So this is how it works. A distinguished former general from a prominent military family, having retired after a career in war and peace, wants to continue to serve his country. For his sins, he decides to enter politics.
He joins an opposition party. His new party asks him to co-chair a review of defence and foreign policy and to speak at its policy convention this coming weekend. It sees him as a prospective candidate in the next federal election.
But then, curiously, it comes to light that since his retirement in 2011, the former general has sold his home in Ottawa and bought another one. The Department of National Defence has paid for the move.
On cue, a chorus of indignation. It鈥檚 a lapse of ethics! It鈥檚 deceptive! It鈥檚 greedy! Why, he鈥檚 鈥渢he Mike Duffy of the 91原创 military.鈥�
This is what has happened to Andrew Leslie, who spent 35 years in the 91原创 Forces, who was commander of the army, who served in Afghanistan, Cyprus, Croatia and other dangerous places, who has won a string of decorations and commendations in a brilliant career.
(A note: I have known Leslie, his wife and children for 10 years. We鈥檙e friends.)
But now the retired general is dishonourable. The chief inquisitor is the minister of defence, Rob Nicholson, who will ask his department to explain how it approved those 鈥済rossly excessive鈥� costs.
Let us consider what this says about today鈥檚 smash-and-grab politics.
As part of their severance, those who serve 20 years or more are offered a last move, at government expense, after they retire.
Leslie served 35 years at home and abroad and moved 18 times. When he left the military in 2011, he wanted to simplify things. He moved from a bigger house to a small one, in the same neighbourhood.
The move cost about $72,000, of which the real estate fees could have come to perhaps $60,000. The rest went to packing and moving.
All was covered by government.
So, what鈥檚 wrong here? What鈥檚 the offence? A distinguished soldier does his duty, retires honourably and sells his house. The bills are settled by the government, because that鈥檚 the arrangement. But that鈥檚 not really the story, is it? The story here has less to do with General Leslie than Citizen Leslie, or perhaps, in the future, Minister Leslie. It鈥檚 about politics.
While Rob Nicholson asks his officials to explain this long-standing government policy 鈥� one he could have changed but hasn鈥檛 鈥� here are a few questions for him.
Why is Andrew Leslie the first veteran to come under this kind of public scrutiny? Is $72,000 egregious? If so, what is the average figure for moves involving such neighbourhoods?
And how is it that Leslie鈥檚 expenses found their way to CTV News, which first reported this on the weekend?
We know what is going on here. Andy Leslie is a Liberal. His father was a Liberal. His service notwithstanding, that displeases the government. Tell us, Minister Nicholson, would you have ordered an inquiry if Leslie had been running as a Conservative?
Could it be that Leslie鈥檚 expenses would never have found their way into the media at all? And could it be that the Conservatives wanted Leslie to join them, when they learned that he was going to the Liberals? Let us see this for what it is: a drive-by smear.
Argue, if you want, that after years of dislocation and adjustment, Leslie and his wife had no right to move to a smaller house.
If you do, though, remember that soldiers spend their lives disrupting their families, often with little notice and at great cost. Ask yourself why soldiers are committing suicide. Ask yourself about divorce, domestic violence, addiction and other consequences of military life.
As we disparage a decorated general, seeing scandal that isn鈥檛 there, consider the greater affront of a government that tolerates a minister, Julian Fantino, who insults veterans as he cuts their services.
Then ask yourself why Andrew Leslie and other good people would even contemplate entering our soiled, sorry public life.
听
Andrew Cohen is a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa.
听
