two decades in, and I've seen the quality of life greatly diminish over the last few years. Military salaries have not kept up with inflation, and if you are a basic cpl with no spec or feild pay,  expect to clear around 3000 a month give or take a bit, maybe add a few hundred or less for pld. There are many parents clearing that amount on child tax credit alone, if they have around 4 kids. 20 years ago, 3000 a month allowed you to buy a modest home and a car  in most places across Canada, still have enough to live. My first morgage in 2005 was 164,000, and my house payment was 750 a month. My last posting, my mortgage for the same type of home now cost 1700. Most pmqs were between 500 to 850   until around 2012. There are so many  military members  delivering  food just to be able to make rent, and eat. Years stuck in a dead end job, with no career progression because now they need a stupid amount of immediates to even merit for some hope of a promotion. Don't get me started on the higher ups, and the stuff I've seen over the years. Pld is very little money in most bases expect maybe Victoria and Toronto. I think after tax it's really only a couple hundred a month, maybe a tank of gas now. I have always been on bases that recieved 0, so can't speak much about it. I believe the younger generation sees the the military as the working lower poor class. They are not impressed by medals,,and stuff like that the older generations. 
 Cheers ,but Glad I'm out in a few more.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2022)

Halifax PLD is $631/month, 2 x payments of $315.50.   After taxes it amounts to $180-$185 in the bank, so about 43% is gone to taxes.


----------



## armyman7877 (20 May 2022)

I've never been out that way, but I've heard lots of complaints about how much tax they pay out there. I have heard  the rumor that the new pld will have some type of time limit on it when you are posted to a new area., it was never meant to supplement the col of living to members who do thier whole career in one place.  Yeah, I don't know how cpls are  surviving on 3000  a month with a family these days. I've met lots of guys who delivered food over the years.


----------



## CountDC (20 May 2022)

I could see it that you would not get PLD upon enrolment if you are posted to the same area you already live in as there wouldn't be a change to your col.    IE if you live in Halifax and are posted to Halifax for your first real posting after basic and trade training then no PLD. 

Not so sure about the time limit concept.   If someone gets moved from Upper Stewiacke in NS to Toronto ON that would be a big change in COL that doesn't go away after a few years.    I suppose there may be some argument that you should budget and adjust accordingly knowing that you will lose that extra $800 a month.


----------



## Quirky (20 May 2022)

CountDC said:


> I suppose there may be some argument that you should budget and adjust accordingly knowing that you will lose that extra $800 a month.



Don't know how you could budget enough to offset the insane cost of living increase across the board. A $500k house is now $800k three years later, doesn't matter how much you save you still can't afford it and still in a PMQ. IMO, standardizing PMQ rent costs at bases nation wide needs to happen since our pay doesn't change. That and a yearly PLD allowance adjustment depending on changes in the area. If CFHA can recalculate PMQ rent on a yearly basis, so can bases WRT PLD.


----------



## armyman7877 (20 May 2022)

The rumor we heard is that it is a huge benefit for some members who do thier whole career in the same place like Halifax. They had been receiving this benefit for 20 years, and overall a lifetime of thier career have recieved more money than people at postings with 0 amount. It should be there to help with the col of new people coming in to the new area. Yeah, there are people getting promoted to a new rank, but lose 500 a month  clear in taxes,  just by a posting like Greenwood, where everything cost the same as Halifax. I lived in the qs as a cpl, around 2004ish as well. I'm sure I paid less than 700 a month  at that time in Pet. Most people bought after a few years.


----------



## armyman7877 (20 May 2022)

I'm not sure how popular this oppion is but  military service couples and officers who make make Six figures plus a year should not have priority on the pmqs wait list.


----------



## kev994 (20 May 2022)

armyman7877 said:


> I'm not sure how popular this oppion is but  military service couples and officers who make make Six figures plus a year should not have priority on the pmqs wait list.


What if they lost all of their equity and then some when the Cold Lake market crashed? What if they’re supporting their sick parents who failed to plan for retirement? Though I don’t disagree with where you’re coming from, blanket policies like that are not practical, everyone has different circumstances.


----------



## CountDC (20 May 2022)

What about their family make up?   Maybe that officer making six figures before deductions is supporting a spouse and 5 kids.  Maybe someone in the family has special needs which is costing more than the average would.   Too many variables to use just income as a factor.  If going down that road then maybe Uplands in Ottawa should go back to the Upper base PMQs for Officers and SNCMs only while the SHH is where all JR's end up.  

I do believe it was a big mistake to get rid of PMQs in such a large mass as everywhere I have been posted has been a pain trying to find rentals and having the PMQs available would relief stress on the families.   Knowing that if you don't find a place during HHT you could go PMQ while you explore more for rental/purchase would be nice.   I couldn't imagine going through it as a Pte with a family.


----------



## kev994 (20 May 2022)

CountDC said:


> What about their family make up?   Maybe that officer making six figures before deductions is supporting a spouse and 5 kids.


Or 1 kid and 5 former-spouses


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 May 2022)

armyman7877 said:


> I'm not sure how popular this oppion is but  military service couples and officers who make make Six figures plus a year should not have priority on the pmqs wait list.


For the NCR someone was looking at it as an option and was told it was only considered 'temporary' as a PO1, if something is available. Not sure how much uptake there is on PMQs in Ottawa (which I think are just some units around Uplands and they got rid of the rest of them decades ago).

On the flip side, if PMQs are at market rate, we should have the same kind of tenant rights as if you were living on the market. Not sure how many PMQs meet that standard, but it seems to vary wildly by different bases and what is there for SQs/PMQs. For a while I was put up in an SQ in Shearwater in a section that had recently been 'uncondemned' and was basically a construction zone.  Was definitely a good incentive to find a place to live, when the training schedule didn't allow an HHT.


----------



## armyman7877 (20 May 2022)

I have no kids, but I'm guessing an officer with 5 kids would be bringing in a decent salary plus a good deal of ccb. I think they would be in a better fincincial position than a cpl with  only one kid. A decade ago, most of the pmqs sat empty in places like Kingston and Trenton. You could buy a decent  home  for around 250000 in the near by town.


----------



## brihard (20 May 2022)

From the outside looking in, a few thoughts:

- The underlying premise should be the necessity to attract and retain people to defend Canada and her interests. A benefit to subsidize housing for CAF alone is a very difficult sell. Military necessity should underlie it

- It should be income tested with a point at which it potentially stops. A Cpl should not get the same PLD as a Maj, but ho should not get the same PLD as a BGen. At a certain point, you’re in a good enough spot relative to the rest of the population that you should be fully self-self sufficient for housing. 

- This should be balanced against not breaking other allowances and incentives like spec pay and such. E.g., don’t claw back any housing incentive in such a way that renders trade, task, or environmental allowances moot.

- It should be part of a larger and longer term strategy to ensure CAF members have adequate housing.

- It shouldn’t be assumed that joining CAF means you’re going to be able to assume a path to home ownership early in a career, but you should have stable, affordable, and safe/clean housing capable of raising a family in. At the same time, someone who makes a career of CAF and is moving up the ranks at least a bit should be able to one day own something.

- So long as CAF service impacts the earning potential of spouses, dependents should be considered for inclusion as a factor into subsidy. If your spouse is unlikely to be able to gain or maintain a well earning career in their own right because of the imposition of postings, TD, or deployments, recognize and help compensate that.

- With all this in mind, troops still need to be expected to make reasonably sound financial decisions. There are resources to help them with this, and financial literacy should be pushed hard early in a career.

- There’s nothing inherently wrong with CAF or a CAF-adjacent agency owning housing to held satisfy CAF’s need to provide housing security in order to maintain members.

- Any approach should be sufficiently flexible to stand the test of time as housing affordability varies both nationally and locally.

- ‘Total cost’ needs to be considered in any approach, including the costs of inaction and loss of trained members.

FWIW.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2022)

Different PLD rates based on salary makes no sense.  It’s based on COL factors.  A WO getting no PLD would have the same income as a MCpl getting PLD.  Maybe more, if the MCpl is a Spec trade and the WO isn’t.  

That doesn’t solve anything.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 May 2022)

Instead of PLD, why not just give CAF members a significant tax break?

CAF Service = Lowest Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate.  BAM, instantaneous quality of life increase for all + incentive to serve longer for tax gain benefits.

I know, I know.... it's way too simple and non-convoluted which is exactly why we won't  do it 🤣


----------



## Grimey (20 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I think there was a story about a LS using food banks etc in Esquimalt that preceded PLD.


----------



## brihard (20 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Different PLD rates based on salary makes no sense.  It’s based on COL factors.  A WO getting no PLD would have the same income as a MCpl getting PLD.  Maybe more, if the MCpl is a Spec trade and the WO isn’t.
> 
> That doesn’t solve anything.


Because compared to most Canadians, some CAF salaries, particularly for officers, are very, very good. At a certain point, subsidizing housing stops being sufficiently necessary as to be defensible to the public. A LCol making $131k is in a very different situation than a MCpl making less than half of that.

A housing benefit is a reasonable thing to be means tested, IMO.


----------



## lenaitch (20 May 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Instead of PLD, why not just give CAF members a significant tax break?
> 
> CAF Service = Lowest Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate.  BAM, instantaneous quality of life increase for all + incentive to serve longer for tax gain benefits.
> 
> I know, I know.... it's way too simple and non-convoluted which is exactly why we won't  do it 🤣


Wouldn't a private already be in the lowest bracket?  it seems that fixing at the lowest rate would benefit the higher pay/ranks more.


----------



## brihard (20 May 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Wouldn't a private already be in the lowest bracket?  it seems that fixing at the lowest rate would benefit the higher pay/ranks more.


Not once they hit two years in, and realistically a private in their first two years of service is spending a bunch of that either on basic training or in holding platoons. After that they’re a super inexperienced apprentice.  Even at that, a two year private making $55k a year is above the median individual income in Canada, and they have generally fantastic benefits.

Compensating our troops well and allowing a standard of living that retains them is a national security imperative. However it cannot be done in a tone-deaf manner with so many Canadians struggling.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 May 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Wouldn't a private already be in the lowest bracket?  it seems that fixing at the lowest rate would benefit the higher pay/ranks more.


The only private rank that is in the bottom tax bracket are entry level privates. 

I'm not concerned about Privates as they are untrained and the institution has, by this point, invested very little in them.

The ranks I am concerned about most is Corporal/Master Corporal + Sergeant.  Too few pay increment increases for what they bring to the CAF.  We need to greatly increase pay increment increases.

The tax break serves two purposes:

1.  Incentivize retention;
2.  Incentivize seeking increased responsibilities and rank that goes with it.

On top of this increase in pay increments for NCMs, we need to get rid of a bunch of Officers and increase our enlisted numbers + give those enlisted additional responsibilities.

A lvl 4 incentive Specialist Corporal would save just over $2000.00 a year with my plan, that's across the board doesn't matter where you live.

We could also bump up Operational Allowances 😉 again to further incentivize service in Line Units (which many seem loath to do).

In other words, the CAF needs to become a little less Marxist and a little more Capitalist 😁


----------



## Infanteer (21 May 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> On top of this increase in pay increments for NCMs, we need to get rid of a bunch of Officers and increase our enlisted numbers + give those enlisted additional responsibilities.



Can't argue against that.



Humphrey Bogart said:


> We could also bump up Operational Allowances 😉 again to further incentivize service in Line Units (which many seem loath to do).



This provides a perverse incentive to starve the institution as you punish your people financially for moving them to a school.

If you want to be more capitalist, find a way to add performance bonuses to annual pay.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 May 2022)

Infanteer said:


> Can't argue against that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Performance bonuses at the school perhaps? Perhaps based on a scorecard system?

Instructor = scorecard with input from students, support staff and management

Support staff = scorecard from instructors and management 

My wife receives a semi-annual performance bonus that is entirely based on her outputs and customer satisfaction reviews.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 May 2022)

brihard said:


> Because compared to most Canadians, some CAF salaries, particularly for officers, are very, very good.



That isn’t a strong argument foundation.  Most Canadians don’t get relocated against their will to posting locations like I am subject to.  I had a posting message in 2019 (out of geo), 2020 (same gel location) and 2021 (out of geo). Should they take away posting allowances too because “most Canadians” don’t get them?



brihard said:


> At a certain point, subsidizing housing stops being sufficiently necessary as to be defensible to the public. A LCol making $131k is in a very different situation than a MCpl making less than half of that.
> 
> A housing benefit is a reasonable thing to be means tested, IMO.



PLD is not just a housing benefit, though.  It’s not about being necessary, it’s about offsetting the COL when the government forces you and your family to relocate somewhere that creates a disadvantage.  That disadvantage doesn’t go away at the +2 year point or on the mbrs next promotion.


----------



## dimsum (21 May 2022)

Infanteer said:


> If you want to be more capitalist, find a way to add performance bonuses to annual pay.


So basically what the RCAF is trying out right now with Pilots and SAR Techs, and looking eventually at all RCAF-managed trades.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 May 2022)

The problem with using rank cut offs for PLD is by doing this, you are assisting the QOL of some and the opposite to other.   Using Sgt and WO as a comparison;  a Standard Pay PI4 Sgt would actually make more total /month with PLD than a Standard Pay Cat WO in Victoria. 

That seems just and fair to people?

Additionally, Spec 1 Sgt pay is comparable to Standard WOs.  Spec 2 Sgt is higher. 

Now consider what a Cpl-Sgt SAR Tech makes compared me as a Spec 1 WO.

How about a Medical Officer Capt, or Pilot Capt
Compared to a GSO Maj?

It shouldn’t take anyone long to see the solution isn’t rank based.


----------



## Stoker (21 May 2022)

Personally I would love to see a program getting members into their own home as soon as possible with perhaps a interest free mortgage and everyone gets a set amount for PLD regardless where they are.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2022)

The CAF is not in the business of being a bank and administering mortgages.  But are you suggesting that, as a co-owner of the house, the CAF would receive a proportionate share of the increase in equity when the house sells?


----------



## Stoker (21 May 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The CAF is not in the business of being a bank and administering mortgages.  But are you suggesting that, as a co-owner of the house, the CAF would receive a proportionate share of the increase in equity when the house sells?


Perhaps they should be or bring back a revamped first time home buyers to make it easier to buy a home.


----------



## Westcoast80 (22 May 2022)

I agree with the poster's above, wages have been frozen in the military since the mid 2000s. The few increases that we recieve equal about a hundred dollars a month after tax. I actually took a large pay cut by being promoted to the next rank. I was at a unit with feild pay and pld and took a posting last summer to a school. Worst  decision for us to move. It's nit a great morale booster to get promoted in rank  and take a pay cut. lost all benefits pld, feild pay, higher taxes,  and am completely priced out of this market.  It felt more like a demotion than a promotion.  We went from living an average lifestyle  to here we're barely able to survive, and she is working more, but  we still had to cut all  extra ctivites for our kids. We were lucky to get a pmq, but it's still over priced for what it is. My wife can clear more money a month by being a server at Boston Pizza part time during the summer months. The trade I work in is also very slow for promotions,  no real pay  incentives for cpls or Jack's. Also, getting promoted only matters if your bosses like you enough,  or decide to write you up well. It makes no difference how competent you are on the job.


----------



## Westcoast80 (22 May 2022)

Sure 55000 a year might have been great money in 2006 when minimum wage was 8.00 a  hour, and qs were 650 a month,  but in 2021 its not even a livable wage in Ontario or B.C. There used to be postings like Shilio, Gagetown, Valcartier that had cheaper Qs until above 7 years ago. This at least gave the Cpls  or privates some Chance at saving money for a house or retirement.


----------



## Fabius (23 May 2022)

I don’t think this is merely a CAF problem. It’s likely a lot of problems rolled into one. Some items to consider:
1. According to Stats Canada Average income in 2021 was around $55,000.
2. Average family income after tax in 2021 was around $66,000. 
3. Only around 15% of Canadians earned incomes over $100,000 in 2021. 

I don’t think this is the CAF being miserly nor undervaluing the worth of its members, junior members in particular. I say that while fully accepting that items like PLD, field pay etc have issues and are not solving the problems they are meant too. 

This is an affordablity problem that affects the country and has resulted from a multitude of issues that we the CAF are now dealing with.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (23 May 2022)

Fabius said:


> I don’t think this is merely a CAF problem. It’s likely a lot of problems rolled into one. Some items to consider:
> 1. According to Stats Canada Average income in 2021 was around $55,000.
> 2. Average family income after tax in 2021 was around $66,000.
> 3. Only around 15% of Canadians earned incomes over $100,000 in 2021.


I would recommend against using pandemic figures as realistic. 2020-2022 has been an anomaly.



Fabius said:


> I don’t think this is the CAF being miserly nor undervaluing the worth of its members, junior members in particular. I say that while fully accepting that items like PLD, field pay etc have issues and are not solving the problems they are meant too.


Speak to Techs, MPs, Aircrew, or other "Spec" trades and see how miserly the CAF is compared to how the GoC pays equivalent trades within the other departments/PS.

Our Base Pay is tied to PSAC, which represents a lot of clerical, non-tech staff. Spec Pay is a percentage higher than that Base Pay. My equivalent PS job is IT-3, which falls within PIPSC. They negotiate at a much higher rate than I would ever receive as a Spec 1 because of this.

Pinching pennies is something the CAF does with fervor, and we get (or lose) what we pay (or don't pay) for.



Fabius said:


> This is an affordablity problem that affects the country and has resulted from a multitude of issues that we the CAF are now dealing with.


Big hand map problems are a convenient scapegoat for small hand solutions not being implemented. The CAF/DND will always lament national or global trends if it means they can put it off another FY. Instead of finding immediate solutions or temp fixes,  they would rather shove their heads in the sand and hope the problem fixes itself.


----------



## Quirky (23 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Speak to Techs, MPs, Aircrew, or other "Spec" trades and see how miserly the CAF is compared to how the GoC pays equivalent trades within the other departments/PS.



I don’t know where these $80k+ aircraft maintenance or management jobs exist in the airlines. I want nothing to do with aircraft once I’m done with the RCAF.


----------



## Westcoast80 (23 May 2022)

The problem now is that it of military are leaving to take the non military jobs on base. They are often paid better, have overtime,,and don't have to deal with extra stressful  situations like going in the field, p.ts test postings, postings and a crappy boss who decides not to write you up as a god, therefore delaying your promotion for three years. You may be the most competent on your job, but can go nowhere. The civilians on base often have better work life balance  like working from home half time. I know every ex military I've talked to who released for a civilian job  working on base said it was the best decision they ever made, and quality of life improved.


----------



## Oldarmyguy77 (23 May 2022)

The trade I work in is very slow for promotions. You need to have three right dress pdrs to even get on the merit board. If your boss decides not to write you up as a god. forget any chance of career progression for above five years.


----------



## Westcoast80 (23 May 2022)

I think  implying a new  system where  promotions where based on a how well you can actually do your job , rather than outdated favoritism write ups  we still have e today, would have a better impact on c.fs  morale.


----------



## dapaterson (23 May 2022)

A thought on benefits: Over a 25 year career, a Reg F CAF member will receive 120 weeks of annual leave.  (This ignores all other sorts of leave - annual only).

A member of the PA group will receive 102 weeks of annual over the same time.

In a quest for "equality" will we reduce annual leave entitlements?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (23 May 2022)

dapaterson said:


> A thought on benefits: Over a 25 year career, a Reg F CAF member will receive 120 weeks of annual leave.  (This ignores all other sorts of leave - annual only).
> 
> A member of the PA group will receive 102 weeks of annual over the same time.
> 
> In a quest for "equality" will we reduce annual leave entitlements?


Honestly, if we want equality with the PS, we should be able to CB directly with the GoC. Until then, there will only be disparity in anything we receive. 

But for now, we want CAF members to do a job that pays no overtime, forces relocation based on arbitrary "needs of the service", provides no safety net or QoL guarantees for those forced moves, and yet are shocked to have both a recruitment and retention problem...

It's more than just people bitching about equality; it's ensuring a fair deal for what's being asked. Service before self doesn't put a roof over the head, nor food on the table.


----------



## Quirky (23 May 2022)

Westcoast80 said:


> I think  implying a new  system where  promotions where based on a how well you can actually do your job , rather than outdated favoritism write ups  we still have e today, would have a better impact on c.fs  morale.



I’ve seen awesome techs promoted into management positions hate their life and be below average leaders. I’ve also seen awesome leaders who were poor mechanics. Being competent in your trade does not mean you’ll be a good manager.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 May 2022)

dapaterson said:


> A thought on benefits: Over a 25 year career, a Reg F CAF member will receive 120 weeks of annual leave.  (This ignores all other sorts of leave - annual only).
> 
> A member of the PA group will receive 102 weeks of annual over the same time.
> 
> In a quest for "equality" will we reduce annual leave entitlements?



I can see what youre getting at but that's a bit disingenuous the PS can also go into the hole a full years leave, they can bank leave and they can take overtime compensation as leave.  They also have a slew of other types of leave to take; and they can take half and quarter or less days leave as well.

Also that ability to work compressed work weeks and adjusted schedule is pretty sweet.

For the sake of 18 weeks the GoC is getting a bargain.

I would love to see PSAC bargain for our post deployment leave.


----------



## Oldarmyguy77 (23 May 2022)

We have a few ex military working on base at our unit. They basically do the same job, and only need to show  up in person at work twice a month. I don't think any of them regret releasing from the cf.


----------



## armyman7877 (23 May 2022)

I agree while not everyone is cut for management,  but there's still an old outdated mentality that exists within the c.f especially among the higher ups, that drinking at the mess with the boys, and helping him with his house  on the weekend,  lending your truck, or providing extra favors to your boss outside of work is more than likely going to get promoted faster than  someone else who may be better at thier job,. People just get tired of this old boys club and they get out.


----------



## Fabius (23 May 2022)

Lots of issues and only a few suggestions for improvements. 

CAF pay is largely tied to rank and then secondary to trade (Spec pay). Should that change to being a base pay tied to rank (ie. management expectations) and then an almost equal amount tied to qualifications? Ie. The more trained and professionally knowledgeable you are the more you are compensated. 

How do we do use allowances, ie PLD, LDA etc. Their purpose is to either balance QoL (PLD) and we therefore need a baseline QoL. What is that? A national cost of living average with all provinces, territories and the three major urban areas added in additionally? Any posting with a cost of living higher than the average gets PLD? 

LDA etc. should those allowances reward more time in field units etc.? Should it be for being in a unit or should it be for actual time away?  How do we deal with people being posted out and losing the allowance and making less in a new rank? Does that matter as it’s pay for separate expectations? 

What should the base pay be for an entry level person who the institution will train? Does that need to equal or exceed the base pay for that trade on the civilian side where the person is responsible for their own training prior to being hired? 

Should we explore and use retention signing bonuses to retain people? How do we use them and how big should they be to work? How much of a restricted release period should there be with those. 

Just some random thoughts.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 May 2022)

Westcoast80 said:


> I think  implying a new  system where  promotions where based on a how well you can actually do your job , rather than outdated favoritism write ups  we still have e today, would have a better impact on c.fs  morale.



I've done my job, very well in some cases.  I've applied myseld and never needed kneepads.  I've been 'first look' my last 2 promotions and am situated fairly well again for 2023 selection boards.  

I can actually do my "flying" and "WO" jobs, and anyone who knows me likely wouldn't agree I aim for 'favoritism' write ups.  To my own detriment, I care little for what most people think of me...so, some of us actual "merit" and the merit boards.

It's not that what you said isn't accurate, but I don't believe it is the default in the CFPAS system.  There's also a fairly well exercised grievance system in place to handle PER errors/omissions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 May 2022)

Fabius said:


> Lots of issues and only a few suggestions for improvements.
> 
> CAF pay is largely tied to rank and then secondary to trade (Spec pay). Should that change to being a base pay tied to rank (ie. management expectations) and then an almost equal amount tied to qualifications? Ie. The more trained and professionally knowledgeable you are the more you are compensated.
> 
> ...



Federal tax rates for Reg Force CAF members regardless of province of posting (Res if they have had a mandatory, not elective, move).

My environmental allowance doesn't and shouldn't factor into it.  I can lose it/keep it on posting, position, medical status, etc.

Pilots and SAR Techs had the AIRCRA and Rescue Specialist allowances rolled into base pay.  Its not pensionable; extend that to hard air/sea/land trades who are fit MOSID.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 May 2022)

Fabius said:


> Lots of issues and only a few suggestions for improvements.
> 
> CAF pay is largely tied to rank and then secondary to trade (Spec pay). Should that change to being a base pay tied to rank (ie. management expectations) and then an almost equal amount tied to qualifications? Ie. The more trained and professionally knowledgeable you are the more you are compensated.
> 
> ...



We need to look beyond training and rank and start to look at responsibility.  A good example of this is the CPO2 in D206 in HMC Dkyrd.  Responsible for 100++ pers both Civ and Mil and responsible for millions of dollars with of kit and equipment.  And they are a base pay CPO2.  Mean while there is a LT(N) at RCSU that is IC canoes, and they make more than the CPO2.  

Maybe we need to base pay on positions ?


----------



## McG (24 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Maybe we need to base pay on positions ?


I don’t want to see what happens to the national case load of grievances if the day comes where an opaque career manager decision can raise or lower a person’s pay.

Positions should be established with a rank that is commensurate with the responsibility. If that is not happening, then fix the problem there and not inside the pay system.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 May 2022)

McG said:


> I don’t want to see what happens to the national case load of grievances if the day comes where an opaque career manager decision can raise or lower a person’s pay.
> 
> Positions should be established with a rank that is commensurate with the responsibility. If that is not happening, then fix the problem there and not inside the pay system.



Agreed. I could foresee stormy weather that's for sure.

What about an allowance system like SDA or LDA ?  A higher responsibility allowance say ? 

I just don't see us adjusting positions, and really where do you go after CPO2 now ?


----------



## Good2Golf (24 May 2022)

armyman7877 said:


> I agree while not everyone is cut for management,  but there's still an old outdated mentality that exists within the c.f especially among the higher ups, that drinking at the mess with the boys, and helping him with his house  on the weekend,  lending your truck, or providing extra favors to your boss outside of work is more than likely going to get promoted faster than  someone else who may be better at thier job,. People just get tired of this old boys club and they get out.


Playing hockey:  Has entered the chat.


----------



## McG (24 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> What about an allowance system like SDA or LDA ? A higher responsibility allowance say ?


LDA produces a lot of unintended consequences. People find constructive ways to hold onto the position to keep the pay without meeting the obligations. I would not spread that model to other compensation. Further, I think we would find other dissatisfiers quickly appear from a “responsibility allowance.” The jobs that most people here would pick for a “responsibility bonous” are leadership positions, which are typically baseline employment. So you create a system where everyone gets a big step in pay within a year of promotion, then take a drop in pay for their remaining time in rank.  And it is still a system that gives an opaque career manager decision process the power to give and take the amount of pay someone gets.



Halifax Tar said:


> I just don't see us adjusting positions, and really where do you go after CPO2 now ?


Commission. I know we have built a culture that teaches the only successful non-commissioned career path is one that culminates with a Canadian coat of arms, but we sort of need to kill that thinking.

If that means we need a new badge to sell the idea, then maybe we do that & all environments can take a pause from inventing new bling to show their guys who’ve always been officers are better than other guys who’ve always been officers.


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Mean while there is a LT(N) at RCSU that is IC canoes, and they make more than the CPO2.


Tell me more about this position and how one can get it...     



McG said:


> If that means we need a new badge to sell the idea, then maybe we do that & all environments can take a pause from inventing new bling to show their guys who’ve always been officers are better than other guys who’ve always been officers.


...the CD with 2 clasps?


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Playing hockey:  Has entered the chat.


In some instances yes. However in any organization some cronyism is tolerated.


----------



## Quirky (24 May 2022)

Hockey, golf, badminton, running, soccer, basketball etc the list goes on. No different than kit shop rep, general safety, or the other handful of useless secondary duties people use for points. At least sports takes skill. 👹


----------



## McG (24 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> ...the CD with 2 clasps?


Maybe, but I have noticed a tendancy (including amongst NCO who need to be inspired by individuals  by those who have commissioned and achieved success) to see that Maj or LCol with with two clasps and ask what he did to fail.  Meanwhile, in response to my question as to whether the naval warfare officer badge communicates anything that cannot be inferred between an individual’s rank and the sea service badge over the opposite pocket:


Underway said:


> Yes.  It communicates that you have a BWK, done an ORO tour or been a CO of a ship (I wonder if PRes Stone Frigates count?).
> 
> All hard sea trade officers have the same cap badge and SSE as NWO's do, so just looking for a SSE colour or cap badge doesn't really tell you much different as you could be an Engineer who's sailed a lot (or CFR'd etc...).


The CAF’s peacock badges & bling obsession has been predominantly weighted to maximize occupational & environmental distinction for officers, where in reality this effort should be weighted to maximize distinction for the junior ranks. We also want a little bit of that distinctiveness on the people in the jobs that privates, sailors, and corporals should be aspiring toward.

But we now have a badge that allows one to quickly identify those NWO who have followed the “proper” career path and to distinguish them above that rare naval engineer with a pretty exceptional career path or the Coxn who CFRed. The commander with two clasps and formerly filled the senior appointment on a coast is more likely to be assessed as a turd who could not even check the obligatory boxes when met by the newest crop of sailors and A/SLt.

As an aside, even pilots seemingly do not feel the need to “level up” their wings to reflect various career checks in the box.


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2022)

McG said:


> As an aside, even pilots seemingly do not feel the need to “level up” their wings to reflect various career checks in the box.


That's because they've always been there and (at least for the British-inspired air forces), unchanged.  That's the "tradition" now.  

The USAF, however, does have different "grades" of wings.  The USN, USMC, etc do not.

The RCAF does sort of distinguish folks by patches on flight suits.  Qualified Flying Instructor, Instrument Check Pilot, etc.


----------



## brihard (24 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> That isn’t a strong argument foundation.  Most Canadians don’t get relocated against their will to posting locations like I am subject to.  I had a posting message in 2019 (out of geo), 2020 (same gel location) and 2021 (out of geo). Should they take away posting allowances too because “most Canadians” don’t get them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


PLD has broken and has failed. It no longer effectively does what it’s supposed to do. The peg to an Ottawa baseline has been allowed to become a polite fiction- those in a position of responsibility know that with what Ottawa has done in the past six years, a reassessment of PLD against the Ottawa baseline would result in a massive loss of PLD benefits.

I believe the housing affordability issue has grown much larger than simply PLD as an allowance. If CAF wants to retain a benefit for things like fuel and groceries cost, sure. There’s even other precedent for that in the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive that PS/RCMP have for some isolated locations. There’s a ‘living cost differential’ and an ‘shelter cost differential’ as two different rates.

Separate housing from other issues, and deal with it as the recruiting and retention imperative that it is.

I stand by having it means tested. To be blunt, I feel you were deliberately oversimplifying and dumbing down what I said, as if someone would be financially disadvantaged by promotion and losing such a benefit. In reality, a financial benefit could easily be scaled to avoid that, and still to cease at a certain amount of income (perhaps relative to a points matrix for different markets).

The fear of equity loss could be mitigated by a fairly applied home equity assistance benefit tied to relocation. A version of this already exists.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that assistance specifically for home ownership should ramp down eventually once you’ve attained a rank and salary that should be more able to support it. The hardest part is getting into the market. Once you start building equity, if equity losses on posting are compensated, that’s pretty fair and reasonable.

Again, any such benefit needs to be defensible as a military necessity, to a population that doesn’t receive it. Only CAF gets PLD, and CAF salaries are already pretty good compared to the population at large.

One thing that will be neat to see will be if the trend towards more remote work will help favour spousal employment. Maybe CFMWS could put a project together to help to entice remote employers to employ CAF spouses. That would bridge one of the major structural gaps in this whole thing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> We need to look beyond training and rank and start to look at responsibility.  A good example of this is the CPO2 in D206 in HMC Dkyrd.  Responsible for 100++ pers both Civ and Mil and responsible for millions of dollars with of kit and equipment.  And they are a base pay CPO2.  *Mean while there is a LT(N) at RCSU that is IC canoes, and they make more than the CPO2. *
> 
> Maybe we need to base pay on positions ?



Or we shed positions that aren't 'death tech' jobs that could be done cheaper and better by civilians like, you know, sports stuff


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Or we shed positions that aren't 'death tech' jobs that could be done cheaper and better by civilians like, you know, sports stuff


Hey hey you're cutting off my last posting!


----------



## McG (24 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Or we shed positions that aren't 'death tech' jobs that could be done cheaper and better by civilians like, you know, sports stuff


That is the path to the Russian logistics model.


----------



## Oldarmyguy77 (24 May 2022)

The issue we have with career managers is that are always people who play the system to get what they want on the backs of others. We have people who use tactics like refusing all postings, and delaying a promotion for a year because they know a better position is coming  up next posting season. We also have members  in places Valcartier  who have been there for 15 years often blocking anyone else from taking g that position. Also, navy members posted to Halifax and the island in 2000 have been receiving pld for 20 years at this point. How would thier col be the same as a new member? They would receive an extra benefit over thier career without any of the hardships  tha tother members endure by postings.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (24 May 2022)

McG said:


> That is the path to the Russian logistics model.


Agreed. Even the non-"death tech' trades require people who can be employed outside of a garrison environment.

I had someone try to say the RCCS' woes with personnel could be fixed by hiring more Civilians/contractors to fill the gap. I pointed out that civilian staffing falls to pieces when you need a combat nerd to go forward to make the bleeps bloop. Unlimited liability is something you can't contract out.


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2022)

Oldarmyguy77 said:


> The issue we have with career managers is that are always people who play the system to get what they want on the backs of others.


To confirm, you're saying the issue is the member playing those cards, not the CMs themselves, right?


----------



## Westcoast80 (24 May 2022)

I agree a navy member who bought a home in 2002 would not have the same  financial hardships as a new member. Thier spouse would have plenty of time to work a stable job, have a low mortgage at this point in thier career, and probably have a built in  support system.


----------



## Underway (24 May 2022)

McG said:


> Maybe, but I have noticed a tendancy (including amongst NCO who need to be inspired by individuals  by those who have commissioned and achieved success) to see that Maj or LCol with with two clasps and ask what he did to fail.  Meanwhile, in response to my question as to whether the naval warfare officer badge communicates anything that cannot be inferred between an individual’s rank and the sea service badge over the opposite pocket:


The addition of these badges mirrors the US, UK, RAN and other commonwealth countries.  If there is a fault in it is perhaps perception, or that we don't have naval air integrated into the RCN.



McG said:


> The CAF’s peacock badges & bling obsession has been predominantly weighted to maximize occupational & environmental distinction for officers, where in reality this effort should be weighted to maximize distinction for the junior ranks. We also want a little bit of that distinctiveness on the people in the jobs that privates, sailors, and corporals should be aspiring toward.


May I introduce you to the French and Americans?  We are hardly bling obsessed.  It's not even close.  The fact that the CAF is after decades of not recognizing anything is trying to recognize things is a good sign (SSE for example).   As for Jr Rank's distinctiveness, they wear their trade badges.  Naval Officers do not get trade badges (though Log is easy enough with their cap badge).

I think the fact that it happens to be officers irritates the crap out of a lot of people and they can't get past that to judge things on their own merit. 



McG said:


> But we now have a badge that allows one to quickly identify those NWO who have followed the “proper” career path and to distinguish them above that rare naval engineer with a pretty exceptional career path or the Coxn who CFRed. The commander with two clasps and formerly filled the senior appointment on a coast is more likely to be assessed as a turd who could not even check the obligatory boxes when met by the newest crop of sailors and A/SLt.


This matches the US, UK and other commonwealth initiatives.  The only difference is perhaps that they have either naval air integrated into the navy or in the US case they are all SWO and not all of them achieve the qualification (due to branching career paths).  As far as Coxn who CFR'd there are plenty of techs who CFR to engineering all the time with a lot of sea days when they reach PO1 or CPO2.  It's more common than you think.

The only one who judges what a "proper" career path is, is the trade themselves, and that's quickly discarded by most when you've been in for a bit.

Do we need it? No.  Is it worth this irritation now that it exists?  No.


----------



## KevinB (24 May 2022)

Underway said:


> May I introduce you to the French and Americans?  We are hardly bling obsessed.  It's not even close.


When you pay your troops crap, the bling helps...
Compare the US Army 
Army Pay Chart & Army Base Pay – Active Duty

TO Canadian Armed Forces





						Pay rates for non-commissioned members - Canada.ca
					

Pay rates for Non-Commissioned Members in the Canadian Armed Forces.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Underway (24 May 2022)

Officers are pretty equivalent with the exchange rate.  The NCM rates are criminal though. I know there are other benefits like on base accommodation etc.. but wow, that's not the greatest.

Brings me back to my assessment of allowing non-citizens to join the CAF.


----------



## KevinB (24 May 2022)

Underway said:


> Officers are pretty equivalent with the exchange rate.  The NCM rates are criminal though. I know there are other benefits like on base accommodation etc.. but wow, that's not the greatest.
> 
> Brings me back to my assessment of allowing non-citizens to join the CAF.


One of my buddies retired as a SGM from the CAG, even with his assaulter allowance etc I thought his pay rate was criminal.
  That said he did get a very impressive reengagement bonus during GWOT.


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> When you pay your troops crap, the bling helps...
> Compare the US Army
> Army Pay Chart & Army Base Pay – Active Duty
> 
> ...


I had a _great_ "discussion" on CAF Reddit with others who were convinced that with the allowances, etc that US NCMs were paid better than CAF NCMs.  

I pretty much just gave up arguing.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 May 2022)

One very important thing to keep in mind when looking at the US military pay scales is the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). A US Army soldier who lives "on post" is not paying for their house (their BAH goes to that). If they live off-post they receive the BAH which varies by rank, location and whether they have dependents or not.  An E1 with dependents living off-post at Fort Benning receives 1,305 USD per month in BAH  while an O6 receives 1,920. An E1 with dependents living off-post in Seattle receives 2,436 USD a month. So factor that into comparison.

This system accommodates the very different housing costs of a far-flung military while still having compensation linked with rank.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (24 May 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> One very important thing to keep in mind when looking at the US military pay scales is the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). A US Army soldier who lives "on post" is not paying for their house (their BAH goes to that). If they live off-post they receive the BAH which varies by rank, location and whether they have dependents or not.  An E1 with dependents living off-post at Fort Benning receives 1,305 USD per month in BAH  while an O6 receives 1,920. An E1 with dependents living off-post in Seattle receives 2,436 USD a month. So factor that into comparison.
> 
> This system accommodates the very different housing costs of a far-flung military while still having compensation linked with rank.


BAH is probably what keeps a lot of U.S. service members from being below the poverty line. Add in the fact that a lot of their bases have adequate (in numbers, quality may vary) housing for single members, thus not requiring a lot of RHUs or off-Post living for single personnel, the system works out swimmingly for the member and the service.

Here in the CAF, we expect the same level of adaptability because "service before self", while hoping and wishing CAF members will behave like PS employees wearing green. 

I would love to see a similar system of BAH for CAF members. It would alleviate so many issues IRT housing.


----------



## Underway (24 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> BAH is probably what keeps a lot of U.S. service members from being below the poverty line. Add in the fact that a lot of their bases have adequate (in numbers, quality may vary) housing for single members, thus not requiring a lot of RHUs or off-Post living for single personnel, the system works out swimmingly for the member and the service.
> 
> Here in the CAF, we expect the same level of adaptability because "service before self", while hoping and wishing CAF members will behave like PS employees wearing green.
> 
> I would love to see a similar system of BAH for CAF members. It would alleviate so many issues IRT housing.


How is BAH different the PLD?  Seems to me PLD is an attempt at an equivalent allowance.


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2022)

Underway said:


> How is BAH different the PLD?  Seems to me PLD is an attempt at an equivalent allowance.


I think (could be wrong) that BAH is also rank-dependent.

I recall that a while back, if you lived in their version of the Qs, you pay different rates depending on rank.  They also had different housing for Jr NCMs, Snr NCMs, Officers, and GOFOs.  But, in some places where Officers and NCMs live side by side (Fort Irwin being one), the Officer pays more for the same house.


----------



## McG (24 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> BAH is probably what keeps a lot of U.S. service members from being below the poverty line. Add in the fact that a lot of their bases have adequate (in numbers, quality may vary) housing for single members, thus not requiring a lot of RHUs or off-Post living for single personnel, the system works out swimmingly for the member and the service.
> 
> Here in the CAF, we expect the same level of adaptability because "service before self", while hoping and wishing CAF members will behave like PS employees wearing green.


We have published standards of for permanent quarters and I have not seen a single base where the existing single quarters meet that standard. Most permanent singles quarters (even the "nice" ones) only meet the standard of transient quarters. Yet, the major living quarters construction projects have been for newer, fancier transient quarters and not to build the minimum adequate permanent quarters. I mean we would have more transient quarters if we could take all current occupants of sub-standard “permanent” accommodations and move them into something that is actually to standard, but then the same people who prioritize creating new bling for themselves would have to stay in a room a little more rustic that that of a hotel when visiting another base.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 May 2022)

Underway said:


> How is BAH different the PLD?  Seems to me PLD is an attempt at an equivalent allowance.


BAH is everywhere. So when you look at the pay scales for US servicefolks you need to add in the BAH. PLD is not everywhere. 

PLD tries to help out with high-cost areas, but the policy is clunky and uneven. You live one street on the wrong side of the line and no PLD. BAH has an assessment for pretty much every posting that they can have. 

They also tie the BAH to rank, and on-post housing is by rank as well. This is because they have blistered out housing from pay but still make it part of the overall compensation where higher ranks are compensated , well, higher. Want a bigger house? Get promoted. The good news, though, is that they have a baseline where it is conceivable for a Pte clerk/Int Op equivalent posted to a major urban centre to be able to afford to live there - something that PLD fails to do (evenly).


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 May 2022)

To implement something like BAH for the CAF would be a major endeavor, but so is any other solution. I am not a compensation expert. I haven't even stayed at a Holiday Inn recently. I have been responsible recently for housing on a major base. I think we need to do something. 

I think it is a mistake to take a "needs assessment" approach to "subsidized housing."  We should do needs assessments when someone is in financial distress and we are looking at means to help them through that situation (I was responsible for that as well on a major garrison). Being able to pay for a reasonable level of housing should not be a cause of distress. It should be one of the major expenses that a family has, but it shouldn't put them into distress. So we should determine what a reasonable standard of housing is for our members by rank (assume that they have dependents) and work that into our compensation allowing for regional differences. So we would not be not "subsidizing" our people's housing. We would be compensating them to be able to live in the places where we send them. Perhaps that sounds like semantics. 

Getting posted is stressful, but it shouldn't be a catastrophe. 

What a BAH system might have issues with is coping with big jumps in the market. If prices stay relatively stable then its not a big deal, but if a market goes up 50% in a year then do you up the BAH for everyone, including the folks paying a mortgage based on the old market? Like I said, I am not a compensation expert, nor a real estate guru nor an economist.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think (could be wrong) that BAH is also rank-dependent.
> 
> I recall that a while back, if you lived in their version of the Qs, you pay different rates depending on rank.  They also had different housing for Jr NCMs, Snr NCMs, Officers, and GOFOs.  But, in some places where Officers and NCMs live side by side (Fort Irwin being one), the Officer pays more for the same house.


You are correct. As a MCpl I was posted to CFRS and was allowed to occupy a Q that was designated for a Snr NCO. About six months later it was legal for me to occupy it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think (could be wrong) that BAH is also rank-dependent.
> 
> I recall that a while back, if you lived in their version of the Qs, you pay different rates depending on rank.  They also had different housing for Jr NCMs, Snr NCMs, Officers, and GOFOs.  But, in some places where Officers and NCMs live side by side (Fort Irwin being one), the Officer pays more for the same house.


It does indeed vary by rank (I gave the range for one location). If you live on-post, though, your BAH pays for your house. So its not that the Capt is paying more out of their pocket than the Sgt if they nature of on-post housing means they have the same style of house. They wouldn't see their BAH if they live on-post.


----------



## Quirky (24 May 2022)

brihard said:


> I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that assistance specifically for home ownership should ramp down eventually once you’ve attained a rank and salary that should be more able to support it. The hardest part is getting into the market. Once you start building equity, if equity losses on posting are compensated, that’s pretty fair and reasonable.



If our HEA was 100% coverage on the Purchase vs Sale price and untaxed I could care less about PLD and PMQ availability. Knowing that I won't lose money at the end, nevermind property tax etc, I would happily support the local economy and buy a house at each posting. This would also free up PMQ availability for those who choose to live closer to base or unable financially for whatever reason. This doesn't solve the current affordability problem but at least if I buy a house at $600k I know that if I sell at $480k in 5 years I won't be financially destroyed because the military needs me to hold down a chair at another unit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2022)

Quirky said:


> Hockey, golf, badminton, running, soccer, basketball etc the list goes on. No different than kit shop rep, general safety, or the other handful of useless secondary duties people use for points. At least sports takes skill. 👹



Gen Safety (UGSO) is actually a fairly significant workload, so I’ve learned over the last 10 months.  663s, CF 98s and other reports/returns are part of that workload. So is SNIC Rep, COVID tracker…the list goes on.  

Most of the work GSOs and Bldg Custodians do is behind the curtains but if they stopped doing their work, people would gripe I’d bet.  Especially when VAC says “denied/no supporting documentation”…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> The RCAF does sort of distinguish folks by patches on flight suits.  Qualified Flying Instructor, Instrument Check Pilot, etc.



I thought you were going to mention the _Stu Pedidiot_ name tag…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2022)

McG said:


> I don’t want to see what happens to the national case load of grievances if the day comes where an opaque career manager decision can raise or lower a person’s pay earnings.



An MWO AES Op posted to Shearwater or Pat Bay who is a flyer, who gets promoted to CWO and posted to Comox or Greenwood definitely lose earnings.

They give up AIRCRA and PLD for a $3 pay raise going from Spec 1 MWO to Basic CWO…


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> An MWO AES Op posted to Shearwater or Pat Bay who is a flyer, who gets promoted to CWO and posted to Comox or Greenwood definitely lose earnings.
> 
> They give up AIRCRA and PLD for a $3 pay raise going from Spec 1 MWO to Basic CWO…



So AES Ops are overpaid and it doesn't level out until they become CWOs ? 

_Ducks for cover_


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2022)

brihard said:


> PLD has broken and has failed. It no longer effectively does what it’s supposed to do. The peg to an Ottawa baseline has been allowed to become a polite fiction- those in a position of responsibility know that with what Ottawa has done in the past six years, a reassessment of PLD against the Ottawa baseline would result in a massive loss of PLD benefits.



Perhaps.  It might result in releases for people who aren’t willing to take a loss of earnings, and will happily take their release move to somewhere more affordable.



brihard said:


> I believe the housing affordability issue has grown much larger than simply PLD as an allowance. If CAF wants to retain a benefit for things like fuel and groceries cost, sure. There’s even other precedent for that in the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive that PS/RCMP have for some isolated locations. There’s a ‘living cost differential’ and an ‘shelter cost differential’ as two different rates.
> 
> Separate housing from other issues, and deal with it as the recruiting and retention imperative that it is.



Would this change the money the mbr sees in their account in a positive way?  If not, no one will care what name the benefit is under.


brihard said:


> I stand by having it means tested. To be blunt, I feel you were deliberately oversimplifying and dumbing down what I said, as if someone would be financially disadvantaged by promotion and losing such a benefit. In reality, a financial benefit could easily be scaled to avoid that, and still to cease at a certain amount of income (perhaps relative to a points matrix for different markets).



I didn’t mean to deliberately dumb down anything, but I did point out what you called a housing benefit is intended as more than just that.  I can’t help if that appears anything other than presenting accurate info.

The part about posting allowances was meant to demonstrate another unique benefit most Canadians don’t get.   They also don’t have forced moves every 2 or more years.  There is and should be compensation for that. 



brihard said:


> The fear of equity loss could be mitigated by a fairly applied home equity assistance benefit tied to relocation. A version of this already exists.





			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3067036
		





brihard said:


> I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that assistance specifically for home ownership should ramp down eventually once you’ve attained a rank and salary that should be more able to support it. The hardest part is getting into the market. Once you start building equity, if equity losses on posting are compensated, that’s pretty fair and reasonable.



Some people don’t get all of their equity losses compensated though.  



brihard said:


> Again, any such benefit needs to be defensible as a military necessity, to a population that doesn’t receive it. Only CAF gets PLD, and CAF salaries are already pretty good compared to the population at large.



A few hours searching for homes in places like Victoria should help anyone see why PLD is necessary.   Standard pay category Cpl pay can be there base salary for pre-approval on mortgages.  Once the public has cracked that nut, they can move on to Comox and do the exercise again for Avr/Pte ranks.   Remembering of course that the pay office doesn’t include PLD on your certified pay sheet for bank purposes.

PLD isn’t perfect.   Removing it won’t fix problems but it will certainly cause more.


----------



## Quirky (24 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Gen Safety (UGSO) is actually a fairly significant workload, so I’ve learned over the last 10 months. 663s, CF 98s and other reports/returns are part of that workload. So is SNIC Rep, COVID tracker…the list goes on.


So why isn't that position being carried out by a Wing rep. If it's a significant workload, that's a secondary duty, then why isn't it a primary duty for someone else? UGSO is one of those positions that isn't core business to a unit but dumped on from the Wing. It should be cut from units.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2022)

Having shouldered the work as one of my  secondary duties I agree.  Our Wing UGSO TORs state the duty should consume 50% of your time if it’s a secondary duty.   Ya, ok.   Not happening - it’s not even my sole Sec duty. 

Why isn’t this handled at the Wing level?  Funding for positions would be my guess.


----------



## brihard (24 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Perhaps.  It might result in releases for people who aren’t willing to take a loss of earnings, and will happily take their release move to somewhere more affordable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, I might not have been clear- I strongly believe CAF should have some benefit that helps to ensure a reasonably responsible CAF member at any rank has secure housing, and that a career with some progression should give them a reasonable shot at home ownership. I think we’re very much on the same side there. I just think the current model has been surpassed by market events and there needs to be a ground up rebuild, premised on correct first principles.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2022)

brihard said:


> Sorry, I might not have been clear- I strongly believe CAF should have some benefit that helps to ensure a reasonably responsible CAF member at any rank has secure housing, and that a career with some progression should give them a reasonable shot at home ownership. I think we’re very much on the same side there. I just think the current model has been surpassed by market events and there needs to be a ground up rebuild, premised on correct first principles.



I’ve suggested once, talking about this at work, that the baseline shouldn’t be “a city” but that it could be based on a mbrs place of enrolment.   The CAF could, theoretically, post me on initial posting to a lower COL area than I enrolled from but still give me PLD.

End of the day, the best option always seemed to boil down to a standard tax level for CAF mbrs regardless of provincial tax rates.  

That solves, partially, the disparity CAF mbrs might face but now disadvantages some provinces (NS comes to mind immediately, and Qc).  

I agree though; the current system doesn’t seem right.   Vic gets PLD,
Comox doesn’t.  Same for Halifax and Greenwood.  Edmonton does, and they are or were receiving some gas tax relief we aren’t in NS.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So AES Ops are overpaid and it doesn't level out until they become CWOs ?
> 
> _Ducks for cover_


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> What a BAH system might have issues with is coping with big jumps in the market. If prices stay relatively stable then its not a big deal, but if a market goes up 50% in a year then do you up the BAH for everyone, including the folks paying a mortgage based on the old market? Like I said, I am not a compensation expert, nor a real estate guru nor an economist.


How does the US military do it?  (This isn't just for you but anyone in the crowd)

I'm assuming some of their base markets have gone up as well.


----------



## Oldarmyguy77 (24 May 2022)

The standard of living is much higher on most 
U.S bases than in Canada. There housing is better kept, they have full shopping, medical care for dependents and much larger discounts than the C.F. The qs on some of our  bases  that are not newly renovated are in such poor condition that low income housing wouldn't even  touch them.   The government sold off Dnd land that was sold off in the late 90s instead of investing in military housing. I can only imagine the outcry  the if m.ps themselves had to live in such  conditions.


----------



## Ostrozac (24 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> How does the US military do it?  (This isn't just for you but anyone in the crowd)
> 
> I'm assuming some of their base markets have gone up as well.


The US adjusts BAH each year, for each market. During times of particular market fluctuation, it can be adjusted twice a year, as it was in 2021 for multiple locations.

Canada has a policy to adjust PLD annually — the CBI states “PLD rates are taxable and are set annually” — but this direction has been ignored for well over a decade,  without even being rewritten to explain the freeze of PLD. Because ignoring policy is apparently an option.


----------



## Fabius (24 May 2022)

The US Military Basic Allowance for Housing for the next year is released every December. I think its assessed every year but I could be wrong. 2022 rates for soldiers with dependents are here.  Note as well that its is tax free and paid only if you live off base as is indicated by several above.
There is a separate Cost of Living Allowance for high cost locations and an Army Food Allowance for those living off base that is a little short of $300 for officers and a little over $400 for enlisted and is also not taxable.


----------



## KevinB (25 May 2022)

Also on Post down here the Base Exchange  has cheap fuel, and a variety of other items that are taxed significantly lower than off post.  

But having seen both sides of the coin, CAF members generally have it much better financially at the NCO ranks than US Mil Pers. 

That said the on post living quantity and quality is significantly better down here.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> Also on Post down here the Base Exchange  has cheap fuel, and a variety of other items that are taxed significantly lower than off post.
> 
> But having seen both sides of the coin, CAF members generally have it much better financially at the NCO ranks than US Mil Pers.
> 
> That said the on post living quantity and quality is significantly better down here.



Do most US Mil folks live on base ?  How well prepared are they for retirement and having to live on the economy ?

As for pay, I have always understood that we make more but they have better benefits to being in their military.  I was amazed in Afghanistan at their PXs and what thy carried and that they could buy cars and have them waiting for them when they get home.  I could be wrong though.


----------



## KevinB (25 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Do most US Mil folks live on base ?  How well prepared are they for retirement and having to live on the economy ?
> 
> As for pay, I have always understood that we make more but they have better benefits to being in their military.  I was amazed in Afghanistan at their PXs and what thy carried and that they could buy cars and have them waiting for them when they get home.  I could be wrong though.


The model of the US Military is significantly different from Canada. 

There is significant ‘churn’ at the lower ranks. New Members come in and leave at rates that are unfathomable for Canada. 
  The majority of new soldiers live on post from what I see.  

There are countless more Veteran benefits as well, and a lot of Federal jobs pretty much require prior service at this point.  As well as VA Mortgages - so IMHO the US System is better setup to deal with soldiers exiting the Military than Canada as far as work after release.

Admittedly, I don’t know interact with many lower ranking soldiers, the majority of friends and acquaintances are in the MSgt+ rank levels and 95%+ SOF, which have their own benefits as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> The model of the US Military is significantly different from Canada.
> 
> There is significant ‘churn’ at the lower ranks. New Members come in and leave at rates that are unfathomable for Canada.
> The majority of new soldiers live on post from what I see.
> ...



I appreciate your input!  I imagined they had much better benefits for their soldiers and sailors when exiting the military.  Are these monetary benefits taken from the Defense budget ?  Or are they drawn from their version of VAC ?

Also I think we would be better off with the higher rates of churn and short contracts with say education benefits at completion of service than our careerist mindset.  But we are so short for people we cant afford to lose bandsmen let alone anyone else.

I think the benefits they receive far out weigh our better levels of pay.  But the grass isn't always greener I suppose.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think the benefits they receive far out weigh our better levels of pay.  But the grass isn't always greener I suppose.


FWIW that is  usually the way. 

Canadian governments - all parties - have not treated their soldiers, sailors and air persons very well if you really look at it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> FWIW that is  usually the way.
> 
> Canadian governments - all parties - have not treated their soldiers, sailors and air persons very well if you really look at it.



Its true.  Even at the height of Afg support was a mile wide, but only and inch deep.  I think thats a @Edward Campbell quote


----------



## KevinB (25 May 2022)

VA budget comes out of DoD








						VA.gov | Veterans Affairs
					

Apply for and manage the VA benefits and services you’ve earned as a Veteran, Servicemember, or family member—like health care, disability, education, and more.




					www.va.gov


----------



## rmc_wannabe (25 May 2022)

All things considered, I think k the U.S. does a far better job selling the benefits of service because the have set up a system that actually provides them, provides them consistently, and have educated the public about why they provide them.

The CAF and the Canadian Government don't do any of those things well. Any need from the CAF and its members are met with the same look you receive from your parents when you ask for lunch money: "What? Again? You ate yesterday and you want to eat again  today? Spoiled brats!"


----------



## MH2022 (25 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> I had a _great_ "discussion" on CAF Reddit with others who were convinced that with the allowances, etc that US NCMs were paid better than CAF NCMs.
> 
> I pretty much just gave up arguing.


Went through a bit of math calculations between a CAF MCpl in Gagetown and a US Army Sgt in Fort Bragg after Federal and Provincial taxes a CAF MCpl is Sitting at about 37500 USD a year without R&Q with R&Q around 30000 USD a US Army Sgt after taxes is sitting at around 28000 but if receiving BAH it bumps him up to almost 46000 USD he's getting around 1500 a month tax free and that really makes the difference.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 May 2022)

I am not sure extra/better PLD will improve much if there is still limited to no rental or purchase housing stock in a location.

I think the better long term solution is to actually fix the abysmal Single Quarters/RHU situation at most bases.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> Also on Post down here the Base Exchange  has cheap fuel, and a variety of other items that are taxed significantly lower than off post.
> 
> But having seen both sides of the coin, CAF members generally have it much better financially at the NCO ranks than US Mil Pers.
> 
> That said the on post living quantity and quality is significantly better down here.



Some of the PXs I’ve been too were very impressive and more like a mid to small mall vice what our CANEX offers, not to mention Commissary.

Large ones that come to mind;  Sigonella, Kadena (probably overall the most impressive; you could buy cars there IIRC) and Yokota. 



			https://m.facebook.com/KadenaExchange/


----------



## KevinB (25 May 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Some of the PXs I’ve been too were very impressive and more like a mid to small mall vice what our CANEX, not to mention Commissary.
> 
> Large ones that come to mind;  Siginella, Kadena (probably overall the most impressive; you could buy cars there IIRC) and Yokota.
> 
> ...


Bases down here are almost isolated City States for many purposes -- entirely self contained in the fact that they can exist with little exterior interaction if you live on Post.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> Bases down here are almost isolated City States for many purposes -- entirely self contained in the fact that they can exist with little exterior interaction if you live on Post.


Fort Ord was like that. So is Fort Irwin which has to be. Fort Carson was also impressive.

Adding: I was particularly impressed with the low prices and availability of consumer goods including beer, cigarettes etc. You know the essentials of infantry life.


----------



## Ostrozac (25 May 2022)

TheMattHan said:


> Went through a bit of math calculations between a CAF MCpl in Gagetown and a US Army Sgt in Fort Bragg after Federal and Provincial taxes a CAF MCpl is Sitting at about 37500 USD a year without R&Q with R&Q around 30000 USD a US Army Sgt after taxes is sitting at around 28000 but if receiving BAH it bumps him up to almost 46000 USD he's getting around 1500 a month tax free and that really makes the difference.


The big difference is that if that Sgt is ordered from Bragg to Washington DC his BAH goes from 1500 to 2400 per month. If posted to San Francisco it would be 4800 per month.

If that MCpl is posted from Gagetown (one of our most affordable large bases) to Ottawa (one of our least affordable) — he gets nothing.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (25 May 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> The big difference is that if that Sgt is ordered from Bragg to Washington DC his BAH goes from 1500 to 2400 per month. If posted to San Francisco it would be 4800 per month.
> 
> If that MCpl is posted from Gagetown (one of our most affordable large bases) to Ottawa (one of our least affordable) — he gets nothing.


Or conversely, he gets posted from Edmonton (in receipt of PLD, in an amount from a time when it was needed) to Kingston (where the CoL has increased 7 fold since 2009) and receives nothing. 

"PLD is an Allowance and should be factored into housing costs or counted as income..." or something of the like.


----------



## dimsum (25 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> Bases down here are almost isolated City States for many purposes -- entirely self contained in the fact that they can exist with little exterior interaction if you live on Post.


Yup.  NAS Sigonella was like that. 

You go through the gates and you feel like you're in a base in the US.  I can't remember if they took Euro or USD (probably both). 

It was really weird to experience that.


----------



## dimsum (25 May 2022)

So...to loop it to the article and the obvious anger being caused (just read the Reddit threads - it's not pretty)...

What can realistically be done? 

I'm not sure what priority PLD has with TB, and what they would do with it.  Same with increasing pay.  Same with building new housing.

Even after the article came out and MND was asked in an interview, none of the opposition parties even brought it up (or at least I missed it).  You'd think that this is a complete softball for the CPC, especially during a leadership race right now.

Do we end up with a bunch of homeless military members and families?  Or, more correctly, a mass exodus of CAF members?


----------



## Quirky (25 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Do we end up with a bunch of homeless military members and families? Or, more correctly, a mass exodus of CAF members?



Likely both as each family situation is different. My guess is anyone close enough to pension will just go IR or anyone over the hump will just retire instead of being financially crippled. Dark times indeed.


----------



## Weinie (25 May 2022)

McG said:


> Maybe, but I have noticed a tendancy (including amongst NCO who need to be inspired by individuals  by those who have commissioned and achieved success) to see that Maj or LCol with with two clasps and ask what he did to fail.  Meanwhile, in response to my question as to whether the naval warfare officer badge communicates anything that cannot be inferred between an individual’s rank and the sea service badge over the opposite pocket.




I commissioned from the ranks, have two clasps, and ended up as a LCol. I don’t consider that a fail.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Yup.  NAS Sigonella was like that.
> 
> You go through the gates and you feel like you're in a base in the US.  I can't remember if they took Euro or USD (probably both).
> 
> It was really weird to experience that.



Yokota...the TLFs "transients living facilities" were these big apt buildings.  4 of us had a 'apt'...seperate bedrooms.  full kitchen with all appliances.  living room, TV....you name it.  And not just 1 or 2 TLFs...lots.  Never would have guessed you were on the west side of Tokyo...


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2022)

Glass half full: After the recession hits, vacancies should open up:

Most Canadians concerned about recession, Yahoo/Maru poll finds​
As inflation soars and interest rates rise, Canadians are growing increasingly concerned that the economy is sinking into a recession, a new Yahoo/Maru Public Opinion poll has found.

The survey of 1,517 Canadians found that 23 per cent of respondents believe the country will experience a recession in the next three months, while a majority (55 per cent) think it is currently in the midst of one.

This comes as most Canadians reported concern about the state of the economy, with 62 per cent saying they believe it is "moving on the wrong track."

Recession concerns have been on the rise in recent weeks, as central banks around the world try to bring inflation down from some of the highest levels seen in decades via rapid interest rate hikes.

The Bank of Canada is among the central banks trying to bring skyrocketing inflation back to the target range of between one and three per cent, with its next interest rate decision on June 1. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 6.8 per cent on a year-over-year basis in April, driven largely by rising food and shelter prices. With gas prices spiking again this month, economists expect inflation to continue to accelerate, with one economist predicting it could pop by more than 7 per cent.









						Most Canadians concerned about recession, Yahoo/Maru poll finds
					

Around a quarter of Canadians believe the country will experience a recession in the next three months, while 55 per cent think it is in the midst of one.




					ca.finance.yahoo.com


----------



## CountDC (30 May 2022)

"PLD is an Allowance and should NOT be factored into housing costs or counted as income..."

That is what it should read.  Don't budget on PLD as it can be taken away at anytime.   Makes it a bit difficult though when you say this is to help with the COL difference but don't count on it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Dec 2022)

Watch and shoot 

But hearing that changes are coming to this.  Replacing with a housing assistance benefit, that will scale down in value as one rises in rank and disappearing completely at the MWO/Capt level.  Not sure if different regions will get different starting values. 

Don't take any of the above as gospel.


----------



## Quirky (15 Dec 2022)

I wonder what the differences will be.

This seems like you are punished for being a higher rank.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2022)

Financially disadvantaged maybe;  I wouldn’t use “punished”.


----------



## Quirky (15 Dec 2022)

The pay differential in the lower ranks, especially Cpl-Mcpl isn’t that significant. Any PLD allowance that gives Cpls more money could, theoretically, make the monthly pay equal.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Financially disadvantaged maybe;  I wouldn’t use “punished”.



Absolutely.  I've been told this is coming before Xmas.  And its already generating releases from the officer and Snr NCM world.


----------



## brihard (15 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> The pay differential in the lower ranks, especially Cpl-Mcpl isn’t that significant. Any PLD allowance that gives Cpls more money could, theoretically, make the monthly pay equal.


Depending how they structure it- MCpl isn’t even legally a rank and may see the same housing allowance as a Cpl.

Given than PLD is benchmarked off of Ottawa, and Ottawa’s housing costs have skyrocketed, honest PLD math could no longer address the issue it’s intended for. A change is needed, and an income-linked housing allowance is not a bad way to go about it. It’s not punishment for that to decrease with rank, particularly given the relatively high pay of officers.


----------



## dimsum (15 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Absolutely.  I've been told this is coming before Xmas.  And its already generating releases from the officer and Snr NCM world.


Considering the amounts aren’t out yet, that seems like a bit of a flinch.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2022)

Tied to rank, or tied to CAF pay?  The latter would seem more reasonable.  Better still if it were to be graduated and not binary...


----------



## brihard (15 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Tied to rank, or tied to CAF pay?  The latter would seem more reasonable.  Better still if it were to be graduated and not binary...



However that could also potentially neuter the incentive (or retention) effect of spec pay or certain allowances.

Lots to balance here…


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2022)

Since in theory allowances are compensation for conditions, it would strike me as reasonable to exclude allowances.  But I'm not writing the policy...


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Dec 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Tied to rank, or tied to CAF pay?  The latter would seem more reasonable.  Better still if it were to be graduated and not binary...


 
Ive been told rank.  But as below: 



dimsum said:


> Considering the amounts aren’t out yet, that seems like a bit of a flinch.



Have to wait to see it come out.


----------



## brihard (15 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ive been told rank.  But as below:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to wait to see it come out.


That’s not what we do here. Speculation is not encouraged, it’s obligatory. The more rampant the better.


----------



## Furniture (15 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ive been told rank.  But as below:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to wait to see it come out.


I'd heard it would be rank based as well, hopefully it's well thought out. 

A system like this can create unintended consequences pretty easily, as I fail to see a way to give PLD in a meaningful amount that doesn't create a situation where Jr. ranks are taking home as much money as more Snr. ranks.


----------



## brihard (15 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> I'd heard it would be rank based as well, hopefully it's well thought out.
> 
> A system like this can create unintended consequences pretty easily, as I fail to see a way to give PLD in a meaningful amount that doesn't create a situation where Jr. ranks are taking home as much money as more Snr. ranks.


Realistically what it should do is somewhat compress the pay gap between junior ranks, and SNCOs/commissioned officers.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> Realistically what it should do is somewhat compress the pay gap between junior ranks, and SNCOs/commissioned officers.



We also have to remunerate people in positions of responsibility appropriately.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ive been told rank.  But as below:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to wait to see it come out.



So a spec 2 Cpl could get more “benefit” than a Standard pay Sgt. 

Majors won’t get it, but a SAR Tech Jnr NCO would.

If so; fail.  I’ll wait to say “fucking idiots” til after details are released.

COL is going up and as a WO, I stand to drop in disposable income if my PLD vaporizes. My GAFF and commitment and all that will likely follow my PLD.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> Realistically what it should do is somewhat compress the pay gap between junior ranks, and SNCOs/commissioned officers.



That isn’t the intent of PLD though.  It’s to compensate for high COL areas. Specialist pay does that for trades that qualify.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> So a spec 2 Cpl could get more “benefit” than a Standard pay Sgt.
> 
> Majors won’t get it, but a SAR Tech Jnr NCO would.
> 
> ...



Ya this could be a disaster.  And I think folks are expecting the worst.

We have to be careful.  We are already hollow in the middle.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2022)

Sub_Guy said:


> *[Aug 31, 2005]* Anyone have any idea when these are supposed to come out?  The date always seems to get pushed back, then we either end up paying back money or getting a big bag O'cash..



Soon.


----------



## Furniture (15 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> Realistically what it should do is somewhat compress the pay gap between junior ranks, and SNCOs/commissioned officers.


The Jr. members may love that when they're Jr., but when the responsibilities stack up, and they're making slightly more than they did with far less responsibility they may change their mind.


----------



## brihard (15 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> That isn’t the intent of PLD though.  It’s to compensate for high COL areas. Specialist pay does that for trades that qualify.


Yes, but high COL areas have brutally distorted against a formula that used Ottawa as a baseline. The baseline itself has now become unaffordable for many CAF members, which means that the policy allowing for PLD is now broken, because honest application would see many high PLD places lose substantially. Since it’s now a fiction that the baseline is affordable, the defensible policy foundation has quietly been removed, and something’s gotta give.

Obviously the existent compensation considerations all still remain. More responsibility should still mean more pay, to the extent needed to appropriately recruit and retain. Specialist pay and environmental allowances have their own merits and need to not be broken by whatever is done. No matter how you slice it though, an inconvenient discomfort for a major is a crisis of affordability for a Corporal. Something’s gotta give.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> Yes, but high COL areas have brutally distorted against a formula that used Ottawa as a baseline. The baseline itself has now become unaffordable for many CAF members, which means that the policy allowing for PLD is now broken, because honest application would see many high PLD places lose substantially. Since it’s now a fiction that the baseline is affordable, the defensible policy foundation has quietly been removed, and something’s gotta give.



The best solution would then be to adjust PLD. I’ve also been a supporter of a “fixed federal income tax rate” for all Reg force mbrs who are posted outside their province of recruitment.  There are other ways to fix this.



brihard said:


> Obviously the existent compensation considerations all still remain. More responsibility should still mean more pay, to the extent needed to appropriately recruit and retain. Specialist pay and environmental allowances have their own merits and need to not be broken by whatever is done. No matter how you slice it though, an inconvenient discomfort for a major is a crisis of affordability for a Corporal. Something’s gotta give.



Yes.   TB should have to give.  Not CAF memberswho, thru education, effort and career success have made it to higher compensation level than others.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (16 Dec 2022)

I still think the solution is to build more on base/near base housing which takes a fixed percentage of your pay for rent to be the way to go. If you choose to live off base it's on your dime and it's your decision. But it guarantees housing across the country no matter what base or location. No need for PLD or any other allowance if that was to happen.

Mind you it would take years to come in effect just to build of them, let alone DND getting its act together to make it happen.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Dec 2022)

No need - unless you consider provincial tax rates; COL isn’t just about mortgage amounts.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The best solution would then be to adjust PLD. I’ve also been a supporter of a “fixed federal income tax rate” for all Reg force mbrs who are posted outside their province of recruitment.  There are other ways to fix this.



I've argued for sometime that we should all be taxed at the Ont rate regardless of where we are posted. 

This would go a long way.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (16 Dec 2022)

This is going to piss so many people off. Especially those who have been left in the lurch for the entirety of PLD. Plenty of Sgts and WOs that have had to stretch a buck because the lost ina Posting Message roulette over the years. Especially when they were posted in as Cpls.

What should have happened was applying a similar  common sense approach akin to what  we use for OUTCAN postings and other governmental departments:

You are posted to X location, the cost of rent for a 2 bdrm is 2350, and the newly mandated, national standard rent of a 2 bdrm from CFHA is 800. Mbr is on the hook for 800. GoC, as the employer forcing the relocation, is on the hook for the remainder. This only applies to high COL locations and would not apply to buying or selling homes.  If members wanted to buy, have at'er; but you're on the hook for your mortgage and the benefit doesn't apply. This would also make it rank agnostic, as it's based on local area and not on how much a member makes based on skill, responsibility, education, or experience.

If this is a hack job like it sounds, I honestly see this making the problem worse.


----------



## dimsum (16 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I've argued for sometime that we should all be taxed at the Ont rate regardless of where we are posted.
> 
> This would go a long way.


_Cue wails from BC, AB, etc_



rmc_wannabe said:


> What should have happened was applying a similar common sense approach akin to what we use for OUTCAN postings and other governmental departments:


Yes.  What OGDs do that as well?  GAC?  

The problem I could see is how we'd get the money to cover the rest of the costs.  The GoC isn't exactly giving away cash to DND.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> _Cue wails from BC, AB, etc_



I just mean the rates.  Not that all taxes go to Ont.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (16 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Yes.  What OGDs do that as well?  GAC?



Yes. And the RCMP in certain postings, as well as 
CBSA, Corrections, CCG, and other federal agencies that require their folks to move due to needs of the GoC. 



> The problem I could see is how we'd get the money to cover the rest of the costs.  The GoC isn't exactly giving away cash to DND



We get screwed over because we're the largest Department, as well as the one that costs the most in every aspect. Department of Fisheries, CRA, and CSIS don't need multi billion dollar aircraft or fleets of armoured vehicles to maintain. 

Having a standing military isn't cheap, but alas, we have maintained the militia myth for 200 years and thus see successive governments 
and TBS roll their eyes  and grudgingly open the purse strings when it's the absolute last resort. 

Canadians want the butter, but also the money for the butter to be spent elsewhere.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Yes. And the RCMP in certain postings, as well as
> CBSA, Corrections, CCG, and other federal agencies that require their folks to move due to needs of the GoC.
> 
> 
> ...



I think OGDs have different IR type programs too dont they ?


----------



## brihard (16 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Yes. And the RCMP in certain postings, as well as
> CBSA, Corrections, CCG, and other federal agencies that require their folks to move due to needs of the GoC.



You’re probably thinking of provisions of the NJC Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive. There’s a provision for Living Cost Differential (“this place is expensive” allowance), and a separate provision for government owned housing. Those living in government housing pay rent and utilities (not that high, but also quality usually isn’t that great).

The principles of IPGHD are aimed at being able to provide housing in isolated/remote locations. I think the Mounties use it most, but probably also CAF in Yellowknife, CBSA, and some other federal employees keeping a foot on the ground out in the hinterlands.

CAF is dealing with much greater scale; housing solutions that work for four RCMP officers posted to Fort Mosquito Hill may not necessarily work for a squadron’s worth of RCAF in Comox.

IMHO, get CAF back to having adequate housing for members, justified as a necessary measure to assure CAF’s ability to maintain a force that can defend Canada and its national interests. Nothing wrong with charging reasonable rent for that.


----------



## Furniture (16 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> IMHO, get CAF back to having adequate housing for members, justified as a necessary measure to assure CAF’s ability to maintain a force that can defend Canada and its national interests. Nothing wrong with charging reasonable rent for that.


I agree, but given the state of many PMQs, and base housing on many American bases, that might not be a realistic solution. The GoC/CAF might build the houses/apartments, but they will continuously fail to properly maintain them until they are full of mould, falling apart, and nobody is willing to live in them. 

I think a mix of base housing (maintained), and a PLD system for those that choose to live on the economy is a better solution. It would protect the Jr. members, and those who choose to have larger families from not being able to afford a place to live, but still encourage members to participate in the local housing market, and become home owners. 

More broadly, as I said earlier, this new PLD system has the potential to cause a lot of unintended consequences, so I'm very curious to see what the plan is. If it is seen as "punishing" the middle people the CAF is already short on, it could end up making things worse than they are now.


----------



## kev994 (16 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> I agree, but given the state of many PMQs, and base housing on many American bases, that might not be a realistic solution. The GoC/CAF might build the houses/apartments, but they will continuously fail to properly maintain them until they are full of mould, falling apart, and nobody is willing to live in them.
> 
> I think a mix of base housing (maintained), and a PLD system for those that choose to live on the economy is a better solution. It would protect the Jr. members, and those who choose to have larger families from not being able to afford a place to live, but still encourage members to participate in the local housing market, and become home owners.
> 
> More broadly, as I said earlier, this new PLD system has the potential to cause a lot of unintended consequences, so I'm very curious to see what the plan is. If it is seen as "punishing" the middle people the CAF is already short on, it could end up making things worse than they are now.


Luck of the draw on PMQs frustrates a lot of people, you could get a place with zero insulation and your oil bill is $1000 a month, or you could get the house next door, newly renovated passive home with a heat pump, heat it all winter for $100. Rent for both is the same. There’s only 3 of the latter on the entire base.


----------



## CountDC (3 Jan 2023)

brihard said:


> IMHO, get CAF back to having adequate housing for members, justified as a necessary measure to assure CAF’s ability to maintain a force that can defend Canada and its national interests. Nothing wrong with charging reasonable rent for that.



The catch there is the "reasonable rent".   Not much use when they want to charge according to the local market.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Jan 2023)

Halifax Tar said:


> Absolutely.  I've been told this is coming before Xmas.



I guess this didn't age well.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (3 Jan 2023)

CountDC said:


> The catch there is the "reasonable rent".   Not much use when they want to charge according to the local market.



Exactly. 

Paying 2K to CFHA isn't much of a perk, when the alternative is paying 2K to Joe Civi. It's still 75% of Pte Bloggins' take home pay.


----------



## kev994 (3 Jan 2023)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Paying 2K to CFHA isn't much of a perk, when the alternative is paying 2K to Joe Civi. It's still 75% of Pte Bloggins' take home pay.


I thought there was a % cap on how much you could pay for a Q? 25% of your gross salary?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (3 Jan 2023)

kev994 said:


> I thought there was a % cap on how much you could pay for a Q? 25% of your * gross * salary?



Gross vs. Net pay get extremely finicky, depending on your geographical area and tax bracket. Net pay is a far stronger metric for QoL. When a solid chunk of your gross pay disappears in the same transaction and is unusable (EI comes to mind)... it's of very little solace to the member.

I was paying "25% of Gross Pay" on a Q here in Kingston and it was still 1500 a month for a shit hole. I ended up getting my blood money pay out from VAC, throwing it into a down payment, and now my mortgage, even with a higher rate, is cheaper per month than my Q. 

Add in the fact that my Q didn't see 72K in repairs or maintenance while I lived there, definitely adds to my belief that CFHA and it's "non-profit" running is a farce.


----------



## CountDC (Monday at 13:37)

seems that this is aging well at the same rate as everything else in the military.


----------



## Navy_Pete (Monday at 14:10)

CountDC said:


> The catch there is the "reasonable rent".   Not much use when they want to charge according to the local market.


Also, local market is subject to provincial regulations and you have recourses like the tenant boards when things don't get fixed. We don't have any equivalent protection, so you get what you get, even if it is sub-standard.


----------



## Furniture (Monday at 20:02)

CountDC said:


> seems that this is aging well at the same rate as everything else in the military.


I wonder if the plan that had been dreamt-up by the big wigs was given the "common sense" test by someone lower down the ladder, and too many issues were found. I specify "down the ladder" because the people at the top seem really focused on S3-MS, but don't seem to have considered the people above that. 

Like I mentioned earlier, the plan I was told about was based on rank, so Jr. pers would get the most benefit, and Snr. pers would get little/no benefit. That sounds great when you're a Pte making the same as your Sgt, but is a lot less great sounding when you're a Sgt dealing with new Ptes. If done improperly it could lead to an exodus of the "middle" people the CAF has already admitted being short on.


----------



## brihard (Monday at 20:07)

rmc_wannabe said:


> When a solid chunk of your gross pay disappears in the same transaction and is unusable (EI comes to mind)... it's of very little solace to the member.



I’m curious where common conception comes from that EI is of no benefit to most military members?


----------



## Furniture (Monday at 20:24)

brihard said:


> I’m curious where common conception comes from that EI is of no benefit to most military members?


Because most military members draw CAF pay right up until they leave the CAF, and start paying EI premiums at their next job... The only instance I'm aware of that EI benefits CAF members is MATA/PATA.


----------



## brihard (Monday at 20:36)

Furniture said:


> Because most military members draw CAF pay right up until they leave the CAF, and start paying EI premiums at their next job... *The only instance I'm aware of that EI benefits CAF members is MATA/PATA.*


Bingo, go it in one.

Maximum EI contributions for 2023 are $1002.45. Probably nearly every member of the military will pay that.

A couple who have a child get 15 weeks of maternity benefits and up to 40 weeks of shared parental benefits to split between them. That’s 55 weeks of EI benefits at $650 a week, or $35,750 in total benefits from EI for taking maximum parental leave for one child. At today’s dollars that’s slightly more than 35 years’ worth of EI contributions by one worker. So a couple who both work for 35 years and contribute maximum EI benefits, and who have two children for which they make full use of maternity and parental leave, will get out roughly the same or slightly more than they put in. Anyone who does the MATA/PATA three times or more is taking out considerably more than they’ll ever contribute.

Why CAF members overlook this and say EI can never be of use to them, I don’t know. (I know you didn’t take it to that extreme, but we’ve definitely all seen it).


----------



## Furniture (Monday at 20:39)

brihard said:


> Bingo, go it in one.
> 
> Maximum EI contributions for 2023 are $1002.45. Probably nearly every member of the military will pay that.
> 
> ...


CAF members who have no children, or had them before joining(more common these days) get nothing out of it. I don't begrudge my EI premiums, but I can easily see why some CAF members do.


----------



## Remius (Monday at 20:44)

Furniture said:


> CAF members who have no children, or had them before joining(more common these days) get nothing out of it. I don't begrudge my EI premiums, but I can easily see why some CAF members do.


How is that any different than anyone else who pays EI premiums?


----------



## Halifax Tar (Monday at 20:48)

Furniture said:


> I wonder if the plan that had been dreamt-up by the big wigs was given the "common sense" test by someone lower down the ladder, and too many issues were found. I specify "down the ladder" because the people at the top seem really focused on S3-MS, but don't seem to have considered the people above that.
> 
> Like I mentioned earlier, the plan I was told about was based on rank, so Jr. pers would get the most benefit, and Snr. pers would get little/no benefit. That sounds great when you're a Pte making the same as your Sgt, but is a lot less great sounding when you're a Sgt dealing with new Ptes. If done improperly it could lead to an exodus of the "middle" people the CAF has already admitted being short on.



It's like you're in my head.


----------



## brihard (Monday at 20:48)

Furniture said:


> CAF members who have no children, or had them before joining(more common these days) get nothing out of it. I don't begrudge my EI premiums, but I can easily see why some CAF members do.


Same goes for someone who accidentally has a kid really young, then later on stumbles into pretty much any stable employment that takes them to retirement. So what? It’s a pooled insurance approach. Inherently not everyone will use it, nor will most be able to know that fact for sure.

I also bet some CAF spouses end up on EI when the CAF member gets posted. I bet some CAF veterans end up on EI Disability, too.


----------



## Furniture (Monday at 20:50)

Remius said:


> How is that any different than anyone else who pays EI premiums?


The difference would be that as a CAF member you can't get laid-off, so you literally have no chance of drawing EI outside parental leave, whereas for others it is a security net.

Like I said, I "get" it, but I can see why others take issue with it.


----------



## Remius (Monday at 20:51)

Furniture said:


> The difference would be that as a CAF member you can't get laid-off, so you literally have no chance of drawing EI outside parental leave, whereas for others it is a security net.


You can be released for a whole variety of reasons.


----------



## Furniture (Monday at 20:51)

brihard said:


> Same goes for someone who accidentally has a kid really young, then later on stumbles into pretty much any stable employment that takes them to retirement. So what? It’s a pooled insurance approach. Inherently not everyone will use it, nor will most be able to know that fact for sure.
> 
> I also bet some CAF spouses end up on EI when the CAF member gets posted. I bet some CAF veterans end up on EI Disability, too.


Did you miss the part where I said I don't begrudge paying EI premiums?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (Monday at 21:02)

Remius said:


> You can be * released * for a whole variety of reasons.



That's the kicker right there. You're released from service, not terminated from employment. 

The Employment Insurance Act only makes reference to CAF members paying into the benefit and drawing it during Parental Leave. Unless I am missing something from my reading of the Act, I don't see what Release item would entitle a CAF members to draw EI Benefits. 

I don't begrudge paying into it, as I have used Parental Leave benefits at least once. I was merely pointing out how calculating CoL off of Gross vs. Net Pay can be a different kettle of fish altogether.


----------



## brihard (Monday at 21:06)

Furniture said:


> Did you miss the part where I said I don't begrudge paying EI premiums?


No, and I’m not faulting you for anything either. Just pointing out that the same logic applies to many both within and outside of CAF. Discussing, not arguing.

I actually very much respect you seeing something that you pay into, that contributes to our society’s health, that you may or may not ever benefit partially or fully from, and being cool with it regardless. More of that would be good for Canada.


----------



## brihard (Monday at 21:07)

rmc_wannabe said:


> That's the kicker right there. You're released from service, not terminated from employment.
> 
> The Employment Insurance Act only makes reference to CAF members paying into the benefit and drawing it during Parental Leave. Unless I am missing something from my reading of the Act, I don't see what Release item would entitle a CAF members to draw EI Benefits.
> 
> I don't begrudge paying into it, as I have used Parental Leave benefits at least once. I was merely pointing out how calculating CoL off of Gross vs. Net Pay can be a different kettle of fish altogether.


I’ve known of reservists reaching the end of Cl B or Cl C and going on EI for a time.


----------



## Remius (Monday at 21:25)

rmc_wannabe said:


> That's the kicker right there. You're released from service, not terminated from employment.
> 
> The Employment Insurance Act only makes reference to CAF members paying into the benefit and drawing it during Parental Leave. Unless I am missing something from my reading of the Act, I don't see what Release item would entitle a CAF members to draw EI Benefits.
> 
> I don't begrudge paying into it, as I have used Parental Leave benefits at least once. I was merely pointing out how calculating CoL off of Gross vs. Net Pay can be a different kettle of fish altogether.


There is also caregiver benefits for adult caregiving, end of life care etc.

It isn’t just mata pata. 


The act stipulates that CAF employment is Insurable.  Thus should apply if someone left with just cause voluntarily or involuntarily.

Unless there is an exclusion clause somewhere I’m missing? 






						Employment Insurance Act
					

Federal laws of Canada




					laws-lois.justice.gc.ca


----------



## Quirky (Monday at 21:29)

If someone in the CAF doesn’t take MATA/PATA in their career, how do they reclaim all that EI taken from their pay at retirement - asking for a friend.

Back to PLD…

Ptes making enough allowances that brings their overall pay to Sgt/WO wage - rumoured - is some of the dumbest crap that I’ve ever heard. That’s like a line cook at McDonald’s being paid an allowance that will bring them up to a manager salary. Leave it to those completely out of touch to even suggest nonsense like that, be it GOFOs or politicians.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (Monday at 21:44)

brihard said:


> I actually very much respect you seeing something that you pay into, that contributes to our society’s health, that you may or may not ever benefit partially or fully from, and being cool with it regardless. More of that would be good for Canada.



I used to see things like my EI contributions as benefitting Canada, and citizens in need, etc. 

I have less confidence in this current govt that any/all monies deducted from my monthly pay is being used responsibly and don’t feel quite the same about pay deductions anymore, EI included.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (Yesterday at 00:10)

EI as far as I am concerned is a scam. Other than the Mata/Pata side of it, the general EI system is more or less wealth redistribution from people who work year round to those who choose to work part time year round (i.e. seasonal industry). If it wasn't there would have been no need for CERB as everyone should have just been able to rely on EI. 

Historically those in seasonal work such as logging, fishing, construction, etc. would go find a second job in the down season. Now they sit around and collect EI for that time which they will never pay into enough to balance it out. The way it gets balanced out is by someone like me who odds are isn't really going to collect it paying into it year round. Also the fact that if you make over 70k or whatever the exact amount is in a year results in you having to pay back a substantial portion of the EI taken, means that there really isn't much point in me collecting EI if I did happen to get laid off. Basically throwing my money away on a ever increasing premium to support those who refuse to fully support themselves. 

It should be changed to some sort of savings account you can only access when laid off/pata/mata and when the money runs out, too bad for you. If the money is there when you retire it should become a second pension. I think you would see a large positive change in many industries if such a change were to come into effect.


----------



## ballz (Yesterday at 01:11)

Eaglelord17 said:


> It should be changed to some sort of savings account you can only access when laid off/pata/mata and when the money runs out, too bad for you. If the money is there when you retire it should become a second pension. I think you would see a large positive change in many industries if such a change were to come into effect.



No need to complicate this. Just get rid of the program and let private insurance companies offer it as a service. You can choose to put your money in into your TFSA instead if you so please.

Those on the 14 weeks on/38 weeks off work schedule will probably make better choices when they realize their premium is going to cost $20k a year.


----------



## Furniture (Yesterday at 02:48)

ballz said:


> No need to complicate this. Just get rid of the program and let private insurance companies offer it as a service. You can choose to put your money in into your TFSA instead if you so please.
> 
> Those on the 14 weeks on/38 weeks off work schedule will probably make better choices when they realize their premium is going to cost $20k a year.


Perfect plan, we can outsource all of our seasonal work to foreign workers. 

There is no way that can go wrong...


----------



## ballz (Yesterday at 03:35)

Furniture said:


> Perfect plan, we can outsource all of our seasonal work to foreign workers.
> 
> There is no way that can go wrong...



Lol, you think you take away EI and all the lobster fisherman would just sell their licenses? Pretty sure they'd just go find a job during non-fishing season, those with any sense of shame already do.


----------



## Furniture (Yesterday at 04:16)

ballz said:


> Lol, you think you take away EI and all the lobster fisherman would just sell their licenses? Pretty sure they'd just go find a job during non-fishing season, those with any sense of shame already do.


lol tell me you don't understand the fishing industry, without telling me you don't understand the fishing industry.

It's not the fishermen that need the EI, it's the hired help. The fishermen collect because they can, not because they need it. It's the fish plants and farms that are already heavily dependant on foreign workers that require a core of locals to run the plant/farm while the cheap imported labour does the menial jobs. 

Also, who do you think fixes your roads, and builds things? It's cheap and easy to make fun on the East Coast fishermen and hired help, but there are lots of seasonal workers across the country.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (Yesterday at 09:52)

Furniture said:


> lol tell me you don't understand the fishing industry, without telling me you don't understand the fishing industry.
> 
> It's not the fishermen that need the EI, it's the hired help. The fishermen collect because they can, not because they need it. It's the fish plants and farms that are already heavily dependant on foreign workers that require a core of locals to run the plant/farm while the cheap imported labour does the menial jobs.
> 
> Also, who do you think fixes your roads, and builds things? It's cheap and easy to make fun on the East Coast fishermen and hired help, but there are lots of seasonal workers across the country.


There is a lot of seasonal workers. I don’t see why I should be subsidizing them though. If they want to work seasonally, save their money to make it through the rest of the year. 

With your example of construction there is plenty of indoor renos they could work on during the winter. 

Many also play games where they are actually working year round, just working cash under the table well collecting EI.


----------



## AKa (Yesterday at 10:52)

brihard said:


> I’ve known of reservists reaching the end of Cl B or Cl C and going on EI for a time.


I looked into doing that in between contracts.  It can be done.  But they claw it back on your next year's taxes so there's limited value in doing so unless you really need the cash flow at that particular juncture.


----------



## Furniture (Yesterday at 12:52)

Eaglelord17 said:


> There is a lot of seasonal workers. I don’t see why I should be subsidizing them though. If they want to work seasonally, save their money to make it through the rest of the year.
> 
> With your example of construction there is plenty of indoor renos they could work on during the winter.
> 
> Many also play games where they are actually working year round, just working cash under the table well collecting EI.


That's fine, but have you considered the consequences of that plan? I agree in principle, but I also know ideological decisions also often have unforeseen consequences. Regardless, this sidetrack should end or move elsewhere. 

Like I mentioned regarding PLD, a well intentioned idea can lead to other issues.


----------



## Halifax Tar (Yesterday at 13:18)

Eaglelord17 said:


> There is a lot of seasonal workers. I don’t see why I should be subsidizing them though. If they want to work seasonally, save their money to make it through the rest of the year.
> 
> With your example of construction there is plenty of indoor renos they could work on during the winter.
> 
> Many also play games where they are actually working year round, just working cash under the table well collecting EI.



Ahhh the myth of the poor fisherman.  

2 F250s, one brand new daily driver and the other an early model, clapped out and rusty to drive to the Social Services office.


----------



## Stoker (Yesterday at 15:08)

Halifax Tar said:


> Ahhh the myth of the poor fisherman.
> 
> 2 F250s, one brand new daily driver and the other an early model, clapped out and rusty to drive to the Social Services office.


A lot of fishermen are well off however many are not dependent on the fishery and area they fish. Some 100% deserve and need EI. The issue back home in NL is that many communities are so small, there is not a big option to find a job after their season ends. Its easy to say like some do for them to move away for work but its not always that cut and dry.


----------



## Halifax Tar (Yesterday at 15:14)

Stoker said:


> A lot of fishermen are well off however many are not dependent on the fishery and area they fish. Some 100% deserve and need EI. The issue back home in NL is that many communities are so small, there is not a big option to find a job after their season ends. Its easy to say like some do for them to move away for work but its not always that cut and dry.



The only poor fisherman is the fiscally irresponsible fisherman. 

As for communities...

We have to stop propping up dead communities because people have emotional attachments.  Maritimes and NFLD I'm looking right at you. 

You can live in Two Kitty Harbor all you'd like, but don't expect tax dollars to prop up your existence because anything west of NB is terrifying.  People have migrated for a better life since the dawn of time, get a move on.


----------



## Stoker (Yesterday at 15:26)

Halifax Tar said:


> The only poor fisherman is the fiscally irresponsible fisherman.
> 
> As for communities...
> 
> ...


Yep I heard all this before from people who never walked in their shoes and who seem jealous of their lifestyle and where they live. Cool be judgmental, I'm sure they care.


----------



## Halifax Tar (Yesterday at 16:19)

Stoker said:


> Yep I heard all this before from people who never walked in their shoes and who seem jealous of their lifestyle and where they live. Cool be judgmental, I'm sure they care.



That's because its right.  

We're wasting money on social programs being pumped into small communities because people don't want to move on and make an effort to better themselves. 

Live where you like, that's freedom.  But don't expect the rest of to cover your bills.  Make. Good. Choices. Take responsibility for your station and if you're not happy with it, fix it.

I come from a small village north of Kingston.  It's dead.  Such as life.  I have interest in moving back.

No one is jealous of the dead beats living on the dole in New Ross, NS.


----------

