# DND halts millions in benefits



## the 48th regulator (1 Feb 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2011/02/01/military-benefits.html

*DND halts millions in benefits*

Last Updated: Tuesday, February 1, 2011 | 6:02 PM ET 
CBC News

Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson says the unauthorized benefit payments were the result of an erroneous 'interpretation' at the Department of National Defence.Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson says the unauthorized benefit payments were the result of an erroneous 'interpretation' at the Department of National Defence. (CBC)The Canadian military says an error at the Department of National Defence resulted in tens of millions of dollars worth of benefit payments paid to up to 7,000 service members over the last five years.

_*The benefits include the Defence Department's use of taxpayer dollars to bring families of fallen soldiers killed in Afghanistan to repatriation ceremonies, which did not receive proper approval from the Treasury Board.*_

The DND payments will be cut off at midnight Tuesday while the military reviews the benefit assessments and payment process, said Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, vice-chief of the defence staff.

In a hastily arranged news conference at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, Donaldson said an internal review determined DND officials mistakenly changed internal eligibility policies for benefits offered to military posted outside Canada and their next of kin.

The unauthorized benefits also include next-of-kin visits to Afghanistan, travel fee reimbursements for troops deployed to different parts of Canada, bonuses for overseas postings and allowances for soldiers assigned away from families.
'We didn't do our homework'

Donaldson stressed the error was the result of an "interpretation" by military administrators over eligibility for payments, and servicemen and women who received the benefits did not do anything wrong.

"Canadian Forces members are not to be blamed for this oversight," Donaldson said. "We didn't do our homework."

The military is now seeking Treasury Board approval for these costs. In addition, the costs for any future next-of-kin visits will be paid out of a non-public fund.

Donaldson stressed Canadian servicemen and women will not see cuts on their paycheques, but acknowledged they will have to wait for future payments until the process is sorted out.

He added he believes it will have a minimal impact on soldiers currently deployed to Afghanistan.

"Every effort is being made to rectify this situation," Donaldson said.

So far, no one is facing disciplinary action, he added.

_ Copyright © CBC 2011_


----------



## dapaterson (1 Feb 2011)

Winnipeg Sun:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/soldier-bonuses-allowances-and-perks-suspended-after-spending-problem-at-dnd-115050354.html

TTAWA - Thousands of Canadian Forces members have been cut off from a myriad of perks after the Defence Department discovered it has been dishing out millions in benefits without proper authorization.

The benefits fall into four categories, including bonuses for out-of-country postings, separation allowances for soldiers with long-term assignments away from families, travel expenses and cash paid to relatives of soldiers killed overseas.

Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, the vice-chief of defence staff, says the mistake was spotted following a recent internal review.

The payments, amounting to "tens of millions of dollars," have been made over the last five years and the military has launched an investigation.

Donaldson says the benefits were not spelled out in detail amid federal Treasury Board guidelines and the payments must cease while the department gets the regulations updated.

Up to 7,000 members of the regular and reserve force are affected, but Donaldson said it should have minimal impact on troops in Afghanistan.


----------



## cudmore (1 Feb 2011)

I was at the newser.  Should be a canforgen out by now.  Also, it seems there could have been a series of briefings at bases across the  country.


----------



## SupersonicMax (1 Feb 2011)

Anybody has more info on what exactly is going to be affected?


----------



## dapaterson (1 Feb 2011)

All the info should be pushed down the chain of command shortly.


----------



## cudmore (1 Feb 2011)

There are about 12 categories of benefits.   
Some of them include: 
- Car storage fees for soldiers on Class B postings.
- Leave Travel Assistance (for non-Afghanistan postings) is only for you to go home.  Not for your spouse to come to you, or for the two of you to meet in Montreal (even if that last one is cheaper).


----------



## Occam (1 Feb 2011)

cudmore said:
			
		

> - Leave Travel Assistance (for non-Afghanistan postings) is only for you to go home.  Not for your spouse to come to you, or for the two of you to meet in Montreal (even if that last one is cheaper).



Say what?  Reverse LTA and third location LTA have been around for years.  I utilized Reverse LTA to bring the dragon to Greece in 1993...and I'm sure the policy was around a long time before that...


----------



## cudmore (1 Feb 2011)

Occam,
I can't pretend to be an expert on this one.  But, it seems the LTA rules that were bent apply to domestic duty postings, and perhaps some overseas non-mission postings (I'm making up a new lingo here. I know).  That's to say, if you went to Afghanistan or to a UN mission in the Middle East, having the spouse come meet you in London is okay.  If you're posted to Fort Bragg for nine months, having your spouse come meet you in NYC is not okay.


----------



## Brasidas (1 Feb 2011)

cudmore said:
			
		

> Occam,
> I can't pretend to be an expert on this one.  But, it seems the LTA rules that were bent apply to domestic duty postings, and perhaps some overseas non-mission postings (I'm making up a new lingo here. I know).



What's your source on the LTA specifics?


----------



## cudmore (1 Feb 2011)

I will admit I could be a bit wet on the specifics, but LTA (roughly) as I described it, was an example provided in person at the briefing today by a DG in Chief of Military Personnel office.
Apparently mission-focused LTA arrangements are governed under different rules.  But duty in Canada and overseas, otherwise, are not.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2011)

Jeeessse!  It sure doesn`t take long for the facts and rumours to become all convoluted.


----------



## meni0n (1 Feb 2011)

Allowances for soldiers assigned away from families.

Is that IR  or separation allowance?


----------



## jeffb (1 Feb 2011)

> Donaldson says other benefits were also not spelled out in detail and it unclear how long it will take to get changes made. It's unclear whether any of the expenses will be clawed back, but Donaldson said the military is seeking retroactive approval for what has spent.



At least the intent isn't to claw back everything.


----------



## Navalsnpr (1 Feb 2011)

Can't wait to read the CANFORGEN!!


----------



## Scratch_043 (1 Feb 2011)

Yeah, I'll be expecting it soon.

I'm guessing that it refers to separation allowance, menion.

Nic


----------



## Occam (1 Feb 2011)

Thunderstruck said:
			
		

> Any word if there will be recovery action of benefits previously paid?



Look up three posts from yours.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (1 Feb 2011)

That horrible, keening, screeching sound I hear is the IR gravy train coming to a juddering halt......


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Feb 2011)

48th Regulator has in bold italics what was mentioned and that is the families of the fallen were flown/transported to Trenton without TB approval. That is one example. The other is the NOK program to KAF.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Feb 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> 48th Regulator has in bold italics what was mentioned and that is the families of the fallen were flown/transported to Trenton without TB approval. That is one example. The other is the NOK program to KAF.



The bolded part says that those things are "included" in what is at issue. They are not the only things.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Feb 2011)

I'm fairly certain that the CANFORGEN will make it all clear.  

It is probably worth it to wait for clarification.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Feb 2011)

What, and ruin a perfectly good thread with the facts?  Are you mad?


----------



## GAP (2 Feb 2011)

This thread could become a whole exercise program all by itself, what with a the jumping to conclusions and such..... :nod:


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Feb 2011)

No problem, when the CANFOGEN gets released, all speculation and net-rage in this thread goes away to die.  And everyone can start over with the baseline set of facts.


----------



## ballz (2 Feb 2011)

Will the CANFORGEN be posted? There are some of us that don't ever receive them and if it has anything to do with LTA and whatnot it might affect us (including me haha).


----------



## derekrobitaille (2 Feb 2011)

Hello, I just saw this video today and was wondering if this will have any sort of effect on new people applying to the Forces. Do you think they will be taking less recruits or anything else?

If you don't know what I am talking about, here is the video:

http://en.video.sympatico.ca/index.php/en/video/news/2/latest-headlines/4/canada/16/dnd-halts-millions-in-benefits/773822507001

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere. I used the search tool and there weren't any results.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2011)

derekrobitaille said:
			
		

> Hello, I just saw this video today and was wondering if this will have any sort of effect on new people applying to the Forces. Do you think they will be taking less recruits or anything else?
> 
> If you don't know what I am talking about, here is the video:
> 
> ...



Who knows. Let's try sort through the immediate problems that will be facing serving members before we worry if this will have an impact on whether Johnny can join the infantry.

Milnet.ca Staff

Ref: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/99003.25.html

Here is the CANFORGEN that is applicable to this thread, could you please post the CANFORGEN, and then with a suitable delay afterwords open the thread back up.  I have to split by Official Languages.

DIN Link: http://msg-server.halifax.mil.ca/messages/canforgen/2011033000095.html


--CANFORGEN start English---
RAAUZYUW RCCPJAW4003 0330400-UUUU--RCEMDUS RCEMEYS RCEMFWS RCEMFXA
RCEMGBS RCEMHNS RCEMHZS RCEMIBS RCEMKDS RCEMLES RCEMMIS RCEMNGS
RCEMPDS RCEMRKS RCEMTOS RCEMWCS RCEMWFS RCEMWMS RCEMWNS RCEMWRS
RCEMWWA RCEMWYA RCEMZZA RCEOCEA RCEONWA RCEOPRA.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC
RIFTST T NCISS LATINA
RIFD T NADEFCOL
RGFLID T NSS OBERAMMERGAU
RXCAFDA T CA NLR HQ SACT
RXFEAA T CFSU E DET NAPLES
RXDBON T HQ MC NORTHWOOD
RXFKI T CFSU E DET BRUNSSUM
RXFKBA T CFSU E DET RAMSTEIN
RXFEAA T JFCHQ NSE CA NAPLES
RAYASAP T CANSTANDREP CANBERRA
R 012359Z FEB 11
FM NDHQ VCDS OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
SIC WAS
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJ: COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION
REFS: A. CANFORGEN 019/05
B. CANFORGEN 145/05
C. CFIRP 2009
D. DOMESTIC BENEFIT AIDE MIMOIRE
E. CANFORGEN 124/06
1. A REVIEW OF COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS ENTITLEMENTS HAS IDENTIFIED 
AREAS WHERE THE CANADIAN FORCES HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE TREASURY BOARD 
(TB) APPROVED COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT FRAMEWORK FOR CERTAIN CF 
PERSONNEL AND NEXT OF KIN (NOK). ACCORDINGLY, AS NEAR TERM 
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY CONFIRMATION IS SOUGHT, AND TO ENSURE THAT 
PAYMENTS ARE PROPERLY AUTHORIZED BY TB, THE PAYMENT OF SOME BENEFITS 
MUST BE SUSPENDED. INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. THE 



PAGE 2 RCCPJAW4003 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
PRIMARY CONCERN IS TO AVOID FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO OUR MEMBERS AND 
THEIR FAMILIES. WE INTEND TO HAVE A RESOLUTION TO THIS SITUATION AS 
SOON AS POSSIBLE.
2. UNTIL THIS SITUATION IS CLARIFIED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY PAYMENTS 
OF BENEFITS SHALL BE ADMINISTERED IAW EXISTING APPLICABLE TB APPROVED 
POLICIES AS INDICATED BELOW:
A. SEPARATION EXPENSE: IAW COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT INSTRUCTIONS 
(CBI) 209.997, THIS BENEFIT IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO REGULAR FORCE AND 
RESERVE FORCE ON CLASS C SERVICE. THIS WILL AFFECT APPROXIMATELY 1500 
REGULAR FORCE AND CLASS C RESERVISTS WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CLAIM 
FOR FURNITURE RENTAL, CONNECTION FEES, LEASE LIABILITIES AND INTERIM 
LODGING AND MEALS (ON RETURN FROM ATTACHED POSTING OR EXTENDED TD). 
SE CLAIMS FOR ITEMS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CBI WILL STILL BE PROCESSED 
BUT MEMBERS SHOULD NOTE THAT THE RATES RECEIVED FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL 
AND NON COMMERCIAL ACCOMODATIONS COULD BE AFFECTED. IAW CBI 209.997, 
THE AUTHORITY FOR IR RESTS WITH THE LOCAL BASE/WING COMMANDER AND NOT 
THE CAREER MANAGERS. AS SUCH, REF A IS HEREBY RESCINDED. CLASS B 
RESERVISTS WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO CLAIM SEPARATION EXPENSE. AS 
SUCH, REF B, WHICH HAD PROVIDED CLASS B SEPARATION EXPENSE BENEFIT IS 
HEREBY RESCINDED,



PAGE 3 RCCPJAW4003 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
B. TRANSPORTATION ON LEAVE: IAW CBI 209.50 FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES AND 
IAW MILITARY FOREIGN SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS (MFSI) FOR OPERATIONS 
OUTSIDE CANADA. FOR DOMESTIC LEAVE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (LTA) CF MEMBERS 
ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXPENSES TO RETURN TO THEIR HOME. THIS 
BENEFIT DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ENTITLEMENT FOR REVERSE OR THIRD LOCATION 
LTA. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO MEMBERS ON OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT 
OVERSEAS WHO ARE COVERED UNDER THE MFSI,
C. REIMBURSEMENT FOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL MOTOR VEHICLE (PMV): IAW CBI 
209.834, ALL PERS ON ATTACHED POSTING OUTSIDE CANADA WILL NO LONGER 
BE ABLE TO CLAIM THIS BENEFIT,
D. NEXT OF KIN (NOK) TRAVEL: IAW CBI 209.993, 209.9931 AND 210.225, 
THIS PROVIDES AUTHORITY FOR NOK OR FAMILY REPRESENTATIVES TO TRAVEL 
TO THE LOCATION WHERE AN ILL OR INJURED MEMBER IS BEING HOSPITALIZED 
AND TO AND FROM THE PLACE OF BURIAL. TRAVEL TO REPATRIATION 
CEREMONIES AND NOK THEATRE VISITS WILL BE FUNDED FROM NON PUBLIC 
FUNDS ON AN INTERIM BASIS AND WILL CONTINUE. THE USE OF THE 
CONTINGENCY FUND BY DCSM SHALL CEASE IMMEDIATELY.
E. COMPASSIONATE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE: IAW CBI 209.51, THIS BENEFIT ONLY 
APPLIES TO REGULAR FORCE MEMBERS AND TO RESERVE FORCE MEMBERS, WHO 
HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO MOVE THEIR FURNITURE AND EFFECTS AT PUBLIC 



PAGE 4 RCCPJAW4003 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
EXPENSE, AND
F. POSTING ALLOWANCE ON RELEASE FROM OUTSIDE CANADA OR PROHIBITED 
POSTING (THAT IS, POSTING WHERE THE MOVEMENT OF DEPENDENTS AND/OR 
HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS PROHIBITED): IAW WITH CBI 205.42 VICE REF C. THIS 
BENEFIT BEING PAID IAW REF C IS TO CEASE IMMEDIATELY.
3. THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY BEING ADMINISTERED IAW 
REF D ARE TO CEASE IMMEDIATELY:
A. TD BENEFITS WHICH REIMBURSE TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATION AND MEAL 
EXPENSES FOR HONORARY APPOINTMENTS AND RANKS WHEN TRAVELLING ON CF 
BUSINESS,
B. REIMBURSEMENT FOR CUSTODIAL EXPENSE (COSTS TO MAINTAIN A VACANT 
RESIDENCE) FOR ALL PERS ATTACHED POSTED OUTSIDE CANADA AND ON 
PROHIBITED POSTING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CANADA, AND
C. TD BENEFITS FOR ALL PERS ON ATTACH POSTING (CF MEMBERS ARE NO 
LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE ON TRAVEL STATUS DURING THE DURATION OF THE 
ATTACH POSTING EXCEPT FOR TRAVEL TO AND FROM THEIR HOME UNIT). REF E 
IS HEREBY RESCINDED.
4. I HAVE GIVEN A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPES OF BENEFITS THAT 
NEED TO BE CLARIFIED AND WHO WILL BE AFFECTED. DETAILED DIRECTION FOR 
ALL CF ESTABLISHMENTS (ORDERLY ROOMS, CASHIERS, ETC.) ON HOW TO 



PAGE 5 RCCPJAW4003 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
ADMINISTER THESE ISSUES WILL BE PROVIDED UNDER A SEPARATE AIG 
MESSAGE. MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANY OF THESE BENEFITS 
SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR UNIT OR.
5. IT IS ACKNOWLDEGED THAT THIS SITUATION MAY RESULT IN AN ELEMENT OF 
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO CF MEMBERS. IN THE EVENT THAT THIS DIRECTION 
RESULTS IN UNDUE FINANCIAL STRESS, CF MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO SEEK 
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THRU THEIR RESPECTIVE BASES AND WINGS AND LOCAL 
SISIP FINANCIAL ADVISORS. NEVERTHELESS WE MUST PUT OUR HOUSE IN 
ORDER. THE INTENT IS TO SEEK CLEAR AUTHORITY FOR THESE BENEFITS AS 
SOON AS POSSIBLE. IN DOING SO,I REMAIN COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT CF 
PERSONNEL HAVE ACCESS TO BENEFITS AND ALLOWANCES THAT ARE REASONABLE, 
EQUITABLE AND ARE REFLECTIVE OF CONTEMPORARY BENEFIT STANDARDS. I 
WILL PROVIDE UPDATES ON THESE ISSUES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.
END OF ENGLISH TEXT


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2011)

---CANFORGEN pt 2 start ---
/DEBUT DU TEXTE FRANCAIS
OBJ: ADMINISTRATION DE LA REMUNERATION ET DES AVANTAGES SOCIAUX
REF: A. CANFORGEN 019/05
B. CANFORGEN 145/05
C. PRIFC 2009
D. AIDE MIMOIRE SUR LES AVANTAGES SOCIAUX A L INTERIEUR DU PAYS
E. CANFORGEN 124/06



PAGE 6 RCCPJAW4003 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
1. UN EXAMEN DES INDEMNITES DE LA REMUNERATION ET DES AVANTAGES 
SOCIAUX A REVELE DES DOMAINES OU LES FORCES CANADIENNES ONT DEVIE DES 
COMPENSATIONS APPROUVEES PAR LE CONSEIL DU TRESOR (CT) POUR LES 
MEMBRES DES FC ET LES PLUS PROCHE PARENT (PPP). PAR CONSEQUENT, 
PENDANT QUE L ON CHERCHE A OBTENIR LA CONFIRMATION DES AUTORISATIONS 
A MOYEN TERME ET POUR ASSURER QUES LES PAYMENTS SONT DUMENT AUTORISES 
PAR LE CT, IL FAUT INTERROMPRE LE VERSEMENT DE CERTAINES INDEMNITES.  
UNE INVESTIGATION A ETE INITIEE. L OBJECTIF EST D EVITER DES 
DIFFICULTEES FINANCIERS AUX MEMBRES DES FC ET LEURS FAMILLE. UNE 
RESOLUTION DE CETTE SITUATION EST ATTENDUE DANS LES PLUS BREF DELAIS.
2. D ICI A CE QUE LA SITUATION SOIT CLARIFIEE, A COMPTER DE 
MAINTENANT IL FAUT ADMINISTRER LE VERSEMENT DES INDEMNITES 
CONFORMEMENT A LA POLITIQUE APPROUVEE PAR LE CT TELLE QU ELLE EST 
INDIQUEE CI APRES:
A. FRAIS D ABSENCE DU FOYER: CONF A LA DIRECTIVES SUR LA REMUNERATION 
ET LES AVANTAGES SOCIAUX (DRAS) 209.997, CETTE INDEMNITE S APPLIQUE 
QU AUX MEMBRES DE LA FORCE REGULIERE ET DE LA RESERVE EN CLASSE C. 
CECI AFFECTERA ENVIRON 1500 MEMBRES DE LA FORCE REGULIERE ET DE LA 
RESERVE EN CLASSE C QUI SERONT INCAPABLE DE SOUMETTRE DES DEMANDES DE 
REMBOURSEMENT POUR LA LOCATION DE MEUBLES, FRAIS DE CONNECTION, BRIS 

UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
SIC WAS
FINAL SECTION OF 2
DE BAIL ET LOGEMENT PROVISOIRE ET LES REPAS (LORS DU RETOUR D UNE 
AFFECTATION TEMPORAIRE OU D UN ST PROLONGE). LES RECLAMATIONS DES 
FAF, POUR LES DEPENSES PERMISES MENTIONNE DANS LA DRAS, CONTINUERONS 
D ETRE TRAITES MAIS LES MEMBRES DOIVENT NOTES QUE LE TAUX RECU POUR 
LES FRAIS DE LOGEMENT COMMERCIAL ET NON COMMERCIAL POURRAIT EGALEMENT 
ETRE AFFECTE. CONF A LA DRAS 209.997, LE POUVOIR D AUTORISE UNE 
RESTRICTION IMPOSEE DEMEURE LE COMMANDANT DE LA BASE OU DE L ESCADRE 
DE L UNITE BENEFICIAIRE ET NON LE GERANT DE CARRIERE. DE CE FAIT, LA 
REF A EST ANNULEE. POUR LES RESERVISTES DE CLASSE B, IL N EXISTE 
AUCUNE AUTORITE FINANCIERE POUR CET INDEMNITE. DE CE FAIT, LA REF B 
CONCERNANT LES INDEMNITES ACCORDEES A LA CLASSE B EST PAR LA PRESENTE 
ANNULEE,
B. DEPLACEMENTS EN CONGE: CONF A LA DRAS 209.50 POUR CE QUI CONCERNE 



PAGE 2 RCCPJAW4004 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
LE CANADA ET CONF AUX DIRECTIVES SUR LE SERVICE MILITAIRE A L 
ETRANGER (DSME) POUR LES OPERATIONS A L ETRANGER. EN CE QUI REGARDE L 
AIDE AU DEPLACEMENT EN CONGE (ADC) AU CANADA, LES MEMBRES DES FC N 
ONT DROIT AU REMBOURSEMENT QUE DES FRAIS DE DEPLACEMENT POUR 
RETOURNER A LEUR DOMICILE. CETTE INDEMNITE EXCLUT UN ADC RENVERSEE OU 
UN ADC A UN LIEU TIERS. CECI S APPLIQUE PAS AUX MEMBRES DES FC EN 
OPERATION A L ETRANGER,
C. ENTREPOSAGE D UN VEHICULE PERSONNEL (VP): CONF A LA DRAS 209.834, 
POUR TOUS LES MEMBRES DU PERS EN AFFECTATION TEMPORAIRE A L ETRANGER 
QUI RECOIVENT PRECENTEMENT L INDEMNITE, CETTE INDEMNITE DOIT PRENDRE 
FIN IMMEDIATEMENT,
D. DEPLACEMENT DES PLUS PROCHES PARENTS (PPP): CONF AUX DRAS 209.993, 
209.9931 ET 210.225, CECI AUTORISE LE PPP OU LES REPRESENTANTS DE LA 
FAMILLE DE SE RENDRE AU LIEU OU LE MEMBRE DES FC MALADE OU BLESSE A 
ETE HOSPITALISE ET VERS OU A PARTIR DU LIEU DES FUNERAILLES. LES 
VOYAGES POUR ASSISTER AUX CEREMONIES DE RAPATRIEMENT ET LES VISITES 
DES PPP EN THEATRE SERA FINANCE PAR LES FONDS NON PUBLICS DE FACON 
PROVISOIRE ET VA CONTINUER. L UTILISATION DES FONDS DE PREVOYANCE  
PAR LE D GEST SB DOIT CESSER IMMEDIATEMENT,
E. AIDE AU TRANSPORT POUR RAISONS PERSONNELLES OU DE FAMILLE: CONF A 



PAGE 3 RCCPJAW4004 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
LA DRAS 209.51, CETTE INDEMNITE NE S APPLIQUE QU AUX MEMBRES DES FC 
AYANT ETE AUTORISES A DEMENAGER LEURS MEUBLES ET EFFETS PERSONNELS 
AUX FRAIS DE L ETAT, ET
F. INDEMNITE D AFFECTATION AU MOMENT DE LA LIBERATION EN DEHORS DU 
CANADA OU DE LA MUTATION SOUS RESERVE (CECI EST, UNE MUTATION OU LE 
DEMENAGEMENT DES PERSONNES A CHARGES ET/OU DES ARTICLES MENAGERS EST 
INTERDIT): CONF A LA DRAS 205.42 PLUTOT QUE LA REF C. LE PAYMENT DE L 
INDEMNITE CONF A LA REF C DOIT PRENDRE FIN IMMEDIATEMENT.
3. LES INDEMNITES CI-APRES QUI SONT ADMINISTREES CONF A LA REF D, 
SANS AUTORISATION DE DEPENSER, DOIVENT CESSER IMMEDIATEMENT:
A. INDEMNITE DE SERVICE TEMPORAIRE AFIN DE REMBOURSER LES DEPENSES DE 
VOYAGES, LOGEMENT ET REPAS POUR LES TITULAIRES DE NOMINATIONS ET DE 
GRADES HONORAIRES LORSQU ILS VOYAGENT POUR LES FC,
B. REMBOURSEMENT POUR LES FRAIS D ENTRETIEN (DEPENSES POUR MAINTENINR 
UNE RESIDENCE INNOCCUPEE) POUR TOUS LES EFFECTIFS EN AFFECTATION 
TEMPORAIRE EN DEHORS DU CANADA OU EN MUTATION SOUS RESERVE AU CANADA 
OU A L ETRANGER, ET
C. INDEMNITE DE SERVICE TEMPORAIRE POUR TOUS LES MEMBRES DU PERS EN 
AFFECTATION TEMPORAIRE (LES MEMBRES DES FC NE SONT PAS CONSIDERER 
ETRE EN DEPLACEMENT DURANT UNE PERIODE D AFFECTATION TEMPORAIRE A L 



PAGE 4 RCCPJAW4004 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
EXCEPTION DU VOYAGE POUR SE RENDRE OU REVENIR A LEUR UNITE D 
APPARTENANCE). LA REF E EST ANNULEE.
4. J AI DONNE UNE DESCRIPTION GENERALE DES TYPES D INDEMNITES QUI 
DOIVENT ETRE MODIFIEES ET QUI SERONT TOUCHES. DES DIRECTIVES 
DETAILLEES POUR TOUS LES ETABLISSEMENTS DES FC (SALLE DES RAPPORTS, 
DES CAISSIERS, ETC) SUR LA FACON D ADMINISTRER CES BENEFICES SERONT 
FOURNIS DANS UN MESSAGE AIG DISTINCT. LES MEMBRES QUI ONT DES 
QUESTIONS CONCERNANT N IMPORTE QUEL DE CES BENEFICES DOIVENT 
CONSULTER LEUR SALLE DES RAPPORTS.
5. IL EST ENTENDU QUE CETTE SITUATION POURRAIT CAUSER CERTAINES 
DIFFICULTES FINANCIERES AUX MEMBRES DES FC QUI RECOIVENT DEJA CES 
INDEMNITES. SI LA PRESENTE DIRECTIVE CAUSE DES TENSIONS FINANCIERES 
INDUES, ON ENCOURAGE LES MEMBRES DES FC A DEMANDER UNE AIDE 
FINANCIERE PAR L ENTREMISE DE LEUR BASE OU ESCADRE RESPECTIVE OU DE 
LEUR CONSEILLER FINANCIER DU RARM. NEANMOINS, NOUS DEVONS REMETTRE DE 
L ORDRE DANS NOS AFFAIRES. L INTENTION EST DE RECHERCHER L 
AUTORISATION POUS LES INDEMINITES DANS LES PLUS BREF DELAIS. JE 
DEMEURE RESOLU A FAIRE EN SORTE QUE LES EFFECTIFS DES FC BENEFICIENT 
D INDEMNITES APPROUVES QUI SONT A LA FOIS RAISONNABLES ET EQUITABLES, 
ET QUI REFLETENT LES NORMES DE PRESTATION CONTEMPORAIN. JE VOUS 



PAGE 5 RCCPJAW4004 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 022/11 VCDS 003/11
TIENDRAI AU COURANT A MESURE QUE LA SITUATION EVOLUERA.
BT
#4003
FBR034 DELIVERED 0330400 


[/quote]


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Feb 2011)

Shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_ - highlights mine.

Freeze may halt families' visit to Kandahar
Steve Rennie, The Canadian Press, 2 Feb 11
Article link


> The Canadian military says a planned visit this spring to Kandahar Airfield for families of fallen soldiers is up in the air.
> 
> *A spokeswoman for Task Force Kandahar, Capt. Annie Djiotsa, says a trip this month will still happen — but it is not yet clear if there will be another trip in March.
> 
> ...


----------



## ltmaverick25 (2 Feb 2011)

I just read the CANFORGEN and am having a hard time understanding it.  I noticed a reference to IR in the msg...

Based on that msg, is IR still an option?


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Feb 2011)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I just read the CANFORGEN and am having a hard time understanding it.  I noticed a reference to IR in the msg...
> 
> Based on that msg, is IR still an option?



This line:



> THE AUTHORITY FOR IR RESTS WITH THE LOCAL BASE/WING COMMANDER AND NOT
> THE CAREER MANAGERS. AS SUCH, REF A IS HEREBY RESCINDED.



may lead to an interpretation that while IR will still be an option, it may be at the expense of the gaining base/unit to fund. That would certainly change how often it may be approved, and may lead to a dependence on available R&Q as a factor.


----------



## BKells (2 Feb 2011)

The mention to TD benefits no longer applying to people on attach posting. Does this affect reservists who were put on Class C and sent to Petawawa for 9 months for pre-training? We collected TD. Does that fall under that category? If so, what is the statute of limitations on this sort of things... am I liable to have to pay anything back if they so decide to claw money back?


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Feb 2011)

Junius said:
			
		

> If so, what is the statute of limitations on this sort of things... am I liable to have to pay anything back if they so decide to claw money back?



That is the question that everyone is now waiting to see answered *officially*.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2011)

Junius said:
			
		

> The mention to TD benefits no longer applying to people on attach posting. Does this affect reservists who were put on Class C and sent to Petawawa for 9 months for pre-training? We collected TD. Does that fall under that category? If so, what is the statute of limitations on this sort of things... am I liable to have to pay anything back if they so decide to claw money back?



It is all in the details.  Were you "Attach Posted" or only on "TD"?  What does your msg say?


----------



## cudmore (2 Feb 2011)

To answer that last point, as CBC reported last night and this morning, the government has let it be known they will not be seeking cash back from some soldiers who have already received a benefit.
Having said that, if you are receiving one of the benefits in question, you won't be any more, according to the Vice Chief (at least until it's all sorted out with Treasury Board approval).


----------



## dapaterson (2 Feb 2011)

At the press confrence, VAdm Donaldson said:

"I can say that we’re going forward to look for retroactive authority and authority going forward.  The members of the Canadian Forces aren’t going to see a difference in their pay cheques, but what they will see is that they won’t be able to process claims for specific things for which they would normally have been reimbursed until we’ve sorted this out."


In other words, DND/CF is trying to get these things approved in arrears, for the past and future.  However, it is possible that retroactive approval will not be granted.


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2011)

Oooh.  I just realized, that's going to hurt a lot of people who were on Op Podium.

So, what happens if one is attach posted and housed in a hotel WITHOUT kitchen facilities?

I know, wrt a situation like Podium, everyone (or at least a great portion) was given TD rates, even though they were AT, even if they had access to mess services.

May I please just state how happy I am NOT to be a Log Officer or clerk right now.


----------



## FSTO (2 Feb 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Oooh.  I just realized, that's going to hurt a lot of people who were on Op Podium.
> 
> So, what happens if one is attach posted and housed in a hotel WITHOUT kitchen facilities?
> 
> ...


The CF is not going after past payments, current payments will cease and the CF will work to get their policy in line with the folks (in my opinion) who really decide how much we are paid, Treasury Board.  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (2 Feb 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The CF is not going after past payments, current payments will cease and the CF will work to get their policy in line with the folks (in my opinion) who really decide how much we are paid, Treasury Board.  ;D




Indeed, DND and the CF can make recommendations, but it is and always has been Treasury Board with the final say.  The CDS has input, but not decision making authority.  As the National Defence Act states:



> Regulations
> Power of Governor in Council to make regulations
> 
> 12. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for the organization, training, discipline, efficiency, administration and good government of the Canadian Forces and generally for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect.
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Feb 2011)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> That horrible, keening, screeching sound I hear is the *IR gravy train* coming to a juddering halt......



Anyone who is making money on IR is living like a pauper or committing fraud, IMHO.  Only a percentage of the meal rate is covered, rent is returned dollar for dollar and you get separation pay.  Now, if you were unlucky enough not to get long distance, cable (or satellite TV) and internet in your rent, you're paying for those, along with what you're already paying for at your primary place of residence.  Also, if you're far anough away, you only get one (potentially) paid trip home per year.  If you're too close, you get zilch.  

I won't even get into wear and tear on my vehicle or paid vs. free parking at work, depending on location.


----------



## navig8ur (2 Feb 2011)

The current benefit cessation puzzles me in a number of ways.  In the interest of disclosure I am impacted significantly as I rent furniture on IR IAW the CBI, and now am either sleeping on the floor, or paying out of pocket for my furniture rental.   

This seems less like a money saving exercise, or an efficiency effort, and more like someone in TB got their nose out of joint and exercised their power.  Some of the items are cost neutral and have absolutely no financial impact to the crown.  

Most, if not all of the members who are impacted followed the rules and guidelines of the CBI, and or CANFORGEN's, and in good faith engaged in an agreement with the CF for the storage of their car, furniture rental etc.  To suggest that no CF member will have their salaries impacted is disingenuous at best.

At least I can go to my local SISIP Financial Adviser.


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2011)

VD - the way I read it, the furniture rental is an issue only if the member is on TD or AT:



> 2. UNTIL THIS SITUATION IS CLARIFIED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY PAYMENTS
> OF BENEFITS SHALL BE ADMINISTERED IAW EXISTING APPLICABLE TB APPROVED
> POLICIES AS INDICATED BELOW:
> A. SEPARATION EXPENSE: IAW COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT INSTRUCTIONS
> ...


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is all in the details.  Were you "Attach Posted" or only on "TD"?  What does your msg say?



We are attached posted while working up for deployment on International Operations, but collect TD benefits (or did). 

Same sit as me.


----------



## navig8ur (2 Feb 2011)

Strike

I noticed that as well and was unsure if the caveat applied to the entire paragraph, or only the last item in the sentence.  Based on the fact that 1500 people were impacted I believed it to be the last item only (Lease liabilities and IL and M).  I've taken another look at the CANFORGEN as well as the CBI and now I am unsure what applies.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Feb 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> VD - the way I read it, the furniture rental is an issue only if the member is on TD or AT



I expect further nifo will follow (probably another CANFORGEN); my read of the current CANFORGEN is that it's IL&M not permitted on return; furniture rental and connection fees aren't ever supported.

But I guess we'll see as further direction comes out.


----------



## Cdnleaf (2 Feb 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Anyone who is making money on IR is living like a pauper or committing fraud, IMHO.  Only a percentage of the meal rate is covered, rent is returned dollar for dollar and you get separation pay.  Now, if you were unlucky enough not to get long distance, cable (or satellite TV) and internet in your rent, you're paying for those, along with what you're already paying for at your primary place of residence.  Also, if you're far anough away, you only get one (potentially) paid trip home per year.  If you're too close, you get zilch.
> I won't even get into wear and tear on my vehicle or paid vs. free parking at work, depending on location.



 :+1:  Thanks Moe.


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2011)

A further CANFORGEN already.

Of interest to those attached posted; although TD benefits have ceased effective immediately, this later CANFORGEN from today identifies the entitlement to Seperation Expense at the low rate - $13.00 per diem - (the very same rate as the TD was / 75% of the incidental rate).

http://vcds.dwan.dnd.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2011/024-11_e.asp

_________________________________________________________________

CANFORGEN 024/11 CMP 011/11 021723Z FEB 11
COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION
UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 022/11 
B. NDA SECT 35 
C. DOMESTIC BENEFIT AIDE MEMOIRE 

FURTHER TO THE CANFORGEN ISSUED AT REF A, THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION IS PROVIDED TO ALL CF ESTABLISHMENTS TO ASSIST IN ADMINISTERING THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS 

*SEPARATION EXPENSE (SE) – IAW CBI 209.997 

CLASS B RESERVISTS - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO SE FOR CLASS B RESERVES 

RATIONS AND QUARTERS 

(1) IF RATIONS AND QUARTERS ARE AVAILABLE, AS DETERMINED BY THE BASE/WING COMMANDER, THEY SHALL BE UTILIZED. A MEMBER OCCUPYING QUARTERS IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE RATIONS AND QUARTERS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE 

(2) LOW RATE OF SE, AT A DAILY RATE OF 75 PERCENT OF THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE ALLOWANCE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE NJC TRAVEL DIRECTIVE* 

COMMERCIAL LODGING 

(1) COMMERCIAL LODGING MEANS FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION SUCH AS HOTELS, MOTELS OR CORPORATE APARTMENTS/RESIDENCES THAT IS AVAILABLE AT WEEKLY OR MONTHLY RATES THAT PROVIDE SLEEPING, MEAL PREPARATION, AND REFRIGERATION FACILITIES 

(2) ACCOMMODATION RATES WILL BE PROMULGATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

(3) A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO THE HIGH RATE OF SE, EQUAL TO 35 PERCENT OF THE DAILY COMPOSITE ALLOWANCE (CURRENTLY 29.82 DOLLARS DAILY), AND 

(4) A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF MONTHLY PARKING CHARGES THAT ARE INCURRED 

NON COMMERCIAL LODGING 

(1) NON COMMERCIAL LODGING MEANS A FURNISHED OR UNFURNISHED PRIVATE APARTMENT THAT IS NOT OWNED BY THE MEMBER OR BY ANYONE THAT THE MEMBER IS RELATED TO BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE 

(2) ACCOMMODATION RATES WILL BE PROMULGATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

(3) A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO THE HIGH RATE OF SE, EQUAL TO 35 PERCENT OF THE DAILY COMPOSITE ALLOWANCE (CURRENTLY 29.82 DOLLARS DAILY), AND 

(4) A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF MONTHLY PARKING CHARGES THAT ARE INCURRED 

FURNITURE RENTAL - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO FURNITURE RENTAL 

SERVICE CONNECTIONS - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT FOR BASIC PHONE, TV AND INTERNET 

LEASE LIABILITY - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO LEASE LIABILITY 

INTERIM LODGINGS AND MEALS AND MISCELLANEOUS (ILM AND M) - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO ILM AND M ON RETURN FROM ATTACH POSTING OR EXTENDED TD, AND 

SERVICE COUPLE - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO SE FOR A SERVICE COUPLE MARRIED OR COMMON LAW AFTER CHANGE OF STRENGTH DATE 

TRANSPORTATION ON LEAVE (LEAVE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (LTA)) – IAW CBI 209.50 

MEMBERS WITH DEPENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO LTA TO RETURN HOME TO THEIR NOK WHEN THEY ARE AWAY FROM THEIR PLACE OF DUTY FOR MORE THAN 60 DAYS FOR SERVICE REASONS 

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE SERVED A MINIMUM OF 90 DAYS IN THE CF IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR LTA 

THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO THIRD LOCATION LTA 

THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO REVERSE LTA 

WHEN THE LOCATION OF THE LTA IS OUTSIDE CANADA, ONLY THE PORTION OF THE JOURNEY ACTUALLY MADE IN CANADA OR BETWEEN CANADIAN POINTS MAY BE REIMBURSED 

STORAGE OF PMV – IAW CBI 209.834 

THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO ANY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE STORAGE OF A PMV WHILE ATTACHED POSTED OUTSIDE CANADA, AND 

FOR A MEMBER PROHIBITED POSTED, THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO BE REIMBURSED EXPENSES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO RESTORE THE VEHICLE TO ROAD WORTHINESS 

POSTING ALLOWANCE - IAW CBI 205.42 THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO POSTING ALLOWANCE WHEN POSTED FROM OUTCAN OR AN ISOLATED POST FOR RELEASE PURPOSES 

NOK TRAVEL - IAW CBI 209.993, 209.9931 AND CBI 210.225 THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND THE ENTITLEMENTS DETAILED IN THE CBI SHALL BE ADHERED TO 

COMPASSIONATE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (CTA) – IAW CBI 209.51 MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE FORCE SERVING ON A PERIOD OF CLASS B OR C SERVICE MUST HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO MOVE HG AND E IN RESPECT OF THAT PERIOD OF SERVICE IN ORDER TO BE ELEGIBLE FOR CTA 

THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY BEING ADMINISTERED IAW REF C WITHOUT EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY SHALL CEASE IMMEDIATELY: 

TD BENEFITS, FOR HONORARY APPOINTMENTS AND RANKS 

CUSTODIAL EXPENSE, AND 

TD BENEFITS, FOR ALL THOSE ATTACH POSTED IN CANADA. MEMBERS ON ATTACHED POSTING ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURES WHILE PROCEEDING TO AND FROM THE ATTACHED POSTING LOCATION 

AT THIS TIME, CF ESTABLISHMENTS ARE NOT TO RECOVER ANY ADVANCES ALREADY ISSUED. FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION REGARDING THESE ADVANCES WILL BE PROVIDED ONCE AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED 

ALL RELEVANT CBI CAN BE FOUND ON THE DCBA WEBSITE AT THE FOL LINK: HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DGCB/CBI/ENGRAPH/HOME UNDERLINE E.ASP


----------



## Grunt_031 (3 Feb 2011)

> C. REIMBURSEMENT FOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL MOTOR VEHICLE (PMV): IAW CBI
> 209.834, ALL PERS ON ATTACHED POSTING OUTSIDE CANADA WILL NO LONGER
> BE ABLE TO CLAIM THIS BENEFIT,



Does this currently apply to those serving or served in Afghanistan?


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2011)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> Does this currently apply to those serving or served in Afghanistan?



If you were att posted, then yes.


----------



## Sigger (3 Feb 2011)

I wonder if any cuts will be made to MP's luxurious and generous benefits, while they sit comfortably at home watching our soldiers fight for them on CBC


----------



## aesop081 (3 Feb 2011)

Sigger said:
			
		

> I wonder if any cuts will be made to MP's luxurious and generous benefits, while they sit comfortably at home watching our soldiers fight for them on CBC



I dont think you understand what happenned here.......


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2011)

Sigger said:
			
		

> I wonder if any cuts will be made to MP's luxurious and generous benefits, while they sit comfortably at home watching our soldiers fight for them on CBC



This is an utterly unwarranted attack on MPs.

If you have followed the bouncing ball on this one, the VCDS was quite clear that DND/CF overstepped their authorities and never sought approval of some benefits.  In other words, MPs (or, more properly, the Treasury Board) was never asked to approve these things.  To complain about them not doing something they were never asked to do is absurd.

I have heard no MPs complain about benefits to CF members.  I have heard none call for benefits to be reduced.  I ahve seen the VCDS come out in public, acknowledge that bounds were overstepped, and explain that approval will now be sought.

The problem here is internal to DND/CF - folks leaned way forward and then forgot to do the necessary follow up.  Lots of good intentions, but not the best execution.


----------



## Sigger (3 Feb 2011)

There was never an attack on MP's.. My point is just that the CF works damn hard, and deserves these benefits. Approved or not.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Feb 2011)

Sigger said:
			
		

> Approved or not.



Yeah, we love it when money gets spent without proper authority to do so, right ?

Thats good government, right ?

 :


----------



## Sigger (3 Feb 2011)

...  :-\


----------



## brihard (3 Feb 2011)

Sigger said:
			
		

> There was never an attack on MP's.. My point is just that the CF works damn hard, and deserves these benefits. Approved or not.



"deserves" (a matter of opinion) does not equate to "are lawfully in receipt of". We get the benefits that the federal government decides we are entitled to, through the TB. The money we get in benefits is all taken first from taxpayers or incurred as debt by the government. DND owes it to the public to ensure that money is spent only as approved.


----------



## Sigger (3 Feb 2011)

I am completely aware of all the corrections made towards my post, and agree with them. I made a comment out of frustration, and indignation. 
Carry on.


----------



## ballz (3 Feb 2011)

Why can't CBC report our member's comments about how we are happy to potentially (most likely?) lose a bunch of benefits in the name of good government?

Unfortunately I fear that member's of the public think this is your every day CF member just screwing the system repeatidly for personal gain and they all got caught. I fear that because I was confronted by someone who thought that was the case. :-\


----------



## Strike (3 Feb 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Why can't CBC report our member's comments about how we are happy to potentially (most likely?) lose a bunch of benefits in the name of good government?
> 
> Unfortunately I fear that member's of the public think this is your every day CF member just screwing the system repeatidly for personal gain and they all got caught. I fear that because I was confronted by someone who thought that was the case. :-\



Well then, that person has a hate-on for all things military.

The general public tends to be very pro-money to the military whenever it has an impact on a CF member directly.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Feb 2011)

I read several comments on a website WRT the civilian population. I think the vast majority are behind the CF. Only one person complained about families being flown to Trenton for the repat ceremonies. He was set upon by many others, so I left it alone.


----------



## ballz (3 Feb 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Well then, that person has a hate-on for all things military.
> 
> The general public tends to be very pro-money to the military whenever it has an impact on a CF member directly.



I think he was more under a misconception... whether due to his own negligence to assume things from headlines, or whether he read it wrong, or whatever it was....

Because he doesn't have a hate-boner for the military, and when I corrected him on his misconception he conceded he must be misinformed.

That said, my fear was based on the fact that a lot of people don't exactly look into things before they start painting their own pictures... I did go to CBC to view some comments and I didn't see very many anti-military comments in there, so that's good, and I'm glad others aren't encountering what I did.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Feb 2011)

Has anybody else deciphered the CANFORGENs and translated the details yet?


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2011)

New CANFORGEN to replace 022/11 has been released:

CANFORGEN 032/11 CMP 015/11 071737Z FEB 11
COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION
UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 019/05 
B. CANFORGEN 145/05 
C. CFIRP 2009 
D. DOMESTIC BENEFIT AIDE MÉMOIRE 
E. CANFORGEN 124/06 

1.	PLEASE NOTE THAT CANFORGEN 022/11 IS CANCELLED UPON RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE. A REVIEW OF COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT ENTITLEMENTS HAS IDENTIFIED AREAS WHERE THE CANADIAN FORCES HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE TREASURY BOARD (TB) APPROVED COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT FRAMEWORK FOR CERTAIN CF PERSONNEL AND NEXT OF KIN (NOK). ACCORDINGLY, AS NEAR-TERM EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY CONFIRMATION IS SOUGHT, AND TO ENSURE THAT PAYMENTS ARE PROPERLY AUTHORIZED BY TB, THE PAYMENT OF SOME BENEFITS MUST BE SUSPENDED. INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS TO AVOID FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO OUR MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES. WE INTEND TO HAVE A RESOLUTION TO THIS SITUATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE 

2.	UNTIL THIS SITUATION IS CLARIFIED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS SHALL BE ADMINISTERED IAW EXISTING APPLICABLE TB APPROVED POLICIES AS INDICATED BELOW: 

A.	SEPARATION EXPENSE: IAW COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT INSTRUCTIONS (CBI) 209.997, THIS BENEFIT IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO REGULAR FORCE AND RESERVE FORCE ON CLASS C SERVICE. THIS WILL AFFECT APPROXIMATELY 1500 REGULAR FORCE AND CLASS C RESERVISTS WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CLAIM FOR FURNITURE RENTAL, CONNECTION FEES, LEASE LIABILITIES AND INTERIM LODGING AND MEALS (ON RETURN FROM ATTACHED POSTING OR EXTENDED TD). SE CLAIMS FOR ITEMS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CBI WILL STILL BE PROCESSED BUT MEMBERS SHOULD NOTE THAT THE RATES RECEIVED FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL AND NON COMMERCIAL ACCOMODATIONS COULD BE AFFECTED. IAW CBI 209.997, THE AUTHORITY FOR IR RESTS WITH THE LOCAL BASE/WING COMMANDER AND NOT THE CAREER MANAGERS. AS SUCH, REF A IS HEREBY RESCINDED. CLASS B RESERVISTS WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO CLAIM SEPARATION EXPENSE. AS SUCH, REF B, WHICH HAD PROVIDED CLASS B SEPARATION EXPENSE BENEFITS, IS HEREBY RESCINDED 

B.	TRANSPORTATION ON LEAVE: IAW CBI 209.50 FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES AND IAW MILITARY FOREIGN SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS (MFSI) FOR OPERATIONS OUTSIDE CANADA. FOR DOMESTIC LEAVE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (LTA) CF MEMBERS ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXPENSES TO RETURN TO THEIR HOME. THIS BENEFIT DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ENTITLEMENT FOR REVERSE OR THIRD-LOCATION LTA. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO MEMBERS ON OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT OVERSEAS WHO ARE COVERED UNDER THE MFSI 

C.	REIMBURSEMENT FOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL MOTOR VEHICLE (PMV): IAW CBI 209.834, ALL PERS ON ATTACHED POSTING OUTSIDE CANADA WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO CLAIM THIS BENEFIT 

D.	NEXT OF KIN (NOK) TRAVEL: IAW CBI 209.993, 209.9931 AND 210.225, THIS PROVIDES AUTHORITY FOR NOK OR FAMILY REPRESENTATIVES TO TRAVEL TO THE LOCATION WHERE AN ILL OR INJURED MEMBER IS BEING HOSPITALIZED AND TO AND FROM THE PLACE OF BURIAL. TRAVEL TO REPATRIATION CEREMONIES AND NOK THEATRE VISITS WILL BE FUNDED FROM NON PUBLIC FUNDS ON AN INTERIM BASIS AND WILL CONTINUE. THE USE OF THE CONTINGENCY FUND BY DCSM SHALL CEASE IMMEDIATELY 

E.	COMPASSIONATE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE: IAW CBI 209.51, THIS BENEFIT ONLY APPLIES TO REGULAR FORCE MEMBERS AND TO RESERVE FORCE MEMBERS, WHO HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO MOVE THEIR FURNITURE AND EFFECTS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, AND 

F.	POSTING ALLOWANCE ON RELEASE FROM OUTSIDE CANADA OR PROHIBITED POSTING (THAT IS, POSTING WHERE THE MOVEMENT OF DEPENDENTS AND/OR HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS PROHIBITED): IAW WITH CBI 205.42 VICE REF C. THIS BENEFIT BEING PAID IAW REF C IS TO CEASE IMMEDIATELY. 

3.	THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY BEING ADMINISTERED IAW REF D ARE TO CEASE IMMEDIATELY: 

A.	TD BENEFITS WHICH REIMBURSE TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATION AND MEAL EXPENSES FOR HONORARY APPOINTMENTS AND RANKS WHEN TRAVELLING ON CF BUSINESS, 

B.	REIMBURSEMENT OF CUSTODIAL EXPENSE (COSTS TO MAINTAIN A VACANT RESIDENCE) FOR ALL PERS ATTACHED POSTED OUTSIDE CANADA AND ON PROHIBITED POSTING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CANADA, AND 

C.	TD BENEFITS FOR ALL PERS ON ATTACH POSTING (CF MEMBERS ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE ON TRAVEL STATUS DURING THE DURATION OF THE ATTACH POSTING EXCEPT FOR TRAVEL TO AND FROM THEIR HOME UNIT). REF E IS HEREBY RESCINDED 

4.	I HAVE GIVEN A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPES OF BENEFITS THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED AND OF WHO WILL BE AFFECTED. DETAILED DIRECTION FOR ALL CF ESTABLISHMENTS (ORDERLY ROOMS, CASHIERS, ETC.) ON HOW TO ADMINISTER THESE ISSUES WILL BE PROVIDED UNDER A SEPARATE AIG MESSAGE. MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANY OF THESE BENEFITS SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR UNIT OR 

5.	IT IS ACKNOWLDEGED THAT THIS SITUATION MAY RESULT IN AN ELEMENT OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO CF MEMBERS. IN THE EVENT THAT THIS DIRECTION RESULTS IN UNDUE FINANCIAL STRESS, CF MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO SEEK FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THRU THEIR RESPECTIVE BASES AND WINGS AND LOCAL SISIP FINANCIAL ADVISORS. NEVERTHELESS WE MUST PUT OUR HOUSE IN ORDER. THE INTENT IS TO SEEK CLEAR AUTHORITY FOR THESE BENEFITS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IN DOING SO,I REMAIN COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT CF PERSONNEL HAVE ACCESS TO BENEFITS AND ALLOWANCES THAT ARE REASONABLE, EQUITABLE AND ARE REFLECTIVE OF CONTEMPORARY BENEFIT STANDARDS. I WILL PROVIDE UPDATES ON THESE ISSUES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE 

6.	SIGNED BY RADM A. SMITH, CMP


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Feb 2011)

Still a little foggy but some of the problems too are with the CBI website which hasn't been updated in almost 2 years!!
http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6
There is (for example) no 209.997 (SE) which affects an AWFUL lot of people.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2011)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Still a little foggy but some of the problems too are with the CBI website which hasn't been updated in almost 2 years!!
> http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6
> There is (for example) no 209.997 (SE) which affects an AWFUL lot of people.



Click on 209 on the left hand side, then on Section 10 - Miscellaneous - and it's right there.

http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/cbi_chapter-209_e.asp?sidesection=6&section=10


----------



## Sythen (8 Feb 2011)

Just found out about this today when I went to submit a claim for my car storage fees while I was overseas... A nice surprise to be potentially out over $2500... Wouldn't have stored my car or I would've at the very least did a lot more shopping around if I had known about this before..


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2011)

And another CANFORGEN with further information.


CANFORGEN 033/11 CMP 016/11 071914Z FEB 11
COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION
UNCLASSIFIED
REFS: A. CANFORGEN 022/11 
B. NDA SECT 35 
C. DOMESTIC BENEFIT AIDE MEMOIRE 
1.	PLEASE NOTE THAT CANFORGEN 024/11 IS CANCELLED UPON RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE. FURTHER TO THE CANFORGEN ISSUED AT REF A, THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION IS PROVIDED TO ALL CF ESTABLISHMENTS TO ASSIST IN ADMINISTERING THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS 
2.	SEPARATION EXPENSE (SE) – IAW CBI 209.997 
A.	CLASS B RESERVISTS - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO SE FOR CLASS B RESERVES 
B.	RATIONS AND QUARTERS 

(1) IF RATIONS AND QUARTERS ARE AVAILABLE, AS DETERMINED BY THE BASE/WING COMMANDER, THEY SHALL BE UTILIZED. A MEMBER OCCUPYING QUARTERS IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE RATIONS AND QUARTERS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE 

(2) LOW RATE OF SE, AT A DAILY RATE OF 75 PERCENT OF THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE ALLOWANCE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE NJC TRAVEL DIRECTIVE 
C.	COMMERCIAL LODGING 

(1) COMMERCIAL LODGING MEANS FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION SUCH AS HOTELS, MOTELS OR CORPORATE APARTMENTS/RESIDENCES THAT IS AVAILABLE AT WEEKLY OR MONTHLY RATES THAT PROVIDE SLEEPING, MEAL PREPARATION, AND REFRIGERATION FACILITIES 

(2) ACCOMMODATION RATES WILL BE PROMULGATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

(3) A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO THE HIGH RATE OF SE, EQUAL TO 35 PERCENT OF THE DAILY COMPOSITE ALLOWANCE (CURRENTLY 29.82 DOLLARS DAILY), AND 

(4) A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF MONTHLY PARKING CHARGES THAT ARE INCURRED 
D.	NON COMMERCIAL LODGING 

(1) NON COMMERCIAL LODGING MEANS A FURNISHED OR UNFURNISHED PRIVATE APARTMENT THAT IS NOT OWNED BY THE MEMBER OR BY ANYONE THAT THE MEMBER IS RELATED TO BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE 

(2) ACCOMMODATION RATES WILL BE PROMULGATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

(3) A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO THE HIGH RATE OF SE, EQUAL TO 35 PERCENT OF THE DAILY COMPOSITE ALLOWANCE (CURRENTLY 29.82 DOLLARS DAILY), AND 

(4) A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF MONTHLY PARKING CHARGES THAT ARE INCURRED 
E.	FURNITURE RENTAL - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT FOR FURNITURE RENTAL 
F.	SERVICE CONNECTIONS - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT FOR BASIC PHONE, TV AND INTERNET 
G.	LEASE LIABILITY - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT FOR LEASE LIABILITY 
H.	INTERIM LODGINGS AND MEALS AND MISCELLANEOUS (ILM AND M) - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO ILM AND M ON RETURN FROM ATTACH POSTING OR EXTENDED TD, AND 
I.	SERVICE COUPLE - THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO SE FOR A SERVICE COUPLE MARRIED OR COMMON LAW AFTER CHANGE OF STRENGTH DATE 
3.	TRANSPORTATION ON LEAVE (LEAVE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (LTA)) – IAW CBI 209.50 
A.	MEMBERS WITH DEPENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO LTA TO RETURN HOME TO THEIR NOK WHEN THEY ARE AWAY FROM THEIR PLACE OF DUTY FOR MORE THAN 60 DAYS FOR SERVICE REASONS 
B.	THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE SERVED A MINIMUM OF 90 DAYS IN THE CF IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR LTA 
C.	THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO THIRD LOCATION LTA 
D.	THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO REVERSE LTA 
E.	WHEN THE LOCATION OF THE LTA IS OUTSIDE CANADA, ONLY THE PORTION OF THE JOURNEY ACTUALLY MADE IN CANADA OR BETWEEN CANADIAN POINTS MAY BE REIMBURSED 
4.	STORAGE OF PMV – IAW CBI 209.834 
A.	THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO ANY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE STORAGE OF A PMV WHILE ATTACHED POSTED OUTSIDE CANADA, AND 
B.	FOR A MEMBER PROHIBITED POSTED, THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO BE REIMBURSED EXPENSES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO RESTORE THE VEHICLE TO ROAD WORTHINESS 
5.	POSTING ALLOWANCE - IAW CBI 205.42 THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO POSTING ALLOWANCE WHEN POSTED FROM OUTCAN OR AN ISOLATED POST FOR RELEASE PURPOSES 
6.	NOK TRAVEL - IAW CBI 209.993, 209.9931 AND CBI 210.225 THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND THE ENTITLEMENTS DETAILED IN THE CBI SHALL BE ADHERED TO 
7.	COMPASSIONATE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (CTA) – IAW CBI 209.51 MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE FORCE SERVING ON A PERIOD OF CLASS B OR C SERVICE MUST HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO MOVE HG AND E IN RESPECT OF THAT PERIOD OF SERVICE IN ORDER TO BE ELEGIBLE FOR CTA 
8.	THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY BEING ADMINISTERED IAW REF C WITHOUT EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY SHALL CEASE IMMEDIATELY: 
A.	TD BENEFITS, FOR HONORARY APPOINTMENTS AND RANKS 
B.	CUSTODIAL EXPENSE, AND 
C.	TD BENEFITS, FOR ALL THOSE ATTACH POSTED IN CANADA. MEMBERS ON ATTACHED POSTING ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURES WHILE PROCEEDING TO AND FROM THE ATTACHED POSTING LOCATION 
9.	AT THIS TIME, CF ESTABLISHMENTS ARE NOT TO RECOVER ANY ADVANCES ALREADY ISSUED. FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION REGARDING THESE ADVANCES WILL BE PROVIDED ONCE AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED 
10.	ALL RELEVANT CBI CAN BE FOUND ON THE DCBA WEBSITE AT THE FOL LINK: HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DGCB/CBI/ENGRAPH/HOME UNDERLINE E.ASP SIGNED BY RADM A. SMITH


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Feb 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Click on 209 on the left hand side, then on Section 10 - Miscellaneous - and it's right there.
> 
> http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/cbi_chapter-209_e.asp?sidesection=6&section=10


I SWEAR that wasn't there yesterday!!!


----------



## Zoomie (8 Feb 2011)

They talk a fair bit about Separation Expense (SE) but not directly about being on Imposed Restriction (IR) - are they considered the same?  I have quite a few students posted on IR to the school who are getting stressed about this message.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2011)

IR is a status; SE is a benefit.  Not everyone on IR is entitled to SE.

Given the earlier comments of the VCDS, I expect much of this will be regularized, with DND getting retroactive approval.  From last Monday's Press Conference:

"I can say that we’re going forward to look for retroactive authority and authority going forward.  The members of the Canadian Forces aren’t going to see a difference in their pay cheques, but what they will see is that they won’t be able to process claims for specific things for which they would normally have been reimbursed until we’ve sorted this out."


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Feb 2011)

I am IR in Ottawa right now and my IR Clerk 'hinted' at exactly that: status quo (my case only mind you). I am here living in a furnished apartment, meeting 3 of the conditions of IR. She also said to keep that to myself but I hate hearing of anyone (especially students) getting stressed about stuff that, in retrospect, we, as supervisors should probably have picked up on. I have actually been reading back and forth between the outpouring of CANFORGENS and CBIs but alas lunch is over!!!


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Feb 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Just found out about this today when I went to submit a claim for my car storage fees while I was overseas... A nice surprise to be potentially out over $2500... Wouldn't have stored my car or I would've at the very least did a lot more shopping around if I had known about this before..


I am not sure how they are saying there is no entitlement as CBI 209.834 – STORAGE OF PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES sort of covers those off those on deployment....Atleast the way I read it, but yet again, I am just a stoker!


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2011)

CBI 209.834 reads (in part), emphasis added



> An officer or non-commissioned member, *when posted to or from a place of duty * to which the shipment of a private motor vehicle is, or was, not authorized, is entitled to



Folks on deployment were attach posted, not posted.

I suspect we'll see some amendments to policies that will address this issue - it's just that in the short term folks will have to wait for reimbursement.


----------



## Sythen (8 Feb 2011)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I am not sure how they are saying there is no entitlement as CBI 209.834 – STORAGE OF PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES sort of covers those off those on deployment....Atleast the way I read it, but yet again, I am just a stoker!



I don't know anything about policies and how they affect reimbursement. All I know is I was told when we left that I would be reimbursed, but went up before lunch today and was told now they might not. She put in my claim anyways, in case it gets sorted out, but she said not to expect any money any time soon.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Feb 2011)

This is just not right.....


----------



## navymich (8 Feb 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> I don't know anything about policies and how they affect reimbursement. All I know is I was told when we left that I would be reimbursed, but went up before lunch today and was told now they might not. She put in my claim anyways, in case it gets sorted out, but she said not to expect any money any time soon.



If this new policy effects the storage of vehicles for those on deployment, I would read the message that it is effective as of the published date of the Canforgen.  Therefore, IMO, you would receive reimbursement up to the date that the benefit ceased.  In fact, this would/should be applied to all items which benefits cease on.  But, as stated by many, the message is not very easy to interpret, and all we (and I'm sure the clerks are feeling the same way) can do is guess.


----------



## navig8ur (8 Feb 2011)

This is getting ridiculous.  

I printed both CANFORGEN's and will go through both to figure out what the difference is, as it isn't obvious at a glance (other than the DTGs).


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2011)

AirMich:

It's not an easy situation - RMS clerks, log officers and even the VCDS are all confused and trying to sort it out.

In brief (my understanding) DND extended some benefits without going through the proper channels (that is, going to Treasury Board for authority to spend money in that way).  Most of these extensions were taking existing policies and extending them in common-sense ways, but it was still expanding the range of the benefits - so someone should have gone back to Treasury Board and said "We've done this, please give us your OK" (Ideally, they'd get the OK before announcing it).

What happened is that no one went back for that TB approval.  So, from a very narrow point of view, TB could order DND to recover the money already paid out.  Instead, DND has said "We're stopping all payments in these areas until we get it sorted out".  Thus, DND said they'd pay for vehicle storgage for folks att posted to OP ATHENA, but didn't have permission to offer it.  So right now, per the VCDS, DND is seeking permission in arrears to do so - so that no one will get their previous payments clawed back, and going forward there won't be a problem.  Those just back who haven't got their claims will be paid if (when?) TB gives their OK.


Despite appearances, DND and the CF have pretty stringent rules surrounding them and impacting their ability to spend money.  There are processes to request new authorities or to change existing ones, but it takes time and effort.  it looks like, in this case, there were a lot of good intentions to provide benefits to CF members - but the paperwork to get those benefits properly approved wasn't completed.


----------



## navymich (8 Feb 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> AirMich:
> It's not an easy situation - RMS clerks, log officers and even the VCDS are all confused and trying to sort it out.



If it was an easy situation, it wouldn't be military spending!    But seriously, thank you for some background info.  At our general career manager brief in November, he made mention that there were changes in the works for IR and to cut back.  Guess he wasn't kidding!  

All the best for everyone out there who are currently 'in limbo' with reimbursements on hold.  Hope things are sorted out sooner rather then later, and questions are answered.


----------



## NavyNeal (12 Feb 2011)

I'm a Class B on IR in Victoria, and from what I've been hearing, it's not certain if I'll get my February rent reimbursed. And since the message didn't come out in time to give notice to my landlord for the end of Feb, I'll have to pay March's rent, too.  :facepalm:

And I'm still not sure where I'm going to be living a month from now...

Suffice to say that this is definitely causing stress.


----------



## Stoker (12 Feb 2011)

We're having problems down here in Halifax as well. Anybody out on contract other than OJT  is now expected to pay for R & Q as of 1 Feb. This is going to effect the amount of people wanting to come out.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Feb 2011)

A little good news:

CANFORGEN 034/11 CMP 017/11 112039Z FEB 11
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION - APPROVAL OF PMV STORAGE AND CUSTODIAL EXPENSE
UNCLASSIFIED
REF: CANFORGEN 032/11 
1.	FURTHER TO REF, ON 3 FEB 11, TB APPROVED THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS: 
A.	PMV STORAGE - EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND RETROACTIVE TO 1 JAN 06 CF MEMBERS ATTACH POSTED ON DEPLOYED OPERATIONS OR PROHIBITED POSTED OUTSIDE CANADA AND WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THE MILITARY FOREIGN SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS (MFSI) ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE ACTUAL AND REASONABLE MONTHLY STORAGE COST, SUPPORTED BY RECEIPTS, FOR THE STORAGE OF ONE VEHICLE AT THE NEAREST COMMERCIAL STORAGE FACILITY. IN ADDITION, MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED UP TO 200 DOLLARS, SUPPORTED BY RECEIPTS, TO PREPARE THE VEHICLE FOR ROAD WORTHINESS UPON REMOVAL FROM THE COMMERCIAL STORAGE FACILITY AND 
B.	CUSTODIAL EXPENSE - EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND RETROACTIVE TO 1 JAN 05, CF MEMBERS WHO ARE ATTACH POSTED ON DEPLOYED OPERATIONS OR PROHIBITED POSTED OUTSIDE CANADA AND SUBJECT TO THE MFSI ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE ACTUAL AND REASONABLE MONTHLY EXPENSES FROM A COMMERCIAL FIRM ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTAINING A VACANT RESIDENCE UP TO 275 DOLLARS SUPPORTED BY RECEIPTS, IF THEY ARE: 

(1) A CF MEMBER WITHOUT DEPENDANTS OR 

(2) A CF MEMBER OF A SERVICE COUPLE WHEN THE OTHER MEMBER OF THE SERVICE COUPLE IS AWAY FROM THEIR MAIN RESIDENCE FOR SERVICE REASONS 
2.	DETAILED FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) CONCERNING THESE BENEFITS CAN BE FOUND ON THE DCBA WEBSITE AT THE FOLLOWING LINK: HTTP://HR3.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DGCB/DCBA/ENGRAPH/HOME UNDERSCORE E.ASP?SIDESECTION EQUAL SIGN 2 AND SIGN SIDECAT EQUAL SIGN 7 
3.	WE CONTINUE WORK WITH CENTRAL AGENCIES TO ACHIEVE NEAR TERM REGULARIZATION OF THE BENEFIT ISSUES RAISED AT REF 
4.	SIGNED BY RADM A. SMITH, CMP


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Feb 2011)

Its a start. Lets hope it keeps going that way.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (15 Feb 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Its a start. Lets hope it keeps going that way.


...Amen...


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Feb 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Its a start. Lets hope it keeps going that way.



I'm impressed the TB moved that fast to approve the benefits. If only we could get that kind of speed with PWGSC procurements.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2011)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DND/CF is the biggest employer in the Federal Government. This could become a PR nightmare if TB does not move quickly.


----------



## acooper (15 Feb 2011)

It's about to be a nightmare for us. Hubby is on IR in Ottawa, while I try to sell the house in Windsor. The IR payments have been keeping us afloat, while maintaining two residences. Without the rent and bills reimbursement, we are quickly going to go into major debt. The housing market here sucks so badly, that I can't sell the house without going upside down by about 10k, on a house appraised at 104k! 

I hope this gets straightened out soon - we can't be the ONLY couple in this situation...


----------



## dapaterson (15 Feb 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DND/CF is the biggest employer in the Federal Government. This could become a PR nightmare if TB does not move quickly.



The nightmare is in the fact that this went on for a number of years, and senior leadership (until now) took no action to correct it.  Christie Blatchford wrote a column on this in the Saturday Globe and Mail, calling for the CDS and VCDS to resign.  She never asked the question "Who was in charge when this was started?" since that would force her to confront one of her favourite soruces - and pointing out that Gen Hillier was the boss when this started to go down might hurt her relationship with him.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The nightmare is in the fact that this went on for a number of years, and senior leadership (until now) took no action to correct it.  Christie Blatchford wrote a column on this in the Saturday Globe and Mail, calling for the CDS and VCDS to resign.  She never asked the question "Who was in charge when this was started?" since that would force her to confront one of her favourite soruces - and pointing out that Gen Hillier was the boss when this started to go down might hurt her relationship with him.



I haven't read that column, but the CDS should not resign, IMO. Agree with your assessment I do (Yoda speak)


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Feb 2011)

This is all a bit confusing...So am I to take it that IR postings are no more ?


----------



## agc (15 Feb 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This is all a bit confusing...So am I to take it that IR postings are no more ?



No IR is a choice by the member not to move their DHG&E.  There are some changes to the payment of Separation Allowance.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Feb 2011)

agc said:
			
		

> No IR is a choice by the member not to move their DHG&E.  There are some changes to the payment of Separation Allowance.



Roge! Thanks!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Feb 2011)

agc said:
			
		

> No IR is a choice by the member not to move their DHG&E.  There are some changes to the payment of Separation Allowance.



It is an option vice a choice.  Until the CANFORGEN, the authority to extend IR benefits rested with Career Managers.  The CANFORGEN reverted that authority to Base Commanders.  As near as I can tell, policy on how that is to be processed and paid for has yet to be promulgated.  If I was a betting man, I think we will see a reduction in the number of IRs that are approved in the coming APS's.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (16 Feb 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I haven't read that column, but the CDS should not resign, IMO. Agree with your assessment I do (Yoda speak)


Again, a member of the media has no grasp on the "CF way". We DO NOT deflect responsibility Ms. Blatchford-quite the opposite; we accept and share it. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread-Anyone with any supervisory responsibilities is partly to blame for this as we ALL let it go. I started living by an adage about 12-15 years ago--Though I take direction from superiors, I "work" for my subordinates. This will get resolved and life will go on...unless, by Ms. Blatchford's thinking, everyone in the CF above the rank of Cpl/LS resigns because of this!


----------



## acooper (16 Feb 2011)

agc said:
			
		

> No IR is a choice by the member not to move their DHG&E.  There are some changes to the payment of Separation Allowance.



I don't think that's an accurate description of all IR cases. My husband was on TR, then recently put on IR (TR can last only 6 months or something?). His posting was originally restricted until he found a place to stay. Now we're trying to sell the house. It's not just Separation Allowance that's being held, I think. Unless it's technically separation allowance that is covering his rent and utilities until I CAN sell the house and move. In our case, it's not that it's our CHOICE not to move DHG&E - we are UNABLE to move it until the house sells.


----------



## armyvern (17 Feb 2011)

acooper said:
			
		

> I don't think that's an accurate description of all IR cases. My husband was on TR, then recently put on IR (TR can last only 6 months or something?). His posting was originally restricted until he found a place to stay. Now we're trying to sell the house. It's not just Separation Allowance that's being held, I think. Unless it's technically separation allowance that is covering his rent and utilities until I CAN sell the house and move. In our case, it's not that it's our CHOICE not to move DHG&E - we are UNABLE to move it until the house sells.



His T restriction was put in place until he found a place to stay. 

He then found a place, but has now _chosen_ to go the IR route until you sell your house. He can move you anytime, but is choosing to wait until the house sells ... there are other options: rent it out etc. That's the difference with IR - it is occuring because he made a personal choice - whether it be to rent out the other house and move you immediately or leave you behind until it sold ... his choice not to move his DHG&E at this time.

Unlike MSCs (married service couples) where there is NO choice. The CF posts one somewhere and posts the other somewhere else ... 100% not a choice "opted for" by either of those members; absolutely unlike your present situation. I know of a MSC who has one posted to one location, the other to a second location ... who can not sell their house at the 3rd location where they were posted from ~ they chose to rent it out in the meantime to save themselves one set of bills. Had they not done that, one of them would collect SE and they would still have 2 entire sets of bills to pay (one for the house they can't sell and one for the location where the non-SE collector is posted to).


----------



## Guil-T (13 Mar 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> It is an option vice a choice.  Until the CANFORGEN, the authority to extend IR benefits rested with Career Managers.  The CANFORGEN reverted that authority to Base Commanders.  As near as I can tell, policy on how that is to be processed and paid for has yet to be promulgated.  If I was a betting man, I think we will see a reduction in the number of IRs that are approved in the coming APS's.



I have heard of a new canforgen (which I could not find) that gives the approving authority for IR extension requests back to the Career Managers. If so can anyone post it here?

Thanks,


----------



## acooper (14 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern - I see in a certain sense where you are coming from, but it's not really a matter of personal choice in our case. From what I'm understanding of relocation policy, moving DHG&E will not be covered until the house is sold. It's not covered if we choose to rent out the house either. My husband joined the RegF, in part, to have a job that will actually pay him year round w/o layoffs. We aren't in a financial position to move DHG&E ourselves. Otherwise, let me tell you, I'd have been in Ottawa for months.

In any case, yes, some stuff is starting to get paid again. I'll see if he can get his hands on the CANFORGEN for reposting...


----------



## dapaterson (14 Mar 2011)

CANFORGEN 032/11 states in part in para 2A:

THE AUTHORITY FOR IR RESTS WITH THE LOCAL BASE/WING COMMANDER AND NOT THE CAREER MANAGERS


----------



## Pusser (15 Mar 2011)

acooper said:
			
		

> ArmyVern - I see in a certain sense where you are coming from, but it's not really a matter of personal choice in our case. From what I'm understanding of relocation policy, moving DHG&E will not be covered until the house is sold. It's not covered if we choose to rent out the house either. My husband joined the RegF, in part, to have a job that will actually pay him year round w/o layoffs. We aren't in a financial position to move DHG&E ourselves. Otherwise, let me tell you, I'd have been in Ottawa for months.
> 
> In any case, yes, some stuff is starting to get paid again. I'll see if he can get his hands on the CANFORGEN for reposting...



Not quite.  If you and your husband decide to move your DHG&E, you can do that at anytime (provided you have a place to move it to) and the CF will pay for it.  Whether you have sold your house at origin (i.e the place you're coming from) is irrelevant.  Having said that, what happens with the house you haven't sold is an entirely different and separate matter.  If you choose to leave it empty and on the market, there are some benefits to help you cover the costs of doing that.  If you decide to rent it out, there is very little the CF will do to cover the expenses of doing that.  In short, your husband being on IR is a personal choice.  The fact that you feel you can't afford the alternative, does not negate the choice, it just makes it impractical.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2011)

acooper said:
			
		

> From what I'm understanding of relocation policy, moving DHG&E will not be covered until the house is sold. It's not covered if we choose to rent out the house either.



You are incorrect.

Due to the nearly dead housing market at my current location, i am planing on renting my place out when i get posted this summer. The move of my HG&E is covered. There are in fact, provisions for benefits in the relocation policy if the member chooses not to sell his/her residence at origin.

With the exception of married service couples, going on IR is always a personal choice.


----------



## acooper (15 Mar 2011)

Ok, fair enough - obviously, we received some incorrect information from Brookfield. 

Are you having a company take care of the renting details for renting your place out? Or are you managing that side yourself? I'm interested in any option that will get me to Ottawa ASAP.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2011)

acooper said:
			
		

> Are you having a company take care of the renting details for renting your place out?



I will be using a local property management company. I thought this best as i dont need the hassle of dealing directly with renters, looking for renters, etc... and i will be too far away to do things myself.


----------



## Pusser (16 Mar 2011)

If you're going to rent your house to someone else, you definitely want to hire a property manager or management company.  It will save you untold grief and is tax-deductable.  Remember, once you rent your house, it becomes a business and any costs associated with running that business can be claimed on your taxes.  When I did it, my first goal was to try to ensure that my expenses at least cancelled my income (you have to report the rent you receive as income) from the house and so the house was essentially tax-neutral.  This isn't hard to do, especially if there is a mortgage as the bulk of your mortgage payments are often mortgage interest (which is tax-deductable, but the principal is not).

True story:  When we first decided to rent out our house years ago, we tried to do it ourselves.  We posted signs in the neighbourhood, but only got one nibble.  Not having a warm fuzzy feeling about the situation, we finally decided to hire someone to find us a tenant.  They did all the marketing and background checks and found us what turned out to be an excellent tenant who stayed for seven years.  That first nibble?  A few weeks after we met her, my wife saw her having a cheque refused at the local drug store.  The moral of the story is that we dodged a bullet by deciding to go with a property management company.  I'm sure if we had gone with that original applicant, we would have had huge problems.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Mar 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> (you have to report the rent you receive as income)



In some cases, you can still consider the property as you primary residence for 2 years to get around it being "income". Some of our guys did that last year. it is something i have to look more into.


----------



## Pusser (16 Mar 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> In some cases, you can still consider the property as you primary residence for 2 years to get around it being "income". Some of our guys did that last year. it is something i have to look more into.



I'm not an expert, but I find that kind of fishy.  Generally, if somebody gives you money, CRA considers it income and taxes it.  It may still be your primary residence in terms of capital gains, should you decide to sell it later (capital gains on your primary residence are non-taxable), but I would venture to guess that CRA is not going to allow you to collect two years worth of rent without paying taxes on it.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Mar 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'm not an expert, but I find that kind of fishy.  Generally, if somebody gives you money, CRA considers it income and taxes it.  It may still be your primary residence in terms of capital gains, should you decide to sell it later (capital gains on your primary residence are non-taxable), but I would venture to guess that CRA is not going to allow you to collect two years worth of rent without paying taxes on it.



That was my initial reaction. Like i said, it is something i now have to look into as i didnt ask questions at the time. Both guys who did this were financialy smart guys and both moved to other provinces and rented out their condos here, so maybe there is something i am missing, but there is something to it.


----------



## Strike (16 Mar 2011)

I think it has something to do with renting a place yourself in another location so that the house remains your primary residence since you essentially own it.  Something to that affect, but at least we're throwing ideas out at you that you can hopefully find the answers to.


----------



## vroom (23 Mar 2011)

WRT:

C. TD BENEFITS FOR ALL PERS ON ATTACH POSTING (CF MEMBERS ARE NO 
LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE ON TRAVEL STATUS DURING THE DURATION OF THE 
ATTACH POSTING EXCEPT FOR TRAVEL TO AND FROM THEIR HOME UNIT). REF E 
IS HEREBY RESCINDED."

  I am currently at CFSACO on my QL3. I was posted to North Bay after BMQ, and prior to leaving for Cornwall received documentation outlining my TD claim and the amount I will receive upon return to North Bay (I didn't take an advance.)

  Am I correct in assuming I am on TD? From what I deduce above only applies to attach postings.  We have been briefed on other matters regarding this Canforgen such as PMV, SE, etc..., but nothing regarding clarification on the above para.

  Can anyone shed light on this?


----------



## Swingline1984 (23 Mar 2011)

vroom said:
			
		

> Can anyone shed light on this?



Your clerk.


----------



## twistedfang790 (14 Apr 2011)

i am currently on IR,my unit left winnipeg to go
wining from lonely places


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Apr 2011)

Who told you Jr NCMs would not be approved IR?


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Apr 2011)

I would be very interested to find out as well.


----------



## McG (14 Apr 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Who told you Jr NCMs would not be approved IR?


I'd like to know the source of this rumour as well.  Pay is the only thing under compensation & benefits that should descriminate based on rank.  I cannot see a blanket policy of no IR for junior ranks surviving first contact.

There are many other legitimate policies & procedures cropping up that are specific to different bases.  All pers on IR in Edmonon will now live in shacks - some may find his unpleasant, but it is not unreasonable.  In Gagetown, both the gaining & lossing unit COs must endorse an IR request before the base comd will consider it and then IR will only be approved for one year (I am unsure if this is a maximum or renewable on annual cycles).  Some bases have had crown accomodations for IR for years.  In St Jean, PMQs were convered for IR use insead of being destroyed when capacity was excess - I am guessing Gagetown is wishing it had not dozed empty PMQs now.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Apr 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> All pers on IR in Edmonon will now live in shacks - some may find his unpleasant, but it is not unreasonable.



I am about to embark on an IR posting to CFJSR in Kingston, Ont. I actually wish the BCmdr in Kingston would let me live in Shacks. As it is I will probably just rent and apartment or something. 



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> In Gagetown, both the gaining & lossing unit COs must endorse an IR request before the base comd will consider it and then IR will only be approved for one year (I am unsure if this is a maximum or renewable on annual cycles).



This is Kingston's policy as well. Like you I am unsure but hopeful that this is renewable on annual cycles.


----------



## McG (14 Apr 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am about to embark on an IR posting to CFJSR in Kingston, Ont. I actually wish the BCmdr in Kingston would let me live in Shacks. As it is I will probably just rent and apartment or something.


I suspect the decision to order IR into shacks or not is based on availability by base.  Gagetown is strained for space without fitting in IR & any PMQs that previously could not be filled have been dozed.  I would not be surprised to learn that Kingston also has a shortage of accomodation space for other requirements.


----------



## armyvern (14 Apr 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am about to embark on an IR posting to CFJSR in Kingston, Ont. I actually wish the BCmdr in Kingston would let me live in Shacks. As it is I will probably just rent and apartment or something.
> 
> This is Kingston's policy as well. Like you I am unsure but hopeful that this is renewable on annual cycles.




I am currently posted to CFJSR ... IR ... I even know where you will be working.    Although, I also happen be attach-posted to MTTF in Edmonton at this specific point in time.

In Kingston, I am (was) in a one bedroom apartment --- they did not have any singles quarters avail that met the "IR standard". IE: a single room with it's own bathroom facilities -- "one bedroom apaprtment". IR pers don't share as they are entitled to that privacy due to their IR status. If that is not avail, then they will authorize the 1 bedroom apartment that you are entitled to.

Gagetown works the same way. No single room with private washroom ... then no shacks and into an apartment.

I don't know how many pers are posted IR to Edmonton, but Edmonton seems to have very minimal single rooms with private washrooms (judging by the building I live in where the vast majority of the rooms have more than one pers in them and washrooms are shared with room next door or common washrooms to the floor.

If the rooms are not there to put IR people in, then that is when the "move into an apartment" kicks in. Shacks should be the first option (always), but if they can't meet the above room-type, they can't just ignore the minimal ...


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Apr 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> I would not be surprised to learn that Kingston also has a shortage of accomodation space for other requirements.



Extreme shortage, there are a lot of PATs still here.


----------



## armyvern (14 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Extreme shortage, there are a lot of PATs still here.



Nor do they have a lot of single private rooms with own bathroom facilities.


----------



## armyvern (14 Apr 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect the decision to order IR into shacks or not is based on availability by base.  Gagetown is strained for space without fitting in IR & any PMQs that previously could not be filled have been dozed.  I would not be surprised to learn that Kingston also has a shortage of accomodation space for other requirements.



There's a few IR pers in shacks in Gagetown. The issue is with lack of rooms (on any base these days) that meet the "single room  with private toilet/shower facilities". When those are gone, downtown to the apartment one goes.

Sounds like people think the "shacks first" means that they'll be able to just cram IR pers into rooms with roommates, no private shower, toilet etc despite the minimum standard ... If they ever tried to do that, they'd best make sure that each and every single IR pers is crammed into exact same - depite rank/posn -  else the grieveances will be flying I predict as rank/posn has nothing to do with the minimum standard an IR pers is entitled to.


----------



## captloadie (14 Apr 2011)

Years ago in Kingston rank did make a difference. Officers below the rank of Major stayed on base, Majors and above were requested (told) to live off base. I had a colleague who was finishing his degree at RMC. He started in shacks as a Capt, and when he was promoted 1 Dec to Maj was told he needed to find commercial accommodations, as there were no rooms available in the Officer's quarters fit for senior officers. No amount of persuasion would convince them to make an exception for his last 6 months of classes.

I bet that there will be a review of IR policy with respects to the standard of room. If I had a crystal ball, I'd say the "single room with private bath" standard will disappear, and bases will be left to determine what they consider an adequate standard.


----------



## Strike (14 Apr 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I bet that there will be a review of IR policy with respects to the standard of room. If I had a crystal ball, I'd say the "single room with private bath" standard will disappear, and bases will be left to determine what they consider an adequate standard.



http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pub/lai-il/index-eng.asp#qra-qlr

See para 9.2, which then refers to para 5.1 regarding standards.


----------



## captloadie (15 Apr 2011)

I didn't realize the standard was so high for residential accomodations.

So I guess according to this reference for places like Kingston, if the apartment like PMQs were administered by the Base instead of the CFHA, members would be living there instead of on the economy.


----------



## armyvern (15 Apr 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I didn't realize the standard was so high for residential accomodations.
> 
> So I guess according to this reference for places like Kingston, if the apartment like PMQs were administered by the Base instead of the CFHA, members would be living there instead of on the economy.



Us IR folks are allowed ---  conjugal visits --- if you will. Any future roomies of mine should a base decide to double stack us or not provide that private washroom ... may not be amused when I exercise that option.


Oh, and there ARE some IR pers living in apartments here; there's a whole lot of IR pers here though ... can you say RMC, largest first line unit in Canada, CFSCE etc etc?


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Apr 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Us IR folks are allowed ---  conjugal visits --- if you will. Any future roomies of mine should a base decide to double stack us or not provide that private washroom ... may not be amused when I exercise that option.




Now you advertise that!

dileas

tess


----------



## Snakedoc (5 May 2011)

I read over the message and this thread and I understand that third location LTA and reverse LTA are no longer available but can someone clarify for me if LTA is still available for reservists to visit their NOK/home?  Or was this cancelled when the previous message was cancelled?  I took a look at CBI 209.50 but it doesn't mention anything about reservist specifically.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Stoker (5 May 2011)

As far as I know regular LTA for reservist is still ok, I know a person who just claimed it.


----------



## Pusser (6 May 2011)

Generally, unless a reservist is specifically excluded, if a regulation says, "member," then that includes a reservist.  Reservists are members of the CF.


----------



## Snakedoc (14 May 2011)

Received some incorrect information on first but confirmed now that LTA is still available for reservists.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Years ago in Kingston rank did make a difference. Officers below the rank of Major stayed on base, Majors and above were requested (told) to live off base. I had a colleague who was finishing his degree at RMC. He started in shacks as a Capt, and when he was promoted 1 Dec to Maj was told he needed to find commercial accommodations, as there were no rooms available in the Officer's quarters fit for senior officers. No amount of persuasion would convince them to make an exception for his last 6 months of classes.
> 
> I bet that there will be a review of IR policy with respects to the standard of room. If I had a crystal ball, I'd say the "single room with private bath" standard will disappear, and bases will be left to determine what they consider an adequate standard.



Ah yes, that old rank thing. Like my visitation (of the weekend conjugal type) is lesser and less-deserved because I am not a Snr Officer. If they change their IR policy wrt accomodations, I'll be interested to see what they'll tell me, and what my shack mates will think, about my spouse visiting and staying with me over a weekend because it will happen. Even convicted criminals in Canada can enjoy private conjugal visits in private quarters (on-site) while serving their sentences; it'd be interesting to see the fallout if they tell non-convict volunteers of the CF that they can't have their spouse in their shacks (considered their residence at location X while they are posted there) even though the CF has posted them each to different locations ...


----------

