• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

This rebuttal by Leslie published by the CP is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. While I agree with him that he is the victim of a smear campaign, I do not know who originated it. However it appears more likely to have been originated by a political organization than a taxpayer protection or fiscal responsibility group.

Former general Leslie accuses Tories of smear over moving expenses

By Jim Bronskill — CP — Feb 16 2014

OTTAWA - A retired general who once led Canada's troops in Afghanistan is accusing the federal Conservatives of a "personal attack" over his moving expenses to undermine his new role as a Liberal adviser.

Former lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie brushed off what he characterized as a partisan smear Sunday, saying he's been shot at by "real bullets" and can withstand the scrutiny that comes with working for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

The 35-year Canadian Forces veteran posted the comments online the same day the Defence Minister said he would ask his department to explain how it approved in-city moving expenses of more than $72,000 for Leslie — a Rob Nicholson said appeared "grossly excessive."

"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," Nicholson said in a statement. "This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars."

Leslie told CTV News, which aired the story Saturday based on a government document, that he did not break any rules and that most of the moving expenses went to real estate fees.

CTV did not say how it obtained the document, but Nicholson's office said Sunday it was released under the Access to Information Act.

Leslie did not explain in his statement how he concluded the Tories were behind the story.

It aired just a week before Leslie, touted as a candidate in the next federal election, is to address a Liberal convention in Montreal.

Leslie said Sunday that like all Canadian Forces personnel who retire after 20 or more years of service, he was offered and accepted a standard benefit that allows veterans a final move to anywhere in Canada.

In Leslie's case, he and his family decided to move from their Ottawa house to a smaller one nearby.

"After moving homes 18 times in the service of my country, I was glad to make a new house in Ottawa our new, permanent home," he said in the statement.

"Each step of the process is overseen by a third-party supplier, and independent approvals for every expenditure are required, as directed by the Treasury Board of Canada. Costs are paid directly to the suppliers (real estate agents, movers etc.) by the Department of National Defence."

Leslie said that after retiring, he joined the federal Liberal Party because he felt "it was time for a change in how politics is conducted" in Canada.

"I saw how the Conservative Party often attacks those people that might dare to disagree with them," adding all too often the tactic is to make the issue personal, not about differences in policy or vision.

Now that he has joined Trudeau's team as a senior adviser on defence and foreign policy, the Conservatives have made him the target of a just such a personal attack, Leslie said.

"I can take it. I have been shot at by real bullets. 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."

 
Old Sweat said:
This rebuttal by Leslie published by the CP is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. While I agree with him that he is the victim of a smear campaign, I do not know who originated it. However it appears more likely to have been originated by a political organization than a taxpayer protection or fiscal responsibility group.

Former general Leslie accuses Tories of smear over moving expenses

By Jim Bronskill — CP — Feb 16 2014

OTTAWA - A retired general who once led Canada's troops in Afghanistan is accusing the federal Conservatives of a "personal attack" over his moving expenses to undermine his new role as a Liberal adviser.

Former lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie brushed off what he characterized as a partisan smear Sunday, saying he's been shot at by "real bullets" and can withstand the scrutiny that comes with working for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

The 35-year Canadian Forces veteran posted the comments online the same day the Defence Minister said he would ask his department to explain how it approved in-city moving expenses of more than $72,000 for Leslie — a Rob Nicholson said appeared "grossly excessive."

"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," Nicholson said in a statement. "This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars."

Leslie told CTV News, which aired the story Saturday based on a government document, that he did not break any rules and that most of the moving expenses went to real estate fees.

CTV did not say how it obtained the document, but Nicholson's office said Sunday it was released under the Access to Information Act.

Leslie did not explain in his statement how he concluded the Tories were behind the story.

It aired just a week before Leslie, touted as a candidate in the next federal election, is to address a Liberal convention in Montreal.

Leslie said Sunday that like all Canadian Forces personnel who retire after 20 or more years of service, he was offered and accepted a standard benefit that allows veterans a final move to anywhere in Canada.

In Leslie's case, he and his family decided to move from their Ottawa house to a smaller one nearby.

"After moving homes 18 times in the service of my country, I was glad to make a new house in Ottawa our new, permanent home," he said in the statement.

"Each step of the process is overseen by a third-party supplier, and independent approvals for every expenditure are required, as directed by the Treasury Board of Canada. Costs are paid directly to the suppliers (real estate agents, movers etc.) by the Department of National Defence."

Leslie said that after retiring, he joined the federal Liberal Party because he felt "it was time for a change in how politics is conducted" in Canada.

"I saw how the Conservative Party often attacks those people that might dare to disagree with them," adding all too often the tactic is to make the issue personal, not about differences in policy or vision.

Now that he has joined Trudeau's team as a senior adviser on defence and foreign policy, the Conservatives have made him the target of a just such a personal attack, Leslie said.

"I can take it. I have been shot at by real bullets. 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."

Good for him... and I hope he sticks it right up their asses... pardon my Spanish.
 
I remember seeing all the ATI requests that have been filled by DND on the DWAN (ADM(PA) office?).  It should be pretty easy to verify if it has been ATI'd.

Having said that, you would have to know when you made the request some specific details which to me is kind of fishy.  Also, this is the same previous bunch that had pulled the gentlemans (Mr. Bruyea.. sp?)  full medical file for the VAC minister when he was an outspoken critic.  I would not be surprised if (once again) someone from the PMO 'suggested' to the juornalist that they ask for the specific info, or just gave them the file.

This is the same government that is responding to their party interfering in an election by introducing legislation to hamstring the elections commissioner.
 
Navy_Pete said:
I remember seeing all the ATI requests that have been filled by DND on the DWAN (ADM(PA) office?).  It should be pretty easy to verify if it has been ATI'd.

Having said that, you would have to know when you made the request some specific details which to me is kind of fishy.  Also, this is the same previous bunch that had pulled the gentlemans (Mr. Bruyea.. sp?)  full medical file for the VAC minister when he was an outspoken critic.  I would not be surprised if (once again) someone from the PMO 'suggested' to the juornalist that they ask for the specific info, or just gave them the file.

This is the same government that is responding to their party interfering in an election by introducing legislation to hamstring the elections commissioner.

Sadly, 10 years from now I can come back here and see similar comments and stories involving the Liberals.  Are any of them really all that different from one another?
 
George Wallace said:
As long as he sticks it to the proper sources.

Certainly. And I gotta say, I'm embarrassed that our MND would say the things he said, using the wording he used. Politics aside, very disrespectful to a man who has served his country as LGen Leslie has for 35 years. I just learned a lot about the integrity of the MND.
 
Integrity and politician are two words that don't belong in the same sentence....

A politician is someone who lies when the truth would serve.

IMO.

NS
 
Old Sweat said:
This rebuttal by Leslie published by the CP is ...

"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."

(I've edited this para out as I've found the appropriate reference I was asking about).

As to "may raise questions over military benefits" - While the program is a good one, makes sense overall and should be retained in general, isn't there a genuine question for debate when the policy requires all of us taxpayers to pay some $72,000 for a move a few streets down from the one he's already living on? That just appears silly.

In a free and democratic society shouldn't one be able to examine as to whether or not a policy needs amending in order to prevent abuse? Regardless of which side of the fence you are on politically, the Minister has an obligation to review and curtail policies that result in what (in my humble opinion) are absurd expenditures.

:2c:  :cheers:
 
FJAG said:
As to "I have been shot at by real bullets" - Does anyone recall when that happened? Sorry. I don't want to sound crass nor am I looking for a  :slapfight:  here but I just can't recall when he was ever in a fire fight or in harm's way and I'd really like to know.

As to "may raise questions over military benefits" - While the program is a good one, makes sense overall and should be retained in general, isn't there a genuine question for debate when the policy requires us taxpayer pay some $72,000 for a move a few streets down from the one he's already living on? That just appears silly.

In a free and democratic society shouldn't one be able to examine as to whether or not a policy needs amending in order to prevent abuse? Regardless of which side of the fence you are on politically, the Minister has an obligation to review and curtail policies that result in what (in my humble opinion) are absurd expenditures.

:2c:  :cheers:

All of which could (and should) be undertaken as a matter of policy review within the department, not in the form of a public personal attack on an individual. Come on man...
 
Transporter said:
All of which could (and should) be undertaken as a matter of policy review within the department, not in the form of a public personal attack on an individual. Come on man...

Sorry mate, I've read the article which quotes the Minister and I do not see it as a personal attack. I see it as a legitimate question being raised.

That said, Leslie has chosen to enter the public arena and to become a politician. He's entitled to receive respect and acknowledgement for his years of service, but that doesn't entitle him to a free ride.

Be honest with yourself. Regardless of whether or not the policy at the time permitted this move, doesn't this case merit public debate?

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
Sorry mate, I've read the article which quotes the Minister and I do not see it as a personal attack. I see it as a legitimate question being raised.

That said, Leslie has chosen to enter the public arena and to become a politician. He's entitled to receive respect and acknowledgement for his years of service, but that doesn't entitle him to a free ride.

Be honest with yourself. Regardless of whether or not the policy at the time permitted this move, doesn't this case merit public debate?

:cheers:

From the MND... “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. This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars." You don't see this as a veiled political attack against the man, calling into question his judgement and his ethics? Really? This is not about entitlements... be honest with yourself.
 
FJAG said:
Be honest with yourself. Regardless of whether or not the policy at the time permitted this move, doesn't this case merit public debate?

No.  This case doesn't merit public debate.  If it requires public debate, it should be because the overall practice of <40 km moves being covered as a retirement move is wrong.  If it's wrong, then the current government had 8 years to address it, and not launch it as a "gotcha" topic when it suits them to launch an attack on a former CF member running for a spot in an opposition party.

These clowns suggesting that Andrew Leslie somehow did something wrong by claiming this move, by extension, suggest that I did something wrong by claiming my local move on retirement last year.  I have a big friggin' problem with that, and unlike Andrew Leslie, I don't have to be nice and polite when I respond to it.
 
Occam said:
No.  This case doesn't merit public debate.  If it requires public debate, it should be because the overall practice of <40 km moves being covered as a retirement move is wrong.  If it's wrong, then the current government had 8 years to address it, and not launch it as a "gotcha" topic when it suits them to launch an attack on a former CF member running for a spot in an opposition party.

These clowns suggesting that Andrew Leslie somehow did something wrong by claiming this move, by extension, suggest that I did something wrong by claiming my local move on retirement last year.  I have a big friggin' problem with that, and unlike Andrew Leslie, I don't have to be nice and polite when I respond to it.

You gotta know that the end result of this will end badly for the rank and file troop. Payback will mean taking away another hard earned benefit of signing on the dotted line and serving 20 or 25 + years.
 
Occam said:
If it requires public debate, it should be because the overall practice of <40 km moves being covered as a retirement move is wrong.
 

Absolutely agree. We shouldn't be paying for someone to move within the geographical area. We have those zones set up for a reason, right? But, we have the rules in place now, and moving short distances is within the rules. Leslie did nothing wrong by using a current policy. If they're going to change it going forward, so be it.

Occam said:
If it's wrong, then the current government had 8 years to address it, and not launch it as a "gotcha" topic when it suits them to launch an attack on a former CF member running for a spot in an opposition party.

These clowns suggesting that Andrew Leslie somehow did something wrong by claiming this move, by extension, suggest that I did something wrong by claiming my local move on retirement last year.  I have a big friggin' problem with that, and unlike Andrew Leslie, I don't have to be nice and polite when I respond to it.

I'm waiting for proof it was the government that did this as a smear campaign. CTV has a "source", which of course they won't release. Its just as plausible to state that the MSM is using the "smear campaign" angle to try to villify the Conservatives again. Both accusations have no proof at all, but we can throw them around, right?
 
Transporter said:
From the MND... “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. This is a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars." You don't see this as a veiled political attack against the man, calling into question his judgement and his ethics? Really? This is not about entitlements... be honest with yourself.

Of course I see this as a veiled "political" attack. I don't consider it a personal attack or an attack on his ethics but it clearly is an attack on his judgement and IMHO it's an appropriate one to make.

The old saying about "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" applies in politics and to Caesar himself. Leslie put himself out there and this move is one that to the general public will look outrageous. He's taken on a political mantle and he has to be prepared to have dirt thrown his way. Do you for one minute think by joining the Liberals he's not going to become their primary Defence critic and hammer at all the defence policies and personalities that he doesn't like?

Anyway while you and I have been conversing in a brief time span, I'm quite against having this :highjack:.

You won't change my mind and I won't change yours so let's let others chime in.

:cheers:
 
PuckChaser said:
Absolutely agree. We shouldn't be paying for someone to move within the geographical area. We have those zones set up for a reason, right? But, we have the rules in place now, and moving short distances is within the rules. Leslie did nothing wrong by using a current policy. If they're going to change it going forward, so be it.

I was posted to Ottawa in 2008.  We looked at about 30 houses on our HHT, and on the second to last day we put offers in on two of the tolerable homes that were close to public transit, in decent neighbourhoods, in decent condition, and within our price range - knowing that we're going to have to sell the place again in a few years.  We had our offer accepted on one of the two homes, so the move was on.

Fast forward three years to 2011.  I get an offer for the Public Service, put in my release, and the two year clock starts ticking for my release move.  While the house that I chose in 2008 was optimal for the CF in that I could resell it fairly easily, it wasn't optimal for me in that we'd already outgrown it in three years and we wouldn't have touched the place if we were looking for a long term "we're in this house until we get put in a retirement villa" house.

So, I have no reservations about taking a local move.  The CF can't have it both ways.  I can pick out a house on a HHT which is 100% what I want, and then cause no end of administrative burden because I can't sell it at the end of my posting.  Or I can pick out a house that suits the need for the duration of the posting, and keep the CF happy because I don't cause all sorts of grief every time I get posted.  If I choose the latter, then the CF had better be prepared to accommodate my local retirement move to a home that I want, not a home that works out nicely for the CF and I'm miserable as hell in it.
 
FJAG said:
Of course I see this as a veiled "political" attack. I don't consider it a personal attack or an attack on his ethics but it clearly is an attack on his judgement and IMHO it's an appropriate one to make.

The old saying about "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" applies in politics and to Caesar himself. Leslie put himself out there and this move is one that to the general public will look outrageous. He's taken on a political mantle and he has to be prepared to have dirt thrown his way. Do you for one minute think by joining the Liberals he's not going to become their primary Defence critic and hammer at all the defence policies and personalities that he doesn't like?

Anyway while you and I have been conversing in a brief time span, I'm quite against having this :highjack:.

You won't change my mind and I won't change yours so let's let others chime in.

:cheers:

Challenging a man on his politics and hammering his stance on various policies is 100% fair ball. Jump into the political arena and you do open yourself up to scrutiny for your actions whilst in public office. But having the MND smear a former General officer in the national press for having done nothing wrong - nothing that literally thousands before him have done - and telling him he has a lot of explaining to do to the taxpayers of the country is repugnant... IMHO. I don't expect to change yours.
 
PuckChaser said:
Absolutely. I really hope this comes back to bite the "gotcha" media with a review that says "Gen Leslie was moved in accordance with TBS policy, here's a breakdown of all the costs he never saw."
That is what they will find, and then will come the calls to change the system for all military members.

FJAG said:
As to "may raise questions over military benefits" - While the program is a good one, makes sense overall and should be retained in general, isn't there a genuine question for debate when the policy requires all of us taxpayers to pay some $72,000 for a move a few streets down from the one he's already living on? That just appears silly.
Indeed, elements of the IPR policies have been debated in our our budget saving threads on this site.  Some serving members here have questioned (before this hit the press) why we pay for IPR moves within the same geographic location - others have responded that the house you buy when you are expecting to move is often not the house you will by when you are expecting to settle and the IPR within geographic location allows pers to move from one to the other.

I have personally questioned the entitlement existing for each member of a service couple.  I know an example of a couple that took one member's IPR in the year leading up to their retirement, and then took the other member's IPR a year after retirement because they found a house they liked more.

I worry that media sensationalism driving this examination of the policies will lead to a knee-jerk correction that is in-flexible (arbitrary dollar value cap on homes that will force service members into sub-standard housing in Toronto, Halifax or Vancouver and force large families into poor housing in all cities) or that requires a massive administrative overhead (managing variable ceiling prices for homes that discriminate by geographic location & family size) but which will lack the ability to keep pace with market changes (so the family in Cold Lake will still be sent to substandard housing because the ceiling price for realtor fees was set three years ago and prices have since spiked).
 
The "attack" on LGen (ret'd) Leslie is part of a larger public (media led?) attack on "special privilege" ...

web-monedcar17col1.jpg

Source: The Globe and Mail
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

Many media people understand that Canadians, generally, are suspicious, jealous of privilege. It isn't the waste of billions that bothers us, it's $24,000 here, $72,000 there and $90,000 somewhere else. Those a understandable numbers and most people hate paying real estate fees and envy people who travel in business class.

The Conservatives will, with some care I hope (it can backfire ... what entitlements did retired CF members and CPC MPs Laurie Hawn, Erin O’Toole and Pierre Lemieux claim?), exploit this, but it is, essentially, a public, not a partisan political issue.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The "attack" on LGen (ret'd) Leslie is part of a larger public (media led?) attack on "special privilege" ...

( .... )

The Conservatives will, with some care I hope (it can backfire ... what entitlements did retired CF members and CPC MPs Laurie Hawn, Erin O’Toole and Pierre Lemieux claim?), exploit this, but it is, essentially, a public, not a partisan political issue.
While the policy/rules are a public issue (like any other where government spends money in our name), and this one may be media-driven, what triggered the scrutiny?  THAT's what might suggest whether bringing this to the public forum was done for transparency/conscience, or for political reasons.
 
Back
Top