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

[Journeyman]

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

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

 

[Nfld Sapper]

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

Close enough?

;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

Close enough?

That'll more than do ....

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

Touche  ;D

 

[PuckChaser]

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

What are the real estate fees on half a house?

 

[The Bread Guy]

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

:rofl:  Milpoints inbound!

 

[Transporter]

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

 

[blacktriangle]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brihard]

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

    The story was, indeed, the result of an ATI request ~ sort of data mining by journalists ~ by Global News;

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

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

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

 

[FSTO]

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

 

[dapaterson]

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

 

[McG]

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives to review policy of paying for same-city military moves
Rebecca Lindell  Global News
17 February 2014

OTTAWA – The Conservative government is reviewing its pricey policy of paying to move retired military members to new houses within the same city, as documents released to Global News through Access to Information show these moves are costing National Defence hundreds of thousands of dollars.

National Defence has paid nearly $600,000 to move Generals, many of them retired, within the same city or just outside the city limits over the past five years, according to the documents.

The most costly of those moves was expensed by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Andrew Leslie who moved from one house in an upscale Ottawa neighbourhood to another just a four-minute drive away – a move that cost taxpayers $72,000. Leslie is now an advisor to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

“The policy was never intended to have taxpayers pay $72,000 for generals to move between mansions within the same city,” said Defence Minister Rob Nicholson. “Just like his Liberal friends, Andrew Leslie claims he is ‘entitled to his entitlements.’ That’s is why I have asked my department to review the policy to ensure the responsible use of taxpayers dollars.”

But Leslie’s not alone. Thirteen generals had intra-city moves. Another eight moved within 100 kilometres of their old house.

As part of the deal for serving their country, all military members can expense one final move post-retirement. The policy is meant to ensure members can choose their final home after being at the whim of the department for decades. All costs associated with the move – including the cost of moving possessions, legal fees and real estate commissions – are covered by the public purse.

In an email to Global News, Leslie defended the policy, saying it fairly compensates uniformed members for many moves over the course of their service.

“No restrictions, no quibbling,” he wrote. “You can move to Victoria, or you can move next door.”

But some question this interpretation of the policy.

Military journalist Scott Taylor said the original intent of the policy is to relocate soldiers who end up posted to a place they don’t want to retire, but some are exploiting a loophole.

“The rationale is that they want to be in the city of their choosing for their retirement. Moving within that city makes no sense. That was never the spirit of that entitlement,” Taylor said, adding that it is probably time for a systemic review.

Gregory Thomas of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the moves suggest generals believe they are entitled to their entitlements.

“Well it doesn’t say a lot for the Generals that they are going to whack the taxpayers to move from one part of Ottawa to the other after they leave the forces,” he said.

Global News requested and received details of the moving expenses of general staff through Access to Information laws. Before Global News published the information, at least part of it was leaked to CTV who published the details of Leslie’s move.

Nicholson immediately responded demanding an explanation from Leslie for the expenses – expenses that were approved by Nicholson’s own department.

“Expense claims for Liberal Defence Advisor Andrew Leslie’s in-city move appear grossly excessive. As such, I will be asking the Department of National Defence to examine how an in-city move could possibly total over $72,000,” Nicholson said in a statement. “In the meantime, it is important for Andrew Leslie to explain why he believes this is a reasonable expense for hard working Canadians to absorb.”

On Monday, Nicholson’s office said the review of Leslie’s expenses would cover all moves within the same city.

Leslie claims the Conservatives are launching a “personal attack” that stems from his recent decision to join the Liberal advisory team.

“I can take it. I have been shot at by real bullets,” Leslie wrote on his Facebook page this weekend. “What is disappointing is that this particular attack may raise questions over a military retirement benefit and I do not think veterans deserve to have another measure called into question.”

Leslie was not available for an interview on Monday, but in an email to Global News said he and his family moved 18 times and he bought the [first] house in Ottawa on a very short trip without the input of his wife.

“We decided to retire in Ottawa and not move out of the city. My wife found and chose the perfect house (smaller, and note who got the final say), fixed it up and here we are,” he wrote.

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

Nicholson disputes how much Leslie knew about the expenses saying that the policy requires members to submit their fees and commission bill for reimbursement.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau came swiftly to Leslie’s defence, saying the program was meant as a “solemn undertaking” to allow members to pick their final home, regardless of location.

“If the government wants to review it, that is their choice, but there is no question in my mind that the Conservatives are trying to smear the reputation of an honourable and very respected Canadian who has served his country for 35 years,” Garneau said.

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

 

[Journeyman]

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

Is it possible that Nicholson’s surprised reaction reflects the government’s unawareness, until the Leslie story surfaced over the weekend, with the way their own so-called Integrated Relocation Program works? I can’t imagine why. It’s not as if the program hasn’t been scrutinized closely since the Conservatives took office.

In the fall of 2006, the Auditor General presented a detailed report on the program, complete with a list of recommendations, which the government broadly accepted. It’s a significant file that you might expect a defence minister to have no trouble getting briefed up on.

I certainly agree with his comments.  :facepalm:

The complete story is at [Link]

 

[The Bread Guy]

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

:nod:

 

[Old Sweat]

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

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

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

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

Same city moves

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

Near city moves

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

 

[Sub_Guy]

BGen Chekan (Ottawa to Carp) $468.60

$468?  That's a cheap move! 

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

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

 

[McG]

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

 

[Journeyman]

Clearly this is a political move by the Conservatives.....

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

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