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

[Transporter]

The current relocation policy has gone through many many revisions over the years, some to the benefit of CF members and some to not so much a benefit.  Have you ever considered or tried to pursue one of those covetted OUTCAN postings, like to the US or maybe Europe and you own a home here in Canada?  Well, here comes your "Relocation Tip of the Day" that might give you second thoughts.......

When posted OUTCAN and you sell your home, you are venturing into Mortgage Breaking Penalties because your mortagage is not "portable" because you are not entitled to purchase a residence OUTCAN.  Before the most recent policy revision (2012), such penalties were limited in reimbursement to "3 months" of payments.  However, within your mortgage contract, the penalty normally imposed by the lender, was either "3 months of payments or the mortgage interest differential (ie; interest payments for the balance of the mortgage term)" and the "higher" of the two became applicable.

Today, that is no longer the case  ---->
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch8.page?#art-08-02-06

Back in 2008--2010, when the lending rates dropped into the 3% range in some cases, I saw people take some serious hits for accepting an OUTCAN posting and having to discharge their current mortage where the MID was applicable, one of them to the tune of $18K and that was a "Cpl". 

So, if you are a Home Owner, you best have your ducks lined up before not just seeking but actually accepting that posting.  It may cost you some serious out of pocket money.

Good tip for sure.

Another (and in my opinion better) option to consider, depending on the housing/rental market you are leaving before going OUTCAN, is to rent your home. You can still declare it as your principal residence IAW subsection 45(2) of the Income Tax Act as long as you declare all rent as income and don't claim Capital Cost Allowance. You can also write-off all associated expenses, including mortgage interest, property taxes and management fees and you will not incur any capital gains when you sell (or move back in). It's nice to have someone else paying your mortgage for you whilst you stay in the housing market. This is 100% above board - see CRA Guide T4036(E).

 

[TCBF]

CTV Atlantic was saying tonight that he seems to have moved from a Tory riding to a Liberal stronghold riding.  I guess they are setting him up for a run...

- This was the other shoe that I was waiting to see dropped.  Still, I don't think it is a big issue.

- Most Canadians won't understand because most Canadians aren't worth re-locating: Their employer sees no need to compete for their skills using re-location and IPR as part of a comprehensive pay and benefits package. Whenever I get a Larry Lunchbox or Suzie Sewingkit remarking on the good pension I am going to get, I simply ask: "Why didn't YOU walk into the Recruiting Centre WITH me in October 1976?"
Know the answer I get? Stunned silence. They want the benefits without the bleeding. They are junk.

 

[Tibbson]

I have provided good counsel to my subordinates, similar to ArmyVern, when they have been posted.  Take advantage of the relocation benefits and first and foremost on your mind should be, is that you will more than likely have to sell that house 3-7 years down the road.  Do not "over buy!"

Something I haven't see mentioned in this thread yet, is any comments or advice which were provided by your Relocation Consultant.  Something during your first interview which is generally "Hi, nice to meet you, my name is George and I have been assigned your relocation file for your upcoming posting.  It is my job to maximize these benefits on your behalf!"

Its been my experience that the relocation consultants can say or not say what ever they want.  Once you are done with that initial interview it's almost impossible to get any more face time with them.  Everything is via email or fax or "call me and leave a message and I'll get back to you". 

I'll never forget on my move from Edmonton I was getting tired of the phone/email tag game so I walked into the BOR area where Crookfield was at the time and I specifically looked over and noted my consultant sitting in her cubical, alone.  I went to reception and asked to see her for a moment.  The receptionist picked up the phone, waited for a few moments and said to me "sorry, she's not in, you'll have to call her and make an appointment".  When I pointed out to the receptionist that I just saw her and in fact I could see the top of her head from where I was standing AND that her phone never rang so I'd appreciate it if she would REALLY call her and let her know I wanted to see her the look on the receptionist's face was priceless when she knew she was busted. 

 

[TCBF]

Its been my experience that the relocation consultants can say or not say what ever they want.    ...

- Perhaps they are all retired recruiters?  ;D

 

[Alberta Bound]

Just got a chance to catch up on this thread after a couple long work days. Some interesting perspectives going out here. A couple points from the RCMP perspective.

You aren't seeing a comparison including RCMP "local" moves as we are no longer entitled to them. Our retirement moves now have to be over 40 kms like posting transfers. I stated previously that it was withdrawn after the RCMP  took some heat a number of years ago over in the same city moves. No where close to the heat this is getting. But politically the Commr said that is the way it goes and then it was gone. Do I think RCMP should have lost this benefit. No, because right now it is shortly going to cost me a bunch of money so I can go from that correct house for wife and kids, near to my posting to the right house for post career and close to the kids but not 40 MK's away.

Although the CF and RCMP benefits are close under IRP they are not identical. Do I think the CF should lose this benefit. Absolutely not. For all the good reasons previously listed.

CF members should count themselves lucky that they get even one face to face with Brookfield. In the RCMP on EX level (Chief Superintendent) and above get that. Everyone else gets the phone / fax / e mail treatment. And for those who think that every benefit in the IRP is automatic. In my 6 cost moves that has not been my experience. The RCMP and Brookfield interpretations seem to always lead to a decrease in my entitlement.

I did laugh at the people who referenced the couple generals who got moves that only cost about $468. If you look,their files still said active. I would bet that $468 is the initial Brookfield consultation fee.

I don't know Gen Leslie. But members serve and in doing so make many sacrifices. Including their families. If nothing else don't they deserve our support in their transition out of the CF. 

 

[YZT580]

By the regs. Gen. Leslie appears to have done everything above board and he was entitled to the payments he received so the whole embarrassment hinges on the word entitled.  I would never vote for anyone who starts his political career by saying "what can I get out of it" and that is Leslie's attitude.  From personal observation he appeared to relish the spot light and enjoy the perks that his rank and title provided him and he is after more of the same in the political world.  Nothing he has said suggests that he has anything to offer the people of his riding other than the guarantee that he will ensure that his pension is topped up, his expense account is maxed out and his family all benefit.  He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.  He reminds me of Chou and Layton who lived in Toronto subsidized housing until they were  outed by an enterprising reporter.  VOTE NO

 

[DAA]

By the regs. Gen. Leslie appears to have done everything above board and he was entitled to the payments he received so the whole embarrassment hinges on the word entitled.  I would never vote for anyone who starts his political career by saying "what can I get out of it" and that is Leslie's attitude.  From personal observation he appeared to relish the spot light and enjoy the perks that his rank and title provided him and he is after more of the same in the political world.  Nothing he has said suggests that he has anything to offer the people of his riding other than the guarantee that he will ensure that his pension is topped up, his expense account is maxed out and his family all benefit.  He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.  He reminds me of Chou and Layton who lived in Toronto subsidized housing until they were  outed by an enterprising reporter.  VOTE NO

"Entitled", "Took advantage of or maximized his benefits", "Exercised his rights", there is no other correct way to say it and based on his increasingly public profile, he's now taking heat over it.  So what else can he say?  This is not and has never been a "secret" incentive of some sort, only afforded to the elite Senior Officer Corps of the CF.

1.1.01 Policy effective date

The Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) 2009 is effective 1 April, 2009. It represents the Treasury Board Secretariat's approved policy for CF members on relocation of their Dependants, Household Goods and Effects ((D) HG&E).

1.1.02 Policy statement

The Department will:
•pay for a door-to-door move when authorized to relocate at public expense; and
•ensure reimbursement of relocation expenses as per the CFIRP policy.

1.1.03 Eligibility application

The following officers or non-commissioned members of the Regular Force or the Reserve Force on Class B or C service are entitled to relocation benefits under the CFIRP:

Ready it for yourself --->  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch1.page?

And if you look closer at the Layton Chou situation from back in that day, not only were they "outed" but the fact in that case, was that their "combined" household income exceeded the threshold to be "entitled" to reside in subsidized housing.  The fact that neither of them reported an increase in income was merely an "oversight" on their part.  Once it was brought to their attention that they were not "entitled" to live there, I believe they moved.  But I don't think and I could be wrong, that they even paid anything back.

 

[The Bread Guy]

- This was the other shoe that I was waiting to see dropped.  Still, I don't think it is a big issue.

- Most Canadians won't understand because most Canadians aren't worth re-locating: Their employer sees no need to compete for their skills using re-location and IPR as part of a comprehensive pay and benefits package. Whenever I get a Larry Lunchbox or Suzie Sewingkit remarking on the good pension I am going to get, I simply ask: "Why didn't YOU walk into the Recruiting Centre WITH me in October 1976?"
Know the answer I get? Stunned silence. They want the benefits without the bleeding. They are junk.

- Perhaps they are all retired recruiters?  ;D

Welcome back, TCBF - good to see the vitriolic wit once again!  ;D

 

[Transporter]

By the regs. Gen. Leslie appears to have done everything above board and he was entitled to the payments he received so the whole embarrassment hinges on the word entitled.  I would never vote for anyone who starts his political career by saying "what can I get out of it" and that is Leslie's attitude.  From personal observation he appeared to relish the spot light and enjoy the perks that his rank and title provided him and he is after more of the same in the political world.  Nothing he has said suggests that he has anything to offer the people of his riding other than the guarantee that he will ensure that his pension is topped up, his expense account is maxed out and his family all benefit.  He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.  He reminds me of Chou and Layton who lived in Toronto subsidized housing until they were  outed by an enterprising reporter.  VOTE NO

You are entitled to your opinion. Have any facts to back it up?

 

[armyvern]

By the regs. Gen. Leslie appears to have done everything above board and he was entitled to the payments he received so the whole embarrassment hinges on the word entitled.  I would never vote for anyone who starts his political career by saying "what can I get out of it" and that is Leslie's attitude.  From personal observation he appeared to relish the spot light and enjoy the perks that his rank and title provided him and he is after more of the same in the political world.  Nothing he has said suggests that he has anything to offer the people of his riding other than the guarantee that he will ensure that his pension is topped up, his expense account is maxed out and his family all benefit.  He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt.  He reminds me of Chou and Layton who lived in Toronto subsidized housing until they were  outed by an enterprising reporter.  VOTE NO

It's a benefit. It's a benefit to which we are ALL entitled after completing service.

Not that I'd vote liberal, but I'm certainly not one to take away a vote from someone simply because the claimed a benefit which they've earned through their service and to which us non-politicians also claim.  Quite the glass house to live n'est pas?

I guess then, every service member (including the corporal who has effected a same-city retirement move), is morally bankrupt by your standards. Simply because after earning that benefit they chose to move into a "home" for retirement rather than the "house" they bought based upon posting requirements (5 days HHT and the quick re-sale for short-term posting factors rather than "final family long-term settlement" factors). 

 

[Rifleman62]

You MAY be interested in these two comments from a blogger, or you may not. 

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2014/02/

It's the video that's attached:

National Post’s Andrew Coyne column a case of shilling for Liberals or just incompetence?
February 19, 2014 — BC Blue

and

Liberal General’s daughter gets job at real estate firm immediately after house sale
February 19, 2014 — BC Blue

 

[YZT580]

There are people in the civil service who retire with 200 days accumulated sick leave and there are those who retire with 2.  The one took his entitlements whilst the other was honest about his called-in sick days.  Generally people call the one with 200 a fool.  Rather the one with only 2 is morally bankrupt.  That is the primary issue here.  If you are of any rank and have moved into inferior housing just because of the risk of the next move, by all means take that offered incentive but I doubt that Leslie's former residence was inferior in any way: just not in the right riding.  That is bad taste and  demonstrates his contempt for the folks who paid for his unnecessary real estate fees.  But I am prepared to be wrong. If the General will produce a sampling of his expense claims over the last say 5 years and they are all totally legit.  I will gladly apologize for implying that he ever took the system and my wallet for a ride.  Hypothetical I know :2c: :2c:

 

[armyvern]

... But I am prepared to be wrong. If the General will produce a sampling of his expense claims over the last say 5 years and they are all totally legit.  I will gladly apologize for implying that he ever took the system and my wallet for a ride.  Hypothetical I know :2c: :2c:

FOIA. I don't have copies of all my claims for the last 3 months let alone 6 years. I don't have copies of any of them.  I'm sure that I could get copies of my ~90 claims (minimum) and 2 X posting claims for the past 5 through FOIA though.

I'll trust what the audit of his IPR move claim details/shows/reveals/whatever ... because you just know it's going to happen.

 

[YZT580]

FOIA. I don't have copies of all my claims for the last 3 months let alone 6 years. I don't have copies of any of them.  I'm sure that I could get copies of my ~90 claims (minimum) and 2 X posting claims for the past 5 through FOIA though.

I'll trust what the audit of his IPR move claim details/shows/reveals/whatever ... because you just know it's going to happen.

The move and the expense claims go hand in hand.  If he has been scrupulously clean in his personal expense claims then he has more than likely just taken the move because it was the final gesture from his employer.  If his expense claims are padded (remember the sick leave thing) then it is likely he was just after his entitlements and that is morally reprehensible.  I'm done, end of rant

 

[DAA]

There are people in the civil service who retire with 200 days accumulated sick leave and there are those who retire with 2.  The one took his entitlements whilst the other was honest about his called-in sick days.  Generally people call the one with 200 a fool.  Rather the one with only 2 is morally bankrupt.  That is the primary issue here.  If you are of any rank and have moved into inferior housing just because of the risk of the next move, by all means take that offered incentive but I doubt that Leslie's former residence was inferior in any way: just not in the right riding.  That is bad taste and  demonstrates his contempt for the folks who paid for his unnecessary real estate fees.  But I am prepared to be wrong. If the General will produce a sampling of his expense claims over the last say 5 years and they are all totally legit.  I will gladly apologize for implying that he ever took the system and my wallet for a ride.  Hypothetical I know :2c: :2c:

You are right.  Some people are honest and some aren't and thus manage to somehow take liberties, such as the sick leave you mentioned.  But in this instance, it was reimbursement for "eligible and approved" expenses and those expenses are vetted, reviewed and certified by an "independant" civilian contractor (Brookefield Relocation Services) and administered outside of the CF.  The only time someone from the CF is actually involved in the relocation process, is when the person feels they are being disadvantaged, in which case they are required to request "recourse" inorder to have a benefit paid and I don't see any mention of that here.

Also, you can't necessarily compare DND Civilian employee's to Candian Forces members.  First thing, CF members are told when and where they will move, our civilian counterparts aren't.  While we both, at times, provide the exact same service, for CF members just where that service is provided is subject to change and not by choice.

The move and the expense claims go hand in hand.  If he has been scrupulously clean in his personal expense claims then he has more than likely just taken the move because it was the final gesture from his employer.  If his expense claims are padded (remember the sick leave thing) then it is likely he was just after his entitlements and that is morally reprehensible.  I'm done, end of rant

The process is not "managed" by the Canadian Forces, so he has NO authority, influence or otherwise over any of the process.

This isn't a case of someone who works for him, nor his office staff processing his final benefits, nor a "wink wink, nudge nudge" to someone regarding a receipt or even someone from the "contracted" service provider.  It's "clear cut" policy, sanctioned by the Treasury Board of Canada, so it's reasonably full proof on the part of anyone involved.

 

[Pusser]

He has proven this by his actions in his move and he deserves to be centred out: not because he did anything wrong but because he demonstrated that he is morally bankrupt. 

So because you don't think he should have exercised a benefit, which he had earned, under circumstances about which NONE of us are actually aware, he's morally bankrupt?  How many people, other that yourself of course, choose not to claim benefits, which they have earned, simply because they feel it would be a bit much?  Not claiming an earned benefit would be like not accepting your pay because you didn't feel you earned it that day.  Have you ever returned your pay to the Crown for those days when you didn't give 100% of your efforts to your job?  How about returning a half day's pay for each unit Christmas dinner - you know, those days where everybody stops working at noon and just parties for the rest of the day?  After all, isn't it morally bankrupt to accept pay to party?

 

[Edward Campbell]

The view from David Parkins in the Globe and Mail:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article17008363.ece/BINARY/w620/web-friedcar21col1.jpg

 

[Halifax Tar]

How about returning a half day's pay for each unit Christmas dinner - you know, those days where everybody stops working at noon and just parties for the rest of the day?  After all, isn't it morally bankrupt to accept pay to party?

Well there goes the mens Christmas dinner ...

 

[armyvern]

Well there goes the mens Christmas dinner ...

Already classified as an "event" for us (because of the size of our unit)  thus requiring DM approval.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Already classified as an "event" for us (because of the size of our unit)  thus requiring DM approval.

Learn something new every day!  Thank you for the education RQ