Like most media accounts the above linked article fails to tell us what moving expenses government/Treasury Board/DND regulations actually allow (and disallow). General Leslie's move was a local move (within 40 km) to an Intended Place of Residence (IPR) on release. His move was authorized under these regulations so it would be logical to conclude that his moving expense claim was within the rules. General Leslie would have been advised by DND administrative staff what expenses would be covered.
Rob Nicholson's observation that Leslie's local moving expense claims "appear grossly excessive" is understandable. So is his pledge to look into it:
"... I will be asking the Department of National Defence to examine how an in-city move could possibly total over $72,000".
That's good. It does seem excessive. He should look into it.
But Nicholson also attacked General Leslie's integrity:
"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."There Nicholson is way off base. Leslie doesn't have to "explain" anything (even if he is an advisor to that dipsh*t, Justin Trudeau). It's the Treasury Board and Nicholson's own DND officials, those responsible for the regulations and the authorizing of claims, that have the explaining to do. Nicholson will be eating crow (and demanding changes in the rules).
FYI, the applicable government regulations are described here (see Chapter 14):
Update - Ezra Levant's take:
I agree with Ezra on the Media Party's double standard, the partisan bias and that Leslie is now fair game for partisan criticism. However, like many partisan conservatives Ezra portrays General Leslie's claim for local moving expenses as some kind of moral outrage. It isn't. That moving expense benefit has been available to all ranks for decades. The relocation regulations in question do not discriminate based on rank. And since there are many more lower ranks than there are generals it can be assumed that there has been a lot more money shelled out for similar expenses for the lower ranks than for generals. Now, if it were to be discovered that the lower ranks have been denied that benefit, then we'd have a real scandal on our hands.