Conservatives attack Military Vet over moving expenses

[CaptainCrunch]

I would be fine with that if he moved to Montreal or Calgary or something like that, but 4 blocks to me is a little much.

[John Doe]

Conservatives like to compare government employees with private sector employees. How does this payout to a retiring high ranking military officer compare to the payout to a retiring high ranking business manager?

[Ace]

As individuals we can't even get a moving tax deduction unless we go at least 40KM away.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/t.../menu-eng.html

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I agree with you that he took the perk when it shouldn't be there in the first place (only for moving within the same city). However it doesn't matter if he was wounded has PTSD or whatever, this is a benefit given to retired CF and RCMP members to thank them for their service and help them get to their preferred retirement location.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would be fine with that if he moved to Montreal or Calgary or something like that, but 4 blocks to me is a little much.

Then maybe there should be an income stipulation. Its supposed to assist veterans in relocating. Someone selling a million dollar house doesnt need an exorbitant moving subsidy.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ace

As individuals we can't even get a moving tax deduction unless we go at least 40KM away.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/t.../menu-eng.html

And it has to be closer to your place of employment.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that at this point there does need to be a item by item disclosure of this based on the cost.

And questions about why within 3 months of the sale Andrew Leslie's daughter got hired by a real estate firm that made a big commission on the deal.

Right now, to me it appears that Leslie followed the rules and exploited the system in place.

I think the whole strategy of why are the conservatives such big meanies employed by the Liberals is pretty weak.

This isn't attacking a hard luck veteran suffering from injuries or PTSD, this is a very successful Military officer who retired and went into politics and almost instantly put in a claim for $72,000.00 it does bear disclosure.

I don't disagree.

When I moved from BC to Ontario, I think the total expenses were less than $4,000 (no realtor fees like that though). When I submitted my taxes and tried to claim it, they audited me. Everything turned out fine in the end, but it was a pain at the time. They let me get away with a few things that I didn't think they would. We stayed at one really pricey hotel for a night and then chose to spend a few days in one spot to visit friends, and they let me include those expenses.

$72,000 really does sound like a lot to me, without knowing exactly how it breaks down.

[Devils'Advocate]

Yes, the government DOES pay when they are moved around during their career. However, at the end of their career, they may be posted in Calgary, but their family is all in Halifax. Because being in the military often means moving from home to home to home, bouncing around the country as need be, they do have this "perk" of being able to move one final time, at taxpayer expense to wherever they please. EVEN IF IT IS NEXT DOOR. It really does not matter.

This is a negotiated benefit that our military servicemen have worked out with the government. He did not break any rules to use this benefit.

If you want to condemn that our veterans have this benefit, rail away. But you shouldn't be going after this guy for "abuse" since "abuse" suggests wrongdoing.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Conservatives like to compare government employees with private sector employees. How does this payout to a retiring high ranking military officer compare to the payout to a retiring high ranking business manager?

Did the high ranking business manager have to move his family 18 times?

[Devils'Advocate]

BTW - for context, from Wikipedia, so that you understand the guy's service record. Which to me sounds quite an impressive career. Maybe you guys see it differently, kinda on par with a "business manager". *shrug*

Leslie joined the 30th Field Regiment when at University of Ottawa.[4] He went on to be Commanding Officer of 1st Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in Shilo, Manitoba.[4] While in London, England, as a graduate student he was attached to the Honourable Artillery Company.[5]
In 1995 he was promoted to Colonel and sent to the Former Yugoslavia as Chief of Staff for Sector South.[4] He then became the Chief of Staff and Deputy Commander of United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia.[4]
He was the Area Chief of Staff during the Manitoba floods in Spring 1997.[4] Later in 1997 he became the commander of 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group which was sent to the South shore of Montreal to help with disaster relief operations.[4]
In 2000 he was given responsibility for communications in the Canadian Forces and in 2002 he became the commander of Land Force Central Area.[4]
He became Deputy Commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2003 and then became Assistant Chief of the Land Staff in 2004.[4] In June 2006 he was appointed Chief of the Land Staff.[6]
In June 2010, General Leslie was replaced as Chief of Land Staff by Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin.[7] At the same time, LGen Leslie was named Chief of Transformation for the Canadian Forces.[8]

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

BTW - for context, from Wikipedia, so that you understand the guy's service record. Which to me sounds quite an impressive career. Maybe you guys see it differently, kinda on par with a "business manager". *shrug*

On top of that, there are numerous other retired generals who have taken the same benefit and moved within their city yet were never singled out. This smacks of a partisan attack.

[Swarez]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Conservatives like to compare government employees with private sector employees. How does this payout to a retiring high ranking military officer compare to the payout to a retiring high ranking business manager?

I just moved here from Ontario, cost my (new) company about 45k, and I lived in a toronto condo. Realtor, moving, legal fees were covered.

It really doesn't seem out of line if the house costs million dollars, the bigger issue is the policy itself. It's in the rules, he did nothing wrong.
Why has this policy never been questioned before and why is it being questioned after he joined the liberals?

Something similar happened with a conservative MPP in Ontario last year, lived in niagra, province covered some housing move or something to Toronto on top of niagra liberals had a hissy fit, went away after a day.

Seems like this is just politicians politicking.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

On top of that, there are numerous other retired generals who have taken the same benefit and moved within their city yet were never singled out. This smacks of a partisan attack.

Depends. How did their expenses compare to this one?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Depends. How did their expenses compare to this one?

60 thousand, a few in the 50's and 40's, a bunch in the 30-40 range. The difference could literally be higher realtor fees.

[Devils'Advocate]

Nm

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Nm

Evan Soloman on Power and Politics yesterday had a list of generals that moved within their city. It was a-tipped by a global reporter having a look into the program and then leaked to CTV somehow?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

60 thousand, a few in the 50's and 40's, a bunch in the 30-40 range. The difference could literally be higher realtor fees.

Perhaps. I won't disagree that some partisanship seems likely on first blush here, but as you say, the difference might lie in the full numbers. It does seem based on your post that this one person's expenses are higher than anyone else, which also makes him an easier target if you want to go after out of control expenses.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Perhaps. I won't disagree that some partisanship seems likely on first blush here, but as you say, the difference might lie in the full numbers. It does seem based on your post that this one person's expenses are higher than anyone else, which also makes him an easier target if you want to go after out of control expenses.

Yeah his were definitely the highest and by over 10g's. I don't really agree with the in city move, however at the end of the day that's the policy currently in place and to single one guy out who followed the policy and not others for doing the same thing is kind of ridiculous. What's even worse than all of that is now the government is reviewing the move policy. I really hope this doesn't affect average Joe soldier because I personally feel they deserve this benefit.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Yeah his were definitely the highest and by over 10g's. I don't really agree with the in city move, however at the end of the day that's the policy currently in place and to single one guy out who followed the policy and not others for doing the same thing is kind of ridiculous. What's even worse than all of that is now the government is reviewing the move policy. I really hope this doesn't affect average Joe soldier because I personally feel they deserve this benefit.

That is the key. If the government has a problem with the policy then just come out and say it, but to drag one guy through the mud for following the rules and working in the system is ridiculous.

[Resolute 14]

People who take advantage of loopholes in policies tend to screw things for everyone else. In general, I have little problem with dragging someone who's expenses are excessive relative to the norm through the mud. But without specific details, it is hard to make that determination here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

People who take advantage of loopholes in policies tend to screw things for everyone else. In general, I have little problem with dragging someone who's expenses are excessive relative to the norm through the mud. But without specific details, it is hard to make that determination here.

What loop hole exactly? There doesn't seem to be anyone implying he found a loophole at all, just that it "costs too much" (which seems just unfounded given the facts on real estate figures).