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

[McG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dapaterson]

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

 

[rubberhead291]

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

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

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

 

[sandyson]

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

 

[X Royal]

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

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

 

[rubberhead291]

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

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

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

 

[upandatom]

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

The media nowadays is a joke.

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

Just no more Political bashing or Bieber talk please.

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

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

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

 

[ModlrMike]

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

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

 

[DAA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dapaterson]

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

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

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

 

[Transporter]

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

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

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

 

[DAA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Transporter]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DAA]

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

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