Imagine accepting a new job and your boss offers you usage of the company car (Nissan Murano) used by your predecessor. It's a lease so it's not that old, but you don't like the vehicle and say 'no thanks.' 

Instead, the company pays a $10,339.58 penalty to break the lease agreement and allow you to choose a new vehicle.

That seems to have happened at Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI).

As you may have read last week, Manitoba's official opposition raised concerns that MPI's practice is to tear up all evidence related to photo radar and red light camera tickets incurred by executives. We seem to have received the same tip about the situation; it also came with a suggestion that MPI paid a hefty penalty when VP Heather Reichert took over and returned the vehicle that was used by her predecessor (and still under lease).

The latter is true. If you click here, you can view MPI's response to our questions about the photo radar tickets and the vehicle penalty.

The situation raises an interesting question - should MPI have allowed the vehicle to be returned or should the employee have stuck it out with the vehicle for another year? Or should governments even provide executives with vehicles at all?