# Paid parking DND property



## Navy_Blue (20 Jun 2007)

I've seen a document floating around the office suggesting that forces wide our parking is being looked at and may soon become pay parking.   They are planing to set the price for fair market value.  So say in Halifax around 88$ per month.  Is anyone else hearing this and do you think its just bureaucratic rumbling or is it for sure?


----------



## PO2FinClk (20 Jun 2007)

Not exactly sure what you are referring to. Parking in PMQ's, parking at work, parking for DND vehicles (currently covered under the NDA)...

Please amplify as I cannot determine what parking you are referring to.


----------



## geo (21 Jun 2007)

no talk of that in my area..... LFQA


----------



## Navy_Blue (21 Jun 2007)

People with time in will soon be expected to pay for parking in the dock yard in Halifax.  I expect on base too.  I think it was a DAOD (not sure on the acronym)??  IT stated it was going to be forces wide.  Today my PO mentioned there was now a CFAO on it too??  Just wondering if anyone else has been hearing the same.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jun 2007)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Today my PO mentioned there was now a CFAO on it too??



Doubt that......all CFAOs are being replaced by DAODs as soon as they are superceeded so no new ones are coming out


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (21 Jun 2007)

this is an idea that has been kicking around for a while. the last time it surfaced here it was Revenue Canada and the Treasury Board that were pursuing it. At the moment if you park on base in Halifax you are in effect recieving a tax free benefit because if you worked a few blocks away in downtown Halifax you would be paying for parking.  If you work in the Nation's capital (that's Ottawa for all you folks in Quebec city..not Quebec City as the signs leading into your fair city suggest) then you have to pay if you park downtown. Let's say that priviledge would cost you to the tune of $800 a year in Halifax. Once again we are victims of a system that sees us as glorified public servants. Remember a few years ago when they nailed the cooks for their "free lunchs?' Well it's all part of the same thinking. I was briefed on this last year by my boss...the Formation Admin O (equivalent of G1 in the Army), he said at the time that we probably wouldn't be able to put off the bean counters for ever.


----------



## PO2FinClk (21 Jun 2007)

They could only do this if adequate public transportation were available, meaning other places which do not have public transport within teh vicinity of the work area could not be charged in this fashion. Examples would be Comox or Borden for instance.

Assuming this goes through, are they now also going to charge parking for PMQ residents? This sounds to me like a can of worms which could prove tedious, if not difficult, to manage.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Jun 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Assuming this goes through,* are they now also going to charge parking for PMQ residents*? This sounds to me like a can of worms which could prove tedious, if not difficult, to manage.



They already do.  Just like any other rental property, the driveway (or a specified parking spot) is included in the rental charge and there is an additional charge if a garage is rented.


----------



## 392 (22 Jun 2007)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ...and there is an additional charge if a garage is rented.



Not here in Pet or in Gagetown   Garages don't cost anything extra up and above the cost of the Q. Now I'm not too sure of the garage rows here, I've heard inklings of $50 / month or so, but I'm lucky enough to have one with my Q, so I don't know for sure. Now, if housing would only repair the damn leaky / rotten roof on it, I would be happy


----------



## armyvern (22 Jun 2007)

392 said:
			
		

> Not here in Pet or in Gagetown   Garages don't cost anything extra up and above the cost of the Q. Now I'm not too sure of the garage rows here, I've heard inklings of $50 / month or so, but I'm lucky enough to have one with my Q, so I don't know for sure. Now, if housing would only repair the damn leaky / rotten roof on it, I would be happy



Hmmm. I had two Cpls working for in Clothing Stores in Gagetown last year who both lived in single story and 1/2s. I recall a discussion between them one day where they determined the one with the garage at the end of his driveway (they both lived on Saint John Ave) was paying more per month for his Q. I don't recall the difference in cost, but there was indeed a difference.


----------



## 392 (22 Jun 2007)

When I lived in Gagetown ('02 - '05), I asked CFHA specifically if Q's w/ garages were more, and they said "No".

Did they both move in at the same time? I know when I left G'town in 2005, what I was paying for rent (single 2 bdrm bungalow on Laurier) didn't match the current (at the time) listed prices at CFHA due to me still paying what the listed value was when I moved in in 2002, plus the rent increases or about $20 total, whereas the prices of empty Q's had gone up due to the "fair market price" or however you want to call it. So if your two Cpl's moved in a year apart, or even a few months apart (depending on when the price increases went into effect that FY), they would probably be paying different rent. Does that make sense? I'm no financial expert, but that is what makes the most sense to me. Of course, maybe they changed their policies after I was posted out....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jun 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> They could only do this if adequate public transportation were available, meaning other places which do not have public transport within teh vicinity of the work area could not be charged in this fashion. Examples would be Comox or Borden for instance.
> 
> Assuming this goes through, are they now also going to charge parking for PMQ residents? This sounds to me like a can of worms which could prove tedious, if not difficult, to manage.



Well they've never shyed away from opening cans of worms before. I think the concept of "adequate" public transport will be difficult to define. If it's a case of "is there public transport; yes or no" that's probably what they would look at. To take a bus from my house it would take me 45 mins to get to work vice a 15 minute drive...it is possible it's just not very quick. In the case of some jobs, like mine where I may have to go and visit someone in Qs at Shearwater or go and make a notification in the boon docks they may have to allow me to claim back the parking expenses. 
Don't you have to be a full Colonel in order to get a parking space at 101 Colonel By? and is it a freebie or do you get docked on your pay for parking?


----------



## TN2IC (22 Jun 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Well they've never shyed away from opening cans of worms before. I think the concept of "adequate" public transport will be difficult to define. If it's a case of "is there public transport; yes or no" that's probably what they would look at. To take a bus from my house it would take me 45 mins to get to work vice a 15 minute drive...it is possible it's just not very quick. In the case of some jobs, like mine where I may have to go and visit someone in Qs at Shearwater or go and make a notification in the boon docks they may have to allow me to claim back the parking expenses.
> Don't you have to be a full Colonel in order to get a parking space at 101 Colonel By? and is it a freebie or do you get docked on your pay for parking?



Imagin the ships have to pay for docking? Or our trucks at work? Hehehehe...


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2007)

It wouldnt surprise me - it seems to be the trend everywhere these days.


----------



## old medic (22 Jun 2007)

Exemption from Tolls

Duties or tolls on roads, bridges, etc.

261. (1) No duties or tolls, otherwise payable by law in respect of the use of any pier, wharf, quay, landing-place, highway, road, right-of-way, bridge or canal, shall be paid by or demanded from any unit or other element of the Canadian Forces or any officer or non-commissioned member when on duty or any person under escort or in respect of the movement of any materiel, except that the Minister may authorize payment of duties and tolls in respect of that use.

Exception
(2) Nothing in this section affects the liability for payment of duties or tolls lawfully demandable in respect of any vehicles or vessels other than those belonging to or in the service of Her Majesty.

R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 261; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60.


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2007)

I believe that applies only to military vehicles (and vehicles rented/leased by the military), not to privately-owned vehicles of military personnel.


----------



## old medic (22 Jun 2007)

Correct. 

That was in reply to the 





> Imagin the ships have to pay for docking


 post


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Jun 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> this is an idea that has been kicking around for a while. the last time it surfaced here it was Revenue Canada and the Treasury Board that were pursuing it. At the moment if you park on base in Halifax you are in effect recieving a tax free benefit because if you worked a few blocks away in downtown Halifax you would be paying for parking.


Understood, but free parking is a pretty standard benefit to provide one's employees.  In fact, I'd suggest that just about every employer that owns a parking lot allows its employees to park free of charge.  If parking is now to be considered a taxable benefit then I suspect a very large part of the working population of Canada would be affected.  Since this group happens to coincide with the voting population of Canada, I'm not too worried about this.

I'd suggest that until someone sees, with his or her own eyes, something official on this then it sounds like a rumour, and not the most plausible one at that.


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2007)

On the contrary, free parking is only a benefit for company's who are located in low density areas, are located in industrial areas, or own their own parking property.   Some companies offer to pay for parking of their employees (especially as an executive perk) but it isnt standard among most employers who are comprised of micro to small businesses (less than 50 employees).  This trend is changing i.e. most hospitals and universities (usually employing over 1,000 employees) have turned their parking spaces over to outsourced parking lot maintainers who immediately installed parking meters and conduct minimal maintenance services.  The maintainers rake in a load of cash as their only real expense is moving snow in the winter, but the company saves a load of cash by having less employees to support.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jun 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> On the contrary, free parking is only a benefit for company's who are located in low density areas, are located in industrial areas, or own their own parking property.   Some companies offer to pay for parking of their employees (especially as an executive perk) but it isnt standard among most employers who are comprised of micro to small businesses (less than 50 employees).  This trend is changing i.e. most hospitals and universities (usually employing over 1,000 employees) have turned their parking spaces over to outsourced parking lot maintainers who immediately installed parking meters and conduct minimal maintenance services.  The maintainers rake in a load of cash as their only real expense is moving snow in the winter, but the company saves a load of cash by having less employees to support.



Quite right, my wife pays $2 a day for the priviledge of parking at the Dartmouth General Hospital where she goes in to save people's lives. When we were in Victoria it was $5 a day at the Vic General if I remember rightly.


----------



## LineJumper (22 Jun 2007)

I remember sometimes having to park adjacent to NDHQ in the mid 90's with a mini construction truck, it was a tad oversized so I would be charged for 2 spots! That always sucked, but I got to claim it in the end. Same with parking tickets, we had to hand in a substantiation as to why we got it and the crown would pay. That would suck if you had to pay while on garrison for your pers veh, it's not like the troops get to chose where they work.


----------



## Neill McKay (24 Jun 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> On the contrary, free parking is only a benefit for company's who are located in low density areas, are located in industrial areas, or own their own parking property.



My post referred only to the latter group.


----------



## pbi (24 Jun 2007)

This idea was tried back in the late 1980's.  In 1986-89 I was serving on RSS in Sudbury, and we received a letter from CFB North Bay warning us that the parking fee system would be implemented, once they had assessed an appropriate value. As RSS Det Comd I wrote back to the base saying that essentially this was a dumb and penny-pinching idea, since we really weren't enjoying any "privilege" denied anybody else in our residential part of town. I don't know what happened to my letter, but eventually the whole idea faded away. Obviously some brilliant (and under-employed) bureaucrat has found the original file, dusted it off, and had dollar signs immediately leap into their eyes. IMHO the administrative effort required to set this up and manage it wouldn't be worth the small return that the GoC would realize, not to mention that in a number of places where we have major bases, public transit is spotty to say the least. If we exempted bases and establishments without adequate local transit serving the commuting radius, then we end up penalizing those whose place of duty is in an urban area. Waste of time and effort if you ask me.

Cheers


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (24 Jun 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> This idea was tried back in the late 1980's.  In 1986-89 I was serving on RSS in Sudbury, and we received a letter from CFB North Bay warning us that the parking fee system would be implemented, once they had assessed an appropriate value. As RSS Det Comd I wrote back to the base saying that essentially this was a dumb and penny-pinching idea, since we really weren't enjoying any "privilege" denied anybody else in our residential part of town. I don't know what happened to my letter, but eventually the whole idea faded away. Obviously some brilliant (and under-employed) bureaucrat has found the original file, dusted it off, and had dollar signs immediately leap into their eyes. IMHO the administrative effort required to set this up and manage it wouldn't be worth the small return that the GoC would realize, not to mention that in a number of places where we have major bases, public transit is spotty to say the least. If we exempted bases and establishments without adequate local transit serving the commuting radius, then we end up penalizing those whose place of duty is in an urban area. Waste of time and effort if you ask me.
> 
> Cheers



Agreed in every respect...dumb and dumber but hey they never tire of introducing dumb stuff. Even here in Halifax where parking is nuts at the best of times on base the powers that be think it's a dumb idea but Treasury board is not renowned for it's flexibility in matters like this.


----------



## armyvern (25 Jun 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I believe that applies only to military vehicles (and vehicles rented/leased by the military), not to privately-owned vehicles of military personnel.


And also with the exception of the Confederation Bridge. Trust me ... 

In uniform in a military vehicle ... you still pay, at least $40.75 (that's for a car/van), to cross it. Been through it all with the AJAG who has queried ... and apparently the feds made a deal with the contractor who built the bridge that the tolls would be paid by one and all, including federal employees on business in federal vehicles.

We can claim it back ... but what a huge pain in the ass it is. And, in the end, Joe & Jane taxpayer end up paying for all those trips across (and there is a LOT of federal departments here travelling it) ... despite the law saying there would be no charge at all to the taxpayers.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (25 Jun 2007)

392 said:
			
		

> When I lived in Gagetown ('02 - '05), I asked CFHA specifically if Q's w/ garages were more, and they said "No".



Though technically you are correct...the rent of the Q is not more...but there is a charge of $25 for a garage. The Q itself is not higher rent.

This comes from myself, who was in Gagetown from 2002-2006 with no garage and paying $25 less than someone with the same unit as me, but with a garage and we moved in the same day. There was always a $25 difference...

Add to that the fact that the Father-in-law of my closest friend in Gagetown was and still is a CFHA inspector and he confirmed, garages are $25.

It is stated in our lease when we moved to Moncton, our shelter charge was X amount, water/sewage is Y amount and our garage is $25 bringing us to a total of $XYZ

But that is just me, arguing semantics.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And also with the exception of the Confederation Bridge. Trust me ...
> 
> In uniform in a military vehicle ... you still pay, at least $40.75 (that's for a car/van), to cross it. Been through it all with the AJAG who has queried ... and apparently the feds made a deal with the contractor who built the bridge that the tolls would be paid by one and all, including federal employees on business in federal vehicles.
> 
> We can claim it back ... but what a huge pain in the *** it is. And, in the end, Joe & Jane taxpayer end up paying for all those trips across (and there is a LOT of federal departments here travelling it) ... despite the law saying there would be no charge at all to the taxpayers.



I didnt know that! Strange, how can you include a detail in a contract that breaks federal law?

Not like its never happened before mind you, but strange that its being upheld...


----------



## armyvern (25 Jun 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I didnt know that! Strange, how can you include a detail in a contract that breaks federal law?
> 
> Not like its never happened before mind you, but strange that its being upheld...



Part of the contract. The topic comes up over here every couple of months (always accompanied by the quoted ref given below for non payment of tariffs/tolls by us). The AJAGs already made the attempts through the system on the legal side of the house. 

That's the answer that came back. It's part of the contract that the feds made which is a legally binding agreement.


----------



## 392 (25 Jun 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I didnt know that! Strange, how can you include a detail in a contract that breaks federal law?
> 
> Not like its never happened before mind you, but strange that its being upheld...



Same with the two bridges in Halifax. Driving an HLVW across, and got into an argument with the guy in the toll booth. Found out later that I still had to pay, but could claim it back if I wanted....


----------



## CdnArtyWife (25 Jun 2007)

392 said:
			
		

> Same with the two bridges in Halifax. Driving an HLVW across, and got into an argument with the guy in the toll booth. Found out later that I still had to pay, but could claim it back if I wanted....



You mean bridge tokens don't come standard in military vehicles in Hfx?? ;D

IMO, they should all be equiped with the paypass transponder thingy...that way it is never out of one pers' pocket and has less paper work than reimbursment of funds. Just a direct bill.


----------



## PO2FinClk (25 Jun 2007)

Fact of the matter is regardless of what "deal" was made, Federal Law (read the NDA) prevents anyone from charging tolls of any sort. The fact that they do so is simply DND not enforcing/imposing the law on the providers not aware or abiding by it.

From Vern's post I am guessing that no one at 101 Colonel By is willing to create waves on the issue.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Jun 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Fact of the matter is regardless of what "deal" was made, Federal Law (read the NDA) prevents anyone from charging tolls of any sort. The fact that they do so is simply DND not enforcing/imposing the law on the providers not aware or abiding by it.
> 
> From Vern's post I am guessing that no one at 101 Colonel By is willing to create waves on the issue.






			
				old medic said:
			
		

> 261. (1) No duties or tolls, otherwise payable by law in respect of the use of any pier, wharf, quay, landing-place, highway, road, right-of-way, bridge or canal, shall be paid by or demanded from any unit or other element of the Canadian Forces or any officer or non-commissioned member when on duty or any person under escort or in respect of the movement of any materiel, *except that the Minister may authorize payment of duties and tolls in respect of that use*.
> 
> Exception
> (2) Nothing in this section affects the liability for payment of duties or tolls lawfully demandable in respect of any vehicles or vessels other than those belonging to or in the service of Her Majesty.
> ...



I recall many years ago when I did my sentence at NDHQ, being informed that, while DND (as an entity of the Government of Canada) was not subject to certain provincial regulations (and those of other regulating bodies), the policy of the department was to abide by all regulations that would have been applicable had we not been exempt.  The only exception was to be military operational necessity.  While there are exceptions that are obviously not an operational necessity (i.e. licensing of drivers)  I think that the payment of tolls and such would fall under that general policy.


----------



## armyvern (25 Jun 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Fact of the matter is regardless of what "deal" was made, Federal Law (read the NDA) prevents anyone from charging tolls of any sort. The fact that they do so is simply DND not enforcing/imposing the law on the providers not aware or abiding by it.
> 
> From Vern's post I am guessing that no one at 101 Colonel By is willing to create waves on the issue.



Read my post again. I am not simply talking DND/CF here. 

ALL federal departments are paying the toll ... and ALL federal departments are exempt, not just DND. It has SFA to do with anyone at Colonel By.

Let me assure you that this matter was indeed pursued. But when your Federal government is the ones who make the deal with the contractor as part of the contract ... all is well and legal. The providers most certainly are aware of the law ... and they are abiding by their contract, which was, like it or not signed off on by the Federal government in power at the time.


----------



## armyvern (25 Jun 2007)

I'll also reprint the applicable NDA refs here, which have been reviewed numerous times at this location, I can assure you.

By Federal Statute - Government of Canada
National Defence Act - Articles 261(1) & 305

NDA 261(1):  No duties or tolls, otherwise payable by law in the respect of the use of any pier, wharf, quay, landing-place, highway, road, right of way, bridge or canal shall be paid by or demanded from any unit or other element of the Canadian Forces or any officer or non-commissioned member when on duty or any person under escort or in respect of the movement of any materiel, except that the Minister may authorize payment of duties and tolls in respect of that use.

NDA 305:  Every person who receives or demands a duty or toll in contravention of Section 261(1) is guilty of an offense and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or imprisonment to a term not exceeding three months or to both fines and imprisonment.


So there you have it. Read NDA 261(1) very carefully; especially that last line beginning at "except." See the loophole it wiggled through now? It's right there in black and white. Remember that politicians enacted the NDA (which is after all, an Act of Parliament), not the folks at Colonel By. Give them some credit would you? It'd be nice every once to see in a while.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> By Federal Statute - Government of Canada
> National Defence Act - Articles 261(1) & 305
> NDA 305:  Every person who receives or demands a duty or toll in contravention of Section 261(1) is guilty of an offense and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or imprisonment to a term not exceeding three months or to both fines and imprisonment.



Vern, clearly stated, ... but wouldnt it be interesting to mail/email every one of these companies a letter quoting the reference above...


----------



## Navy_Blue (27 Jun 2007)

So is that NDA saying that the minister could give permission to say the Bridge commission to exact a toll from us while in a DND vehicle??  That's what I got.   

On an even bigger note do our ships pay to dock in Canadian ports??  Service hookups and tugs yes but the space a ship would take up is that included in this.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jun 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Vern, clearly stated, ... but wouldnt it be interesting to mail/email every one of these companies a letter quoting the reference above...



No, not really given the last line of NDA261(1) that it must be taken in conjunction with. To send them only the second ref is "spinning" something into that which it is not. The whole _facts_ are that the Minister can indeed authorize the payment of these fees. I'm sure that we just spent 36 pages or so explaining to Valcartier2007 how wrong it is of his org to quote only a select bit of the ref which benefits them and ignore the full facts of the matter. This topic is no different.



			
				Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> So is that NDA saying that the minister could give permission to say the Bridge commission to exact a toll from us while in a DND vehicle??  That's what I got.
> 
> On an even bigger note do our ships pay to dock in Canadian ports??  Service hookups and tugs yes but the space a ship would take up is that included in this.



Correct on your first line. The Federal Government (*in the case of Confederation Bridge*) entered into an agreement (ie contract) with the Contractor responsible for collecting the tolls. The Minister, as a representative of that same Federal Government, has obviously authorized the payment of those tolls due to the contract his government entered into with them. 

And trust me, he has authorized their payment because I submit my toll receipt onto my claim when crossing on business (even if I'm driving my civvie car while going to see my boss in Moncton etc) and they are indeed paid back to me. A certain Unit here crosses for ARCON each fall in uniform and in their SMP vehicles, the driver pays the toll, keeps the receipt and is reimbursed the cost.

Now, as to the ships ... I guess that would depend upon what the docking contract details are for each port wouldn't it?? As each port would have it's own service agreement in place.

If the Feds make the payment of such part of the contract agreement, then the MND certainly does have the legal authority to authorize the payment of such as per NDA261(1).


----------



## garb811 (28 Jun 2007)

The CFAO relevant to this has been in existence for some time now, it just has never been fully implemented:  CFAO 29-9 – PARKING AT DND INSTALLATIONS IN URBAN AREAS.

Some places on the list, like Ottawa, it makes sense to charge for parking due to limited number, cost incurred by others not allocated spots, suitable public transportation etc.  At other places like Edmonton, it makes no sense whatsoever as there is plenty of parking to go around, public transportation doesn't meet the needs of the members, there are no commercial options etc etc.

Maybe someone got audited and the observation was made that parking fees weren't being charged as they should be?


----------



## PO2FinClk (28 Jun 2007)

Now that is a good revelation! Reading it I see the caveat of Public Transportation which I mentioned earlier but can also see why it was not enforced/applied.

It came into effect 1993 to 1996, at times of severe cut backs where the media were consistently hounding politicians and military brass about young military members struggling to make ends meet. Combine that with the increased level of transparency required of the CF today and the contents of 13 where those making the most would have to pay less. Enforcing/applying this direction would surely create a public relations quagmire which they would rather avoid - which I cannot blame them for as so would I.


----------



## PO2FinClk (28 Jun 2007)

That being said though if enforced/applied it would likely also result in a dramatic decrease in the use of PMV's, thus the CF "encouraging its' member's to be enviromentally concious", and that is a popular theme lately.


----------



## Sub_Guy (28 Jun 2007)

National Defence Parking Policy
Sisters and Brothers,

I am bringing to your immediate attention my deep and grave concerns regarding a parking policy which will affect UNDE members both public and private sector, separate employer, separate operating agency and non-public funds. In fact, all Canadian Forces Personnel are subject to this new policy that the department has introduced and will be enforcing. This Parking Policy at Bases, Wings, Area Headquarters, Lodger Units, and Armories throughout the country was presented to all Unions and Bargaining Agents at the June 8 National UMCC meeting. 

I have included the attached briefing package and draft DAOD along with this summary for your information. No further details have been distributed other than what you are now receiving.

The Department, as directed by the Canada Revenue Agency who is responsible for ensuring that government departments are in compliance with Treasury Board legislation and in this situation the Government Property Traffic Act and Government Property Traffic Regulation, made it very clear in its submission to Unions that the planned Parking Policy will be implemented as scheduled with few exceptions, as parking spots are not considered a condition of employment by Treasury Board.

Although at this time, this decision will not affect every worksite based on the criteria proposed, there will be a very significant impact to the majority of our membership.

Who is Excluded

Any Crown-owned property that does not have access or is not provided with public transit services such as a bus or subway system directly to a military facility or has routes on military facilities; 
Members who have been certified by a doctor to have a disability requiring the use of their privately-owned vehicle and cannot depend on public transit systems; 
Shift workers; 
Civilian or military duties that are considered to be, or necessary for, minimal operation requirements (MOR). 
Therefore, in short, any Crown-owned facility that has access to a public transit system will be applying parking fees that will be set at whatever the local market value is in the location of the particular Base, Wing, Lodger Unit, Headquarters area or Armories. 

The Department’s strategy to implement a Parking Policy and its disciplines are to be determined through Local Parking Board Committees to be set up at each local worksite.

As this news is now a major concern and a priority for our membership, it has also come in a timely fashion as the National Executive is in session this week. I can assure you, Brothers and Sisters, the Executive will not rest easy on this issue. 

More information will be forthcoming to all Locals within the next week on our position and the stand we are collectively going to take. 

In Solidarity,

John MacLennan
National President


----------



## PO2FinClk (28 Jun 2007)

http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/news/parking_letter.shtml

Link to post above.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (4 Jul 2007)

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/029-09_e.asp

Wow, I'm glad I ride my bike or take the bus. I wonder what set them off in this course of action...


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jul 2007)

DND POLICY
3. At DND installations served by regularly-scheduled public transit, parking should be provided in the minimum quantity required for effective operation of the installation, and members and DND civilian employees who are provided with parking will be charged for the space provided. Conversely, at DND installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit, parking will be provided without charge to members and DND civilian employees in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located in any parking areas located within one-half kilometre of the installation. 


I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live?


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (4 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live?



Maybe the reasoning is that you could drive to the public transit close to you...like those park n ride systems many cities have.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jul 2007)

Lets try an example - a CF member lives 35 km from the base and there is no public transit system between where the member lives and the base.  

Would the member have to pay for parking based on current regulations?
Should the member have to pay for parking based on current regulations?


----------



## garb811 (5 Jul 2007)

> DND POLICY
> 3. *At DND installations served by regularly-scheduled public transit*, parking should be provided in the minimum quantity required for effective operation of the installation, and members and DND civilian employees who are provided with parking will be charged for the space provided. *Conversely, at DND installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit*, parking will be provided without charge to members and DND civilian employees in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located in any parking areas located within one-half kilometre of the installation.



Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.  Where the member lives is their choice, where the base is located is not.  If the member doesn't want to pay for parking then they need to come up with a way to make it to the public transport system, just like every civie does.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jul 2007)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.  Where the member lives is their choice, where the base is located is not.  If the member doesn't want to pay for parking then they need to come up with a way to make it to the public transport system, just like every civie does.



I hope you MPs don't interpret things like this all the time. Read your last post again.

You have answered GreyMatters question as "Yes that the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transit."

When the section you've quoted (Section 3) for your answer quite clearly states:
"Conversely, at *DND installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit*, *parking will be provided without charge * *to members and DND civilian employees* in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located in any parking areas located *within one-half kilometre of the installation*. 

I'm still sitting here trying to figure out how you manage to pull a member could and should pay out of that.


----------



## garb811 (5 Jul 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I hope you MPs don't interpret things like this all the time. Read your last post again.
> 
> You have answered GreyMatters question as "Yes that the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transit."



If you're not going to fully quote me, at least use the accepted form of a partial quote and use "..." at the point where you have chosen to truncate.  Fully quote what I said and it makes sense, "Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.", particularly when taken fully in context with greymatters previous post which stated:



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live?



*If* the base (or work location) has public transport, *but* the member has chosen to live in a location which is not served by public transport connecting to the base, then they would and should pay for parking.  This happens in Ottawa all the time at OGDs and NDHQ too if memory serves.  People who do not live by public transport or live a long way from their place of work are eligable for a parking spot if they meet the criteria for allocation and a spot is available, but they pay for the spot, it isn't free.  If the member doesn't want to pay for parking they have the choice of driving to a location from which they can access the public transortation, such as the previously mentioned "park and rides" etc.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jul 2007)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> If you're not going to fully quote me, at least use the accepted form of a partial quote and use "..." at the point where you have chosen to truncate.  Fully quote what I said and it makes sense, "Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation by his house.", particularly when taken fully in context with greymatters previous post which stated:
> 
> *If* the base (or work location) has public transport, *but* the member has chosen to live in a location which is not served by public transport connecting to the base, then they would and should pay for parking.  This happens in Ottawa all the time at OGDs and NDHQ too if memory serves.  People who do not live by public transport or live a long way from their place of work are eligable for a parking spot if they meet the criteria for allocation and a spot is available, but they pay for the spot, it isn't free.  If the member doesn't want to pay for parking they have the choice of driving to a location from which they can access the public transortation, such as the previously mentioned "park and rides" etc.



This is the part of your post I did not quote:


> DND POLICY
> 3. At DND installations *served by regularly-scheduled public transit*, parking should be provided in the minimum quantity required for effective operation of the installation, and members and DND civilian employees who are provided with parking *will be charged for the space provided*.


The part from you I did quote:


> Conversely, at DND *installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit*, *parking will be provided without charge * to members and DND civilian employees in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located *in any parking areas located within one-half kilometre of the installation*.



It is (the part I didn't quote), quite simply, irrelevant to answering his question which was:


			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Lets try an example - a CF member lives 35 km from the base and *there is no public transit system * between where the member lives and the base.
> 
> Would the member have to pay for parking based on current regulations?
> Should the member have to pay for parking based on current regulations?



I have bolded the fact for you that there is NO public transit system available in his example. Therefore the part I've didn't include from your quote is NOT applicable. My question to you is how did you manage to interpret that the member *would and should * pay from that, when quite clearly your own quote states otherwise?

Now, if there was some type of public transit available between his workplace and towards the area of his residence, then he would pay. IE if he can travel a couple kms towards work via POMV and then pick up public transport such as a GO Train towards his workplace, the parking charges apply if he still wishs to drive and park.

In this case though, he indicates that there is no public transit available between the areas of his home and work. I take that to mean that he can not travel towards his workplace and meet up with any type of public transport (because if he COULD do that ... then public transport IS available ... it's just not door to door ) If he is expecting that means door to door public transport, he would be wrong.


----------



## garb811 (5 Jul 2007)

Since it clearly states in the CFAO that bases without public transport get free parking, why would he ask about paying for parking in relation to a 35 km drive unless the base was indeed served by public transportation?  Again, his concern was not about not having public transportation *on the base* it was about not having public transportation between *where the member lives and the base*. So, I guess to answer this question:



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I hope you MPs don't interpret things like this all the time.



Yes, actually we do because we have the ability to analyse a question in relation to all the facts at hand in order to come to the logical conclusion as to what the question actually was in the first place.  

Also, I'm not concerned about you dropping the quote of the CFAO, rather about truncating *my* words (_Yes the member would and should notwithstanding the fact there is no public transportation* by his house.*_) without any indication you had done so and then using the truncated quote as a basis for attacking my answer (ie. in this instance "by his house" *is* relevant because it relates to the inference that that although the base has pubilc transport, his house does not).

In any case, I'm done with being baited by you so don't expect a reply should you choose to try again.


----------



## Harris (5 Jul 2007)

Please take any further he quoted/she quoted to PM and lets return to the subject at hand.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jul 2007)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Since it clearly states in the CFAO that bases without public transport get free parking, why would he ask about paying for parking in relation to a 35 km drive unless the base was indeed served by public transportation?  Again, his concern was not about not having public transportation *on the base* it was about not having public transportation between *where the member lives and the base*. So, I guess to answer this question:
> 
> Yes, actually we do because we have the ability to analyse a question in relation to all the facts at hand in order to come to the logical conclusion as to what the question actually was in the first place.
> 
> ...



Baiting you??? I think perhaps you flatter yourself too much.

Clearly you have interpreted it as "*BY his house*" (You know the part that you accuse me of truncating?? *I did no such thing*...I highly suggest that you re-read my post). Here's the link to my post so you can see for yourself, clearly your response is there in its entirety, quoted at the beginning of my post; And yes I ended your within my post at the point where it's relevancy ended.



> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63462/post-586021.html#msg586021



Again, irrelevant, the member himself did not say "BY his house" (that's your take) in his question, he said *BETWEEN* his house and workplace ... You state that it's relevant because:


> (ie. in this instance "by his house" is relevant because it relates to the inference that that although the base has pubilc transport, his house does not).



Your interpretation (ie your analyses) has interchanged the words "BY" and "BETWEEN," leading, possibly, to the wrong answer being given. No where in his question does he state that there is public transport at either his house OR at his work (as you have inferred in your quote portion above). He states only that there is NO public transport available *between* his home and workplace. I certainly don't see him saying anywhere, "there is public transport at work but none where I live so do I have to pay for parking." 

No worries about different methodolgies and interpretations here on my part ... it happens all the time, and, quite often, different conclusions can indeed be drawn dependant upon how one goes about their analyses.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jul 2007)

Harris said:
			
		

> Please take any further he quoted/she quoted to PM and lets return to the subject at hand.



Ooops, sorry.

I'm done now anyway.  

We were both analysing and trying to answer a question regarding paying for parking though ... and decide what the correct answer to the members question is ... so, it's kind of on-topic.


----------



## PO2FinClk (5 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live?


Not sure if it would affect it or not but would definately be part of a lengthy debate.

Touching on this fact will then be countered by the fact that residence location of DND employees was based on a personal choice and not DND; thus the employee would be responsible if no public transport is available within the immediate vicinity. This is ut one example, but am sure that many more arguments to validate each position would arise.


----------



## PO2FinClk (5 Jul 2007)

CFAO 29-9 notwithstanding, it applies to CF members only and not DND Civilian Employees despite the fact that para 1 states that it does. Remember that CFAO's are the CF Admin Orders and not the DND Admin Orders, attempting to apply a CFAO to a civilian employee would only result is successful redress by the UNDE. Henceforth using the CFAO to argument any civilian member having to pay for parking is invalid as it cannot be applied to them. 

However to resolve this issue a draft DAOD has been produced which would be all emcompassing of DND members & employees and can be found at this link: http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/info/umcc_parking.pdf


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (5 Jul 2007)

I've thought about it for a bit and to me I think the only factor is if the military installation is served adequately by public transportation. Like other posters have said, you're free to live where you want so they can't really account for your personal proximity to public transit. 

What I'm really curious about is what brought this whole thing on in the first place. Is there a big problem Forces wide with respect to parking? It just seemed to come out of nowhere!


----------



## PO2FinClk (5 Jul 2007)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> What I'm really curious about is what brought this whole thing on in the first place. Is there a big problem Forces wide with respect to parking? It just seemed to come out of nowhere!



All the information is already provided in this thread:



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The Department, *as directed by the Canada Revenue Agency* who is responsible for ensuring that government departments are in compliance with Treasury Board legislation and in this situation the Government Property Traffic Act and Government Property Traffic Regulation, made it very clear in its submission to Unions that the planned Parking Policy will be implemented as scheduled with few exceptions, as parking spots are not considered a condition of employment by Treasury Board.



Found at link:


			
				PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/news/parking_letter.shtml





			
				PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/info/umcc_parking.pdf


Read page 2 of the link above as it lists why this change is seen as needed.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jul 2007)

Hmmm... I can see how the argument would make sense, but I dont see how this argument could have been accepted by the DND.  Many employers offer free parking.  Its not like the DND has a bunch of parking spaces that anyone can park in and the members are unfairly taking spots that should be available to the general public (well, maybe in Ottawa).  Most bases have wide areas of unused area that have been designated as available for parking.  To me this is just envious bitching by our civilian counterparts in high-density areas. 

What peeves me off more is that members waited years for improved pay rates, we finally got them, and now the money is being chiselled away by BS cost increases and expenditures that were not figured into the original pay raises.


----------



## Staff Weenie (5 Jul 2007)

See, what pisses me of the most, is when some stupid wanker of a civil servant looks at the situation and says "the military is geeting an unfair perk - lets put a stop to it...."

We've got 66 of our fellow soldiers dead from Afghanistan, however many on other peacekeeping missions, and training. and, then there's the wounded, and those with psychological wounds that never heal completely.....

And then some chair-bound fool thinks we get unfair advantages?????

I wish we could ship the whole stupid lot of them off to a FOB for a few months...


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jul 2007)

Another question - if we are paying these rates, are the RCMP paying them too when they park their POMV's at the police station parking lot?  Its the same as the 'military use' principle that got thrown at us back in the 1980's - civis complained about government-owned vehicles being used for 'personal use', the military changed policy accordingly, but nothing has been done about other federal employees using vehicles for 'personal use'.  Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## Pencil Tech (1 Aug 2008)

Would anybody be able to tell me if there's any long term employee parking  at NDHQ and if not what the parking situation is around there?


----------



## Poppa (1 Aug 2008)

Parking at NDHQ = non existant + expensive
Better off taking the bus


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (1 Aug 2008)

Here is a list of all of the parking lots that google is aware of. There are some reviews on there too.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=parking&near=Ottawa,+ON&fb=1&sa=X&oi=local_group&resnum=1&ct=image
I have used "A" on the diagram when I have to pick up kit or I know I am going to be more than two hours. It is on Elgin just before Laurier and across the street from city hall. (Just a couple of blocks south of the Recruiting Centre). It is about a five minute walk to NDHQ.

There is also:
- an underground City Hall parking lot at the corner of Elgin and Laurier. It is just across the street from NDHQ and really close to Cartier Square Drill Hall. It would only be a 3 or 4 minute walk
- the Congress Centre or the Rideau Centre also has parking

It's not cheap though!


----------



## cavalryman (1 Aug 2008)

If you're thinking about the MGen Pearkes Building (aka 101 Colonel By), you can park in the Rideau Centre's underground parking - but last time I was there, it was something like $12 a day.  If you're not at 101, commercial parking availability and price will vary, seeing that NDHQ is scattered over hell's half-acre in Ottawa. 

When it comes to "employee" parking, the Government only provides to EX-1 or equivalent and above (think full Colonel + in army speak).  Everybody else gets to find their own and pay going rates.  Unless you live way out in the boonies, the bus service will be cheapest.  Rule of thumb is that parking gets cheaper by $1 for each block south of Parliament Hill, so you can find something reasonable, if you're willing to walk for a couple or more blocks.


----------



## Pencil Tech (1 Aug 2008)

Thanks for the info folks. Re the Rideau Centre parking, would you happen to know if they have monthly rates?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Aug 2008)

The Rideau Center has demolished one of their Parking Garages, leaving only the Congress Center one, which may also be short lived as both the Rideau Center and Congress Center are about to undergo major expansions, demolitions and renovations.

Find a Park 'N Ride and take the Bus that stops at the front doors of 101.


----------



## exgunnertdo (1 Aug 2008)

I think that Rideau Centre has stopped taking new monthly customers, cause of the demolition of one of the garages.  And if I remember correctly, the daily rate went up to $18 when the construction started.  

Bus is probably the way to go, unless as others have said, you don't mind walking a few blocks.


----------



## COBRA-6 (1 Aug 2008)

What part of the city are you planning to move to? Getting into the downtown core by car isn't fun from places like Kanata, Orleans and Riverside South during rush hour. Park and Ride is the best bet.

Parking at the Ottawa City Hall on Laurier St is the closest lot, just across the canal from 101. Cost is $172 per month taxes in.


----------



## Pencil Tech (1 Aug 2008)

Thanks Cobra 6, that will be one to look into. The thing is, we were thinking of being a little ways out, i.e. Richmond, Manotick, etc, which complicates things so I'm trying to research the best combination of driving, transit, parking, etc. vice the cost. A rural expess Greenpass would be cheaper than parking, but more time travelling. Trying to figure this stuff out from Edmonton.


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Aug 2008)

Park 'n Ride would probably be your best bet if you're looking into those areas.

If you do go the bus route, check out the CFSU (O) website, and get some information on the bus passes if that's your fancy. You'll get a pass, and they'll take a bit off each paycheck for you.

I found OC transpo to be one of the best and most reliable transit systems of any Canadian city I've lived in.


----------



## slowmode (1 Aug 2008)

Busing would honestly be the cheapest method there, or someone droping and picking you up. If you are looking for parking I found the best place to park is Slater, right across from the recruiting center. Also the underground parking near city hall is great


----------



## EW (1 Aug 2008)

Buses are a good option if you are out in some place like Manotick. The closest park and ride would likely be on Fallowfield Station, where there are a couple of express buses which should get you to NDHQ.  Being DND you can get an ECONOPASS from OC Transpo, and as previously mentioned it would come off your pay. Saves you 10-15 % on a regular pass - and don't forget you will be another ~10% back in the new federal tax rebate.  Easy as pie, since the ECONOPASS is deducted from your pay, it is right there on your T4.

Ottawa still has some issues to sort out with its bus system; but the city is at a stage right now where they are adverse to making the downtown any more car friendly than it already is, they are going to be pushing transit for the next few years - not expecting many more parking garages.


----------



## Haggis (1 Aug 2008)

Consider carpooling.

Some core buildings, like mine which is a Treasury Board dominated building, have absolutely *no* DND CF parking, regadless of rank/status.


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Aug 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Consider carpooling.
> 
> Some core buildings, like mine which is a Treasury Board dominated building, have absolutely *no* DND CF parking, regadless of rank/status.



Also, some of the other buildings that _do_ have parking, such as LStL in Gatineau, assign available passes based on such things as distance from work, # of people who come in said vehicle (carpooling) and length of time there. I knew people who waited +12 months for a pass.


----------



## The Anti-Royal (2 Aug 2008)

The last time I worked at NDHQ, I was able to rent a parking spot from one of the churches on Laurier, just east of Nicholas, for a very reasonable fee (less than $100/month, if I recall).  That was in 2003/2004.

It may be worth a couple of phone calls, if you're going to be working at 101 Colonel By.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2008)

One other key point to consider:  Are you posted to 101 Colonel by, or to one of the many other buildings in Ottawa or Gatineau?  Parking right by 101 Colonel By Drive isn't much use if you're working at Startop or another one of the outlying facilities.


----------



## CountDC (19 Aug 2008)

you should also consider looking online at some of the local sites, I found parking reasonably close (5 minute walk with lights) for $60. Most will cost more but $80 is a good average.

http://ottawa.en.craigslist.ca/prk/

http://ottawa.kijiji.ca/f-housing-storage-parking-W0QQCatIdZ39

http://www.usedottawa.com/classifieds/garage-rentals


----------



## geo (19 Aug 2008)

Anyone hear anything more about military pers paying for parking on military bases.... (either at Ottawa or elsewhere)
(am asking because that ugly rumour is still going round in Montreal


----------



## dapaterson (19 Aug 2008)

CFAO 29-9 is the reference that states that DND should be charging for parking in urban areas.  That this order is quietly ignored is another issue.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Aug 2008)

CFAO 29-2 key point:



> 3. At DND installations served by regularly-scheduled public transit, parking *should* be provided in the minimum quantity required for effective operation of the installation, and members and DND civilian employees who are provided with parking *will* be charged for the space provided.



"Should" not "must" and we are being charged for parking (at least in Ottawa).

Not looking forward to the move to the Montfort hospital as parking will be at a premium (lack of spaces (167 only) at twice the price) and the transit is not so "regular" (as described in the CFAO   : ).  If I want a shorter trip by bus (42 minutes) to work, I don't arrive until after 0800.  To arrive before 0730, I am looking at a 50-54 minute trip.  Same thing on the way home.  I'll be looking in the ads for rental spots close by.


----------



## stegner (19 Aug 2008)

The U of O has some parking lots right by NDHQ.


----------



## eurowing (19 Aug 2008)

Parking should be free IMHO!  The main reason I wouldn't go to Ottawa is the insecure parking.  A friend of mine in a command position who did have a parking spot had his car broken into, garage door opener and registration stolen.  Luckily his wife was home to call the police while the turds were trying to break into the house.  If he couldn't get secure parking then no one could.

I don't know about you guys n gals, but I did not join up to ride a bus into a smelly city, enter a highrise, get a nose bleed from the altitude change and sit all day in a cubicle.  I think DND missed the boat by not purchasing that large complex ( I can't recall the name, UNIDEN perhaps? ) a few years ago.  It had ample parking and might have been a fabulous HQ.


----------



## CFR FCS (19 Aug 2008)

It was JDS Uniphase and DND said it wasn't secure enough for us. The RCMP gladly took it over. Go figure.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2008)

eurowing said:
			
		

> .........  I think DND missed the boat by not purchasing that large complex ( I can't recall the name, UNIDEN perhaps? ) a few years ago.  It had ample parking and might have been a fabulous HQ.



As was pointed out, it was the old JDS Uniphase Campus which was on the flight path to Ottawa International.  We all know what happened on 911.  Now does it make any sense?


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Aug 2008)

Do they have to pay for parking at Leitrim?


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2008)

Is this thread now turning into this thread/discussion again ...  :-\

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63462.0.html


----------



## geo (19 Aug 2008)

Might as well combine em I guess.... all routes lead to Rome as they say


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (19 Aug 2008)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I wish we could ship the whole stupid lot of them off to a FOB for a few months...


 Some of us from the PS are working on that. 



> Do they have to pay for parking at Leitrim?


 Not sure, but they do get to play a dangerous game of Frogger if they park in the south lot.


----------



## leftovers (3 Dec 2009)

This morning I went to the Montfort and tried to drive into the DND reserved lot,  at the front near the street. 
After waiting about 8 min in the line of cars I was told I had to pay $13 to get in. 
Wait a sec! Wasn't this free? 
Fortunately, I had the money on me but a lot of guys didn't so they were not allowed in, so they drove away.
What's up with that? 
Did I miss a notice somewhere?
I understand that medical is expensive so hospitals get money where they can, but I think there could have been a better way of going about it. A lot of guys were really angry this morning. 
I'm just a private so what do I know, but it did not seem to be right.


----------



## dregeneau (3 Dec 2009)

I'm not sure if it has changed since I worked there.

I used to be a security guard at that hospital, supervising weekend shifts, before the DND came. That parking lot I believe charged the full cost up front, and treated it as a deposit, giving back the difference when you left.

Is this still the case?


----------



## CountDC (3 Dec 2009)

Wasn't mentioned in the email that came out. Wish I had kept it but it did say DND had limited reserved parking or you could park in the paid parking area.  I always went to the paid area as I figured the DND lot would be filled. Not much use having a seperate DND lot if you are going to charge the same rate. 

Myself I wish they had stayed put instead of moving and I know lots of others I work with feel the same.

Save your money - get bus tickets from your work.


----------



## LineJumper (4 Dec 2009)

I remember having to pay for parking all over Ottawa when I was posted there. At the end of each month for 5 years I would send the receipts in and get back all my loot.


----------



## CountDC (4 Dec 2009)

Not sure if any units here will allow that anymore.  ideally we are supposed to use bus, obtaining tickets at the unit if needed, taxi chits are another option, again available at the unit and MTEC may be authorized which would include mileage and parking when we go to the hospital.  Of course all of these come out of the unit budget so most, if not all, will push the bus.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Dec 2009)

There are supposed to be 40 free passes at the gate for military visitors - show your ID, and they will give you one; if they are all out, you can (a) come back later or (b) pay your way.


[sarcasm]
Boy, this dispersed HQ is a great way to operate isn't it?
[/sarcasm]


----------



## leftovers (4 Dec 2009)

Sounds like I wasn't the only one that noticed the change in fees. 

Today's Citizen article:

"Military patients miffed at less free parking"
BY MATTHEW PEARSON, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN DECEMBER 4, 2009

Visitors to the Canadian Forces Health Services Centre at the Montfort Hospital got a rude surprise Thursday when it seemed free parking was no longer available to them.

It turns out 40 parking spaces that were previously reserved for the military have been incorporated into the hospital's visitors' parking lot, instead of set aside in a reserved lot, according to Maj. André Berdais, the director of communication for Canadian Forces Health Services.

Military patients with identification can get a parking pass from attendants when they arrive and return it when they leave. If all 40 passes have been handed out, Berdais said patients can wait until a pass is returned, or pay cash to park and be reimbursed by their own units.

Berdais said there was a miscommunication between the centre and the hospital about when the change would happen.

"It's one of those things where people are used to something and things suddenly changed on them without the proper warning," he said, adding that patients are also encouraged to take public transit to the Montfort if they're able because of the hospital's relatively scarce parking." 

Source: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Military+patients+miffed+less+free+parking/2301065/story.html


----------



## CountDC (7 Dec 2009)

wait for it - I for one will not be surprised when they take the passes away too.

Anyone know what the plan is for the nice old hospital with all the parking that was full most if the time?  Don't know why they would think they could replace the parking there with 40 passes.


----------



## Staff Weenie (7 Dec 2009)

This nice old hospital - the NDMC building, is still slated to close, some day, some how.....the problem is, there's no available office space in the NCR sufficient to lease for all CF H Svcs Gp HQ, 33 CBG HQ, the Int folk, the CG, 28 Fd Amb, and the Sigs folk in the basement....

As for the Montfort - one word - disaster!


----------



## CountDC (7 Dec 2009)

lol - know what you mean about space.  We are currently scattered around 5 buildings I believe in the NCR and planning to move some to another soon.

We were hoping here that the Montfort deal fell through - no one wanted it.


----------



## leftovers (8 Dec 2009)

I can't get that Citizen article out of my mind. 
No one complained about the amount, typical soldiers - they sucked it up.
They seemed more 'miffed' about not meeting their timings and not getting medical attention.
The reporter gave the Cf a really bad spin.
Was that deliberate?


----------



## CountDC (8 Dec 2009)

or maybe some complained to the reporter and not you.  I am sure that at least one person there that day did complain about having to pay $13 for what they were expecting to be free.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2009)

leftovers said:
			
		

> I can't get that Citizen article out of my mind.
> No one complained about the amount, typical soldiers - they sucked it up.
> They seemed more 'miffed' about not meeting their timings and not getting medical attention.
> The reporter gave the Cf a really bad spin.
> Was that deliberate?




Surely the "bad spin" is not the sole fault of the reporters. DND and the CF are shooting themselves in the foot - sometimes on the orders of Treasury Board - by doing things that are, on their face, dumb. It's a bit much to expect a journalist to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear when civilian and military bureaucrats seem hell bent on screwing the troops.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2009)

The parking there is retarded. All the times the military parking lot has been full I parked in the other area and got my unit to reimburse me for the price of parking.

Meeting your timings there is important. The CDUs/mental health etc.. are constantly shitting the bed as far as I've seen. I've had my appointments re-booked 3 times.  Which isn't THAT big of a deal except I was only told when I went to sign in, after an hour drive and parking fiasco. Each time.

"Oh but we called you to tell you your appointment was canceled"
Oh ya? Well no one called my cell phone or house number.
"We called your unit orderly room and informed them"
Oh? Hold on a minute.  (Call my unit) Nope, looks like no one called them to tell them my appointment was changed again thanks for lying to my face.
The latest time they tried to pull that "we called your unit" bs they did it to me AND another member of my unit at the same time as we both arrived at the hospital.


----------



## CountDC (31 Mar 2010)

the search works again.

New info - the wheels are in motion in the NCR and elsewhere for DND to pay for parking:

DND PARKING POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION THROUGHOUT THE NCR

Ref:  DAOD 1004-0 and DAOD 1004-1  

The purpose of this notice is to advise the Department of National Defence (DND) extended management team in the NCR on the way forward in implementing the Government of Canada revised parking policy throughout the NCR for all DND personnel.

Treasury Board Secretariat’s position is that the Federal Government is not responsible to provide employee parking and employees are responsible to pay for their commuting cost, including the cost of parking. Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) has updated its Custodial Parking Policy to reflect this direction for PWGSC parking facilities across Canada.  

July 1, 2010 this revised policy will be implemented.  The following information will be helpful to you during this transition process:

DND will continue to, where available, acquire, administer and fund parking considered as Minimum Operational Requirement (MOR) which is defined as Crown Owned Vehicles, vehicles of shift workers, and limited short term visitor parking where no commercial alternative is available or convenient.

Parking, which is not administered under the MOR, but is located at Crown owned buildings where PWGSC is the custodian, or privately held buildings where PWGSC leases space on DND’s behalf, will be managed and administered by third-party Parking Managers as Occupancy Instruments expire and/or are terminated between the DND and PWGSC.

Additionally Operational Requirement (OR) parking spaces will be acquired where they are essential to fulfill requirements of security, safety, and priority parking for Limited Mobility (where available) or other purposes critical to military operations, outside of MOR.  The OR parking spaces will be managed by Parking Managers with direction from DND as to access control.  All parking other than MOR will be administered by a third-party Parking Manager and provided at the Fair Market Value (FMV) for crown-owned or custodial facilities and at market rate as determined by the landlords/owners for leased facilities.


Automatic payroll deductions will eventually cease, consequently payment arrangements will be made directly with the Parking Managers. 

At crown owned facilities, notification of intent to retain or release monthly parking will be required from those currently holding a parking pass.  Once the Parking Managers are identified for specific locations, those intending to retain their parking pass will have first right of refusal and their names will be submitted to the third-party Parking Manager for first consideration.  At leased facilities, arrangements will be between the landlord and the pass holder.

*Waiting lists and previous point system for parking will end.*

April 1, 2010, DND employees and CF members will be given 90 day notice of the revised parking policy taking effect July 1, 2010.


Looks like ignoring will no longer be an option.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Mar 2010)

Note that this is pan-government - all Federal departments are doing the same.  Subsidized parking is not in the mandate of the Federal Government, so it is ceasing.  Ottawa papers will be filled with whining soon, but I say it`s about time.  In certain locations, parking was being provided at 1/3 of the market rate.

In a perfect world, I would like to see the reduced rate be deemed a benefit in the hands of the employees, and see their taxes re-assessed for prior years.


----------



## CountDC (31 Mar 2010)

I'm waiting to see how it plays out at the Dockyards.  Last time they mentioned charging for parking the public service was really wound up.  

I remember early 90's when LFAA was at the foot of Citadel Hill we paid for parking that was supposed to be a 24/7 assigned spot.  Everytime there was a special event around the hill area you couldn't get to your parking spots. Went in to do some work, the MP's had the driveway blocked and weren't going to let me in because they claimed my parking wasn't 24/7.  When I finally got them to let me through(after they called their supervisor) my spot was alreay filled by someone else that didn't work there (I was the only one in the building besides the commissionaire). Hopefully that will not happen when they start the charges this time around.

Guess this means I won't get my free parking if posted back to Halifax.   :'(


----------



## kratz (31 Mar 2010)

> *Waiting lists and previous point system for parking will end.*



This change would cause alot of havoc in dockyard/Stad as well with anyone able to purchase a parking space instead of waiting 12/15 years TI.

I have to edit my post after reading DAOD 1004-1. The table: General Parking at Defence Establishment Criteria the last item describes  the majority of the parking in the dockyard. ie: no assigned parking (open lot or “scramble”).

This does not describe if the time in requirement will be affected under a "no charge" parking arrangement.


----------



## CountDC (1 Apr 2010)

Wow - had to look.  So from that it appears for the most part the only ones affected are those of us in NCR and recruiting centres.  Can't think of anywhere else off the top as everywhere else I know does not fall in the first category which is the only one charged.

Unless they change to assigned parking spots.

uhoh - wait for it:

http://admfincs.mil.ca/sss/park-stat-3_e.asp

DAOD 1004-0, Parking and DAOD 1004-1, Parking Administration were under development from 2006 to 2009. During that process, a number of stakeholders were consulted and their input solicited. These stakeholders included but not limited to: ADM(HR-Civ); Defence Advisory Group on Persons with Disabilities; the Chiefs of Environmental Commands; DFPP (Taxation); DND/ CF LA (Legal); Unions (via UMCC) and PWGSC. This process culminated in the DAODs being published on 17 March 2009. However, with guidelines released from both Treasury Board and PWGSC in January 2010 our current DAOD has been revised and is currently being reviewed prior to publication expected within the next 30 days. This revision aligns the department with this Government of Canada wide initiative.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Apr 2010)

Kind of ties in with this article in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen:

Time running out on PS parking perks


----------



## CountDC (1 Apr 2010)

Wow -  Calgary will be paying $450!!


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Apr 2010)

Bunch of bloody BS IMHO.  Sounds nothing more than a cash grab by PWSG.  I could understand if the land was owned by private concerns, but here in Hfx it's all Pusser land.  They can go screw themselves if they think I'll pay for parking on a first come basis.  I'll park on the public streets and walk in first, as I did prior to getting the TI for a pass.


----------



## TruckerJeff (12 May 2010)

I'm in Halifax and they are talking about charging us for parking on base...they say it's gonna be an across Canada thing.  Has any of you heard about it? What do you think about that? They're talking about around 80$ a month.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 May 2010)

Yeah, I think there was a thread about the changes to parking in Ottawa.  I know the DND released something a while ago about charging for parking at bases that were on "premium" sites.  Halifax would more than likely fall into that category.  I pay $85/month for parking where I work.


----------



## TN2IC (12 May 2010)

Go back to 12 RBC....  ;D


----------



## TruckerJeff (12 May 2010)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Go back to 12 RBC....  ;D



You, go back to working thursday night!! > > >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 May 2010)

Charging people for parking on a base is simple ridiculous, which is exactly why I can see it happening.

This was talked about a few years ago but never happened.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't feel the need to pay for parking in parking lots my tax dollars paid for.

Just another way for Ottawa to screw the people who serve IMO.

 :


----------



## TN2IC (12 May 2010)

Listen here mouse...


----------



## TruckerJeff (12 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Charging people for parking on a base is simple ridiculous, which is exactly why I can see it happening.
> 
> This was talked about a few years ago but never happened.
> 
> ...



I agree, It feels like since they can't lower our salaries, they're doing all they can to get us somewhere else!!


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 May 2010)

It's bad enough that they want to shaft us, but to say we have to pay "fair market value" for the spot.  Nothing but a tax grab.  From what I am hearing they won't take the money out of your pay each month, but will add the "cost" as a taxable benefit on your T4.  Bloody bollocks.


----------



## Occam (12 May 2010)

Charging for parking is indeed coming, I've seen (but do not have at home) the price list for the NCR area.  The price is based on the market price in the area of the specific building the lot services.  For example, every DND building in the NCR has its own price for parking - the price for parking at Tunney's Pasture is going from $40/month to ~$105/month.  Some buildings/sites do not have monthly charges for parking, since they are in an area for which there is no demand for parking thus there is no market value for it - Shirley's Bay site, for example.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 May 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's bad enough that they want to shaft us, but to say we have to pay "fair market value" for the spot.  Nothing but a tax grab.  From what I am hearing they won't take the money out of your pay each month, but will add the "cost" as a taxable benefit on your T4.  Bloody bollocks.



Does anyone else feel the need to find who is the driving force behind this and kick them in the nads??


----------



## dapaterson (12 May 2010)

The short answer is:  it depends what base you are at, what facility at that base (some bases have dets all over the place - the NCR is a great example)), and a number of other factors.  You are expected to get to work, and pay for that.  The public service are also facing the same issue across Canada.

Right now, in some locations, there are people parking side by side, some paying full commercial rate, others paying a subsidized rate.  That is grossly unfair.


----------



## Occam (12 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does anyone else feel the need to find who is the driving force behind this and kick them in the nads??



[........points discreetly at PWGSC......]


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does anyone else feel the need to find who is the driving force behind this and kick them in the nads??




It's this guy ...







and, maybe, this guy, too







DND, along with Industry Canada and a bunch of minor league departments and agencies have been told to go away and find a 5% saving.


But nothing happens unless these guys agreed:






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Little things add up.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 May 2010)

No need to point discretely.  You can add the Treasury Board or Bored who dictate that parking is a taxable benefit and say it must be fair market value.  If there was a smiley with the middle finger I would use it to point to those two institutions.


----------



## TruckerJeff (12 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The short answer is:  it depends what base you are at, what facility at that base (some bases have dets all over the place - the NCR is a great example)), and a number of other factors.  You are expected to get to work, and pay for that.  The public service are also facing the same issue across Canada.
> 
> Right now, in some locations, there are people parking side by side, some paying full commercial rate, others paying a subsidized rate.  That is grossly unfair.


 
You know what...I work in heavy equipment...12 hr shifts in the winter, sometimes up to 7 days/nights a week and I don't complain. That's all part of beeing in the military! The civies I work with get paid over time and shift diff pay and I don't how's that fair? I'm ready to go risk my ass any day any where for my country....I would think that this should be enough to give me the right to park my car for free on ANY military base...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 May 2010)

And this is their answer?  "lets charge people to park their cars on the pavement we bought with their tax dollars!"

 :

Hey, here is a new idea!  How about knocking off the spending on something that is already *wasting* tax dollars!  

Or how about clawing back some of the benefits and expenditures the MPs are getting?

This little piddly stuff is the stuff that really ticks me off.  If it was a NEW parking lot, fine maybe.  But one thats been there for years?

 :


----------



## Occam (12 May 2010)

Normally I would agree with you, Edward - but this little project started long before the 5% savings directive was issued.  _Long_ before...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 May 2010)

It leaves me with the same angry thoughts I have over CFHAs ridiculously high rates for PMQs that are in some/most cases older than I am, based on "fair market value".

 :

Fuck how about getting rid of some of the money you (TB) are pissing away before you start nickel and diming everyone in the CF.


----------



## TimBit (12 May 2010)

Parkings are to be privatized... therefore as a tax payer you will no longer be paying for them. It is not a cash grab.


----------



## Alea (12 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Parkings are to be privatized... therefore as a tax payer you will no longer be paying for them. It is not a cash grab.



I'm not sure I understand how a parking, on a military base, owned by the government could be privatized?

Alea


----------



## TimBit (12 May 2010)

Hem, the same way that Timmies on base is not public... Maintenance, fees and construction will be turned over to a private business.


----------



## McG (12 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Parkings are to be privatized... therefore as a tax payer you will no longer be paying for them. It is not a cash grab.


No.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I know the DND released something a while ago about charging for parking at bases that were on "premium" sites.


It is a TB policy that the government does not under-cut local businesses, and to this end anywhere that is a pay-to-park location (NCR, Toronto, etc) is supposed to (by policy) charge a market rate to park on DND property.


----------



## TruckerJeff (12 May 2010)

They would be undercutting local business if they would let other people than DND employees park in their lots..........As far as I know it's not the case.


----------



## TimBit (12 May 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> No.
> It is a TB policy that the government does not under-cut local businesses, and to this end anywhere that is a pay-to-park location (NCR, Toronto, etc) is supposed to (by policy) charge a market rate to park on DND property.



Ok maybe only my organization will be privatizing but in my case that`s what`s gonna happen.


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2010)

The NCR folks will be hit by this, no doubt there. But they can take public transit too. No PLD so i can see the sting.

Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, Etc.............public transit + PLD  =  :crybaby:

Its not like places like Petawawa, Dundurn and other various hellholes will suddenly be charging to park your car next to the regimental lines.


----------



## pbi (12 May 2010)

A DND parking fee policy like this was announced in the late 1980's when I was on RSS in Sudbury. It seemed as outrageous and stupid then as it does now, 20 years later. We were going to be required to pay for parking at the Armoury, in an area of Sudbury where parking was almost completely free. On top of that, somebody was going to have to collect the money from the five of us who parked there for a full day. A useless, silly idea that would have cost more than it produced. At the time, it died an obscure death after a brief flurry of activity.

And, of course, it's back.  What's next....sideburns?.....eight tracks?.....Pong?

Cheers


----------



## armyvern (12 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Hem, the same way that Timmies on base is not public... Maintenance, fees and construction will be turned over to a private business.



Hmmm, interesting. Are you inferring that there will be cuts to the Public Servants and military trades who currently utilize Crown Eqpt to plow out those parking lots? 

If the work will be going to private contractors (Care, maint, etc) ... that "loss of work" would indicate 'cuts' to personnel as well. Who needs the PYs when "this part of your job" has disappeared. 

Do you have some kind of insider information that PSAC is not yet aware of?? Or are you just speaking outside ...


----------



## mariomike (12 May 2010)

National Defence and the Canadian Forces: "Parking Administration":
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/1000/1004-1-eng.asp
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/1000/1004-0-eng.asp
"Parking charges shall be:
■assessed at the market value; and
■waived at defence establishments where no market value can be established"

It's happening with the municipal governments as well. Right now. Only six Civic Centres are affected in Metro Toronto.
eg: Metro Hall ( 2007 ) "Proposed amount of Taxable Benefit": $242.40 per month.
The issue is far from settled. Collective agreements will likely force the city to pick up the costs. That seems to be what other municipalities are doing, from what I was told Monday by a city manager on the phone. 

Re: "Canada Revenue Agency Employer Compliance Audit - Parking Access as a Taxable Benefit":
"If you receive your Notice of Reassessment ( from the CRA ), you should hold off taking any action until we provide you with further information following the May11/12 Council meeting." 

North York Civic Centre - which is close to the CFRC, and one of the six affected parking lots - is getting dinged for ( 2007 ): $133.32 per month.

"City staff back-taxed for parking":
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/808298--city-staff-back-taxed-for-parking
Story is followed by the usual six pages of nasty comments from the "I pay your salary" types:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/808298#comments

National Post:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/story.html?id=3020936

1995:
"Mayor David Miller accused the CRA of changing the rules mid-game, noting that a *1995* audit of the old City of Toronto resulted in a successful appeal by an employee. The CRA then said that “*scramble parking*” — when there are more employees than spots — is not taxable.
Now it appears that CRA is interpreting the rules to say that *scramble parking *is a taxable benefit if it is in “fixed, controlled” setting, city staff said."

"He has personally been told he’ll have to pay the tax. “*I don’t own a car, haven’t driven one for 24 years and now they want me to pay for parking*,” he said. “If you are going to charge me for it, show me my parking spot and show me my car.” "

“I think it’s kind of unfair since *I don’t have a car, never have had a car and never will have a car*,” said Frost, who lives downtown and walks or takes the TTC to work."

Canada Revenue Agency CRA "Employer provided parking":
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/txtps/2009/tt090204-eng.html

"There's no such thing as 'free' parking":
 http://thestar.blogs.com/yourcitymycity/2010/05/tax-man-eyes-parking-perks-lorenzo-mele--there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-parking-even-if-you-work-at-a-parking-lot/comments/page/2/

"Did You Know: That employer provided parking may be a taxable benefit to employees?":
http://www.cabusinessadvisor.com/DYK/ParkingB.htm

Financial Post:
"FREE PARKING: Traditionally, the CRA has viewed company-provided parking as a taxable benefit. The amount of the benefit is based on the fair market value of the parking, less any amount paid to use the space. But if the car is regularly required for business purposes, say to visit customers or suppliers, CRA won't consider parking a taxable benefit. Their test? You must use the car for work purposes three or more days during a five-day work week. Anything less and you don't want to forget to include parking on your tax return."

Air Canada: "Parking a taxable benefit":
http://www.yyzdistrict301.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/employee_parking_a_taxable_benefit.238104641.pdf


----------



## pbi (12 May 2010)

> Hmmm, interesting. Are you inferring that there will be cuts to the Public Servants and military trades who currently utilize Crown Eqpt to plow out those parking lots?



Lots of DND property is maintained by contractors now. Meaford has its services provided by CBO.  A number of armouries that are distant from bases are plowed out by local contractors. Contracting out has big attractions for the Govt: no pensions or benefits involved.

Cheers


----------



## TruckerJeff (12 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hmmm, interesting. Are you inferring that there will be cuts to the Public Servants and military trades who currently utilize Crown Eqpt to plow out those parking lots?
> 
> If the work will be going to private contractors (Care, maint, etc) ... that "loss of work" would indicate 'cuts' to personnel as well. Who needs the PYs when "this part of your job" has disappeared.
> 
> Do you have some kind of insider information that PSAC is not yet aware of?? Or are you just speaking outside ...



FACT: for CFB Halifax next winter there will be NO overtime or shift diff paid to civilian employees for snow removal. That means that us, the military will be doing 12 hrs shift, straight nights, week-ends all winter.
They're not cutting positions but they're cutting paychecks.  
The PMQs in Shearwater will be contrcted to HRM.
So here's the big picture....the civies are going to be doing 40 hours a week straight days when they've been paid overtime during winter time for years and a lot of them need that extra money...while the military personnel will be working 60-70hrs a week straight nights, wich means no social life and family life to a minimum from Nov to Apr for us....


----------



## armyvern (12 May 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> No.
> It is a TB policy that the government does not under-cut local businesses, and to this end anywhere that is a pay-to-park location (NCR, Toronto, etc) is supposed to (by policy) charge a market rate to park on DND property.



I'm going to agree with the earlier poster. The parking lots of which we are speaking are Crown Land. Crown employees park there. If DND/CF were allowing* civilian* populaces to utilize these Crown Parking Areas, either for 'free' or at abated prices, from the civilian owned private lot next to it --- then the "fair competetion" would be breached. problem with the argument - is that we're not and ergo we are not "competeing unfairly" for any single "one" of their potential _parkers_.

Much like the Golf Courses at certain bases accept "Memberships" from civilians who are in no way related to/work for DND/CF ... they must charge those "civilian" members "costs for membership that compete fairly with civilian/privately owned golf courses in the area". We can't just say "Hey join our base Golf Club - we'll only charge you 50% of what you'd pay at civvy course 1 km up the road". THAT is unfair competetion for SAME customer.

That's not the case with parking ... unless of course this also means that the parking lots we own are also now going to be free game for "anyone" to park in (ie: there'll be competetion for them).


----------



## TimBit (12 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hmmm, interesting. Are you inferring that there will be cuts to the Public Servants and military trades who currently utilize Crown Eqpt to plow out those parking lots?
> 
> If the work will be going to private contractors (Care, maint, etc) ... that "loss of work" would indicate 'cuts' to personnel as well. Who needs the PYs when "this part of your job" has disappeared.
> 
> Do you have some kind of insider information that PSAC is not yet aware of?? Or are you just speaking outside ...



Vern, as it stands, it does appear that my organization will be privatizing the lots ar we had a stand-alone campus that was tended by PWGSC, but will no longer. I`m not aware of the PY effect, but we are getting privatized.

As for other points, how is it fair to members, like those in the NCR who just do not have any "free" parking spaces if someone making the same salary in another city gets free parking.


----------



## armyvern (12 May 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Lots of DND property is maintained by contractors now. Meaford has its services provided by CBO.  A number of armouries that are distant from bases are plowed out by local contractors. Contracting out has big attractions for the Govt: no pensions or benefits involved.
> 
> Cheers



Some is, but most is not - and we are speaking of a "cross Canada" initiative here no? I could be wrong, but I thought it was to be implemented "across Canada." Any loss of such a huge amount of "PYs" would therefore involve huge reductions in the staff required to work those "PYs" ... and I'm sure we'd here a whole lot from the Public service about it.


----------



## TimBit (12 May 2010)

Themouse said:
			
		

> FACT: for CFB Halifax next winter there will be NO overtime or shift diff paid to civilian employees for snow removal. That means that us, the military will be doing 12 hrs shift, straight nights, week-ends all winter.
> They're not cutting positions but they're cutting paychecks.
> The PMQs in Shearwater will be contrcted to HRM.
> So here's the big picture....the civies are going to be doing 40 hours a week straight days when they've been paid overtime during winter time for years and a lot of them need that extra money...while the military personnel will be working 60-70hrs a week straight nights, wich means no social life and family life to a minimum from Nov to Apr for us....



Others will correct me here if I'm wrong, but I do not believe it is possible for CO's to organize 60-70 hours work rotation on a long period unless there are valid operational circumstances or recognized pers shortage, I,m too lazy to find the appropriate DAOD but I know that working hours are supposed to approximate 40 hours a week on average plus unforeseen personnel or ops-related circumstances. In any case, people who used to do 24-7 watches at NDCC at 101 had to deal with the no-bus-no-parking situation too... but then of course it no longer is at 101


----------



## armyvern (12 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Vern, as it stands, it does appear that my organization will be privatizing the lots ar we had a stand-alone campus that was tended by PWGSC, but will no longer. I`m not aware of the PY effect, but we are getting privatized.
> 
> *As for other points, how is it fair to members, like those in the NCR who just do not have any "free" parking spaces if someone making the same salary in another city gets free parking.*



If the lot is privatized, that's completely another thing. How they plan on doing that with, let's say, the J7 Parade square in Gagetown is a whole 'nother matter. Or here. Or Petawawa. Will the private contractor then charge us to use our Parade Square (big parking lot most of the time) for Parades!!??

As for your last paragraph, you'll find that many of us here wonder how the NCR lost it's "PLD" while other places did not. Now, I'd rather pay the $85.00 bucks per month it's costing Moe to park there in the NCR, for example, and only have to pay the same tax rate as someone my rank/trade too ... rather than the extra 350 bucks a month I'm losing while posted to another city (say, anywhere in NB or Nova Scotia) from the guy in the NCR. See how that works?


----------



## TimBit (12 May 2010)

That's true. In fact am I wrong or tax rates are accounted for in PLD calculation? Note though, that most parking around NDHQ go for 250$ a month at least (!!!). So compare that to free parking in Pet or North Bay or Kingston...not exactly fair.


----------



## TruckerJeff (12 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Others will correct me here if I'm wrong, but I do not believe it is possible for CO's to organize 60-70 hours work rotation on a long period unless there are valid operational circumstances or recognized pers shortage, I,m too lazy to find the appropriate DAOD but I know that working hours are supposed to approximate 40 hours a week on average plus unforeseen personnel or ops-related circumstances. In any case, people who used to do 24-7 watches at NDCC at 101 had to deal with the no-bus-no-parking situation too... but then of course it no longer is at 101



Here's how they're doing it....active airfield=operationnal.  Also I should have said "Up to 70 hrs..." that's 8hrs 5 days a week, stand-by for an xtra 4 hrs and stand-by on week-ends. If it's not a big winter for snow it only sucks cuz your stand-by all the time.  That means no booze, no visiting the family 6 hrs away etc....If it snows a lot it's a whole different story!!!
I can live with it....my wife? Let's just say that she's not too too happy about it!!


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2010)

Themouse said:
			
		

> Here's how they're doing it....active airfield=operationnal.  Also I should have said "Up to 70 hrs..." that's 8hrs 5 days a week, stand-by for an xtra 4 hrs and stand-by on week-ends.



So ?

Some aircrews run standby postures for 24 hours and weekends too. I work a full day and i go home...hold standby til the next morning. I hope you dont feeel too special !




> If it's not a big winter for snow it only sucks cuz your stand-by all the time.  That means no booze, no visiting the family 6 hrs away etc....



When i'm on 2 hour standby...i cant even leave my house.........


----------



## Tank Troll (12 May 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So ?
> 
> Some aircrews run standby postures for 24 hours and weekends too. I work a full day and i go home...hold standby til the next morning. I hope you dont feeel too special !
> 
> ...



That is why *YOU* as a fly guy get the big bucks and signing bonuses


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> and signing bonuses



No NCM aircrew has ever received such a thing.


----------



## TruckerJeff (12 May 2010)

You do that 7 days a week 6 months straight? 
Anyway I'm not complaining about my situation, I knew what I was getting into when I took this trade.  I was only explaining how I could work that much while it still beeing "cosher"...The point I was trying to make while answering Verna's quetion about laying off personnel was that the civilian workers that work with us are loosing a part of their income.

I'm not trying to start a pissing contest here.......

And like Troll said, at least your getting spec pay...


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2010)

Themouse said:
			
		

> You do that 7 days a week 6 months straight?



Obviously my schedule will differ from yours due to the different nature of what we do. The point was that your hardships are hardly unique and that we all have problems that make our home/social lives a real pain in the ass. I hold alot of standbys but less than you. I am however away from home quite frequently and quite a bit more than you. Like i said, we all have our hardships.



> I'm not trying to start a pissing contest here.......



neither am i, see above.



> And like Troll said, at least your getting spec pay...



And your PLD makes up for alot of things you have to pay more than me for.


----------



## noneck (12 May 2010)

At RCMP HQ in Ottawa members pay for parking. It will be the same for the new HQ in BC once it is finished.

I wouldn't be surprised if TB had mandated it across the Fed Govm't.


----------



## dapaterson (12 May 2010)

It is a government mandate that has been quietly ignored for years.

In remote areas or locations where the parking in the surrounding area is free there will be no change and no charge.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 May 2010)

I am still not, and won't be, sold on the idea of taxpayers paying to park in parking lots their tax dollars paid for.

Question:

So..what is the plan for say, the civies who have gym memberships in Shearwater lets say?  Prorated fees of some kind??

They will be using the parking lot which is on the base.  Use of parking lots on base=fees.


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So..what is the plan for say, the civies who have gym memberships in Shearwater lets say?  Prorated fees of some kind??
> 
> They will be using the parking lot which is on the base.  Use of parking lots on base=fees.



I was thinking along that lines too; someone said something earlier about it being noted as "a taxable allowance & benefit" on our pay ... wondering then, what is their plan with that? Automatic for everyone? What about those pers who don't own POMVs (they DO exist!!), those who utilize public transport instead of POMV to get to/from work - or carpool -, those who are married service couples who travel back/forth in ONE vehicle etc?? They still going to treat "both" their pays to this "taxable allowance and benefit" at the full rate for each member despite the fact that only one vehicle between them is utilizing a space??


----------



## mariomike (13 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What about those pers who don't own POMVs (they DO exist!!), those who utilize public transport instead of POMV to get to/from work - or carpool -, those who are married service couples who travel back/forth in ONE vehicle etc??



Sort of like charging you for a dog licence, even though you don't own one. 

P.S.
There is an interactive questionnaire which can help both employers and employees better understand when parking as a taxable benefit must be reported:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/tmbl/prkng/menu-eng.html

Canada Revenue Agency CRA "Definitions for Parking":
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/tmbl/prkng/dfntns-eng.html#fmv

This is the April 2010 Tax Court of Canada decision which clarifies when free parking is a taxable employee benefit:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2010/2010tcc193/2010tcc193.html


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Sort of like charging you for a dog licence, even though you don't own one.



.......or EI and knowing you will never be able to use it......

.....school taxes when you have no kids.....


----------



## cn (13 May 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> .......or EI and knowing you will never be able to use it......
> 
> .....school taxes when you have no kids.....



Agreed, but isn't the purpose of both EI and school taxes supposedly for the benefit all members of society?  School taxes especially.  Charging for parking and those such taxes seem like apples and oranges.


----------



## aesop081 (13 May 2010)

cn said:
			
		

> Charging for parking and those such taxes seem like apples and oranges.



Yeah, i'm aware of that , thanks.


----------



## 40below (13 May 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> .....school taxes when you have no kids.....


Lemme know how you like it when your doctor can't read. Which private school did your parents send you to when you were a kid given your distate for,  and lack of value seen in public education?


----------



## McG (13 May 2010)

The panic about everyone in a geographic location getting pay deducted for parking is silly.  There are already places where fees are in place for parking on DND/government lots.  Only the people that use the spaces pay, and it can be done on hourly, daily or monthly arangements.



			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> As for other points, how is it fair to members, like those in the NCR who just do not have any "free" parking spaces if someone making the same salary in another city gets free parking.


It is not about fairness to people making the same salary across the country.  Parking rates will not be set nationally - they will be local based on local competitive rates.



			
				noneck said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised if TB had mandated it across the Fed Govm't.


Yes.  Go back to reply 21 and you will see that already stated.


----------



## TimBit (13 May 2010)

> When i'm on 2 hour standby...i cant even leave my house.........



Pardon my ignorance AND the thread hijack, but are you not even allowed to go elsewhere with a cell phone within 2-hours reach of the squadron?


----------



## TimBit (13 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I was thinking along that lines too; someone said something earlier about it being noted as "a taxable allowance & benefit" on our pay ... wondering then, what is their plan with that? Automatic for everyone? What about those pers who don't own POMVs (they DO exist!!), those who utilize public transport instead of POMV to get to/from work - or carpool -, those who are married service couples who travel back/forth in ONE vehicle etc?? They still going to treat "both" their pays to this "taxable allowance and benefit" at the full rate for each member despite the fact that only one vehicle between them is utilizing a space??



The plan where I work is this:

EX's and Senior Officers of Colonel-Rank and above do, as part of their privilege, get free parking. For them, the full cost of a spot will become a taxable benefit unless they forfeit their rights. For all others, you pay to get a parking pass, it is not taxable. I'm sure in fact it will be tax-deductible if you can prove that you don't really have a choice to pay for it in order to get to work (i.e. you CANNOT take the bus, because of shift work, in which case anyway you should not have to pay).


----------



## mariomike (13 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> The plan where I work is this:
> 
> EX's and Senior Officers of Colonel-Rank and above do, as part of their privilege, get free parking. For them, the full cost of a spot will become a taxable benefit unless they forfeit their rights. For all others, you pay to get a parking pass, it is not taxable. I'm sure in fact it will be tax-deductible if you can prove that you don't really have a choice to pay for it in order to get to work (i.e. you CANNOT take the bus, because of shift work, in which case anyway you should not have to pay).



Shift workers, persons with permanent mobility limitations, and executive cadres are covered here:
 http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/1000/1004-1-eng.asp

Wed, May 12 2010 
"Should military personnel and DND employees have to pay for parking, particularly on bases?: 
The battle lines are being drawn over whether DND and Canadian Forces personnel should have to pay for parking at work on bases.":
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/05/12/should-military-personnel-and-dnd-employees-have-to-pay-for-parking-particularly-on-bases.aspx

"Whether it's Wainwright Alberta, Petawawa Ontario, Bagotville Quebec, or Goose Bay Newfoundland, service people, and DND civilians will soon have to pay for the convenience of parking at work."


----------



## TimBit (13 May 2010)

There is quite a contradiction in that article however, between no fees for rural areas and parking fees in Bagot, Wainwright, Pet and so on. These last three examples do seem to me to be good example of places that are actually pretty rural and where there is no competing market...

You will also notice that the same article does mention as well that parking spots will be turned over to private operators... as I said earlier.


----------



## TimBit (13 May 2010)

BTW, DAOD 1004-1 as linked by mariomike states the following charges:



> NCR or other Canadian urban installation,
> measurable market value and assigned parking,
> a charge.
> 
> ...


 
So it would seem to me that all of you at Gagetown, Pet, Bagot and so on are good to go. Unlike those in Halifax and Esquimalt, sadly...


----------



## mariomike (13 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> So it would seem to me that all of you at Gagetown, Pet, Bagot and so on are good to go. Unlike those in Halifax and Esquimalt, sadly...



I have read that remote or rural areas -- with populations of less than 25,000 -- where there is no "market" won't be charged for parking.
My uneducated guess is that there could be a successful challenge for CF members - whether parked in downtown Ottawa or the most remote location - by showing that providing parking was to the employer's advantage "in case of emergency".
That the CF, like members of municipal Emergency Services, are on-call in case of emergency around the clock. When you report for duty you never know when you will be going home. Or, when you may be ordered back in for an emergency. Or, put on standby.  
The only time you can escape that fact is when on vacation. And even that is "subject to change".
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1ouuuRIgJhMC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=%22employer's+advantage%22+parking&source=bl&ots=NUw4lfnqgC&sig=ll2ukCzPKBizUzxK1z2U4fX_jTc&hl=en&ei=tRjsS87dD4P6lwehzIW0CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22employer's%20advantage%22%20parking&f=false

P.S. The Ottawa Citizen reports that even the disabled may not be spared by CRA. 
Just in time for Canada Day:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=2746142&sponsor=

PSAC had this to say:
http://www.psac-afpc.org/news/2010/releases/20100503-e.shtml

I believe this information regarding parking as a Taxable Benefit is relevant and may be of interest to readers. 
Although municipal, there will be "a review how similar government organizations such as the Federal and Provincial governments, other municipalities and the United States Internal Revenue Service are assessed for access to parking."

In today's news:
Fortunately, "( Toronto ) Council has also *agreed to cover the costs of any retroactive tax *and interest that city staff incur between 2006 and 2010 as a result of the CRA's decision to make parking permits a taxable benefit.":
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100513/toronto-cra-audit-100513/20100513/?hub=TorontoNewHome

This is regarding parking and pensions:
As a Taxable Benefit, "the reassessment *will also impact employees' contributory earnings *in their retirement program.":
http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/11476e3d3711f56e85256616006b891f/1ef797a8d48e10e985257722004a1caa?OpenDocument

As far as parking in Toronto as a Taxable Benefit, someone I know received a Notice of Reassessment for the Tax Year of 2006 yesterday for Canada Revenue Agency. Balance due: $1,005.33. That is just for 2006! 

In today's National Post:
"City ( Toronto ) picks up $8M tax tab in parking perk snafu:
"The city ( Toronto ) says it will foot an $8-million bill for employees who are forced to pay back taxes on parking privileges they did not know were benefits.":
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/13/city-to-spend-8m-on-back-taxes-for-councillor-parking-spots/

Parking and pension:
"The city also has to pay an additional $2-million for retroactive pension contributions."


----------



## PMedMoe (13 May 2010)

Claiming parking on Income Tax:  

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns206-236/229/slry/prkng-eng.html



> Generally, you cannot deduct the cost of parking at your employer's office, such as monthly or daily parking fees. These are personal costs.



Put it this way.  I can't claim mine for my work location, but if I have to go elsewhere (with my POMV) and pay, then I can claim that.


----------



## gcclarke (13 May 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> BTW, DAOD 1004-1 as linked by mariomike states the following charges:
> 
> So it would seem to me that all of you at Gagetown, Pet, Bagot and so on are good to go. Unlike those in Halifax and Esquimalt, sadly...



I don't really think Esquimalt should be an issue. Or at least I haven't noticed any pay parking lots in Esquimalt. Certainly not anywhere near the base. I suppose the nice people at the Recruiting Centre in downtown Victoria might lose any free parking that they currently receive, if they get any.


----------



## Nuggs (15 May 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I don't really think Esquimalt should be an issue. Or at least I haven't noticed any pay parking lots in Esquimalt. Certainly not anywhere near the base. I suppose the nice people at the Recruiting Centre in downtown Victoria might lose any free parking that they currently receive, if they get any.



I believe there is actually one on the corner of Admirals Rd and Lockley Rd, just outside the base. Not sure it gets much usage though.

My real question is if payment for parking becomes mandatory in a place like Halifax, would they actually build up the infrastructure so that you don't need 12+ years in to apply for a parking pass?


----------



## gcclarke (15 May 2010)

I suspect that they'd wait a bit to see if the demand doesn't drop to reasonable levels after such a price increase.

Good catch on the parking lot there too. Google street view tells me that it's $3 a day and monthly parking is available, but doesn't say how much the monthly rate is. I'd guess somewhere in the $30 range.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 May 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Good catch on the parking lot there too. Google street view tells me that it's $3 a day and monthly parking is available, but doesn't say how much the monthly rate is. I'd guess somewhere in the $30 range.



I'd guess a little higher for the monthly rate.  My former workplace was $3 a day and about $48 per month.  If you were only going to be there part of the month, sometimes it was cheaper to pay the daily rate.  Where I am now doesn't offer that option, it's $85 a month, whether you're there or not.


----------



## Nuggs (15 May 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I suspect that they'd wait a bit to see if the demand doesn't drop to reasonable levels after such a price increase.



I can't see the demand dropping that far, considering that the majority of the fleet has less than 12 years in (theres got to be more Indians than chiefs so to speak).

I can remember then Irving offered to build a parking facility there, but the caveat was that they'd be allowed to have an Irving gas station too, obviously that didn't fly.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> Good catch on the parking lot there too. Google street view tells me that it's $3 a day and monthly parking is available, but doesn't say how much the monthly rate is. I'd guess somewhere in the $30 range.




The parking situation is quite different in Esquimalt. In my experience there are plenty of available spots on Naden. Dockyard parking, allthough tight, is no where near the Halifax situation.

To clarify my position, I'd have absolutely no problem paying for a spot in Halifax, assuming I didn't have to wait till I got it as a retirement present 

EDIT: To fix my quote tags


----------



## armyvern (15 May 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I suspect that they'd wait a bit to see if the demand doesn't drop to reasonable levels after such a price increase.
> 
> Good catch on the parking lot there too. Google street view tells me that it's $3 a day and monthly parking is available, but doesn't say how much the monthly rate is. I'd guess somewhere in the $30 range.



Well, I'd wonder why they'd wait??

If they are handing over the lot to "private enterprise" - then should not "private enterprise" rules be applicable?? Rank and time in having ZERO "privledges" there? You pay - you get to play.

Anyone willing to "pay" that free enterprise rate should receive an EQUAL kick at the bucket in attempting to obtain one of the 800% too FEW parking spots there. 

If we're taking lots off the public system table and throwing them into the free enterprise realm ... then fair is fair. Let the fleet compete fairly for parking rights to spots they'll have to pay for. Anything less than that indicates that this is NOTHING more than a cash grab by Treasury Board. Period.


----------



## TruckerJeff (15 May 2010)

Crockett said:
			
		

> I believe there is actually one on the corner of Admirals Rd and Lockley Rd, just outside the base. Not sure it gets much usage though.
> 
> My real question is if payment for parking becomes mandatory in a place like Halifax, would they actually build up the infrastructure so that you don't need 12+ years in to apply for a parking pass?



At least for the trial period the only change to that is that it's going from 12 back to 13 years.....


----------



## armyvern (15 May 2010)

Themouse said:
			
		

> At least for the trial period the only change to that is that it's going from 12 back to 13 years.....



Which, to me, proves the point that it really isn't "free enterprise" and "about competetion" as the Treasury Board" claims then is it?

Not when the "competetion is limited to a select few". That's a cash grab - plain and simple.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Which, to me, proves the point that it really isn't "free enterprise" and "about competetion" as the Treasury Board" claims then is it?
> 
> Not when the "competetion is limited to a select few". That's a cash grab - plain and simple.



How true, how true.  Although I think you forgot the put "f$$king" in front of it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2010)

Ahhh MARLANT.  Home of Unnecessary Fuckery.

 ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ahhh MARLANT.  Home of Unnecessaty Fuckery.
> 
> ;D



Well Maritime Command does have to come up with money to pay for those 6 MCDVs we were going to tie up....


----------



## Nuggs (15 May 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well Maritime Command does have to come up with money to pay for those 6 MCDVs we were going to tie up....


 ;D


----------



## armyvern (16 May 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well Maritime Command does have to come up with money to pay for those 6 MCDVs we were going to tie up....



Yeah, except for all that money that comes in from DND/CF ... (ever made a cheque out at clothing stores, bought surplus stuff via CADC/Crown Assets & Disposal for example, paid back overpayment on a claim??) ... goes right into the "Receiver General" accounts as per who you make the cheque out to. We don't see it, so you Navy gents aren't going to find a single penny of 5% there or in parking fees.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (17 May 2010)

More info here:

_DAOD 1004-0, Parking_

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/1000/1004-0-eng.asp


----------



## Pusser (18 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yeah, except for all that money that comes in from DND/CF ... (ever made a cheque out at clothing stores, bought surplus stuff via CADC/Crown Assets & Disposal for example, paid back overpayment on a claim??) ... goes right into the "Receiver General" accounts as per who you make the cheque out to. We don't see it, so you Navy gents aren't going to find a single penny of 5% there or in parking fees.



That's not entirely true.  When the cheque is inputted into the system, the deposit paperwork will state which Fin Code it goes to.  For example, if you go on TD and claim for a meal you weren't entitled to, which is later discovered and you are told to pay it back, you write the cheque to the Receiver General, but the money is deposited back to the budget which paid the original claim.  When you write a cheque to the RG for lost kit, that's deposited to a clothing Fin Code, which you never see at the Base level because it's controlled at the national level.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 May 2010)

Kinda makes ya real proud to be in the CF huh?


Next they are going to want soldiers to pay for the medical supplies they "use" when injured overseas.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2011)

I searched for a newer thread with about this but this seems to be the most direct one, so please excuse my digging up an old thread.

My father in law said he heard on the news that this is coming into effect, any news on this ?

It will be interesting to see how they field a situation like this in Halifax, will they still require X number of years served or will it be a free for all...I could see some pretty pissed off people in the near future at CFB Halifax

Personally I'm all for it on bases where parking is a major issue (I.E. CFB Halifax) but on bases like Pet where I saw ample, times infinity, space I see no reason to "pay for play" so to speak...


----------



## Stoker (23 Jan 2011)

Never seen the news story myself, although I heard about it. What I have been told we have to start paying "fair market value" for parking. That could be anywhere from $60-$120 dollars a month. Money that I could better spend on my family


----------



## MJP (23 Jan 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Personally I'm all for it on bases where parking is a major issue (I.E. CFB Halifax) but on bases like Pet where I saw ample, times infinity, space I see no reason to "pay for play" so to speak...



There is no real market value at places like Edmonton, Pet, Cold Lake and the like so there wouldn't be a charge.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Never seen the news story myself, although I heard about it. What I have been told we have to start paying "fair market value" for parking. That could be anywhere from $60-$120 dollars a month. Money that I could better spend on my family



I hear you. I guess I'm just willing to pay it so I don't have to park in the ghetto or get to work at 6am so I can get a spot in the ghetto and not on the other side of the commons... Sounds to me like a good way to spend a good portion of my PLD. But again that's just me and were all different!


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> There is no real market value at places like Edmonton, Pet, Cold Lake and the like so there wouldn't be a charge.



Fair enough! No qualms from me on this...


----------



## Stoker (23 Jan 2011)

I guess there are a lot of mechanics to be worked out. For instance what happens if you are paying and drive in to find all parking spaces filled, I know that would piss me off. All I know that's a lot of money being generated.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I guess there are a lot of mechanics to be worked out. For instance what happens if you are paying and drive in to  find all parking spaces filled, I know that would piss me off. All I know that's a lot of money being generated.



I know I'm using common sense when I say this, and that doesn't count for much in the CF sometimes, but I would suspect they can only sell/rent the number of spaces that actually exist with no overselling and prompt towing of those who park with no paid for pass...


----------



## Stoker (23 Jan 2011)

I guess time will tell, I suspect some sort of msg will be coming out about it soon.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2011)

Sweet! I go back to work on the 31st so Im sure I will find out all I need to know then! Thanks Chief!


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2011)

Depends on where your Father-in-Law read the news article.  If it was the Ottawa Citizen or Ottawa Sun, then it is relevant, as these events have indeed happened in Ottawa.  As for across the country, that should have no affect on any other locations.  

I can see this happening at Bases in metropolitan areas, if parking fees are charged, but not at the Bases out in the sticks.   It would be a municipality by municipality decision.


----------



## karl28 (24 Jan 2011)

So would they be charging you for parking out side the base or in it ? IF its in the base than that's a load of crap .  If I where you guys I would be checking this one out and following it very closely .   I don't think any Employer should be able to charge there employees parking fees for them to come to work .  If my boss did that at the Long Term Care Facility where I work I would tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine .


----------



## mariomike (24 Jan 2011)

karl28 said:
			
		

> I don't think any Employer should be able to charge there employees parking fees for them to come to work .  If my boss did that at the Long Term Care Facility where I work I would tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine .



Sometimes, when free parking is provided by the employer, Canada Revenue Agency rules the spots to be taxable benefits.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jan 2011)

This all came up because Treasury Board does not like to give out things for free and that if the civil service in Ottawa has to pay for parking then all of civil servants throughout Canada must pay. So with this reasoning not only will soldiers at CFB Wainwright will have to pay for parking, Parks Canada employees at Riding Mountain National Park (West Central Manitoba) will also have to pay. The administrative nightmare (collecting the fee and policing the offenders) that this policy will produce far outweigh the amount of revenue the TB will bring in.


----------



## armyvern (24 Jan 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This all came up because Treasury Board does not like to give out things for free and that if the civil service in Ottawa has to pay for parking then all of civil servants throughout Canada must pay. So with this reasoning not only will soldiers at CFB Wainwright will have to pay for parking, Parks Canada employees at Riding Mountain National Park (West Central Manitoba) will also have to pay. The administrative nightmare (collecting the fee and policing the offenders) that this policy will produce far outweigh the amount of revenue the TB will bring in.



http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/1000/1004-0-eng.asp



> Parking Charges
> 
> Employee parking shall be provided at fair market value unless otherwise authorized by the Deputy Minister. * Where there is no fair market value, there will be no charge. * Where the fair market value has not yet been determined, there will be no change to any current charges.



___________
Government needs to cancel plans to charge Canadian Forces members for parking at bases

Read more: http://www.ndp.ca/press/government-needs-to-cancel-plans-to-charge-canadian-forces-members-for-parking-bases#ixzz1ByDO145o



> OTTAWA – The Conservative government should rescind their directive to DND to charge Canadian Forces and DND employees for parking at military bases across the country, says Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore), New Democrat Veterans Affairs Critic and Jack Harris (St. John’s East), New Democrat Defence Critic.
> 
> “It is a slap in the face to the men and women in the Canadian Forces for this government to begin charging them for parking,” says Stoffer. “CF members and their families sacrifice so much in service to our country. Members of the CF face multiple deployments, frequent moves, long hours without overtime pay, and occupational risks that many public servants never face. They see free parking as one of the small workplace perks that they have.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jan 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Depends on where your Father-in-Law read the news article.  If it was the Ottawa Citizen or Ottawa Sun, then it is relevant, as these events have indeed happened in Ottawa.  As for across the country, that should have no affect on any other locations.
> 
> I can see this happening at Bases in metropolitan areas, if parking fees are charged, but not at the Bases out in the sticks.   It would be a municipality by municipality decision.



Hey would have heard this on ATV (CTV Atlantic) News so it may be a story out of Ottawa but was sure he said all across the country!


----------



## Stoker (24 Jan 2011)

This is second hand info from someone who had been briefed last week. Apparently its starting 1st of April, the first people to pay will be people holding restricted parking passes, usually senior people. All general parking in the dockyard will probably go restricted as well and the rate will be higher than parking outside. 
People will start paying sometime after that in parking areas outside the dockyard, suppose to be something like $60 per month, taken out of your pay as a taxable benefit. The seniority will probably remain the same, however that will probably change. I guess there are a lot of details to be worked out.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jan 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This all came up because Treasury Board does not like to give out things for free and that if the civil service in Ottawa has to pay for parking then all of civil servants throughout Canada must pay. So with this reasoning not only will soldiers at CFB Wainwright will have to pay for parking, Parks Canada employees at Riding Mountain National Park (West Central Manitoba) will also have to pay. The administrative nightmare (collecting the fee and policing the offenders) that this policy will produce far outweigh the amount of revenue the TB will bring in.



Have you read the policy?  only applicable where there is a local market for parking.  So, if you work on a major remote base (Cold Lake, Petawawa etc) there is no local market, therefore no fee.

On the other hand, Ottawa has folks spread all over the city, often in buildings with pay parking that is subsidized by the Crown - which is then allocated on some arcane system based on years of service / knowing someone.  New rules will eliminate the subsidy and everyone will pay the market rate.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jan 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Have you read the policy?  only applicable where there is a local market for parking.  So, if you work on a major remote base (Cold Lake, Petawawa etc) there is no local market, therefore no fee.
> 
> On the other hand, Ottawa has folks spread all over the city, often in buildings with pay parking that is subsidized by the Crown - which is then allocated on some arcane system based on years of service / knowing someone.  New rules will eliminate the subsidy and everyone will pay the market rate.



No I have not read the policy, just my opinion on the way the TB works. I also remember that this issue came up about 10 years ago and it died a quick death. I wonder what the local market is in Regina becasue if they decide to charge us parking here, there is a free parking across the street.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Jan 2011)

This policy enforced in Winnipeg sometime in the early 90's (???). You had to pay to park around the two armories and the stone frigate, but not on the base. Chippawa had the real problem as it is in downtown Wpg. Do not know how the policy related to CFRC in downtown Wpg.
Everyone then parked on the street, and the policy was redressed by the SSO of the Mil Dist. Policy was lifted, don't know why, after six months or so.


----------



## mariomike (24 Jan 2011)

In 1995 CRA said that “scramble parking” — when there are more employees than spots — was not taxable. Now it appears that CRA is interpreting the rules to say that scramble parking is a taxable benefit if it is in a “fixed, controlled” setting. 
I was back taxed for thousands of dollars because of that decision. Fortunately, my employer took care of it. But, the police may not be so fortunate:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/09/20/15426286.html


----------



## karl28 (24 Jan 2011)

So sadly this will probably be another form of tax grab . I still say this is a bad idea no one should have to pay to park there cars when they go to work .
        If that is the case can I send my gas bill to my employer for my car because driving to work is 90 % of my gas bill each month .


----------



## Pat in Halifax (24 Jan 2011)

karl28 said:
			
		

> So would they be charging you for parking out side the base or in it ? IF its in the base than that's a load of crap .  If I where you guys I would be checking this one out and following it very closely .   *I don't think any Employer should be able to charge there employees parking fees for them to come to work * .  If my boss did that at the Long Term Care Facility where I work I would tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine .


As much as I agree with you fully, sadly, this is true more oft than not. My wife works at QE II in Halifax (26+ years seniority) and the employees not only pay but pay full rate - The same as you would if you found yourself at the hospital all day. The only exception to this are on-call MDs staying on site. As far as I know, this is the norm rather than the exception.
As for Halifax (and I can only speak for there), at the meetings, we were told that this WILL happen and Phase One was implemented already. What I had heard a little over a year ago by someone seemingly in the know (would rather not say who) was that you would actually not pay out of pocket but would pay the equivalent extra on your income tax as a taxable benefit (ie: $60/month at 23% tax rate equals roughly $12/month extra in income tax) Again, I never heard this idea again, just that once. I know many Visitor spots are now reduced to one hour visitor so even if you are on TD working somewhere, you will pay to park your rental.
I am sure there are abuses everywhere but right now, working in Ottawa, I don't think there are any locations????
Will the Politicians have to start paying to park their tax payer leased vehicles (or taxpayer funded chauffeured limos) now too?


----------



## mariomike (24 Jan 2011)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Will the Politicians have to start paying to park their tax payer leased vehicles (or taxpayer funded chauffeured limos) now too?



If an employee is required on average 3 or more days per week to use a vehicle in the performance of his or her job, parking is not a taxable benefit.

Edit to add: CRA parking Q and A:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/tmbl/prkng-eng.html


----------



## Pat in Halifax (24 Jan 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If an employee is required on average 3 or more days per week to use a vehicle in the performance of his or her job, parking is not a taxable benefit.


Fair enough but 'getting back and forth to work' by PMV or leased or chauffeured vehicle is NOT a requirement to perform their duties(I am speaking of politicians here). I have been in Ottawa now over 2 months, no car and have missed no appointments at any of the multitude of locations here.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jan 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hey would have heard this on ATV (CTV Atlantic) News so it may be a story out of Ottawa but was sure he said all across the country!



It aired on ATV last week with Steve Murphy interviewing Peter Stauffer.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jan 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> It aired on ATV last week with Steve Murphy interviewing Peter Stauffer.



Rgr! Thanks!

Still I support it!


----------



## mariomike (24 Jan 2011)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Fair enough but 'getting back and forth to work' by PMV or leased or chauffeured vehicle is NOT a requirement to perform their duties(I am speaking of politicians here).



You are right. 
More on "business purposes":
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/tmbl/prkng/dfntns-eng.html#buspurp


----------



## Pat in Halifax (24 Jan 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> It aired on ATV last week with Steve Murphy interviewing Peter Stauffer.


Saw that. I thought Mr Stauffer could have prepared himself a little better but hey, he is supporting the cause.


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Jan 2011)

Yeah, but he's NDP....


----------



## Navalsnpr (24 Jan 2011)

Last I heard was that only 'Reserved' Parking Spaces were required to pay, all others would be as per the current arrangement. Time will tell, we will all see 01 Apr!!


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Jan 2011)

Well, 

Really ya never know....I mean wierder things can happen than parking fees....for example, I'm going to be a Radar tech....

NS


----------



## Occam (24 Jan 2011)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Really ya never know....I mean wierder things can happen than parking fees....for example, I'm going to be a Radar tech....



When are you scheduled for the lobotomy?   

On the topic at hand, I'm pretty sure I've seen a policy document on the parking fees issue, I'll see what I can dig up at work tomorrow.


----------



## McG (25 Jan 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This all came up because Treasury Board does not like to give out things for free and that if the civil service in Ottawa has to pay for parking then all of civil servants throughout Canada must pay.


No.  TB has a policy of not undercutting local economies.  If the CF has a location in a major city and there is a significant pay-parking market, then that location will be expected to charge at comparable local market rates.  For bases & facilities in locations with no comercial parking alternative, there will be no costs for parking.  This has nothing to do with the PS in Ottawa sticking-it to the rest of the country.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> dapaterson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unless you want to come across as an idiot, do not missrepresent your opinion as fact.  The same is true of falsely presenting your hypothisis as the actual cause for and mechanisims of CF/DND administrative activities.

Some things may be stupid or unpleasant.  Unless you are prepaired to do your homework, leave your commentary to speculating on the stupid and affirming the unpleasant.


----------



## FSTO (27 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  TB has a policy of not undercutting local economies.  If the CF has a location in a major city and there is a significant pay-parking market, then that location will be expected to charge at comparable local market rates.  For bases & facilities in locations with no comercial parking alternative, there will be no costs for parking.  This has nothing to do with the PS in Ottawa sticking-it to the rest of the country.
> No I have not read the policy, just my opinion on the way the TB works. Unless you want to come across as an idiot, do not missrepresent your opinion as fact.  The same is true of falsely presenting your hypothisis as the actual cause for and mechanisims of CF/DND administrative activities.
> 
> Some things may be stupid or unpleasant.  Unless you are prepaired to do your homework, leave your commentary to speculating on the stupid and affirming the unpleasant.



You do realize that this is an unofficial forum where people from all walks of life come here to ask questions, comment on policy and generally have a conversation with other folks with common interests. If my comments regarding the souless bloodsucking vampires at Treasury Board, PWGSC or other mandarins sitting in Ottawa making decisions that in my opinion do more to annoy than assist, offend you then put me on your ignore list.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (27 Jan 2011)

Here Here!!
I just got up here-Does that make me one of those "mandarins"!


----------



## FSTO (27 Jan 2011)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Here Here!!
> I just got up here-Does that make me one of those "mandarins"!


Not yet, I think you have at least one reporting period before you become a member of the collective.  ;D


----------



## McG (27 Jan 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> You do realize that this is an unofficial forum where people from all walks of life come here to ask questions, comment on policy and generally have a conversation with other folks with common interests. If my comments regarding the souless bloodsucking vampires at Treasury Board, PWGSC or other mandarins sitting in Ottawa making decisions that in my opinion do more to annoy than assist, offend you then put me on your ignore list.


FSTO,
Lets be clear, your comments were far more than opinion.  You misrepresented your imagination as fact.  You came off as someone who needs to hear himself speak even when he does not know what is going on, and you lied to the boards.  You may choose to plead ignorance v.s. a lie, but either way your comments don't sit cleanly with the site guidelines:





			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> You will not post any material which is knowingly false.





			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> We've had a few instances lately where opinion and rumour have been presented as hard evidence. Unfortunately in many cases, the information is flat out wrong.
> 
> ... If you base your opinions off of hearsay and rumour, be prepared to be called to task when you use up bandwidth on this board to tell us about it.
> 
> ...


Dislike of a policy/directive/order is not licence to ignore the above and spread misinformation to garner support for your dislike.


----------



## FSTO (27 Jan 2011)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This all came up because  *_________ *  Treasury Board does not like to give out things for free and that if the civil service in Ottawa has to pay for parking then all of civil servants throughout Canada must pay. So with this reasoning not only will soldiers at CFB Wainwright will have to pay for parking, Parks Canada employees at Riding Mountain National Park (West Central Manitoba) will also have to pay. The administrative nightmare (collecting the fee and policing the offenders) that this policy will produce far outweigh the amount of revenue the TB will bring in.



To MCG, I should have said, "In my opinion". There is that better?


----------



## McG (27 Jan 2011)

Yes, that would have made all the difference in the world.

Cheers.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Jan 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> This policy enforced in Winnipeg sometime in the early 90's (???). You had to pay to park around the two armories and the stone frigate, but not on the base. Chippawa had the real problem as it is in downtown Wpg. Do not know how the policy related to CFRC in downtown Wpg.
> Everyone then parked on the street, and the policy was redressed by the SSO of the Mil Dist. Policy was lifted, don't know why, after six months or so.



Chippewa now has an arrangement with the city parking authority. Free parking only on parade/duty nights after 1800, and only with a pass in the lots beside and across from the unit. There are some limited spots around the building for other times. Notwithstanding, there's street parking further afield. I can't speak about the armouries or CFRC.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Jan 2011)

I personally feel the whole idea of charging soldiers to park at work is flat-out wrong and just another example of how the government has foregone on its agreement to unlimited liability.   Soldiering is not the civil service and we should not be treated as such. "Disclaimer"  This is my opinion  :nod:


----------



## Sub_Guy (27 Jan 2011)

You won't be paying for parking in Petawawa, or Greenwood, but you will probably be paying for parking in Halifax and other urban areas. 

Parking Charges 
Employee parking shall be provided at fair market value unless otherwise authorized by the Deputy Minister. * Where there is no fair market value, there will be no charge. *  Where the fair market value has not yet been determined, there will be no change to any current charges.

What is the fair market value for parking at Wainwright?  Petawawa? Greenwood? Gagetown?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Jan 2011)

How it was explained to us is if you have an assigned spot you pay....if your in general parking you do not. I am sure it will change and be rewritten 80 more times before they make a final decision.


----------



## Stoker (7 Mar 2011)

I saw a HALGEN that came out concerning parking today. Pers in designated parking will pay come 1st April. I believe the rates are $65 for stad and dockyard, $85 for Artillery Park, $75 for Armouries and $30 for NAD. Scramble parking is no charge and the parking at the fleetclub except for the patron area is now scramble parking.I believe that several areas of the dockyard, the qualifying number of years have gone down to 12 vice 13. That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Mar 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I saw a HALGEN that came out concerning parking today. Pers in designated parking will pay come 1st April. I believe the rates are $65 for stad and dockyard, $85 for Artillery Park, $75 for Armouries and $30 for NAD. Scramble parking is no charge and the parking at the fleetclub except for the patron area is now scramble parking.I believe that several areas of the dockyard, the qualifying number of years have gone down to 12 vice 13. That's it in a nutshell.



Here is a question....what does CFB Halifax intend to do with the influx of cash?


----------



## Stoker (7 Mar 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Here is a question....what does CFB Halifax intend to do with the influx of cash?



I assume it goes to the receiver general or something to that effect.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Mar 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I assume it goes to the receiver general or something to that effect.



Maybe they should get a proper contract for someone to plow out the parking lots after it snows....because whomever does it now could not remove snow to save their life.


----------



## stokerwes (20 May 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I saw a HALGEN that came out concerning parking today. Pers in designated parking will pay come 1st April. I believe the rates are $65 for stad and dockyard, $85 for Artillery Park, $75 for Armouries and $30 for NAD. Scramble parking is no charge and the parking at the fleetclub except for the patron area is now scramble parking.I believe that several areas of the dockyard, the qualifying number of years have gone down to 12 vice 13. That's it in a nutshell.


Just tried to park in Stad in an unmarked "general parking" spot. The comminionare came running out of the building by the parking spot and said "You can't park there it is the Commodores spot" I asked him how I was supposed to know this as it wasn't reserved or marked with a sign. While I was at a briefing in this building people came in several times to ask if anyone owns a car that is parked in the Commodores spot? My question is that if this spot is reserved for a certain person are they paying for it? Seeing as it would fall under assigned parking. Or is this a workaround to that rule by just having to building security people tell everyone the spot is reserved. I know that the senior officer whose spot this is would not agree with this work around if that is the case.


----------



## Stoker (20 May 2011)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> Just tried to park in Stad in an unmarked "general parking" spot. The comminionare came running out of the building by the parking spot and said "You can't park there it is the Commodores spot" I asked him how I was supposed to know this as it wasn't reserved or marked with a sign. While I was at a briefing in this building people came in several times to ask if anyone owns a car that is parked in the Commodores spot? My question is that if this spot is reserved for a certain person are they paying for it? Seeing as it would fall under assigned parking. Or is this a workaround to that rule by just having to building security people tell everyone the spot is reserved. I know that the senior officer whose spot this is would not agree with this work around if that is the case.



It should be marked as reserved. I think this is a case where a spot was a temporary reserved spot for the Comodore for a meeting or something not on a permanent basis. If the Comodore has a designated spot which I doubt, because he usually has a driver and a staff car then I think he has to pay for it. Anyway the spot should of been marked.


----------



## kratz (14 Jul 2014)

Paying $85 monthly for a spot in the dockyard that is not assinged,
is effectivly a loss in pay between 1.2% - 2% depending on rank and trade.

Pay to store your vehicle at NAD while on deployment will cost.

As noted, volunteers having to pay to park.
What about loved ones when the ships return alongside?

ref: Choronicle Herald



> Feds to begin charging for parking on DND bases
> 
> DAN ARSENAULT STAFF REPORTER
> Published July 14, 2014 - 3:09pm
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2014)

Taxpayers paid for the parking lot.   Paying to park on it too is fuckin ridiculous.


----------



## Tibbson (14 Jul 2014)

I cant help but wonder if this will be factored into PLD?

Oh, silly me.  They would probably opt to s**tcan that program too.  I'll probably earmore at Walmart AND get free parking too.  Their uniforms fit better at least but I dont want to coopt another thread.


----------



## kratz (14 Jul 2014)

The way this news report reads, anyone in and around the MFRC would also have to pay and display:
- people shopping at the CANEX
- players / visitors at the Curling Club
- People visiting the JPSU
- Members of the base auto club

Yes, not all of the answers have been published yet. But if MFRC volunteers 
have to pay, what about these other groups parking in the same area?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I cant help but wonder if this will be factored into PLD?



Halifax is apparently already at an inflated PLD rate, maybe this is a way to offset that without dropping PLD?  >


----------



## Tibbson (14 Jul 2014)

I work at an off base location where I have (luckily) access to free larking outside of military control...unless they try to order the city to put a parking meter in my brothers driveway two blocks from my offfice.  My biggest concerns are parking at the gym and BHosp. I imagine those will be pay for use but I cant get an anser yet.  I cant avoid going to the BHosp when needed but if I have to pay each day to park at the gym at Stad I'll save my money and make use of my family YMCA membership.  I'm already paying for the membership, the parking is free AND the YMCA at least fixes their broken equipment.

I czn imagine a serious rise in MTEC  claims too when my clerks and/or Commisionaires need to go to Stad to pick up files or other items.  They used to coord their trips and use POMV without complaint but I can see that changing.


----------



## kratz (14 Jul 2014)

or the use of Base Taxi calls will spike, until they restrict the rules / hours using the base taxi again.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Jul 2014)

> In an interview Monday, CFB Halifax spokesman Mike Bonin said the decision was not made by military leaders.
> 
> “It’s all based on Treasury Board and Canada Revenue Agency requirements and fair market value. The reality is government regulations are stating that it’s a taxable benefit for us and we need to pay to park.”


 
Yah but they sure put up a big fight didn't they  :

If Hillier was CDS would he have taken this?

What a joke!


----------



## Transporter (14 Jul 2014)

To many in TB, we're just regular public servants like all the others. Why should we be treated any differently and given extravagant perks like free parking? That's just un-Canadian.

Start adding up the benefits/allowances we've lost and the increases in contributions we've been forced to pay over the past 6-7 years and you might surprise yourself. It's been a gradual but constant chipping-away of overall compensation.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Jul 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> To many in TB, we're just regular public servants like all the others. Why should we be treated any differently and given extravagant perks like free parking? That's just un-Canadian.
> 
> Start adding up the benefits/allowances we've lost and the increases in contributions we've been forced to pay over the past 6-7 years and you might surprise yourself. It's been a gradual but constant chipping-away of overall compensation.



The treasury board can put a foot up their fourth point of contact.  Also, I am well aware of the increase in contributions/loss of benefits and allowances.  I have been promoted through three different rank levels over the past four years and the difference in my pay is negligible and we wonder why guys are jumping ship for the oil fields out west.


----------



## Tibbson (14 Jul 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Yah but they sure put up a big fight didn't they  :
> 
> If Hillier was CDS would he have taken this?
> 
> What a joke!



As I understand it, its not as though DND had a choice.


----------



## Tibbson (14 Jul 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> To many in TB, we're just regular public servants like all the others. Why should we be treated any differently and given extravagant perks like free parking? That's just un-Canadian.
> 
> Start adding up the benefits/allowances we've lost and the increases in contributions we've been forced to pay over the past 6-7 years and you might surprise yourself. It's been a gradual but constant chipping-away of overall compensation.



My boss refers to it as "FRP 2.0".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> As I understand it, its not as though DND had a choice.



That wasn't my point... my point was nobody is willing to put themselves on the firing line to stand up for anything anymore.  We aren't civil servants, regardless of what some in the TB may believe.  Whatever happened to unlimited liability?  



			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> My boss refers to it as "FRP 2.0".



Your boss isn't far off


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2014)

No more free parking relates how, exactly, to unlimited liability?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Jul 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No more free parking relates how, exactly, to unlimited liability?



It fits into the bigger picture of the continued loss of benefits which Transporter alluded to.  If I am going to be treated like every other civil servant then why should I be willing to take a bullet for Joe Canuck/The Government of Canada?


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jul 2014)

Parking on Bases should not fall into the same category as parking in city lots in metropolitan areas.  Why should a CAF member pay for parking on bases like Halifax, Esquimalt, Greenwood, Shearwater, Petawawa, Shilo, Cold Lake, and on and on?

Most of bases are well removed from large metropolitan areas and their parking, even if limited, is restricted to DND and CAF employees/members.  In many cases, those lots are not paved.

Shopping Centers/Malls have large tracts of parking lots and do not charge fees.

Large industries have large parking lots and do not charge fees.

Large Provincial and National Parks have parking lots and charge no fees other than Park entrance fees.


Why does TB now feel that a CAF base is any different?  

This opens up the need to address this to Taxation Canada as to become a claim on Income Tax.  Revenue brought in by TB paid back by Revenue Canada.

Can anyone foresee a rash of cars being parked on the side of the roads/streets outside of military bases?


----------



## Ostrozac (14 Jul 2014)

What bothers me about the implementation of pay parking in Halifax is that, according to the article, Single Living-In are going to be required to pay for parking at their quarters. That bugs me. Rates for single quarters are supposed to be set nationally, and that's the rationale for pers in single quarters not receiving PLD. If a soldier in Shilo lives in and gets free parking, and a soldier in Halifax lives in and has to pay for parking, that strikes me as unfair.

As to whether Halifax should be paying for parking -- lots of locations in Ottawa have been doing this for years, so it's not a new concept, just new to Halifax. Has this been rolled out yet in any of our other "urban" bases -- Valcartier, Winnipeg, Esquimalt, Edmonton?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Jul 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> What bothers me about the implementation of pay parking in Halifax is that, according to the article, Single Living-In are going to be required to pay for parking at their quarters. That bugs me. Rates for single quarters are supposed to be set nationally, and that's the rationale for pers in single quarters not receiving PLD. If a soldier in Shilo lives in and gets free parking, and a soldier in Halifax lives in and has to pay for parking, that strikes me as unfair.
> 
> As to whether Halifax should be paying for parking -- lots of locations in Ottawa have been doing this for years, so it's not a new concept, just new to Halifax. Has this been rolled out yet in any of our other "urban" bases -- Valcartier, Winnipeg, Esquimalt, Edmonton?



Yes because the rest of the military should seek to emulate Ottawa.... if that's the case then, I am not going to do any PT for the rest of my career, order DEU pants with a 52 inch waist, refuse to apply any sort of polish to my foot wear or iron my uniform, and never smile ever again!  Will all be better off for it!


----------



## Strike (15 Jul 2014)

Question - do guys working at the staff college in Toronto have to pay for parking?

How about people working at recruiting centres?  Sure, they aren't necessarily operational postings like working at the dockyard might be, but still members of the CF.  Are reservists going to have to pay now too when they go to their parade nights?

what strikes me with the Halifax situation, is that it is prime real estate for parking in general.  So, what's to stop Joe Blo going to the casino from parking there?  And an even bigger question is, who gets the money?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (15 Jul 2014)

Well, they do have to make up for the budget cuts somehow...


----------



## Old EO Tech (15 Jul 2014)

Strike said:
			
		

> Question - do guys working at the staff college in Toronto have to pay for parking?
> 
> How about people working at recruiting centres?  Sure, they aren't necessarily operational postings like working at the dockyard might be, but still members of the CF.  Are reservists going to have to pay now too when they go to their parade nights?
> 
> what strikes me with the Halifax situation, is that it is prime real estate for parking in general.  So, what's to stop Joe Blo going to the casino from parking there?  And an even bigger question is, who gets the money?



Good questions, there has to be a local rate for public parking for TB to state DND has to follow suite.  For instance while DND locations in downtown Ottawa or Gatineau have rates, Uplands and Letrim to not as there is no public rate in the area.  But yes Recruit Centres in large cities should have rates as should Reserve Armouries in larger cities.  Though I'm not aware if those two instances are being enforced yet.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jul 2014)

Yes, Halifax Armouries and RA Park are getting dinged too.  Higher rates than the Dockyard.  I could "live" with this decision easier if they were to implement it in the same manner as is done for employees at Halifax International Airport (the same lame excuse was given there too a year or two ago).  They are not out of pocket per se, what they have attached to their T4 is a $25/mo taxable benefit.  I would be happier to pay a taxable benefit of $45/75 a month at the end of the year than to get screwed the whole amount all year long.  

I can't wait to see how much they are going to screw everyone for visitor parking.  Those rates have not been announced yet.  I bet they're going to be outrageous.


----------



## DAA (15 Jul 2014)

This has actually been in the works for quite sometime now and the original intent of these changes, was to include "ALL" CF Military locations right across Canada.  I'll try to track down the original Wng O but I believe it was issued a couple years ago.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jul 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> This has actually been in the works for quite sometime now and the original intent of these changes, was to include "ALL" CF Military locations right across Canada.  I'll try to track down the original Wng O but I believe it was issued a couple years ago.



I recall seeing something like that as well.


----------



## acen (15 Jul 2014)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Good questions, there has to be a local rate for public parking for TB to state DND has to follow suite.  For instance while DND locations in downtown Ottawa or Gatineau have rates, Uplands and Letrim to not as there is no public rate in the area.  But yes Recruit Centres in large cities should have rates as should Reserve Armouries in larger cities.  Though I'm not aware if those two instances are being enforced yet.



Thankfully not in force at Cartier Square Drill Hall in downtown Ottawa yet. To be fair though, it's where many important people from NDHQ park, and the only time feathers are ruffled are when someone of stature can't find a spot. The only time it's really frustrating is when those of us who work at the drill hall can't find parking on a thursday night in the winter because the civvies are all using it as an access point to the Rideau Canal Skateway.

Vehicle registration/parking pass is one thing (to ensure proper use of the area), but paying for parking is another beast. My civvie employment is for the federal government and the parking rates are anywhere from 75$ to 95$/month at a building that is far removed from the downtown core and right next to a shopping centre with thousands of free parking spaces. If the space is leased, fine, but if it is DND property, have a vehicle registration.


----------



## DAA (15 Jul 2014)

For your reading pleasure (DWAN Access ONLY)

D Fin Svcs Policy Review  -  http://admfincs.mil.ca/comptsec/dfc-cfcd/meetings-reunions/2011-06-14/p1_e.pdf

Halifax B Comd Notification  -  http://halifax.mil.ca/CFBHalifax/BCOMD/documents/parking/CFB%20HALIFAX%20PARKING%20POLICY%20CHANGE.pdf

Also, see DAOD 1004-0 and 1004-1.

It all boils down to "Fair Market Value" and "Taxable Benefits".


----------



## Crispy Bacon (15 Jul 2014)

Strike said:
			
		

> Are reservists going to have to pay now too when they go to their parade nights?



Two units in Ottawa have been ticketing and/or towing members' vehicles (either through the MPs or the City of Ottawa bylaw enforcement or both) if they park at the drill hall without paying for years now. As you can imagine, attendance is down.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> As to whether Halifax should be paying for parking -- lots of locations in Ottawa have been doing this for years, so it's not a new concept, just new to Halifax.



Actually, that statement is not clear.  This is a recent development in Ottawa, only within the last five years.

The points about the Single Living-in personnel are a valid point.  If they should have to pay for parking, that should be a parking pass issued as part of their fees paid for Quarters; exactly like those paid by any other person who lives in an apartment or condo.  Is this policy going to get out of hand to the extent that those living in PMQs will also have to pay for parking?

In the last five decades or so, with the changes in our society, we have seen more and more military personnel moving out of Single Quarters and PMQs and living on the economy.  Many Bases have demolished Single Quarters and PMQs in the process.  Are we going to see more and more of these 'housing' lots turned into parking lots to facilitate all those who live off base and commute?


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, that statement is not clear.  This is a recent development in Ottawa, only within the last five years.



Really?  Because I was posted to Ottawa more than five years ago and paid for parking at NDMC.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Really?  Because I was posted to Ottawa more than five years ago and paid for parking at NDMC.



It was in that timeframe that it started.  It was free parking when I started there in 2005 through to about 2008/2009.  Parking fees started at NDMC around 2009/2010.

(I have merged the Parking in Ottawa/Montfort threads to this one, which started in 2008.)


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Jul 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Yes because the rest of the military should seek to emulate Ottawa.... if that's the case then, I am not going to do any PT for the rest of my career, order DEU pants with a 52 inch waist, refuse to apply any sort of polish to my foot wear or iron my uniform, and never smile ever again!  Will all be better off for it!



Probably get a warning for this but go fuck yourself you self-rightous prick.  You are setting an awesome example by painting an entire org with a broad brush.  Every unit, even yours, has people like you have just described.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

When did free parking suddenly become an entitlement? 

TB guidelines and CRA policies on taxable benefits have been in place for quite some time.  Some organisations either ignored them for years or didn't think it applied to them.  DND and the CF are some of the worst offenders when it comes to those policies and we sit there and complain when it's time to pay the piper after years of getting a free ride. 

Citing unlimited liability, serving Canada and the ghost of Rick Hillier does nothing but make us all look like a bunch of entitled spoiled children...


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Parking fees started at NDMC around 2009/2010.



A tad nit-picky, but I was posted to Ottawa in 2008, and we paid at NDMC.  So I think your dates are a little off.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> A tad nit-picky, but I was posted to Ottawa in 2008, and we paid at NDMC.  So I think your dates are a little off.



 ;D  

Not really a date that I burned into my memories.  I won't quibble over a year or two.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> When did free parking suddenly become an entitlement?
> 
> TB guidelines and CRA policies on taxable benefits have been in place for quite some time.  Some organisations either ignored them for years or didn't think it applied to them.  DND and the CF are some of the worst offenders when it comes to those policies and we sit there and complain when it's time to pay the piper after years of getting a free ride.
> 
> Citing unlimited liability, serving Canada and the ghost of Rick Hillier does nothing but make us all look like a bunch of entitled spoiled children...



Citing unlimited liability was really grasping at straws.  However, when did parking suddenly become such an revenue generating necessity of the Government.  That is BS.  That is just another form of Taxation.  Next we will have to start paying to access to get into our offices through turnstiles.  Seriously, what employer charges their employees fees to come to work?  Is this in fact some sort of "Leftie Green plot" to cut down on Green House Gases?  (That may not be grasping at straws as ridiculous as it sounds.)  This TB policy is really ridiculous in its application to ALL DND and CAF installations/locations.


----------



## Transporter (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> When did free parking suddenly become an entitlement?
> 
> TB guidelines and CRA policies on taxable benefits have been in place for quite some time.  Some organisations either ignored them for years or didn't think it applied to them.  DND and the CF are some of the worst offenders when it comes to those policies and we sit there and complain when it's time to pay the piper after years of getting a free ride.
> 
> Citing unlimited liability, serving Canada and the ghost of Rick Hillier does nothing but make us all look like a bunch of entitled spoiled children...



Wow.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Citing unlimited liability was really grasping at straws.  However, when did parking suddenly become such an revenue generating necessity of the Government.  That is BS.  That is just another form of Taxation.  Next we will have to start paying to access to get into our offices through turnstiles.  Seriously, what employer charges their employees fees to come to work?  Is this in fact some sort of "Leftie Green plot" to cut down on Green House Gases?  (That may not be grasping at straws as ridiculous as it sounds.)  This TB policy is really ridiculous in its application to ALL DND and CAF installations/locations.



Sorry george but under the FAA and Income Tax act, those are the rules.  Rules that we fall under.  Yes it is a form of taxation.  If you are provided with free parking that meets CRA's definition you have to pay tax on that.  Employers may not charge for parking (some do) and if the parking is viewed as a benifit it has to provide the taxable info on that.  And it has been around for a while.  And it does not apply to all DND and CAF locations.  The fact is that TB and CRA have decided it's time to apply the rukes we were always subject to.  Just be lucky they haven't asked for retroactive payment on it.

This is a good article that explains the policy as it applies to ALL Canadians.

 http://www.cbj.ca/features/may_12_features/employer-provided_parking_when_is_it_a_taxable_benefit_to_the_em.html


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sorry george but under the FAA and Income Tax act, those are the rules.  Rules that we fall under.  Yes it is a form of taxation.  If you are provided with free parking that meets CRA's definition you have to pay tax on that.  Employers may not charge for parking (some do) and if the parking is viewed as a benifit it has to provide the taxable info on that.  And it has been around for a while.  And it does not apply to all DND and CAF locations.  The fact is that TB and CRA have decided it's time to apply the rukes we were always subject to.  Just be lucky they haven't asked for retroactive payment on it.
> 
> This is a good article that explains the policy as it applies to ALL Canadians.
> 
> http://www.cbj.ca/features/may_12_features/employer-provided_parking_when_is_it_a_taxable_benefit_to_the_em.html



I still say it is BS.  How long before they decide that the building that you work in is the same as the parking lot; a benefit?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> This is a good article that explains the policy as it applies to ALL Canadians.
> 
> http://www.cbj.ca/features/may_12_features/employer-provided_parking_when_is_it_a_taxable_benefit_to_the_em.html





> If the employee is considered to have received a taxable benefit, the employee will be taxed to the extent that the value of the benefit exceeds the amount the employee paid, if any, to the employer for the parking.  The employee will also be assessed for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) contributions and employment insurance (EI) premiums on the benefit amount to the extent that the employee has not otherwise paid the maximum CPP and EI amounts for the year.
> 
> Similarly, the employer may also be assessed for employer CPP contributions and EI premiums on the amount of the benefit where it has not otherwise paid the maximum amounts for that employee for the year. Finally, GST/HST may apply to the amount of the benefit.
> 
> ...




What that leaves out is the costs incurred by the employee in their transportation to and from work, either the use of Public Transportation or private owned motor vehicle.   It is a form of DOUBLE TAXATION.  Employees must pay taxes on their Transit Tickets, Fuel, Vehicle Repairs and Maintenance, Tolls on Roads/Highways, etc.  This rules are flawed and go towards encouraging us to become more and more a WELFARE State.  Again, how long will it be before the employee is charged more to work than to collect Social Assistance?

This to me, tells me that many of our Senior Bureaucrats and Law Courts have lost touch with reality.  Makes me wonder, if in the days before the automobile, if a Federal worker was charged to hitch their horse up to a rail outside their Government office?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Jul 2014)

Here is another quote from the article Crantor cited:

"As a practical matter, the CRA considers the fair market value of employer-provided parking to be nil where the employer’s business operates from a shopping centre or industrial park where parking is available for free to both employees and non-employees."

I would surmise that 99% of the Army bases can be considered "industrial park" (large facilities located outside of normal residential areas, with large amount of room available and limited transit availability, which by necessity need to draw their employees from far and wide in the area.) and have parking available free to all comers, unless a formal decision to the contrary is made by the CoC.

The Air Force bases are in the same situation.

This leaves the Navy, which unfortunately has its two main bases located in urban settings with reasonable transit available. Many members, however, would qualify for exemption under the parking required for the benefit of the employer rule.

This said, however, what is required is not to make parking on such military facilities payable through fees, but to assess the value of the taxable benefit for tax purposes.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

While it is Taxation it isn't double taxation.  You are taxed on that specific benefit.  While I may be taxed on the fuel, tolls and road those are specific.  Transport to and from work, listed in that article is not considered a benefit to the employer by CRA.  That's all personal use.  How I get to work and where I come from isn't the employer's problem.

If your location falls under the rules, then you either pay for parking (no benefit) or parking gets provided (taxable benefit with all the consequences that that entails)

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/menu-eng.html


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Whatever the rules, I still think it is morally wrong for an employer to charge an employee any fees to have the privilege to work for them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Jul 2014)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Probably get a warning for this but go frig yourself you self-rightous prick.  You are setting an awesome example by painting an entire org with a broad brush.  Every unit, even yours, has people like you have just described.



Sorry the truth hurts so bad  :'( 

If you are saying that my unit has people that don't have enough pride or discipline to polish their boots, iron their uniform or look after their health then I would unfortunately have to agree with you.  Not something I really want to emulate though.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whatever the rules, I still think it is morally wrong for an employer to charge an employee any fees to have the privilege to work for them.



I agree George, it tells me that the company doesn't really value me as an employee.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whatever the rules, I still think it is morally wrong for an employer to charge an employee any fees to have the privilege to work for them.



Playing devil's advocate again, but how is paying for parking considered a fee to work for someone?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2014)

So, the local armoury here is twined with the city police training establishment. The property is owned by the city and leased by DND for the military portion. It has a common parking lot for military, police functions, civic and community events.It is not on a bus route (during evening hours). Parking is free, first come, first parked.How is TB going to tell the City that everyone can park in the parking lot for free.

Oh, except for Reservists, you'll have to charge them for parking but anyone else is good to go.

If you try apply the prices in this thread, many Reservists will be working for almost free.

And that will only last for a couple of months before the NES letters start going out and kit starts getting turned in.

In many cases, they are already treated like a pariah this will only serve to alienate them that much more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2014)

RoyalDrew and AmmoTech90, please take your discussion to PM. It has nothing to do with the parking thread.

---Staff---


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Playing devil's advocate again, but how is paying for parking considered a fee to work for someone?



What would you call it?


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What would you call it?



You answered the question with a question.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, the local armoury here is twined with the city police training establishment. The property is owned by the city and leased by DND for the military portion. It has a common parking lot for military, police functions, civic and community events.It is not on a bus route (during evening hours). Parking is free, first come, first parked.How is TB going to tell the City that everyone can park in the parking lot for free.
> 
> Oh, except for Reservists, you'll have to charge them for parking but anyone else is good to go.
> 
> ...



Scramble parking is a different issue and is exempt from being a taxable benefit.  Reservists would most likely be considered irregular work thus exempt as well.  Again, not every area of work is subject to this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> When did free parking suddenly become an entitlement?
> 
> TB guidelines and CRA policies on taxable benefits have been in place for quite some time.  Some organisations either ignored them for years or didn't think it applied to them.  DND and the CF are some of the worst offenders when it comes to those policies and we sit there and complain when it's time to pay the piper after years of getting a free ride.
> 
> Citing unlimited liability, serving Canada and the ghost of Rick Hillier does nothing but make us all look like a bunch of entitled spoiled children...



I'm one of the people who have to, respectfully (this isn't worth  :slapfight: over to me), say I disagree.  Taxpayers, including me, have paid for any/all "public" parking lots and buildings.  Why should I then have to pay to park there?  This Fair Market Value stuff is BS.  It's just a means to charge more for PMQs then they are ACTUALLY worth, and to make $ having people pay to park on parking lots their very own tax dollars pay for.  And that makes sense how?

Just another method of picking pockets.  Jacob and Ebenezer would be proud.

Yup, things are being chipped away, and morale and GAFF will go with it.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

Well I've provided the links as to what situation applies to what, when it's a taxable benefit and when it isn't.  Free parking for everyone is never going to happen.  Where do we limit it then? Free bus passes? Free daycare? Free razors and free dry cleaning. 

I will admit that not every situation is cut and dry but if you work in downtown Halifax and you get free parking it's a benefit that is taxable.  Otherwise you pay like everyone else.  DND has not been following the act that they are subject to and now they've been told to comply.  It was never an entitlement to begin with.  Nothing has been taken away even though it feels that way.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well I've provided the links as to what situation applies to what, when it's a taxable benefit and when it isn't.  Free parking for everyone is never going to happen.  Where do we limit it then? Free bus passes? Free daycare? Free razors and free dry cleaning.
> 
> I will admit that not every situation is cut and dry but if you work in downtown Halifax and you get free parking it's a benefit that is taxable.  Otherwise you pay like everyone else.  DND has not been following the act that they are subject to and now they've been told to comply.  It was never an entitlement to begin with.  Nothing has been taken away even though it feels that way.



Let me see.... Drivers have to pay for their fuel, maintenance and repairs to their vehicles.  Those using Public Transit have to pay for passes.  Those using daycare must pay.....Your point?  Everyone is already paying.....and it is taxed.  Now Drivers have to pay on top of all that and again are taxed.  So I ask you again:  What would you call it, if not a fee for the privilege to work?   

So far you reasoning has not satisfied me, nor many others.


----------



## chrisf (15 Jul 2014)

So will "labelled" spots be charged for parking as well? Will the co have to run out and put change in the meter at his/her spot every four hours?

What boggles me about this, while yes, a great many employees of private industry pay for parking, those who don't aren't charged as if it were a taxable benefit... Hell, I worked for another government department that shall be unnamed, who recently eliminated a large quantity of "long term parking" for folks who worked away for extended periods, at first the response from management was that the federal government doesn't provide parking, however when it was suddenly realized that the folks formerly using that parking were in high demand by private industry and not quickly or easily replaced, accommodations were quickly made...

If it's a problem for any navy folks who are working at stad, the offshore industry may be very interested in your resumes.


----------



## Occam (15 Jul 2014)

Admittedly, I haven't read the entire thread.  That said, I haven't seen here or in the media coverage anything saying where the money will go.  Consolidated Revenue Fund?

Are all government departments going to be subject to this policy?  I find it hard to believe that the Taj Mahal....errrr, I mean new CSIS building will be a pay parking zone.  Could happen, but I'd be surprised.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let me see.... Drivers have to pay for their fuel, maintenance and repairs to their vehicles.  Those using Public Transit have to pay for passes.  Those using daycare must pay.....Your point?  Everyone is already paying.....and it is taxed.  Now Drivers have to pay on top of all that and again are taxed.  So I ask you again:  What would you call it, if not a fee for the privilege to work?
> 
> So far you reasoning has not satisfied me, nor many others.



It's parking. That's what you are paying for.  To park your car.  Not to work.  How you get to work is your own problem not the employer.  Just like having to pay for your own gas to get to work or pay for a shiny bike to do the same, it's part of the cost that you decide to undertake to get to your place of employment. It has a value and if it is provided free of charge, the government sees that as value added for what you are being compensated for.  

If it is such an injustice write to your MP about how unfair it is.  Just make sure that you have a solid point as to why the CF should be exempt when every other Canadian isn't.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> Admittedly, I haven't read the entire thread.  That said, I haven't seen here or in the media coverage anything saying where the money will go.  Consolidated Revenue Fund?
> 
> Are all government departments going to be subject to this policy?  I find it hard to believe that the Taj Mahal....errrr, I mean new CSIS building will be a pay parking zone.  Could happen, but I'd be surprised.



Likely because it is a non topic.  All government departments and all civilian and private industry are all subject to this, it isn't new.  I don't believe that CSIS is subject to the FAA under schedule 1 and 4 but they are still bound by the income tax act  as an employer which is what drives this policy


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Just make sure that you have a solid point as to why the CF should be exempt when every other Canadian isn't.



Sorry, but I don't think this is a CF problem only.  It is a general across the board problem that affect more than DND and CAF employees.  A vague inconspicuous Regulation that sat on the books for ages and was never applied, probably due to some common sense.   Now some "bean counter" who looking for brownie points on how (s)he could shaft the public found it and thought it a good idea to force on all the parking lots of Federal buildings and installations.  No doubt they got a great big honking Christmas bonus.   :


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

George it has been applied to most federal buildings for a while now.  This isn't new nor is it something they just pulled out of their hats.  I had to deal with this exact issue at the CFRC in 2001 when JAG wanted one of our spots for, the JAG and then years later when someone wanted park in one of our spots and we had to change our procedures for scramble parking.  I can also confirm that many departments charged for parking and provided tax info on people's pay for things like staff cars and assigned parking well before that.

It is likely that someone either complained that DND employees were getting a better deal when they weren't or that CRA figured out that DND wasn't compliant.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (15 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Oh, except for Reservists, you'll have to charge them for parking but anyone else is good to go.
> 
> If you try apply the prices in this thread, many Reservists will be working for almost free.
> 
> ...



+1

Parking downtown Ottawa easily runs $12-20.  For a Corporal to make $60 (half day's pay), or $50 after deductions, they're going to pay $20 for parking and spend their "voluntary" evening doing training for a measly $10 per hour?  Acen and I are speaking of the same unit, which is why I find it odd that he's (now) saying there's no issue with parking at the armoury.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> Parking downtown Ottawa easily runs $12-20.  For a Corporal to make $60 (half day's pay), or $50 after deductions, they're going to pay $20 for parking and spending their "voluntary" evening doing training for a measly $10 per hour?  Acen and I are speaking of the same unit, which is why I find it odd that he's (now) saying there's no issue with parking at the armoury.



A bit of clarification is in order, so as to avert total panic.  In the majority of cases, these fees are applied only during daylight working hours.  Most Reservists parade in the evenings when many of those lots are open for free parking.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

You mean the armoury that has free parking at the nearby school, free parking on the the streets in the evening and on weekends? The same armoury that has a deal with city hall to charge 2.50 flat rate as long as you produce mil ID on your designated training night? Assuming you didn't get one of the free spots at the daycare or the drill hall or the 5 min walk from the rideau centre bus station? 

CSDH is likely not a good example of what you are trying to say.  

The real kick is likely the bases in Halifax and esquilmeault which will see a significant expense added to their monthly budget.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

Saw the clarification after I posted but yeah.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

We'll have to see more civilians hired as Commissionaires to be Metermaids.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> You mean the armoury that has free parking at the nearby school,



The school with huge "NO PARKING" signs that tickets and/or tows people who park there?



> free parking on the the streets in the evening and on weekends?



Where?



> The same armoury that has a deal with city hall to charge 2.50 flat rate as long as you produce mil ID on your designated training night?



Never heard of that before.  I could be mistaken, and I hope so.



> Assuming you didn't get one of the free spots at the daycare



The daycare also tickets and/or tows.

Even the Junior Ranks' Mess only has two parking spaces, and they will ticket and/or tow people who park there without receiving a parking pass from the Mess Manager.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It's parking. That's what you are paying for.  To park your car.  Not to work.  How you get to work is your own problem not the employer.  Just like having to pay for your own gas to get to work or pay for a shiny bike to do the same, it's part of the cost that you decide to undertake to get to your place of employment. It has a value and if it is provided free of charge, the government sees that as value added for what you are being compensated for.
> 
> If it is such an injustice write to your MP about how unfair it is.  Just make sure that you have a solid point as to why the CF should be exempt when every other Canadian isn't.



I note you keep bypassing the fact these parking lots are owned and paid for by taxpayers, they are not the same as the downtown parkades like I use sometimes when I go to MEC on Granville.   BIG difference.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> The school with huge "NO PARKING" signs that tickets and/or tows people who park there?
> 
> Where?
> 
> ...



Crispy, the school only tows during school days and hours.  The lot that is chained off has no access but right by the school are dozens of spots that are used every Tuesday and Thursday night and weekends and bosses night so don't give out misleading info.  Yes there are signs but they never tow outside those hours.

The day care is the same thing.  During weekdays 7 to 5 they'll tow.  No one is there after those hours to complain.  Next time you parade look how many cars are parked there.

City of ottawa parking spots on lisgar and Cartier are free evenings and weekends.  

The only people that regularly tow on tues Thursday and weekends are the commissionaires if you take their spot, the mess if you don't register and if park in the fire lane and even then that often gets overlooked.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I note you keep bypassing the fact these parking lots are owned and paid for by taxpayers, they are not the same as the downtown parkades like I use sometimes when I go to MEC on Granville.   BIG difference.



It still has a value.  That's what the tax man wants.  My taxes helped build frank Clair stadium but I still need to pay to get in.  It does not matter if the tax payer pays for it or if it's Telus like in that article, it is still subject to the income tax as it is considered a taxable benefit because of its value.

Your salary still has tax taken off despite you being a taxpayer. Same goes with employer provided parking.

And in fact, many new government leases or ones being renewed are no longer including parking.  The owners are free to charge but the government is getting out of that because of the tax implications.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jul 2014)

Then let me opt out of paying to build them. 8)

regardless, its getting the shaft and being asked to smile about it.   Like I said, Jacob and Ebenezer would be proud.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Then let me opt out of psying to build them. 8)



Hey, I'd love to opt out of union dues, school taxes and paying fees to go fishing but I doubt I'll get my wish. 

My points are this: this is a CRA, income tax act thing that has been around for a while that DND has been called on.  It is not a benefit claw back because it was never an entitlement.  Sucks yes but it is what it is.  My reaction is how somehow we should be exempt from it for whatever reason because we are CF.

I'd love to have free parking all the time but it won't happen either.  I'm in a good location now where my place of employment falls under the exceptions but, the leasing owner could change that as it isn't a DND owned building.  Rumours are they are thinking of it so I ll have to suck it up or find someplace else to work.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It's parking. That's what you are paying for.  To park your car.  Not to work.  How you get to work is your own problem not the employer.  Just like having to pay for your own gas to get to work or pay for a shiny bike to do the same, it's part of the cost that you decide to undertake to get to your place of employment. It has a value and if it is provided free of charge, the government sees that as value added for what you are being compensated for.
> 
> If it is such an injustice write to your MP about how unfair it is.  Just make sure that you have a solid point as to why the CF should be exempt when every other Canadian isn't.



 :goodpost:

I'd sooner pay for parking and be exempt from paying the "health care benefit".


----------



## Crispy Bacon (15 Jul 2014)

On a related note, one of the recent Ottawa *rumours* is that the Ottawa Nortel Campus move will result in the campus becoming the "Ottawa Base" and thus exempt members in Ottawa from paying parking. Can anyone give any credibility to that, or if it would even matter if they're beginning to crackdown on free parking?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> On a related note, one of the recent Ottawa *rumours* is that the Ottawa Nortel Campus move will result in the campus becoming the "Ottawa Base" and thus exempt members in Ottawa from paying parking. Can anyone give any credibility to that, or if it would even matter if they're beginning to crackdown on free parking?



 :

Crantor.....He is all yours.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (16 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Citing unlimited liability was really grasping at straws.  However, when did parking suddenly become such an revenue generating necessity of the Government.  That is BS.  That is just another form of Taxation.  Next we will have to start paying to access to get into our offices through turnstiles.  Seriously, what employer charges their employees fees to come to work?  Is this in fact some sort of "Leftie Green plot" to cut down on Green House Gases?  (That may not be grasping at straws as ridiculous as it sounds.)  This TB policy is really ridiculous in its application to ALL DND and CAF installations/locations.



Alberta Health Services requires me to pay parking, something like $135 a year. If I choose not park on an AHS lot, I still have to pay a parking maintenance fee of $56 per year.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2014)

I pay for parking at jail - about $130 per year.

Someone has to pay for the parking lot and it's maintenance.


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> On a related note, one of the recent Ottawa *rumours* is that the Ottawa Nortel Campus move will result in the campus becoming the "Ottawa Base" and thus exempt members in Ottawa from paying parking.


Whether DND calls it "Ottawa Base" or any other label has no bearing on the matter.  Is there commercial parking in the area that would compete with free parking on at the new HQ?  If there is, then expect to pay.  Is the base isolated in such a way that the only reasonable access requires DND to provide parking?  If this is the case, then expect it to be free.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (17 Jul 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Whether DND calls it "Ottawa Base" or any other label has no bearing on the matter.  Is there commercial parking in the area that would compete with free parking on at the new HQ?  If there is, then expect to pay.  Is the base isolated in such a way that the only reasonable access requires DND to provide parking?  If this is the case, then expect it to be free.



IMO, I'd expect it to be free then.


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> IMO, I'd expect it to be free then.



Keep in mind when Nortel was Nortel at its height, OC transpo serviced that area quite well and that infrastructure is likely still there.  With potentially thousands of people moving there, the bus service will likely return.  A lot of factors like that will likely go into that decision (DND will not be the ones making though but will likely make whatever case if they have one).  Not a lot of commercial parking in the area but monthly rates in the area probably hover around the 50$ a month rate.

In my mind, that location might qualify for an exemption.  I wonder if parking at the JDS building has a fee or if it is provided for given its location.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Keep in mind when Nortel was Nortel at its height, OC transpo serviced that area quite well and that infrastructure is likely still there.  With potentially thousands of people moving there, the bus service will likely return.  A lot of factors like that will likely go into that decision (DND will not be the ones making though but will likely make whatever case if they have one).  Not a lot of commercial parking in the area but monthly rates in the area probably hover around the 50$ a month rate.
> 
> In my mind, that location might qualify for an exemption.  I wonder if parking at the JDS building has a fee or if it is provided for given its location.



With Connaught basically right across the street, and Shirley's Bay just down the road past it, it will be interesting as to what decision is made.


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With Connaught basically right across the street, and Shirley's Bay just down the road past it, it will be interesting as to what decision is made.



And the impact it could have.  Free parking at Connaught but pay parking at Nortel.  I could see a lot of people parking at connaught and biking or running into work from there if that was the case.

Even still, I'd bet that parking at Nortel will be less than a bus pass and significantly less than the 200$ a month average in downtown Ottawa.


----------



## kratz (17 Jul 2014)

Since the parking policy is coming into effect in September, this could be a part of the Admiral's new alcohol policy, 

to be announced in the fall as well.    / :sarcasm:


----------



## armchair_throwaway (17 Jul 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> Admittedly, I haven't read the entire thread.  That said, I haven't seen here or in the media coverage anything saying where the money will go.  Consolidated Revenue Fund?
> 
> Are all government departments going to be subject to this policy?  I find it hard to believe that the Taj Mahal....errrr, I mean new CSIS building will be a pay parking zone.  Could happen, but I'd be surprised.



Then you may be even more surprised that many departments have been subjected to paid parking for years already, and Taj will not be the exception. In fact, There's such a lack of parking some people are willing to pay more than market price just to get to work by car.


----------



## sandyson (17 Jul 2014)

For people who now pay for parking, how much and where are you paying.
On Bishop's U campus (Sherbrooke) the annual cost is $170.00.  For retired personnel it's free, but it's a taxable benefit and so the cost by default is at least $60.00 and the University doesn't get it.
DND doesn't provide parking for the local units, with the exception of about a half dozen spots for the VIPs.


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2014)

sandyson said:
			
		

> For people who now pay for parking, how much and where are you paying.
> On Bishop's U campus (Sherbrooke) the annual cost is $170.00.  For retired personnel it's free, but it's a taxable benefit and so the cost by default is at least $60.00 and the University doesn't get it.
> DND doesn't provide parking for the local units, with the exception of about a half dozen spots for the VIPs.



Well in the NCR it varies (and litterally it can be a 30-40 dollar difference per month based on what block you park at downtown).  The average is 200$ a month like at City Hall.  The further out you go the less it is in most cases.  LSTL building in gatineau and the area around like at the Casino or Canadian tire i think is around 80$ a month.  All subject to availability and wait lists.  

170$ a year is like 50cents a day...


----------



## upandatom (17 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I pay for parking at jail - about $130 per year.
> 
> Someone has to pay for the parking lot and it's maintenance.



So your paying to get to work?? 
yeah no thanks, 

Why pay for someone else to not work sit at home smoke weed and drink everyday with a new iphone and fresh ink, meanwhile here I could be paying for a parking pass to go to said job that pays for those slugs and lazy F#$s, Next please.

The ridiculous tax rates we pay as Canadians are out to lunch for the services we really do get. 
Im proud to be Canadian, but it is disheartening to see thousands of dollars a year of my hard earned money going to pay some dickhead desk jockey in Ottawa who does a decade long half assed job at a seat in parliament, getting a damn pension (which is near 5 times mine after 25 years of PS), and to the abysmal Quebec We are poor relief fund.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> So your paying to get to work??
> yeah no thanks,
> 
> Why pay for someone else to not work sit at home smoke weed and drink everyday with a new iphone and fresh ink, meanwhile here I could be paying for a parking pass to go to said job that pays for those slugs and lazy F#$s, Next please.
> ...




“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”


― George Orwell, Animal Farm


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Jul 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> So your paying to get to work??
> yeah no thanks,



Simple solution: don't drive to work.  Jog or bike.


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2014)

Here is the thing I find ridiculous about parking and public transit in the NCR. 

A bus pass runs you about 115$.  If you work downtown that's way better than the 200$ average parking.  If you work outside that area expect to apy 50-80 all depending on where you are.  Not worth getting a pass.  Neither if you are a couple both working downtown (a lot of couples work in the same area in Ottawa).  Cool, so I might take the bus then.  Except this city lacks in park and ride space and in fact are starting to sell spots to guarantee a spot at 50$ a month then factor in your pass and the hassle then you might as well pay for parking downtown.

To make matters worse, parking areas in downtown are being replaced with condos, meaning less space availability. 

They want you to take public transit  here but they offer very little incentive to do so, both cost wise and hassle wise.

Now continuing with the theme of the thread, imagine free parking everywhere downtown.  What do you think the commute would look like?  Likely like it did during the bus strike.

Parking fees are indeed tax related, but it likely is also a social engineering thing.  By design or by default.  But public parking is all part of city planning.

Sorry if I derailed.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (17 Jul 2014)

sandyson said:
			
		

> For people who now pay for parking, how much and where are you paying.
> On Bishop's U campus (Sherbrooke) the annual cost is $170.00.  For retired personnel it's free, but it's a taxable benefit and so the cost by default is at least $60.00 and the University doesn't get it.
> DND doesn't provide parking for the local units, with the exception of about a half dozen spots for the VIPs.



At-building parking is $120 per month
Parking at a local shopping area (2 minutes away) was $55 per month, just raised to $75 per month
Parking at another shopping area (10 minutes away) is free


----------



## McG (17 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I could see a lot of people parking at connaught and biking or running into work from there if that was the case.


So, you are saying that pay parking may be the path to the improved fitness culture sought in other threads?


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, you are saying that pay parking may be the path to the improved fitness culture sought in other threads?



Lol.  Hardly.  It would likely be the fit people who are already likely to bike and run to work who would take advantage of that.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jul 2014)

Plus you'd have to factor in the additional work-out necessitating "rehydrating"   :cheers:


----------



## upandatom (18 Jul 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Simple solution: don't drive to work.  Jog or bike.



Usually I agree with your logic PMedMoe, (Given you dont know my location) 
but in my current location, at PMQs, you want me to Jog a 1/2 Marathon to and a 1/2 Marathon from work Daily? 

Biking is almost feasible, still doesnt solve the issue of PT Strip/Lunch/Breakfast and everything else that accompanies me to work. The extra 30min + required when I already depart for work at 0515, and leave the base at 1700. Thanks but no thanks,


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Jul 2014)

Well, I can pretty much guarantee that there are people employed in all kinds of places in Canada who have to pay for parking if they drive to work.  I don't get where people think we should be exempt, when, in some cases, our work/parking is located in a desirable, high-traffic area.  I paid the entire time I was in Ottawa.  I'd rather pay for parking and the convenience of arriving/departing work when I wish than be subject to the whims of the transit system.  I do think that the people who work at a location should be given first shot when it comes to getting spots, though.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2014)

I am now hearing the visitor parking rates will be $10/day in Halifax.


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Jul 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Well, I can pretty much guarantee that there are people employed in all kinds of places in Canada who have to pay for parking if they drive to work.



Yup....good luck on finding a job (public or private sectore) within the core of Toronto, or Vancouver, or Montreal (you get the idea) where your job comes with free parking.


----------



## medicineman (18 Jul 2014)

I work in Portage la Prairie and MacGregor, MB - I still pay for parking for those work places, and they're much tinier than Toronto, Montreal, etc.  I don't seem to recall anywhere I worked in the CF where I had "entitlement" to parking, except when I had an appointment accompanied by a parking spot.  I did see where the UNDE and PSAC folks in Esquimalt had it written into their collective agreements that it was though - as a WO at the Base Clinic, I had to park anywhere up to a few hundred metres away from the building, since even the lowliest CR had main lot privileges but we didn't unless a command appointment accompanied us.  When I worked at CANFLTPAC, I still had to park about a 10-15 minute walk away, if I got there early enough...or I took the water taxi, and still had to get there early enough to find a legal spot to put the car.  Parking is at a premium in a lot of places - stands to reason you might be asked to cough up something for it.

 :2c:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Jul 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Well, I can pretty much guarantee that there are people employed in all kinds of places in Canada who have to pay for parking if they drive to work.  I don't get where people think we should be exempt, when, in some cases, our work/parking is located in a desirable, high-traffic area.  I paid the entire time I was in Ottawa.  I'd rather pay for parking and the convenience of arriving/departing work when I wish than be subject to the whims of the transit system.  I do think that the people who work at a location should be given first shot when it comes to getting spots, though.



You are buying into the classic Canadian mentality of "I don't get it so nobody else should"

If anyone is interested I looked at what the parking policy at the Pentagon is for our neighbours to the South.  If any of you are interested here is the document:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/a088p.pdf

Of note:  parking spaces are available for those who are entitled, the order of entitlement is as follows:

a. Disabled employees.
b. Government vehicles.
c. Executives.
d. Van and car pools.
e. Single occupant drivers.

For everyone else who doesn't receive a parking pass, the DoD subsidizes their transit fees through the Mass Transit Benefit Program.  

Taken from the Mass Transportation Benefit Program Site:



> The Mass Transportation Benefit Program was established in October 2000 and is offered to eligible employees and military service members, to the extent authorized by law and regulation, to reduce pollution and traffic congestion, preserve the environment, and expand transportation alternatives.
> 
> Under this program, participating employees in the National Capital Region (NCR) receive "transit passes" in amounts equal to their personal commuting costs, not to exceed $130 per month (parking costs not included). To receive this benefit, employees must relinquish any federally subsidized parking permit, and may not be listed as part of a DoD carpool for purposes of qualifying for a parking pass.


  Source:  http://www.whs.mil/mass-transportation-benefit-program

If the Pentagon, with just over 25,000 employees, can provide their employees with free parking or at least a subsidized alternative to get to work we should be able to provide civilian and military members in Halifax, Ottawa and all major urban centers free parking and if not, at least get them a bus pass.  Btw, Washington's traffic and congestion is far worse then anything you will see in any Canadian city.

The reason for pay parking in Halifax has more to do with the fact that the government cut O&M significantly this past year and they didn't give enough money to maintain infrastructure, so instead of paying to properly upkeep the base i.e. snow removal, paving costs, etc... they are offloading the cost onto the members.  This has nothing to do with treasury board policy (that's an excuse) it has everything to do with the government not wanting to pay to maintain a base properly, it would rather offload the costs onto civilian and military employees who pay taxes for a reason!


----------



## c_canuk (18 Jul 2014)

I'm curious and interested why the treasury board and the CRA seem to think anything you get at work that you could potentially get somewhere else for a fee, is automatically a taxible benifit.

Are we going to start having to pay gym memberships when we do unit PT?

Why is it that everything has to be at market rate, except our pay? Yes I know in theory PLD is supposed to off set that somewhat but the mandated yearly updates aren't being done and the rates are way off regardless. 

Why does it seem that provincial income tax rates are not figured into the PLD calculation?


----------



## Remius (18 Jul 2014)

RoyalDrew:

First off it has nothing to do with what you consider an excuse.  It is the Income Tax Act which is by definition THE LAW.

And I don't think you understand the U.S. plan.

Parking is still a taxable benefit in the U.S. at a certain value.

The pentagon's parking policy and who gets parking is still subject to IRS rules and regulations based on value.  So even though execs get parking, they still have to pay income tax on it depending on its value.  every department has a parking policy based on priority that is actually a national policy not just DoD.

The transit benefit plan is similar to what we have here.  You can claim your bus pass on your taxes as a tax deduction in Canada (wow look at that).  Certain cities offer discounts much like the Eco-pass we used to have in Ottawa.  

You'll also notice that they receive transit passes equal to commuting costs NOT INCLUDING PARKING COSTS

And if their traffic is worse than anything you've seen here it is likely because they provide so much subsidized parking...

Here is the IRS rules on parking as a taxable benefit in the US, very similar to ours except for the parking ceiling they've establised which is 230$.  Anything valued over that gets taxed.  So the average for unreserved parking in DC is about 270$ but reserved spots can go as high as 500$ in some cases.  So anything over 230$ in value must be added as income just like we do here.  

But we are not the US so really, what they are doing is irrelevant.




1.14.9.8  (06-21-2011)
Taxable Parking Benefits 


1.
Whenever parking is provided to an employee and the value of parking exceeds $230 per month, the excess amount over $230 is considered taxable income and must be included in the employee's wages reported on their Form W-2, (Note that $230 is the current ceiling as of 2010. This figure may be adjusted based on the annual cost of living and may be adjusted based on the annual cost of living and may be found in The Employer's Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits Provided in 2010 [or current year], (Publication 15-B, December 3, 2009, [or current date] paragraph entitled " Qualified Transportation Benefits." )

2.
Generally the value of parking provided by an employer to an employee is based on the cost (including taxes or other added fees) that an individual would incur in an arm's-length transaction to obtain parking at the same site. If that cost is not ascertainable, then the value of parking is based on the cost that an individual would incur in arm's-length transaction for a space in the same lot or in a comparable lot in the same general location under the same or similar circumstances. An employee's subjective perception of the value of the parking is not relevant to the determination of its fair market value. 

3.
For this program, the value of parking provided by the IRS to an employee will be based on the GSA rent charge if the parking is located in a federal building, or the lease cost if the parking is provided under a lease agreement. If the IRS paid parking is located on a privately owned parking lot and acquired via service contract, the current contract rate will determine the value.


----------



## Remius (18 Jul 2014)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I'm curious and interested why the treasury board and the CRA seem to think anything you get at work that you could potentially get somewhere else for a fee, is automatically a taxible benifit.
> 
> Are we going to start having to pay gym memberships when we do unit PT?



I feel like I'm teaching a course...

Read the link.  Page 28 deals with PT and when it should be a taxable benefit.  and not everything you get is considered a taxable benefit.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4130/t4130-13e.pdf


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> RoyalDrew:
> 
> First off it has nothing to do with what you consider an excuse.  It is the Income Tax Act which is by definition THE LAW.
> 
> ...



You ignored the last part of my post, I will copy and paste it for you, key points you missed highlighted in yellow:



> The reason for pay parking in Halifax has more to do with the fact that the government cut O&M significantly this past year and they didn't give enough money to maintain infrastructure, so instead of paying to properly upkeep the base i.e. snow removal, paving costs, etc... they are offloading the cost onto the members.  This has nothing to do with treasury board policy (that's an excuse) it has everything to do with the government not wanting to pay to maintain a base properly, it would rather offload the costs onto civilian and military employees who pay taxes for a reason!



By the book you are correct; however, the issue is far bigger than the surface issue of tax law.  Don't you think it's funny that the government has chosen to apply this just when they are significantly cutting O&M budgets?  At the end of the day I am not going to sit here and spout off tax laws with you as it just isn't worth my time.  That being said, if the government doesn't want to pay to upkeep it's facilities then they shouldn't be passing that off to the employee.  If you think that's ok than we will agree to disagree.


----------



## MARS (18 Jul 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Don't you think it's funny that the government has chosen to apply this just when they are significantly cutting O&M budgets?



I don't.  2004 when I was the adminO at a unit in Toronto, I was told I could no longer offer free parking to my unit's neighbours on occasion, as I was doing, because it was a violation Of the Real Property Act.  First time I had heard of 'fair market value' an all that.  I have no idea it that is tax law or not, but I recall my O and M budget wasn't in any sort of jeopardy.   Was told then that this would eventually apply to CF folks.  

So 10 years ago folks at ASU Toronto were alreay dealing with this issue but were, it appeared to me, doing their level best to delay implementation for military folks on DND property.


----------



## Remius (18 Jul 2014)

Technically i answered your yellow part by stating this is law not an excuse.

And no, I don't think its funny that they are applying this now because as I and others have stated, this isn't a new policy.  Not even for DND (I mentioned I had to deal with this ten years ago).  Some bases and facilities were not applying the rules and now they have to.  Simple as that. 

You see this: The reason for pay parking in Halifax has more to do with the fact that the government cut O&M significantly this past year and they didn't give enough money to maintain infrastructure, so instead of paying to properly upkeep the base i.e. snow removal, paving costs, etc... they are offloading the cost onto the members.

That is hearsay.  Or your opinion.  Do you have something to back that claim up because I have provided many links now as to why Halifax and other location are paying parking according to the rules.  Did you see a memo or something?  In fact you say that the decision was taken because of the reduction in O&M THIS YEAR but the decision to enforce this in Halifax happened some 5 years ago and delayed it so really what you are claiming is BS.  

This Belt tightening may play a part when the tap runs dry but when it should never have happened in the first place...


----------



## Occam (18 Jul 2014)

Again, if I understand things correctly - there are two options available:

1.  Make you pay for parking
2.  Hit you with the value of parking as a taxable benefit.

If the market value of the parking spot is $100 per month, that means I'd pay $1200 per year out of my pocket for the parking spot under option #1.

However (and correct me if I'm wrong as to where the benefit is applied in a tax scenario), if option #2 were in play, I'd get $1200 in benefits added to my annual taxable income, but only pay whatever taxes apply according to the marginal tax brackets.  That means I'd probably only be out of pocket ~$500 for the year.

Why, other than to maximize revenue, would the Crown choose to force people to pay for their parking, when a taxable benefit would be the more advantageous option to the members?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> That is hearsay.  Or your opinion.  Do you have something to back that claim up because I have provided many links now as to why Halifax and other location are paying parking according to the rules.  Did you see a memo or something?  In fact you say that the decision was taken because of the reduction in O&M THIS YEAR but the decision to enforce this in Halifax happened some 5 years ago and delayed it so really what you are claiming is BS.



Not everything has to be written down for it to be the truth


----------



## Remius (18 Jul 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> Again, if I understand things correctly - there are two options available:
> 
> 1.  Make you pay for parking
> 2.  Hit you with the value of parking as a taxable benefit.
> ...



in a nutshell, yes that's how it works.  If you took option two yes.  But you also have to factor in CPP and EI deductions that will also increase and it could potentially put you in another tax bracket as well.

And the Crown isn't forcing anyone to pay for their parking.  While it may be a more advantageous option for the members it is an admnistrative nightmare to manage, meaning more staff, more money when the easy solution is to just let the member pay as they see fit.  And not all government facilities are government owned.  They pay rent, lease etc many many locations and parking revenue does not go back into the coffers in most cases.  And the facilities that are DND owned that would charge parking do not have enough parking to begin with so really we are not talking about a lot of money here in the grand scheme.


----------



## Remius (18 Jul 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Not everything has to be written down for it to be the truth



Except that in this case, what you are claiming isn't the truth.  Go back a few years in this very thread to 2010 and they are talking about it then.  Your claim that it has anything to do with this year's O&M reduction is flat out untrue and insisting that it is without any proof to the contrary doesn't help, violates the this site's policies and makes you look like you are arguing for argument's sake. 

Idle chat in the mess is best kept there.  Unfounded rumours shouldn't be spread by people like us.

I'm with you that it sucks.  Just not for the same reasons.


----------



## kratz (18 Jul 2014)

[quote author=Crantor]
That is hearsay.  Or your opinion.  Do you have something to back that claim up  because I have provided many links now as to why Halifax and other location are paying parking according to the rules.  Did you see a memo or something?  In fact you say that the decision was taken because of the reduction in O&M THIS YEAR but the decision to enforce this in Halifax happened some 5 years ago and delayed it so really what you are claiming is BS.  

This Belt tightening may play a part when the tap runs dry but when it should never have happened in the first place...
[/quote]

I'm not in Halifax, but one Facebook protest group on this issue, mentions the Town Hall meeting and the Base Command's answer. They quote the Capt(N) stating, he'd rather see paid parking and put a "boot" to immobilize cars to get the money instead of taxing members because he gets the money vice the government through taxes. Based on T4s I've had the past few years, and the discussion as it stands, the option to tax members for the parking value exists, but with government tightening we are now paying more with less.


----------



## Remius (18 Jul 2014)

kratz said:
			
		

> I'm not in Halifax, but one Facebook protest group on this issue, mentions the Town Hall meeting and the Base Command's answer. They quote the Capt(N) stating, he'd rather see paid parking and put a "boot" to immobilize cars to get the money instead of taxing members because he gets the money vice the government through taxes. Based on T4s I've had the past few years, and the discussion as it stands, the option to tax members for the parking value exists, but with government tightening we are now paying more with less.



Facebook?  Really?  That doesn't back up anything more than what Drew said.  What someone heard what the base commander prefers is irrelevant.  The decision was made in 2010 and the rules have been around much much longer than that.  Yes, it is a hassle for the government to go the tax route but the government as a WHOLE (and has been for a while) is doing this not because DND has an O&M crunch this year. 

So yeah, DND instalations owned by DND get the bonus of putting the money back in their own coffers while private industry makes money and the government collects no taxes.


----------



## exgunnertdo (18 Jul 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> Again, if I understand things correctly - there are two options available:
> 
> 1.  Make you pay for parking
> 2.  Hit you with the value of parking as a taxable benefit.
> ...



That's true if there is a market for paid parking where you work.  If there is no market for paid parking, the employer can let you park for free with no tax implications.

The "why" (don't know if that is the situation in Halifax) could be that DND (and other departments) wants to get out of the property management business, at least in large cities.  If the parking lot is owned by the government, then lease it to a management company and they control the parking, clear the snow, paint the lines, collect the parking fees.  We treat buildings in the NCR the same - they are often property managed by another company.


----------



## Tibbson (18 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Technically i answered your yellow part by stating this is law not an excuse.
> 
> And no, I don't think its funny that they are applying this now because as I and others have stated, this isn't a new policy.  Not even for DND (I mentioned I had to deal with this ten years ago).  Some bases and facilities were not applying the rules and now they have to.  Simple as that.
> 
> ...



Agreed, I got posted to Halifax 3 years ago and was told this was coming although base auth were still trying to avoid it.  Prior to that I had sat in meetings in Edmonton where the issue was discussed and how it would have to be applied to certain non-base llcations.  As much as I dislike the issue, its been a long time coming although many are just hearing about it now.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Jul 2014)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> That's true if there is a market for paid parking where you work.  If there is no market for paid parking, the employer can let you park for free with no tax implications.
> 
> The "why" (don't know if that is the situation in Halifax) could be that DND (and other departments) wants to get out of the property management business, at least in large cities.  If the parking lot is owned by the government, then lease it to a management company and they control the parking, clear the snow, paint the lines, collect the parking fees.  We treat buildings in the NCR the same - they are often property managed by another company.



Bingo, proceed directly to go and collect $200


----------



## Remius (18 Jul 2014)

Actually it's pay 200$  ;D

As per what I said in reply #233 of this thread.  And this isn't new.  Just new to some.


----------



## cupper (18 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And if their traffic is worse than anything you've seen here it is likely because they provide so much subsidized parking...



Actually there are several reasons it is worse.

They don't know how to drive at the best of times, and throw anything out of the ordinary (like a 1/4" of snow) and all hell breaks loose.

Also there is the "I want need to drive my own car everywhere on my own so I'm not tied down to anyone else's schedule. It's just not convenient" factor.

And the biggest factor or them all, the rampant outward growth of the suburbs by developers with no associated increase in transit and roadway infrastructure. It's SIM CITY in real time.

To find "affordable" housing in the DC metropolitan area one needs to move further out in Maryland and Virgina, and the transportation resources have not kept up with the amount of growth in the area over the past two decades. Unless you are making a 6 figure income, you are looking at a minimum 30 to 60 minute commute into Arlington and Alexandria, forget the downtown core in DC. And the average is getting longer every year.  

Halifax is becoming a small scale version of this, and I am not surprised things are moving this way.


----------



## Remius (19 Jul 2014)

cupper said:
			
		

> Actually there are several reasons it is worse.
> 
> They don't know how to drive at the best of times, and throw anything out of the ordinary (like a 1/4" of snow) and all hell breaks loose.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the 300-400$ cost of monthly transit fees as well.  Not a huge incentive even with the 130$ credit they can get to not drive.


----------



## c_canuk (21 Jul 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I feel like I'm teaching a course...
> 
> Read the link.  Page 28 deals with PT and when it should be a taxable benefit.  and not everything you get is considered a taxable benefit.
> 
> http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4130/t4130-13e.pdf



And I feel like I'm conversing with the deliberatly obtuse.

My point was that under the same arguments made to justify taxing parking at market rates, can easily be used to tax us at market rates for access to gym facilities if there are fee based services in the area. Under current CRA regulations it says "You provide an in-house recreational facility and the facility is available to all your employees. This applies whether you provide the facilities free of charge or for a minimal fee."

My question is, how long will that last if a bunch of gym owners make a fuss about our gym access that is not at the market rate? We are already charging outsiders for access. What about areas where there are public pay toilets? Or, god forbid, the porta john companies. Where is the line drawn, what will they consider a taxible benifit next year. 

Why does it seem that they want to tax and charge market rates but don't want to pay workers market rates? For that matter, what about proffesional Dues? Why is it that mess dues are not considered proffesional dues?

Don't just scoff "That's preposterous! the current regs clearly state blah blah blah" I'm not arguing current regs, I'm asking where the line in the future will be drawn, and if you disagree with me that the justification for taxing free parking could be used to justify charging for free PT, explain why it couldn't happen.


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2014)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> And I feel like I'm conversing with the deliberatly obtuse.



No worries.  Some people have a hard time understanding how the tax system works in Canada and might feel that way when confronted with it.  As for me I've nothing more to add to this thread that I already haven't.

Cheers.


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Jul 2014)

This topic is starting to circle the drain (IMO).  

 :argument:


For those of you who don't want to "pay" to go to work, your employment after the CF may be limited.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2014)

*This thread is about parking fees.

Get back on track please, or it will have to be locked as another jumbled thread, that doesn't speak to the title and wanders aimlessly like a drunk on Younge St.

No more warnings.

*---Staff---


----------



## Transporter (27 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *This thread is about parking fees.
> 
> Get back on track please, or it will have to be locked as another jumbled thread, that doesn't speak to the title and wanders aimlessly like a drunk on Younge St.
> 
> ...



And the parking was great in each and every one of my cubicle farm tours


----------



## CountDC (29 Jul 2014)

Before it gets locked.......

This really is nothing new as I first heard of it back in the 90's.  At that time I was in Halifax and it was put out that paid parking was coming, the union naturally fussed and it was "temporarily delayed".  Guess the delay is finally over.  

2006 I was posted to Ottawa and had to pay for parking - i believe it was a matter of which of the buildings you were at.  Some had freee parking while others you paid.


----------



## Stoker (29 Jul 2014)

I was talking to the formation Chief last week and there are still unanswered quesions on some of the details. He seemed to think that it may still be delayed until these details are worked out. I read the parking policy and its pretty straight forward, 5 yrs seniority, able to turn in pass while deployed, can't park in lot more than 24 hrs even though you're paying. Basically the same rules as before, even though you pay they can take your spot if they need it for a event. Pay for parking at the hospital, pay for parking for volunteers at the MFRC etc. I think they need to work these details out.


----------



## Brasidas (29 Jul 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I was talking to the formation Chief last week and there are still unanswered quesions on some of the details. He seemed to think that it may still be delayed until these details are worked out. I read the parking policy and its pretty straight forward, 5 yrs seniority, able to turn in pass while deployed, can't park in lot more than 24 hrs even though you're paying. Basically the same rules as before, even though you pay they can take your spot if they need it for a event. Pay for parking at the hospital, pay for parking for volunteers at the MFRC etc. I think they need to work these details out.



I look forward to being pleasantly surprised when downtown armouries with reservist privates making $45 pre-tax *don't* end up having to pay $10 to show up for their weeknight parades. Volunteers paying sounds even more ridiculous.


----------



## Tibbson (30 Jul 2014)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> I look forward to being pleasantly surprised when downtown armouries with reservist privates making $45 pre-tax *don't* end up having to pay $10 to show up for their weeknight parades. Volunteers paying sounds even more ridiculous.



I often use the services of the IWK Hospital here in Halifax and they have plenty of volunteers manning the info booths, assisting patients, providing child care services (and so on...) and every one of them has to pay for parking if they drive.  I'm sure, like any organization, they could always use more volunteers but they dont seem to be hurting for them because of parking fees.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (30 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I often use the services of the IWK Hospital here in Halifax and they have plenty of volunteers manning the info booths, assisting patients, providing child care services (and so on...) and every one of them has to pay for parking if they drive.  I'm sure, like any organization, they could always use more volunteers but they dont seem to be hurting for them because of parking fees.



Well, hell, that solves DND's budget issues. We'll just make the reserves an all volunteer (as well as voluntary) army.

So glad we solved that issue.


----------



## Tibbson (31 Jul 2014)

My comments were directed to the issue of volunteers paying for parking at the place they volunteer.  If you somehow equate reservists as being volunteers thats not my issue.


----------



## upandatom (5 Aug 2014)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I'm curious and interested why the treasury board and the CRA seem to think anything you get at work that you could potentially get somewhere else for a fee, is automatically a taxible benifit.
> 
> Are we going to start having to pay gym memberships when we do unit PT?
> 
> ...



First point, 
Removed by moderator

Look at the back log of items they have to deal with,  Parking fees should of been at the bottom of the pile, their priorities are out of wack. 

The money that should be adjusted and paid out, doesnt help us in April of 2015, 16, or wherever. 
Back pay doesnt help or appease anyone.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2014)

Interesting article in todays Chronicle Herald out of Halifax.  Pay close attention to the highlighted areas.  Arent CAF members not allowed to do this ? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military staff wage war on new parking fees

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
HMC Dockyard rang with frustration at lunchtime Monday as about 200 sailors and other employees marched to protest impending parking fees. * 

They moved up Cornwallis and Barrington streets to try to garner support for their cause from the people for whom they are serving, said the local president for the Union of National Defence Employees. 

CFB Halifax will become the first in Canada to charge military and civilian staff for parking spots, Craig Smith said, something that will be enforced at HMC Dockyard, Stadacona, Windsor-Willow Park, Royal Artillery Park, Dartmouth's Dockyard Annex and at the Halifax Armoury. 

*"You're charging them to serve their own country," said the president of Local 80406. "We're going to charge you to come and park, send you to sea - in harm's way - and then you'll come back to a big parking bill." * 

The new parking fees, slated to be in place by Sept. 1, come out of the fact that the Treasury Board and Canada Revenue Agency consider parking to be a taxable benefit. 

Smith argues that the base should let the employees deal with the issue on their income taxes. 

"It's a money grab. It's basically a three per cent wage increase that we lose," he said of fees that will range between $25 and $110 a month for a parking spot. 

But a parking pass may not guarantee employees a space. A base spokesman said last month that there are plans to oversell the 4,503 spots spread between those six sites by about 1,000 passes. 

A CFB Halifax spokesman said in July that there are 7,000 to 8,000 people working at the base, but that with people away on leave, many parking spots could be left empty. Some people will have reserved spaces and will pay more for it, said information from the base. 

There are some places where Defence Department employees do pay for parking, but those are offices where the government leases the property, Smith said. In this case, however, the Crown owns the land. 

"We struggled to find another employer, period, that makes profit by charging its own employees to park." 

He said he thinks it's an edict from Ottawa and one that could spread to military bases across the country.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Aug 2014)

I don't know how much notice will have been taken outside of the Herald and no doubt command of the protests yesterday here.  I also don't expect that there will any sympathy whatsoever from the general public to the outrage felt by those affected by the new parking rules in September.  I suspect that any feelings from the general public will be negative as they might see the protests as the yowlings of spoiled children.

If anything, it is the anti abortion protests of the past couple of days that is generating discussion and outrage in some quarters amongst the general public judging by the coverage by the MSM here in Halifax.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Aug 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> "We struggled to find another employer, period, that makes profit by charging its own employees to park."



Clearly didn't look hard enough. I work at a hospital where all staff pay to park. Profits last year from parking exceed $8M for the 5 hospitals in the region.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Aug 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Clearly didn't look hard enough. I work at a hospital where all staff pay to park. Profits last year from parking exceed $8M for the 5 hospitals in the region.



Yup,...just spent my day cleaning out the most disgusting pile of garbage and old furniture from the garage of the town house my daughter is now renting close to York University. The reason that was a priority??.........because she already is assured of renting the space out for at least $80 a month because the Uni. charges it's employers $120 a month to park there.


----------



## exgunnertdo (13 Aug 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Clearly didn't look hard enough. I work at a hospital where all staff pay to park. Profits last year from parking exceed $8M for the 5 hospitals in the region.



Yeah, I paid the school board to park when I taught in Manitoba.  Two different school boards, actually.


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Aug 2014)

I don't have an issue paying to park.  

I do have an issue paying for parking, and not being certain that I'll have a spot to park in.

I also have an issue (I have for a long time) with the '24 hour' rule.  If you come in for a duty watch, you will, most certainly, break this 24 hour rule.  Why make a rule that you *KNOW* will be broken?  How about 36 hours?  Why not 48?  

The other issue I see is the 'long term' parking problem.  There is no-where I can park my car, walk to my ship, and go to sea for a week....or for 2 days.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I don't have an issue paying to park.
> 
> I do have an issue paying for parking, and not being certain that I'll have a spot to park in.
> 
> ...



Solution, as already in places that already charge for parking, is to issue discounted Monthly Parking Passes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Aug 2014)

Their solution is, if you're on a long deployment for example is to turn your pass in and not pay for it.  However, there's no guarantee you'll be able to get your pass back when you come home as they might have "sold" it to another person.  This was especially emphasized for the reserved space personnel.  Like Naval Shooter, I too wouldn't mind paying so much for a parking spot as long as it was mine to park in regardless of how long I wanted to park there.


----------



## Stoker (13 Aug 2014)

Stood in line today for 2 hrs to get my pass, only two commissionaires to look after all the new parking passes. Still had to get my service verified even though I hold a valid pass. Apparently they are going to oversell the parking by a certain amount, in order to get max money.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Aug 2014)

Ok,.......this does sound like it's getting stupid.

EDIT:  Well unless you get to 'work' from home for the rest of the day when the lot is full,.............with valid parking pass of course.


----------



## Stoker (13 Aug 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I don't have an issue paying to park.
> 
> I do have an issue paying for parking, and not being certain that I'll have a spot to park in.
> 
> ...



Brad I think you can still park in NAD long term, for $25 a month. I can also see the procedure to temp stop your pass while you are away to be intentionally cumbersome as well.


----------



## Tibbson (13 Aug 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Stood in line today for 2 hrs to get my pass, only two commissionaires to look after all the new parking passes. Still had to get my service verified even though I hold a valid pass. Apparently they are going to oversell the parking by a certain amount, in order to get max money.



At 1330 hrs today the line was about 30 people long, out in the hot sun, with 2 Cmres taking applications.  I went to the next office for ID then a few other places at the dockyard and at 1500 hrs the line was even longer.  Makes me glad I'm posted.  At least where I'm going in Ottawa I can park free and walk a block to where I have to work.  The lines here are only going to get longer.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Aug 2014)

And people's tempers will get proportionally shorter with the cluster f'd process and money grab.


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Aug 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Brad I think you can still park in NAD long term, for $25 a month. I can also see the procedure to temp stop your pass while you are away to be intentionally cumbersome as well.



But...NAD is no longer manned 24/7....it's only open during working hours.

So, if I go to sea for a month, park my car over there while I'm gone, and happen to come home on the weekend, I cannot get in to pick up my car.  Until Monday.  

See the problem with that?  

NS


----------



## Stoker (14 Aug 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> But...NAD is no longer manned 24/7....it's only open during working hours.
> 
> So, if I go to sea for a month, park my car over there while I'm gone, and happen to come home on the weekend, I cannot get in to pick up my car.  Until Monday.
> 
> ...



Yep, didn't realize it wasn't manned 24 hrs a day.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2014)

Kinda off topic, but how is the Navy going to handle the fact that 200 an unknown number of its sailors marched in an unauthorized protest contrary to the NDA?


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Aug 2014)

I asked the staff at school in Stad about that very topic this morning.  It's bad reporting by the MSM, all the protestors were PS.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Aug 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I asked the staff at school in Stad about that very topic this morning.  It's bad reporting by the MSM, all the protestors were PS.



Bad reporting? More like an outright lie......


Of course it's all Harper's fault......right?


----------



## Tibbson (14 Aug 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> But...NAD is no longer manned 24/7....it's only open during working hours.
> 
> So, if I go to sea for a month, park my car over there while I'm gone, and happen to come home on the weekend, I cannot get in to pick up my car.  Until Monday.
> 
> ...



I woukdnt count on parking there too long.  My unit has a training location at NAD and we were notified last month that base authorities are looking to shut it down as a cost saving exercise.  They say its no longer needed.  No idea if that is true or not (the not being needed part) but we've been told not to spend any more money on our facilities there.


----------



## cupper (15 Aug 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Of course it's all Harper's fault......right?



No, it's Obama's fault.


----------



## JS2218 (11 Apr 2015)

*Paid parking system at CFB Halifax cost $460,000 to install*

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1279895-paid-parking-system-at-cfb-halifax-cost-460000-to-install



> Ottawa spent $460,000 installing a paid parking system at CFB Halifax, following a contentious decision last fall to start charging military members and civilian employees to park.
> 
> The six Halifax sites make up the only base in Canada to charge for parking, but a Treasury Board missive may open the door for more urban military sites to do the same.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2015)

No mention at all of the costs to be incurred in policing this.


----------



## c_canuk (13 Apr 2015)

$460 000 / ~1500 pers = ~300.00 / $25 per month = ~ 12 months.

That's a healthy wad of new funding.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (13 Apr 2015)

As a side point shouldn't the PLD for Halifax be increased now as the paid for parking is a extra expense to be occurred if you are posted there (since you don't have to pay for it on other bases)?


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Apr 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> As a side point shouldn't the PLD for Halifax be increased now as the paid for parking is a extra expense to be occurred if you are posted there (since you don't have to pay for it on other bases)?



Really?  Then I guess people in Ottawa should get PLD??


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Apr 2015)

I do wonder.  Do personnel from other Federal agencies that are in Ottawa get an equivalent to PLD?  Do Members of Parliament get similar benefits when there on IR etc?  Or are we alone with our benefits be they more or less than the other folks?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> As a side point shouldn't the PLD for Halifax be increased now as the paid for parking is a extra expense to be occurred if you are posted there (since you don't have to pay for it on other bases)?



False.  You do have to pay for parking at other bases; not all.  If you want to increase PLD in Halifax to cover parking, then those in Ottawa should also get an increase from the "Zero" that they have currently.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (13 Apr 2015)

I get Ottawa is zero because it is the standard but Halifax's PLD was calculated before they made you pay for parking, so wouldn't that mean that the PLD should go up as the cost of living has gone up. Just wondering on people thoughts here, personally I don't have a dog in this fight.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I get Ottawa is zero because it is the standard but Halifax's PLD was calculated before they made you pay for parking, so wouldn't that mean that the PLD should go up as the cost of living has gone up. Just wondering on people thoughts here, personally I don't have a dog in this fight.




I get it.  You want an increase due to now having to pay parking fees.  I highly doubt anyone in Ottawa who pays parking fees would agree with you, unless of course you propose that those who have had to pay parking fees at various locations across the nation get retroactive increases as well.


----------



## c_canuk (13 Apr 2015)

I think most people would be happy if TB just updated PLD yearly, as they are required to iirc, and used realistic estimates based on actual costs incurred by members. Have Cold Lake's difficulties with this been addressed yet?


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think most people would be happy if TB just updated PLD yearly, as they are required to iirc, and used realistic estimates based on actual costs incurred by members. Have Cold Lake's difficulties with this been addressed yet?



People don't want PLD updated annually; they want their PLD to be increased annually.  If we agree that PLD should be to ensure an equivalent standard of living regardless of where CAF members are posted, it means that as costs change, so should PLD - meaning some years it should go down.


----------



## upandatom (13 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I do wonder.  Do personnel from other Federal agencies that are in Ottawa get an equivalent to PLD?  Do Members of Parliament get similar benefits when there on IR etc?  Or are we alone with our benefits be they more or less than the other folks?



Members of Parliament don't pay for their lunch or dinner most days and its billed. Dont even compare those crooks to PS or Servicemen and women.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (13 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I get it.  You want an increase due to now having to pay parking fees.  I highly doubt anyone in Ottawa who pays parking fees would agree with you, unless of course you propose that those who have had to pay parking fees at various locations across the nation get retroactive increases as well.



I was serious when I said I don't have a dog in this fight. I personally pay 180$ a month for parking off the base, and I was paying for it before this whole paid for parking issue came up. I also don't have a dog in this fight as very soon PLD won't matter to me, as I will no longer be in the Navy. It was just a question as I thought the whole point of PLD was to balance cost of living differences between different locations, and this is a increase in cost of living expense, being occurred in one area the PLD should go up.


----------



## c_canuk (13 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> People don't want PLD updated annually; they want their PLD to be increased annually.  If we agree that PLD should be to ensure an equivalent standard of living regardless of where CAF members are posted, it means that as costs change, so should PLD - meaning some years it should go down.



I think people would prefer for it to go up annually, however, I think if the process was *realistic* and transparent I don't see why people would get to bent out of shape if it were to go down. 

I can't imagine many places that is likely to happen... perhaps by the time Cold Lake gets re evaluated it's housing bubble will burst, solving the issue on it's own.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think people would prefer for it to go up annually, however, I think if the process was *realistic* and transparent I don't see why people would get to bent out of shape if it were to go down.
> 
> I can't imagine many places that is likely to happen... perhaps by the time Cold Lake gets re evaluated it's housing bubble will burst, solving the issue on it's own.



To the contrary, it should always be going up & down - unless we're posting people to Lake Woebegone, where everyone is above average. [/Garrison Keillor] The mid-point will always change, and the disposition of locations relative to that midpoint will change as well.

But there's a larger, systemic problem with PLD: if we encourage people to buy rather than rent, their housing costs become fixed based on when they were posted in, and the state of the real estate market at that time.  Even if houses lose half their value in that location, it's the newly posted folks whose costs go down - those with houses bought at the peak are still carrying mortgages from the peak.  So how do we protect those earlier arrivals?


(EDIT: Correct spelling of Garrison Keillor)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Apr 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Members of Parliament don't pay for their lunch or dinner most days and its billed. Dont even compare those crooks to PS or Servicemen and women.



Throw your hat in the ring then if you think it's such a great job.....


----------



## Alberta Bound (14 Apr 2015)

JJT.   Fyi, the RCMP has used a geographic allowance only a couple times for certain high cost areas. Toronto was one. At present only Ft MacMurray gets one. And it is paid for by the municipality I have been told. 

But we also don't get IR. If you chose for whatever reason to go on a posting without the family then it is on your own hook. Not even a discount on Govt housing.   

GH.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Apr 2015)

Thanks for that info, AB.  I'm surprised that the force isn't more accomodating to members that.  I suppose we don't know how lucky we are at times with what we have.


----------



## Alberta Bound (14 Apr 2015)

There was a lot of talk about 10 - 15 years ago about trying some form of geographic pay scale and also "specialist" pay levels. But the argument was successful that it would be too much time, energy, money to set up and to administer with regular updates.  
There was a lot of talk that there would be a flood of grievances on every perceived decision. 

IR, we aren't in the same situation as the CF in that we don't force transfer on quick timelines even close to what the CF does. But a number of people take (usually short term, 2 - 3 year) postings separate from the family. Mainly into isolated posts with the TBS allowances and fairly cheap govt housing make it doable. These posts usually are also spots with high levels of on call and OT pay so in the end it can be done without killing family finances. I did this twice and it worked better for the family than other career choices. 

But back on track. We are getting the same hassle about parking fees at all our urban HQs. Not well received either.  The senior officers get subsidized parking (EXs) or assigned cars so subsidized commuting and no parking fee. Not so much at the detachments of any of that at detachments.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Apr 2015)

My whole issue is how asinine it sounds to call parking at work a taxable benefit. 

Does no one else scratch their heads over how stupid of a rule this is ?


----------



## Stoker (14 Apr 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> My whole issue is how asinine it sounds to call parking at work a taxable benefit.
> 
> Does no one else scratch their heads over how stupid of a rule this is ?



I think most people would be happy to pay for parking if we were given regular wage increases and I have no doubt parking fees will increase as well. I'm also wondering how long it will take them to call lunch a taxible benefit and have us pay for that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Apr 2015)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I think most people would be happy to pay for parking if we were given regular wage increases and I have no doubt parking fees will increase as well. I'm also wondering how long it will take them to call lunch a taxible benefit and have us pay for that.



Well if there was a pay increase to offset the parking costs then there really isn't pay for parking. 

This is just simply a stupid policy.  Why charge people to park at work ?  How did that become a taxable benefit ?  Are we at that point that we need to nickle and dime things like this ?  IMHO someone needs to grab the TBS by the collar and shake some sense into them.  Members of parliment ? 

In response to the lunch's on ships.  Well that's a horse of different color.  Ships *have* to keep X number days worth of perishable food stuffs on board.  We either throw it away and buy more every two weeks or consume it and buy more, while keeping cooks gainfully employed.  Which COA makes the most sense ?


----------



## Occam (14 Apr 2015)

Here at LStL II (455 DLC) in Gatineau, our outdoor parking was raised from $85 to $95 in October 2014.  They just increased it again from $95 to $110 effective 1 April, six months after the last increase.  Oddly enough, the parking remains at $95 next door at LStL (555 DLC).


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2015)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> We are getting the same hassle about parking fees at all our urban HQs. Not well received either.



I believe you are referring to the RCMP. It's not well received by Toronto police either.

"Toronto Police officers are fuming that the taxman will force them to pay for parking at their stations while other city emergency workers get spots for free."
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/09/20/15418991.html

Firefighters and Paramedics park for free.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How did that become a taxable benefit ?



CRA seems to interpret employee parking as a taxable benefit only if it is in a “fixed, controlled” setting: 
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/tmbl/prkng-eng.html


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Here at LStL II (455 DLC) in Gatineau, our outdoor parking was raised from $85 to $95 in October 2014.  They just increased it again from $95 to $110 effective 1 April, six months after the last increase.  Oddly enough, the parking remains at $95 next door at LStL (555 DLC).



Was there not supposed to be a 'standard' or 'common' rate set?


----------



## upandatom (14 Apr 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> My whole issue is how asinine it sounds to call parking at work a taxable benefit.
> 
> Does no one else scratch their heads over how stupid of a rule this is ?



Making people pay to transport themselves to and from work is idiotic in my eyes to begin with. I don't mean their car or fuel, I legitimately mean parking. 
Your taxing people, so they can pay taxes. 

The penny pinchers are pulling at ridiculous strings here. They are worrying about this instead of issues that actually do matter. 

its quite disgusting. Taxes are set high enough, and people paying taxes for parking isnt going to make budgetary constraints fix themselves. 

As for the why don't you step up to the job statement by Bruce earlier, I would,  gladly I would, I have often thought about going into politics and trying to make a difference in municipal, provincial, and federal. The problem is I dont have a small fortune to fund it, I also don't think any of the asshats running deserve my support either. So then we are left with individual party idea, and we all know that doesnt work in our three (more of a 2.5) party democracy.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2015)

Although the discussion is about Parking Fees; not everyone drives their car to work.  Many in large metropolitan areas take Public Transport.  In some cases, Monthly and/or Annual Transit Passes are deductable.  The same can be said for Monthly and Annual Parking Passes.  Daily receipts are a whole different matter.  Have fun with the Tax Guru's sorting those out, whether you drive to work or take Public Tansit.

It is expensive in many locations to get to and from work.  Like many have said, it really doesn't make sense to pay to go to work, but it is a fact of life -- unless you work at home.  Unfortunately, being in the military/RCMP does not give you that option.


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although the discussion is about Parking Fees; not everyone drives their car to work.  Many in large metropolitan areas take Public Transport.  In some cases, Monthly and/or Annual Transit Passes are deductable.  The same can be said for Monthly and Annual Parking Passes.  Daily receipts are a whole different matter.  Have fun with the Tax Guru's sorting those out, whether you drive to work or take Public Tansit.
> 
> It is expensive in many locations to get to and from work.  Like many have said, it really doesn't make sense to pay to go to work, but it is a fact of life -- unless you work at home.  Unfortunately, being in the military/RCMP does not give you that option.



I expect RCMP ( in or out of uniform, on or off duty ) would ride transit ( including Metrolinx ) for free. As police and emergency services personnel are expected to help passengers requiring emergency medical, police or fire services.


----------



## Occam (14 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Was there not supposed to be a 'standard' or 'common' rate set?



There's supposed to be an evaluation of market rates done every two years for Crown-owned lots, while leased lots are evaluated as often as the landlord likes.  If the market study supports a raise in rates, the Chief Appraiser of Canada authorizes an increase.  There's no explanation for differing prices between 455 and 555 DLC; they're right next door to each other.  Attached is a listing of market rates, supposedly for July 2014.  I don't know where they got the 455 DLC rate from; it only went up to $110 on April 1 2015.  On July 1 2014 it was only $85, going to $95 on Oct 1 2014.

Nothing parking-related seems to make much sense around the NCR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2015)

I find it odd that , our tax dollars are what paid for the parking lot in the first place, and now someone is charging us to park on what we already paid for.   ???

I paid for my Coleman stove at Canadian Tire.  I wouldn't expect one of their employees to see me using it while camping, and then tell me I owed them $5/month for actually using it.

This of course is using the _"common sense thinking model_" and can therefore be quickly discounted by the powers that be.

I don't pay and won't at my current posting, so that is just my Joe Taxpayer opinion.


----------



## upandatom (14 Apr 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I find it odd that , our tax dollars are what paid for the parking lot in the first place, and now someone is charging us to park on what we already paid for.   ???
> 
> I paid for my Coleman stove at Canadian Tire.  I wouldn't expect one of their employees to see me using it while camping, and then tell me I owed them $5/month for actually using it.
> 
> ...



Thats a prudent point.


----------



## captloadie (15 Apr 2015)

I think that the problem is that the general population, and hence the policy makers, now equates "fair" to "equal". You pay for parking in the NCR, at crown owned lots, because there is some unknown group of government employees who, due to their work location, have to pay out of pocket for parking. To make things equal to all, everyone must pay (either out of pocket, or as a taxable benefit).

The public transit argument above is a red herring. People are given a tax break to use public transit as an environmental incentive. It in no way equates to the parking argument.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Apr 2015)

You guys do realize that some RSS staff have to pay for parking at some of the Armouries around Canada right?


----------



## exgunnertdo (15 Apr 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I think that the problem is that the general population, and hence the policy makers, now equates "fair" to "equal". You pay for parking in the NCR, at crown owned lots, because there is some unknown group of government employees who, due to their work location, have to pay out of pocket for parking. To make things equal to all, everyone must pay (either out of pocket, or as a taxable benefit).



Not quite. If the _employer_ provides parking where it would be normal to have to pay for parking (ie a downtown urban scenario) then it's a taxable benefit. Or the employee has to pay for parking.  

Joe Civvy who works at a bank downtown has to pay for parking. If the bank provides him a parking spot for free, it is to be a taxable benefit (CRA rules,  not Treasury Board, DND, PWGSC, or Public Service). If a government employee gets a parking spot for free, same rules apply. 

If the employer provides the parking spot where parking would normally be free - Joe Civvy's wife works at a bank in a suburban strip mall for example - no taxable benefit. Government employee who works out in a building in the burbs or in a small town, same deal (CAF member at an armouries, civil servant at a Service Canada centre in a mall...).

CRA rules say we are responsible to pay to get ourselves to and from work, including paying for parking if required.


----------



## c_canuk (15 Apr 2015)

Just because it's taxable, doesn't mean they have to charge for it. You'd just have to claim it on your income tax.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2015)

:goodpost:





			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Just because it's taxable, doesn't mean they have to charge for it. You'd just have to claim it on your income tax.



 :goodpost:


----------



## exgunnertdo (15 Apr 2015)

True, but in this case, they've decided to go with charging for parking rather than make it a taxable benefit.

In downtown Ottawa, I think most, if not all, parking lots on Crown land are maintained by a 3rd party. The government leases the land to a company who then charges for parking, and takes care of maintaining the lot (clearing snow, repainting lines, dealing with the system to monitor parking). Ownership of the land is a small part of the expense of the parking lot. It is costing the government money to provide parking if they don't charge for it.  I imagine the solution of leasing the land and letting a private company manage it all is the simplest.


----------



## c_canuk (16 Apr 2015)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> True, but in this case, they've decided to go with charging for parking rather than make it a taxable benefit.
> 
> In downtown Ottawa, I think most, if not all, parking lots on Crown land are maintained by a 3rd party. The government leases the land to a company who then charges for parking, and takes care of maintaining the lot (clearing snow, repainting lines, dealing with the system to monitor parking). Ownership of the land is a small part of the expense of the parking lot. It is costing the government money to provide parking if they don't charge for it.  I imagine the solution of leasing the land and letting a private company manage it all is the simplest.



How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go with this? Everything is costing the gov money. Including administrating taxing free parking benefits and pay parking. 

How much would you bet against me that this whole exercise isn't actually costing the gov more money than what it costs in real terms, to plow the spots maybe 20 times a year, slap down some pothole fill now and then, and repaint the lines every couple of years. 

There is probably a whole dept at the CRA and a position or two at the treasury board, plus all the man hours being devoted to it federally. Then if the bases don't just contract it out, there will need to be positions dedicated to contracting the maintenance work, enforcing passes ect ect.

At the end of the day, this is simply a pay cut disguised as "fairness" that simply shifts money from the pockets of public servants to the pockets of parking lot contractors. The government will not see any increased net revenue imo, but they would if it were just taxed as a benefit.

What's next? docking us pay for heating the buildings?


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2015)

Fifteen pages on parking fees...


----------



## mariomike (16 Apr 2015)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> CRA rules say we are responsible to pay to get ourselves to and from work, including paying for parking if required.



Depends on the employer. "City Council unanimously supports challenging unfair reassessment by the Canada Revenue Agency"
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=af71df79b2df6410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&nrkey=1EF797A8D48E10E985257722004A1CAA

Only six controlled parking garages were considered by CRA to be a Taxable Benefit. The employees involved ( Emergency Services are exempt from pay parking on City-owned property ) were reimbursed by the City.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Apr 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Fifteen pages on parking fees...



Because just like Senators, public servants and military members feel entitled to their entitlements.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Because just like Senators, public servants and military members feel entitled to their entitlements.



The fact CFB Halifax turned the old rail yard into a parking lot is not an entitlement, its a parking lot. 

Th fact that the GOC/TBS has deemed that for CFB Halifax to provide parking to its members it must be a taxable benefit or paid for by the members is ridiculous, neigh asinine.  And to try to justify it by stating that people in Ottawa have to so there for everyone else should is childish and really just an adult version of a tempertantrum. 

As for your silly "entitled to entitlements" statement; lumping military members in with public servants and senators only shows your disconnect with the armed services and the people that make up that service.


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> As for your silly "entitled to entitlements" statement; lumping military members in with public servants and senators only shows your disconnect with the armed services and the people that make up that service.



And sometimes military members forget they are subject to some of the same rules as everyone else.

How many times have I heard uniform types whine about not getting their Friday afternoon off before a long weekend... :

The CF and the people that make it up has it's fair share of types that have a sense of entitlement just like everyone else.  So his statement is far from silly.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The fact CFB Halifax turned the old rail yard into a parking lot is not an entitlement, its a parking lot.
> 
> Th fact that the GOC/TBS has deemed that for CFB Halifax to provide parking to its members it must be a taxable benefit or paid for by the members is ridiculous, neigh asinine.  And to try to justify it by stating that people in Ottawa have to so there for everyone else should is childish and really just an adult version of a tempertantrum.



Stating a fact is not stating that: "just because Ottawa does, therefore everyone else should".   Shake your head.  An example is just that; an example.  It is a comparison.  As the Ottawa Region/NCR is also supposed to be the basis for PLD and "Ground Zero" for the formulation of these regulations, why would it not be held as an example?  At the same time, the CAF is not immune to regulations placed on it by CRA and TBS.


Perhaps it is you who should reflect on this: 


			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> As for your silly "entitled to entitlements" statement; lumping military members in with public servants and senators only shows your disconnect with the armed services and the people that make up that service.



That comment is an outright insult to most of our intelligence.  We don't have to go far in these forums to find examples of the "sense of entitlements" that some CAF members have developed or under the impression that they deserve.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Apr 2015)

If, they had calculated the parking as a taxable benefit and added such to the T4 slips at the end of the year it might not have found so much disatisfaction from those affected.  That, would have satisfed the tax nazis and not left the impression it is nothing much more than a money grab.


----------



## c_canuk (16 Apr 2015)

I fail to see how expressing irritation at a decrease in take home pay, due to a penny pinching policy that probably will provide no noticeable returns to the federal government, is "entitlement" in the pejorative sense. Am I not entitled to my pay? 

When are we 'entitled' to complain about our ever decreasing entitlements?

In recent memory we've had cuts to pension contributions, seperation allowance, dental plan, health plan, failure to update PLD to reflect current situations, loss of severance pay, and now they're revisiting the parking "benefit" with unrealistic estimates.

90-125 dollars a month is not chump change, that's a significant hit to our ever dwindling disposable income. That's a utility payment, a weeks groceries, a months gas, or half a car payment. 

At what point are we not being entitlists when we complain about another hit to our take home.

And I'd like to clarify, I am not worried about having to pay in the future, I'm already paying. But I feel this is an important debate we need to be having. We can't keep just accepting BOHICA, at some point this trend is going to start majorly impacting moral. 

As for the ever present "don't like it, get out!" People are. Many who aren't, are looking for options to do so. How long can we sustain that what with the recruiting timelines. Then add the VAC woes and people are starting to wonder if the social contract that they sign up for unlimited liability, for the promise that their immediate families will be taken care of, will actually be fufilled.

Do we want the troops thinking about fights with their spouses about their budget and how they will meet their financial obligations, or the mission at hand? Take care of the troops and they will take care of you. How does this constant errosion of the benifits package support that ideal? How about "Know your men and promote their welfare?"

I'm not saying we're not currently properly compensated for our efforts, but if this trend continues, we're headed there.


----------



## exgunnertdo (16 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Stating a fact is not stating that: "just because Ottawa does, therefore everyone else should".   Shake your head.  An example is just that; an example.  It is a comparison.  As the Ottawa Region/NCR is also supposed to be the basis for PLD and "Ground Zero" for the formulation of these regulations, why would it not be held as an example?  At the same time, the CAF is not immune to regulations placed on it by CRA and TBS.



I used Ottawa as an example for two reasons: 1. I have been posted there and was there when they started charging for parking at LSTL. I heard all of the debates and arguments back and forth at that point, and to be honest, it was the civilians that were the most vocal about the parking fees, not the CAF members. 2. Ottawa is a place where there are lots of military members, and a lot of them work downtown, but some work out in the "sticks" (Connaught, Leitrim). The policy reasons for charging for parking are pretty clear when you use Ottawa as an example. Downtown - it is reasonable to expect to pay for parking if you work downtown (military, public servant, or private sector). Connaught and Leitrim are not places where people would expect to pay, parking there is free. 

I've never been to Halifax, so I can't comment on Halifax charging for parking. But I understand the CRA rules and the way parking policies are being applied in Ottawa. I don't want to pay for parking if I get posted back to Ottawa, but I understand it's a reality of that location. If they were charging for parking in Shilo (a base I'm intimately familiar with!) I'd be outraged. That would go against the practice of charging where there is a "market" for parking.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2015)

I think everyone has to understand that, this year, above all others, constraining public expenditures in order to balance the budget in the face of steeply declining (oil) revenues is priority 1 (and 2 ands 3, for that matter).

But this goes beyond just balancing this budget. This government believes (and, deep in their hearts, the Liberals and even the NDP agree) that the whole public sector is too expensive. They are being told by their private sector advisors (bankers and industrialists) and by their most senior public servants that the public sector, writ large, which includes the CF, is nor providing good "value for money." One part of any plan to get better _value_ must be to constrain personnel costs and that includes e.g. making people pay for parking where, previously, they did not do so.

The public service unions are fighting back, on behalf of CF members, too, but the plain truth is that they don't have much support from the general public, not even from the few large private sector unions.


----------



## upandatom (16 Apr 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And sometimes military members forget they are subject to some of the same rules as everyone else.
> 
> How many times have I heard uniform types whine about not getting their Friday afternoon off before a long weekend... :
> 
> The CF and the people that make it up has it's fair share of types that have a sense of entitlement just like everyone else.  So his statement is far from silly.



Laughable at best
Self entitlement, like how I signed up for a job that entitled me to specialist pay, then through their graces they changed the job, they took it away, yet I'm supposed to shut the hell up and take it? Hell no. I complained, I left. 
The same way having some people get taxed for parking and not others is a damn joke too. 

The fact that the GoC is nickel and diming shit like this proves that it needs a major shake up. Its embarassing that we are wasting more money and tax payers bickering over this shit. 

There are some great Public servants, but most of the time they are the ones that are "Righteously self entitled" by complaing and bitching," military gets to do this, so we should too. No, how about you put on the uniform, you play the damn game, you get deployed and pulled away from your family on months on end, no that doesn't happen for those PS. For the personnel in Uniform, it does. 

When changes come down the line to uniformed pers they get told thats how it is.
Not PS, you go to your union and try to come to an agreement.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Laughable at best
> Self entitlement, like how I signed up for a job that entitled me to specialist pay, then through their graces they changed the job, they took it away, yet I'm supposed to shut the hell up and take it? Hell no. I complained, I left.
> The same way having some people get taxed for parking and not others is a damn joke too.
> 
> ...



Did you read what you just posted before you hit POST?


----------



## upandatom (16 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did you read what you just posted before you hit POST?



Sure, call me self entitled. There are fringe benefits to being in the CAF. There are also benefits, core benefits. The line between the two is becoming to skewed. I left because what I signed for, wanted, no longer existed, (Bottom line, you guys will call it is "Self Entitled brat") Go for it, I am not worried at all. 

Sign up for a job, extra training, more time spent on your own to achieve the qualifications that will allow you extra income. Then have someone say oh, to bad. yeah no more, cutbacks, after you have been in job, done job, and completed all required. 

Entitlement is a benefit that comes with the job, is part of it, is a rule within it, ie- PAY pay is an entitlement, PLD is an entitlement, Glasses are an entitlement. 

So whats the deal? Are you going to cut entitlements such as posting allowances??

BE


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Sure, call me self entitled. There are fringe benefits to being in the CAF. There are also benefits, core benefits. The line between the two is becoming to skewed. I left because what I signed for, wanted, no longer existed, (Bottom line, you guys will call it is "Self Entitled brat") Go for it, I am not worried at all.
> 
> Sign up for a job, extra training, more time spent on your own to achieve the qualifications that will allow you extra income. Then have someone say oh, to bad. yeah no more, cutbacks, after you have been in job, done job, and completed all required.
> 
> ...



Ah, so this isn't about parking then?


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Apr 2015)

I think he is expressing what many of us are feeling which is a feeling that many benefits we had for being in the CAF is being chipped away.  Sort of a death by a thousand cuts scenario. 

It is no wonder we have retention issues.  

It wouldn't take much for the conservatives to get back the military vote.  Just a few adjustments and putting the TBS in their place.  But if the (the Cons) have done anything the last few years its push the military vote away from them and the parking fees in Halifax is an issue that has done that.  If I was planning on running for MP in an HRM or surrounding area seat as a con I would be worried right now.  

There is no worthy defence to making people pay for parking at CFB Halifax.


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2015)

And parking is neither an entitlement nor is it a tax free benefit.  So again it goes to what people think they should be entitled to not what they actually are.  Adding parking to the list of benefits and entitlements (real ones) that have ben cut or things like Friday sliders or booze on ships will garner the CF no sympathy whatsoever with the tax payer when it comes to getting their support on more important things. 

Blaming the Conservatives for this is as misplaced as blaming the CF leadership.

The rules on parking have been around for a while, just not enforced as much as now.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Apr 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And parking is neither an entitlement nor is it a tax free benefit.  So again it goes to what people think they should be entitled to not what they actually are.  Adding parking to the list of benefits and entitlements (real ones) that have ben cut or things like Friday sliders or booze on ships will garner the CF no sympathy whatsoever with the tax payer when it comes to getting their support on more important things.
> 
> Blaming the Conservatives for this is as misplaced as blaming the CF leadership.
> 
> The rules on parking have been around for a while, just not enforced as much as now.



No parking is neither.  Its a place to put your PMV while you are at work.  Why should people at CFB Halifax have to pay for that ?  What is the justification ?  Its parking for god sake's.  Its chicken shit stuff like this that drive people away and yes Friday sliders and booze on ships contributes to that.  Life at sea can be miserable and long, in my opinion unequalled in the CAF.  Those little niceties like sliders and booze on ships made up for allot of the hardships we put our RCN people through.  Parking fees are just a slap in the face, its a blind side hit. 

The GOC is to blame for this.  The TBS may have instituted this but the GOC has the electoral power to tell the TBS suck back and reload before you pull a stunt like this.  Which they haven't.  

Its the small things that push people away.  Sliders, booze, parking; all these things add up and push people out the door who otherwise would have stayed. 

I work in a procurement cell, let me tell you financial rules are very plyable, bendable and grey.  So much that it would suprise you.  This is on instance that they should have been check and the GOC asked "Is the juice worth the squeeze?".  Their electoral results in and around the HRM will tell that factor.  I expect to see a sea of red and orange!


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2015)

Many years ago, we had this discussion and the following information was presented:



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'll also reprint the applicable NDA refs here, which have been reviewed numerous times at this location, I can assure you.
> 
> By Federal Statute - Government of Canada
> National Defence Act - Articles 261(1) & 305
> ...





			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> The CFAO relevant to this has been in existence for some time now, it just has never been fully implemented:  CFAO 29-9 – PARKING AT DND INSTALLATIONS IN URBAN AREAS.
> 
> Some places on the list, like Ottawa, it makes sense to charge for parking due to limited number, cost incurred by others not allocated spots, suitable public transportation etc.  At other places like Edmonton, it makes no sense whatsoever as there is plenty of parking to go around, public transportation doesn't meet the needs of the members, there are no commercial options etc etc.
> 
> Maybe someone got audited and the observation was made that parking fees weren't being charged as they should be?


 NOTE: Link to CFAO 29-9 is broken.  DAOD 1004-0 and DAOD 1004-1 supersede CFAO 29-9.



Just to update with current links (Apr 2015):

DAOD 1004-0, Parking

DAOD 1004-1, Parking Administration



And again back to 2007:



			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> DND POLICY
> 3. At DND installations served by regularly-scheduled public transit, parking should be provided in the minimum quantity required for effective operation of the installation, and members and DND civilian employees who are provided with parking will be charged for the space provided. Conversely, at DND installations not served by regularly scheduled public transit, parking will be provided without charge to members and DND civilian employees in a quantity sufficient to meet a reasonable demand. The parking spaces available to an installation under the terms of this policy may be located in any parking areas located within one-half kilometre of the installation.
> 
> 
> I foresee challenges based on the fact that not everyone at the worksite has access to public transit from their home location.  Could this affect the current restrictions for how far away from the worksite you are allowed to live?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2015)

This is why I don't think people are listening at all to what they are saying:



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its a place to put your PMV while you are at work.  Why should people at CFB Halifax have to pay for that ?  What is the justification ?  Its parking for god sake's.



If CFB Halifax were not in the center of the city of Halifax, but out in some remote location like Yarmouth or Windsor, perhaps you would have an argument.   That serving members and the civilians on base have benefited from no fees in the past is a luxury that others in the city have not benefited from.  Perhaps you should be looking at the years that you got free parking as an unexpected bonus, rather than a benefit  -- extra cash that you did not deserve.  You have not lost a benefit, just a "freebie".

There are many ways to look at it.  Have you wondered, or even asked, what the civilians down the street think of your free parking up to now?


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2015)

I've provided similar info before.

But here.  This rule applies to all Canadians.  CF or not.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/tmbl/prkng-eng.html

Having an opinion on the matter is fine but unless you have a valid reason why this should be an entitlement, no one is likely going to go to bat for any of us on this.  including the red and orange types referred to.


----------



## c_canuk (16 Apr 2015)

There has been a benefit cut George.

It has been cut. This is not up for debate. It used to be free, now it's not. It was a benefit. 

What is up for debate is if they should have cut the benefit, or put it on T4s as a taxable benefit. 

Instead of just following the rules set out by the TBS and CRA, they decided remove the benefit.

That's what has people outraged, on top of all the other cuts over recent memory.

Consider that taxing the benefit may cut into people's yearly tax return, yes, however paying for parking is not tax deductable (iirc).

So instead of getting a smaller return this year, they are out 4 times or more that amount after taxes. 

And for what? so the local contractors get another 5% to their revenue stream? so the bases can justify a couple more positions to look after parking?

Does DND really need to make parking management and tracking those funds part of our footprint when so many key positions are already going unfilled, and report after report says we're bloated with useless bureaucracy?


----------



## MJP (16 Apr 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think he is expressing what many of us are feeling which is a feeling that many benefits we had for being in the CAF is being chipped away.  Sort of a death by a thousand cuts scenario.
> 
> It is no wonder we have retention issues.
> 
> ...



The military vote is small and insignificant in the grand scheme of Canada.  We (can) vote in election districts all over the country regardless of where we actually live.  There is some knock on effect that can affect voting patterns if enough people in a military community sense feel jilted but writ large we are insignificant as a voting block.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2015)

Not to be insulting, but LOL.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> There has been a benefit cut George.
> 
> It has been cut. This is not up for debate. It used to be free, now it's not. It was a benefit.



It obviously is up for debate.  Depending on how you look at it, it may not have been a "benefit" but a "FREEBIE" or a complete oversight of the system.  Read the DAOD's.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> What is up for debate is if they should have cut the benefit, or put it on T4s as a taxable benefit.



As there was no 'benefit', you are left to debate your right to claim it with your Tax Lawyer. 



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Instead of just following the rules set out by the TBS and CRA, they decided remove the benefit.



No.  They decided to enforce their policy.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> That's what has people outraged, on top of all the other cuts over recent memory.



No.  People are up in arms because of what you say here, and people now having to pay for something they took for granted:


			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Consider that taxing the benefit may cut into people's yearly tax return, yes, however paying for parking is not tax deductable (iirc).
> 
> So instead of getting a smaller return this year, they are out 4 times or more that amount after taxes.





			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Does DND really need to make parking management and tracking those funds part of our footprint when so many key positions are already going unfilled, and report after report says we're bloated with useless bureaucracy?



Actually, DND has been doing a lot of other things in the past two or three decades.  They have demolished buildings to cut down on their payment in lieu of taxes to municipalities.  They have closed down whole bases.  It all does come down to how to run their establishments and follow all the rules they have in place to do so.  I am sure that you have seen other measures put into place that went unchallenged because they did not affect your pocketbook, so you did not complain.  All of them affect you, not just the parking issue.  For members in one large metropolitan area to complain that they have to pay for parking while members in other large metropolitan areas have faced that burden for years now, makes it sound like a bunch of juvenile whinners who do have too much of a sense of entitlement.  

I personally bitched to myself about having to pay for parking, but it was the norm living in a major metropolitan center and even without PLD, it in the long run had very little affect on my financial situation.


----------



## garb811 (17 Apr 2015)

Maybe, just MAYBE, if the RCN gave each and every person working in the Dockyard and Stadacona equal access to the opportunity to actually get a parking pass, I MIGHT, just MIGHT have an iota of sympathy for what has been imposed upon you.  

Those members currently serving in Halifax and complaining about how hard "everyone" is being done by are conveniently leaving out a very salient fact and that is that parking at the Dockyard and Stadacona has always been, and continues to be, out of bounds to a significant number of the members who work there.  Ironically enough, those are the members who would benefit most from the continuation of free parking, those with the lowest pay due to just having joined.  Those members have never been able to obtain a parking pass and are still unable to do so.  When I was posted to Halifax I believe the "magic" figure was 15 years in to qualify to apply for a parking pass, then it was dropped to something like 12 and now, after looking up the current CFB Halifax parking policy, I see it is 5.  

Think about that for a second...what other Base in Canada has ever forbidden, as a formal policy via a Base Standing Order, ANY member of the Canadian Armed Forces from parking their POMV in FREE taxpayer provided parking simply by virtue of the number of years of service when all else is equal in order to guarantee parking is available for members who meet that arbitrary number of years?  Bueller...Bueller...?  Right.  NONE.  And you, who are complaining about having to pay for parking because you work there meaning you qualify to apply for a parking pass, which means you are at least an LS making $57k a year and who quite possibly have at least a few years of qualifying sea time to pad out your sea pay, have the gall to complain that you are being made to pay, what...$75 a month?...for that privilege while anyone with less than 5 years of service are told, "don't even bother to think about asking to park your car here" even if they were willing to pay twice that.  Get.  Over.  Yourselves.

I had an inside view on the parking issue in Halifax while there and each and every time there was an attempt made to resolve the parking issue without instituting paid parking it was torpedoed by those people who refused to accept the fact that in order to try to avoid the imposition of payment, the easiest and most likely to succeed solution was to open the doors and make it scramble parking.  First come, first served, no matter what your rank, no matter what your years of service with the exception of some reserved spots for the customary positions.  Just like the "free" parking at most other Bases across Canada where "reserved" parking is limited and if you want a spot close to the door, get there early or tough.  Members of the C&POs mess were the worst, loudly and actively resisting the loss of "their privilege" which they had "earned", while leaving the poor lower deckers, for the most part, to try to find places to park on the streets blocks away from Stad or the Dockyard or, god forbid, pay to park in a private lot if they wanted to drive but didn't want to spend 30 min driving around in circles looking for a spot.  Or they could ride the bus, pay for a transit pass that those who had "earned" free parking didn't have to buy, quite possibly drive to a location where they could then catch the bus if they didn't live close to a route and then hope that their trip went smoothly and they hit all their connections lest they ended up being late with all the joy that would bring down on their head.  And those with "privilege" wouldn't listen to the warnings about what was coming because parking had always been free and would always be free, Treasury Board and CRA be damned.  That is the sense of entitlement that has led to the current situation and it is sad that the majority of the people actively resisting in the early days when scramble parking likely would have worked are now long retired and this has no impact on them, other than when they have to buy a parking stub to go hang out with their cronies at Juno Tower and bemoan the death of the RCN by a thousand cuts as opposed to realizing that the RCN needs to change with the times and stop pretending we are still living in 1950 where the Mess you belong to entitles you to differing levels of privilege.

My solution?  Demand outstrips supply.  Let the free market reign.  The Base Commander should jack the prices until the demand drops off to match supply.  You are a PO1 and don't want to pay the premium?  Do what you are forcing your junior members to do.  Go find a spot on the street and hope you don't get ticketed or towed.  Get a spot in a private lot if you want a bit of peace of mind.  Buy a transit pass and take the bus.  Mooch a ride off of someone who is willing to pay the premium.  Or, if you want to maintain an artificial cap on the price, level the playing field.  Once a year, after APS, hold a lottery.  You want to apply for a parking pass?  Put your name in the hat along with the 2000 other people who want a shot at the 1100 parking passes available for Stad and the Dockyard and give the AB an equal chance at a pass alongside her Divisional Chief since he isn't willing to cough up a the premium price that the free market will bear.  Or, give shotgun parking a go and then watch the fun as people start showing up for work at 0630 hrs and hitting the gym because they are willing to come in a bit early to guarantee a spot but that was the most often used argument against shotgun parking to start with, senior members were worried they would be beaten to the spots by junior members who were willing get up early and sacrifice a bit of personal time to make sure they could park. 

Ref the idea that parking should have simply been made a taxable benefit and added to "your" T4 at the end of the year and therefore there would have been no need to employ all those people involved in the administration and enforcement of the parking system...  Given the fact different areas of the Base are charged different amounts, not everyone parks on the Base nor desires to even if everyone had a shot at a parking pass, some people only get a spot for part of the year etc etc, you can't just automatically add "$x" to everyone's T4, so therefore, someone, somewhere, has to track and account for those members who have a pass.  So...where does the money to pay for that administrative overhead come from if the Base is simply letting the "monies" from the "parking fees" that are being accounted for as a taxable benefit lapse by being uncollected, or be effectively diverted to the General Revenues fund via your reduced tax refund at year end, as opposed to being available at the Base level to pay that admin overhead?  How about the payment of the enforcement personnel?  And, no, MP cannot simply do it themselves; prior to the paid parking it was a full time job for several Commisionaires alone, with MP doing top up and that was without people being royally offended because they couldn't find a parking spot they were paying for yet someone without a pass was illegally parked.  Or someone deciding that even though they couldn't find a spot they had "paid for a spot" and would just park where they thought there was room.  And those guys who are now paying a premium for a reserved spot who are no longer willing to let it slide when someone parks in their reserved parking for "just 5 minutes while they run into S-90".  Fact is, the Base Commander made the wise choice.  He knew money was going to be needed to pay for administering parking...there was always a cost in administering and enforcing the "free" parking in Halifax anyway due to the parking pass system and limited number of spots, so he saw an opportunity to not only meet the demands of CRA and Treasury Board but to also help him stretch his budget by charging locally and, it appears he is also taking some of the pressure off of the Base SNIC crews by using some of the money to fund snow clearing of parking areas by private contractors.

At the end of the day, parking in certain areas of Halifax is a commodity.  Demand outstrips supply.  You now pay for parking in those areas. There was a very active effort by a good number of senior RCN non-commissioned members in Halifax to restrict access to that limited commodity at no cost for their sole benefit to the exclusion of their subordinates (kind of goes against the credo of Mission, Men, Self but we are talking about earned privileges here so that really doesn't apply, right?) and if you want to start pointing fingers, that would be the place to start.  Perhaps if those individuals had been willing to listen years ago when this topic first came on the radar, the current pain could have been avoided.  They refused to and eventually the Base Commander was likely left with no choice.  Given what happened in Toronto (Police parking a taxable benefit, Canada Revenue Agency rules and City staff back-taxed for parking) where some people were assessed thousands of dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties owing, this really isn't as bad as it could have been, especially considering CRA would have been looking at an additional four or five years of deemed taxable benefits compared to the 2010 audits in Toronto.

Finally, ref the comment about free soup and lunch (not to mention the seemingly always present cookie, sticky bun, fruit, cracker and cheese platters with on tap free coffee and juice in the C&POs mess no matter what hour of the day, at the time at least) making fiscal sense because each ship must keep two weeks of stores on board and if they weren't eaten, they'd just be thrown out.  The Base kitchens tried to justify giving their staff (military and civilian) free meals by saying the food they were eating only would have gone in the garbage anyway as well.  CRA didn't buy it then and I doubt they would buy it for the RCN either if they ever chose to take a good look at the practice as in this day and age there is no justifiable reason, or even the ability, for each and every ship in the fleet to be at such a high readiness state that they require two weeks of perishable rations on board.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2015)

Many of your points garb811 are salient.  I would like to point out, howerver, that those self same C&PO's you flay did spend their 15 years finding parking in the wilderness when they were young and broke as well.  It's not like they did not suffer the lash themselves.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2015)

garb811:  that what I would call a checkmate.  Great post.


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2015)

Actually, free lunches on board HMC Ships in home port has little to do with keeping food on board in case the ship has to deploy at short notice.  We only specifically store food like that in the Ready Duty Ship.  Other ships strictly store to meet the requirement to feed lunch five days a week (and breakfast and supper to the Duty Watch).  The chief reasons are:

a)  We don't want people to leave the ship at lunch time.  There are no facilities (commercial or otherwise) within easy reach of either of HMC Dockyards that could handle the influx of sailors coming off the ships looking for lunch.  For everyone to get off the ship find lunch and get back would mean a huge loss of productivity on board as lunch "hour" would be considerably longer.  However, more importantly;

b)  We don't want people brown-bagging their lunches.  Ships are enclosed spaces where vermin can multiply at a great rate.  There are no places on board ships (nor places to put them) where sailors could properly store their lunches.  This would likely lead to personnel storing their lunches in their lockers/cabins.  Not everyone is partcularly "food-safe" and the risk of improper storage (not to mention forgotten lunches) would increase multifold, leading to the attraction and multiplication of vermin (cockroaches, fruitflies, rats, etc).  The fumigation of a ship is full-blown refit operation and extremely expensive.  Feeding the ship's company lunch five days a week in order to avoid this is quite cheap in comparison.

In short, although cook training/practice, reduced food wastage and a perk for sailors are all side benefits of this policy, they are not the main reason for doing it.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Many of your points garb811 are salient.  I would like to point out, howerver, that those self same C&PO's you flay did spend their 15 years finding parking in the wilderness when they were young and broke as well.  It's not like they did not suffer the lash themselves.



"I was treated like crap.  Therefore, as a new leader, it is my role to treat my subordinates like crap."


----------



## upandatom (17 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "I was treated like crap.  Therefore, as a new leader, it is my role to treat my subordinates like crap."



DING DING DING

Thats how it rolls, and thats why the wheels on the bus are not going round and round anymore. 
Instead of trying to fix situations, they are making it worse or just washing their hands of it.


----------



## mariomike (17 Apr 2015)

Not sure if this was already posted. If it was, I shall remove it.

August 11, 2014 
Military staff at CFB Halifax wage war on new parking fees
http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1228722-military-staff-at-cfb-halifax-wage-war-on-new-parking-fees

"HMC Dockyard rang with frustration at lunchtime Monday as about 200 sailors and other employees marched to protest impending parking fees."

See also,

Dec 20, 2013 
CFB Halifax struggles with parking lot scramble 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cfb-halifax-struggles-with-parking-lot-scramble-1.2471297

"To limit the scramble. the navy was only allowing people with eight or more years of seniority to get inside the gates to look for a spot."

In a related parking discussion,

Sailors Can't find Parking Spaces  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/47166.0;nowap

"The parking problem in Halifax was one of the reasons for me ditching my snow shovel and heading out west."


----------



## garb811 (17 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Many of your points garb811 are salient.  I would like to point out, howerver, that those self same C&PO's you flay did spend their 15 years finding parking in the wilderness when they were young and broke as well.  It's not like they did not suffer the lash themselves.


:facepalm:  Typed with a straight face no doubt.  And you guys are pointing fingers at things like losing cheap booze, sliders and the other "thousand little cuts" as to why there's a retention problem in the the ranks when this attitude prevails with the RCN "leadership", at all levels.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Actually, free lunches on board HMC Ships in home port has little to do with keeping food on board in case the ship has to deploy at short notice.  We only specifically store food like that in the Ready Duty Ship.  Other ships strictly store to meet the requirement to feed lunch five days a week (and breakfast and supper to the Duty Watch).  The chief reasons are:
> 
> a)  We don't want people to leave the ship at lunch time.  There are no facilities (commercial or otherwise) within easy reach of either of HMC Dockyards that could handle the influx of sailors coming off the ships looking for lunch.  For everyone to get off the ship find lunch and get back would mean a huge loss of productivity on board as lunch "hour" would be considerably longer.  However, more importantly;
> 
> ...


The two most often heard excuses when I asked what the point of giving free meals was.  

First, the employer has absolutely no requirement to ensure its employees have ready access to restaurants.  There are many bases where access to restaurants is even less of an option than Halifax.  I would point out there is a cafe in the Dockyard in Halifax not to mention an actual, onshore, kitchen right on the jetty that serves meals to walk in customers that is also providing no cost meals to some.  And I certainly was told by some of my MP who, when lunch time came and they were on ship conducting an investigation, that they would need to find another location to have their meal because they were not going to be invited to eat at the Mess.  I guess wasted time is relative.  

Second, there are other locations where we now charge soldiers, sailors and aviators for their meals even though they have even less opportunity to brown bag it or go to a restaurant than a sailor on ship.  Those poor folks in St Jean on Basic, Borden, Gagetown, all of the other locations we send people to receive their initial trades training, including the Fleet Schools in Halifax and Esquimalt, are being ordered to live in shacks where they have no kitchens to cook for themselves and are coughing up for full rations.  Some of these folks are struggling with that cost while maintaining a second residence for their spouse and children on a salary of $34k per year while being forced to pay over $500 a month for food, just for themselves.  And some people making six figures, base salary not counting sea pay, are given free meals.  Because the RCN can't figure out how to provide them with access to a fridge.  

Quite frankly this is the most inane excuse ever.  Just like with parking, the navy has had ample opportunity to come up with workable solutions and provide refrigeration and heating appliances for their sailors but has made the conscious decision not to in order to maintain a privilege nobody else in the CAF gets.  Every mess I've been to on ship had a microwave and I seem to recall fridges as well...they just prefer to maintain the status quo of the perk and trot out red-herrings like this as reasons to try to justify spending public funds on a discretionary activity that is no longer justifiable or defensible in any way, shape or form.  Perhaps you should re-purpose your ready duty beer fridges that can no longer be used for that into lunch storage facilities.  If the Capt "needs" to maintain the privilege of taking his meals in the private dining area in his cabin, give him a mini-bar fridge...but I suspect there's already one there and I'm sure his steward would be more than happy to heat his lunch for him in a common microwave and bring it back to him so he doesn't have to impose upon his Officer's in their mess.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "I was treated like crap.  Therefore, as a new leader, it is my role to treat my subordinates like crap."



Not the point I was making.  My point was to call to attention, the fact, that was missed by garb811 in his post that those who are presently using the parking pass system (and I am not one of them, btw) and are in the C&PO levels also waited the 15 years to get their chance for a pass.  That was all.  He made it sound as if the angels sang from on high, the Lord God Almighty parted the clouds (ala Search for the Holy Grail) and anointed the chosen ones with parking passes.  Reality was somewhat different.

garb811 lumped all C&PO's together, tarred and feather all together as well, as you are doing in your response.  I have no doubt that there were some from that mess level who made some noises as I am sure there was some from the weird room level as well.  It is disingenuous to cast aspersions on everyone as it would have been a minimal few who would have the ability to try and stop the process.  Not everyone made noise.  That, I may suggest is just as poor an example of leadership for subordinates as well.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> :facepalm:  Typed with a straight face no doubt.  And you guys are pointing fingers at things like losing cheap booze, sliders and the other "thousand little cuts" as to why there's a retention problem in the the ranks when this attitude prevails with the RCN "leadership", at all levels.



Yes, I typed what I did with a straight face.  I waited until the 15 year mark just like everyone else at the time.  That was all I pointed out BTW with the exception of they could have done it as a taxable benefit on the T4.  I work part time in a location where parking is a taxable benefit, you have a parking pass, X amount is calculated for each month you have the pass and it is added to your T4.  Simple, not rocket science.  There is no reason it could not have continued with the parking pass system used previously.  You hold a red, white, green or whatever pass, it is charged at such and such a rate.  Make it all scamble and open it to all.  Problem solved, equitable and fair.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Apr 2015)

Perhaps the base needs to come up with a mitigation strategy for this.  One possible alternative would be for the base to provide a shuttle service to and from the dockyard in the morning and the afternoon with a bunch of pick up points in and around HRM that members could use to get to work.  Growing up in Bathurst, NB, we had a couple of large mines that were about 40 min outside of town that between the different sites employed around 3000 people.  

The mining company offered a shuttle service to and from the mines that had a number of different pickup points around the region.  Usually each village in vicinity of Bathurst had a central pickup point where employees would meet at a designated time to go to work and they would be dropped off at the end of their shift at this same location.  Bathurst itself had around five or six collections points in different parts of town where workers would RV prior to heading to their respective site.  

Obviously this sort of thing costs money but this could be mitigated by using some of the money collected in parking fees to finance this.  It also provides an alternative for those who don't want to pay for parking with the catch being that they are travelling to work for free but are on a fixed schedule which means they may not be able to leave when they feel like it, in which case, using public transit is an alternative option.    

Deals could also be negotiated with local businesses, such as a grocery store, to allow members to be collected from that location and leave their cars there.  It could be beneficial for the grocery store as their parking lots are rarely ever full and people often might need to pick something up for dinner on their way home from work in which case being dropped off at a grocery store is a perfect place to do just that. 

A study would need to be done on how feasible something like this would be.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2015)

I recall seeing a story in the Chronically Horrible once about a worker at the Dockyards who, every morning, would park at the Casino, go in and put $5 into a slot machine, then walk to work.  CHeaper than other parking options, apparently, plus a chance of a windfall.


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Perhaps the base needs to come up with a mitigation strategy for this.  One possible alternative would be for the base to provide a shuttle service to and from the dockyard in the morning and the afternoon with a bunch of pick up points in and around HRM that members could use to get to work.


Why? A DND bus system would just duplicate the city bus system while consuming resources from DND and robbing revenue from the city.


----------



## c_canuk (17 Apr 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Perhaps the base needs to come up with a mitigation strategy for this.  One possible alternative would be for the base to provide a shuttle service to and from the dockyard in the morning and the afternoon with a bunch of pick up points in and around HRM that members could use to get to work.  Growing up in Bathurst, NB, we had a couple of large mines that were about 40 min outside of town that between the different sites employed around 3000 people.
> 
> The mining company offered a shuttle service to and from the mines that had a number of different pickup points around the region.  Usually each village in vicinity of Bathurst had a central pickup point where employees would meet at a designated time to go to work and they would be dropped off at the end of their shift at this same location.  Bathurst itself had around five or six collections points in different parts of town where workers would RV prior to heading to their respective site.
> 
> ...



That would be a good idea.

However, when I tried to set up a shuttle to save the CF a bundle in TAA to transport the Reserve Class B's from Saint John to Gagetown, you wouldn't believe the amount of obstacles thrown in my way.

Oh, and George. I don't have a bun in the parking fight except that it's another 1/1000 cuts. You will never convince me that simply noting that the member receives parking as a benefit on their T4 is more difficult than actually running a parking business. Even if different parking spots have different rates (seriously? who's doing that? and why?) 

Peoplesoft, MM, and the Gal all have places to record what building you work out of, those buildings will have parking spots. Yeah it really is that easy to add it as a single line on the T4. Bases already record your PMV Plate number.

As for it was a freebie not a benefit argument. Doesn't matter what you call it. The CRA decided that parking that is not charged for is a taxable benefit. They defined it as a benefit, therefore under CRA rules it was a benefit regardless of how the CF seen it. The CF doesn't get to decide what is a benefit and what isn't. 

If you believe otherwise, please find in the CRA documentation where they define "Freebie" and delegate the authority to the CF to define benefits.


----------



## kratz (17 Apr 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Perhaps the base needs to come up with a mitigation strategy for this.  One possible alternative would be for the base to provide a shuttle service to and from the dockyard in the morning and the afternoon with a bunch of pick up points in and around HRM  that members could use to get to work.



Years ago, the  base had a duty boat to ferry sailors from the Dartmouth side of the harbour to drop off in the dockyard. City transit workers raised such a loud objection to taking away their jobs, that the base had to stop offering the service. So to start a shuttle service would raise the same concerns.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2015)

@c_canuck

sigh.  Please explain where you are entitled to said benefit. taxable or not, in any of our regs or theirs.  You won't because it isn't there.  You only lost what you shouldn't have had to begin with.  if I overpay you and take it back, that isn't a cut, its putting things back in order.

You were technically overpayed, now you are not, just be thankful they aren't going after you retroactively.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2015)

garb811 said:
			
		

> :facepalm:  And you guys are pointing fingers at things like losing cheap booze, sliders and the other "thousand little cuts" as to why there's a retention problem in the the ranks when this attitude prevails with the RCN "leadership",  at all levels.



You, are an outsider and out of your lanes, to be quite frank.  I say this, because I came from your trade, worked here in it in Halifax and know the difference between the two worlds.  Many people are unhappy with the direction the RCN is going with respect to changes that are ongoing.  Some of it to be fair can be tacked onto leadership issues or lack thereof but that is not everyone's burr under the saddle blanket.

As for your slamming Pusser's reasoning, again, you're out of your lanes.  He makes valid points on health and habitabilty concerns which are real and viable.  On ship you are living and working in a contained system, anything that could adversely affect the health and fitness of the crew is a real concern.  Unless you've spent time at sea, you cannot appreciate how much you are affected by these factors.  There is a reason cleaning stations, however much they suck doing them, are important.  

Pusser's reasoning on productivy/cost is sound.  Unlike Army bases, and yes, I served in 1CMBG, don't have the same needs as HMC Ships.  There are many factors that come into making sure sailors are available for work on time when required.  Both FMF and/or contractors may be on board doing major repairs to the ship on a tight timeline or schedule.  Planning for the projects can take weeks and months and can cost many millions of dollars.  It a project gets off track for whatever reason it can have a major detrimental effect on operations and deployments for that or other units.  Army units don't have the same logistical/repair needs a ship does, therefore there is much room to disagree with you on.  Productivity was one of the main reasons "sliders" were stopped.  FMF was not getting the work done on time that they needed to complete due to personnel issues on ship.  As much as I don't always agree with Pusser on things, he is more correct on this subject despite your objections.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Apr 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Why? A DND bus system would just duplicate the city bus system while consuming resources from DND and robbing revenue from the city.



Is it a DND responsibility to help the city make money?  I get your point about duplication of effort but then again, providing a service to young soldiers who might be hard strapped for cash, especially while having to live on the economy in a big city because DND has divested all the PMQ's and Shacks they used to have might be seen as in a positive light as a move by the chain of command to improve morale and welfare.  

Using some money collected from parking fees for Snr NCO's and Officers who get a parking spot and pay for it would also be seen as giving back to the masses so to speak.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Using some money collected from parking fees for Snr NCO's and Officers who get a parking spot and pay for it would also be seen as giving back to the masses so to speak.



Parking was never done by rank.  It was was done by TI (Time In).  For 10 years I got to work 2 hrs early every day just to get a parking spot on Artz street.  Not because I was a MS and below because I didn't have the required time in.  Its not and never was a rank issue. 

All and I mean all of my friends I see outside of work in the HRM are civilian.  Not one of them ever had an issue with the usage of the parking lots in CFB Halifax.  Or its free cost.  This move is simply bean counting at its finest and most finite.  How parking your PMV at work became a taxable benefit in the first place is beyond my comprehension.  

The other issue is I have yet to see the "plethora" of parking lots around the DKYRD that are open for members to use.  I know of 1 small one on Brunswick St.  It could fit maybe 50 cars.  So who exactly are the CFB Halifax parking lots stealing business from ?

As for the shuttle, as previously stated the HRM Transit Commish would just claim we have taken business from them and its not fair.  Just like PMQs V Local Landlords and the Shuttle Ferry V the Dartmouth Ferry.  

I think its fair to say the two camps here are just going to have to agree to disagree on the validity of the merits behind this move.


----------



## mariomike (17 Apr 2015)

From another parking discussion ( separate from this thread ) in 2006:



			
				Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> This is a topic that has been discussed for years and years at the parking pass committee in Halifax and I would anticipate that it will continue to be discussed for the next 10-20 years.


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I get your point about duplication of effort but then again, providing a service to young soldiers who might be hard strapped for cash, especially while having to live on the economy in a big city because DND has divested all the PMQ's and Shacks they used to have might be seen as in a positive light as a move by the chain of command to improve morale and welfare.


The young soldiers that you describe are already paying and using city transit (because they are too junior to have been authorized a parking spot under the old rules).  A free-ride shuttle, created for more senior pers who do not want to pay for parking, would also have the effect of taking current riders away from the city buses.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Is it a DND responsibility to help the city make money?


Actually, a big part of the pay parking is from policies intended to ensure the federal government does not undercut local service providers.  We have to rent real property at local market rates so as to not deflate the value that local property owners can make of thier resources. It does not matter if it is a PMQ to house your family, an armoury drill hall to host a wedding, or a rectangle of ashpault upon which to park your car.  If DND were to lay-on a free ride shuttle, it would take money away from the local economy ... and it would probably not be long before the shuttle was forced to charge rates comparable to the municipal bus system.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The young soldiers that you describe are already paying and using city transit (because they are too junior to have been authorized a parking spot under the old rules).  A free-ride shuttle, created for more senior pers who do not want to pay for parking, would also have the effect of taking current riders away from the city buses.



This is not 100% correct.  And you have to be careful when you use the term senior V junior.  There were very very many MS and LS who had parking passes because they had required TI.  Rank had nothing to do with this.  I watched PO2s and PO1s walk up the hill to Artz street just like me a LS because they didn't have the TI.  And I never paid a cent as it was normal free street parking. 

The only people who received parking as per rank/postion were senior position folks like COs and Cox'ns of ships ect.


----------



## Occam (17 Apr 2015)

It's interesting how the parking situation evolved here at LStL in Gatineau, according to my boss.

Apparently, when it was just the LStL building, the attached lot satisfied DND parking requirements for the most part - there was no fair market value for parking because there were no pay lots within a reasonable distance.  Occasionally, high demand would cause people to approach the Canadian Tire and the Hull Casino, and they would rent out some spaces in their parking lots.  As time went on, they opened LStL II with its parkade, and the Casino leases out one of its lots for general parking now to meet the excess demand from the old and new buildings, since there still isn't enough on-site parking.  So, essentially, DND created its own demand and resulting market value where there had been none before.  A perfect example of a self-licking ice cream cone.


----------



## acen (17 Apr 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> DND created its own demand and resulting market value where there had been none before.  A perfect example of a self-licking ice cream cone.



A discipline in which we have a lot of SMEs it seems. Perhaps we should open a Centre of Excellence on self-licking ice cream cones? We could house the Directorate (maybe it's a branch now) of Basket Weaving (Natural Fibres) in the same location!


----------



## c_canuk (17 Apr 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> @c_canuck
> 
> sigh.  Please explain where you are entitled to said benefit. taxable or not, in any of our regs or theirs.  You won't because it isn't there.  You only lost what you shouldn't have had to begin with.  if I overpay you and take it back, that isn't a cut, its putting things back in order.
> 
> You were technically overpayed, now you are not, just be thankful they aren't going after you retroactively.



First this doesn't actually affect me at this time, other than the fact that it's yet again another BOHICA for those of us in uniform. (first they came for the ______. I said nothing....)

In every base orders I've read, you will find instructions on PMV parking, who is entitled, where you may park and a myriad of other parking regulations. Therefore the ability to park on base for free is recognized as provided by the CF to the members.

When these parking rules were established it was determined that crown owned parking would be free of charge. Therefore it was a benefit of working in those locations, based on the definition of the word. 

Then the CRA redefined what constitutes a taxable benefit and classified the parking described in these orders as a taxable benefit. 

By declaring it a taxable benefit, they also additionally ratified the parking as an employment benefit. The CRA's own correspondence as well as the TBS' also states that the CF was providing this tax free benefit, but neglecting to note it on member's T4s. 

At no time has the CRA or TBS ever believed this was anything other than a benefit. Their recognition that it is a benefit drove the whole thing to begin with.

In response to this, the CF has removed a CRA defined benefit that is codified in both CRA and CF documentation.

Your assertion that the CF was accidentally providing a benefit, while codifying all details of said benefit in orders, is ridiculous.

The only required response was to annotate t4s. At no time was the CF required to start charging for parking. This is the core argument. The fixation on: -it was never a benefit; it was an accidental freebie- is irrelevant to the argument especially since providing parking has long been a deliberate and well documented phenomenon. 


Simpler terms


The CF established, regulated and maintained free parking for members, then the CRA said that is a taxable benefit, it must be claimed. Then the CF said, no we'll just change our regulations, and start charging for parking.

You may argue that the CF is not required to provide this benefit. You would be correct afaik, that there is no documentation saying they have to provide parking. However, the logistics of closing all parking and refusing to provide it would interfere with the CF’s operation. 

So there are 2 realistic scenarios, spend a lot of money creating a parking business to operate within DND, or note the parking benefit on people's T4s. 
The CF went with the option that took more money from the members and will likely impact operation, instead of the other that would have taken less and affected the organization less. This is what has people irritated.

I'm sick of the position similar to: oh no it was not a benefit; we accidentally built all these parking facilities and wrote orders for their regulation when we slipped on a banana peel! You should feel lucky we're not charging you retroactively!

It's insulting.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Apr 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The young soldiers that you describe are already paying and using city transit (because they are too junior to have been authorized a parking spot under the old rules).  A free-ride shuttle, created for more senior pers who do not want to pay for parking, would also have the effect of taking current riders away from the city buses.
> Actually, a big part of the pay parking is from policies intended to ensure the federal government does not undercut local service providers.  We have to rent real property at local market rates so as to not deflate the value that local property owners can make of thier resources. It does not matter if it is a PMQ to house your family, an armoury drill hall to host a wedding, or a rectangle of ashpault upon which to park your car.  If DND were to lay-on a free ride shuttle, it would take money away from the local economy ... and it would probably not be long before the shuttle was forced to charge rates comparable to the municipal bus system.



And it's exactly this sort of thinking that isn't helping our little attrition problem which isn't getting any better.  It's pretty easy for an officer to spew out government policy when he is making a fat 100k a year.  Not so easy for a young private on 35k a year to sit there and take it.  If I don't agree with a policy, I will do my best to fight and change it, too many are just willing to sit there and take it or they just can't be bothered to care that much.  

Instead of simply telling me why we can't do something, how about working towards coming up with a solution that can benefit all parties involved?  I never said my solution was perfect or if it is the best solution, I don't know that it actually is but to dismiss it without even providing any sort of alternative seems a little weak IMO.      



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Parking was never done by rank.  It was was done by TI (Time In).  For 10 years I got to work 2 hrs early every day just to get a parking spot on Artz street.  Not because I was a MS and below because I didn't have the required time in.  Its not and never was a rank issue.



Cool, if it's done like this, it still doesn't change my premise that shuttles would be provided to those who don't have a parking spot. 



> All and I mean all of my friends I see outside of work in the HRM are civilian.  Not one of them ever had an issue with the usage of the parking lots in CFB Halifax.  Or its free cost.  This move is simply bean counting at its finest and most finite.  How parking your PMV at work became a taxable benefit in the first place is beyond my comprehension.
> 
> The other issue is I have yet to see the "plethora" of parking lots around the DKYRD that are open for members to use.  I know of 1 small one on Brunswick St.  It could fit maybe 50 cars.  So who exactly are the CFB Halifax parking lots stealing business from ?
> 
> As for the shuttle, as previously stated the HRM Transit Commish would just claim we have taken business from them and its not fair.  Just like PMQs V Local Landlords and the Shuttle Ferry V the Dartmouth Ferry.



Lots of people complain about lots of things we have to do, if they want the benefits, they can sign up for the service, IMO.  This goes both ways, if people aren't happy with the service, they should let the service know by tendering their release and looking for other career opportunities.  From a personal point of view, I wouldn't care so much about having to pay for parking but then again, I am single, have no dependents and I make 80k+ a year but if I was a an NCM with a family making 50k a year, I'd be a little torqued about it. 

I also never said to ignore policy; however, If I don't agree with something I will put my best foot forward to try and change it and to lobby for the benefit of my personnel and the organization.  Clearly this is a very divisive issue otherwise it wouldn't be such a popular topic on Army.ca.  That being said, I believe it's the leadership responsibility to put our foot down sometimes and fight for our soldiers, sailors and airmen.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2015)

@c_canuck

Again you are letting emotions get the best of you.  just because certain parts of the CF were providing certain benefits does not mean they could or that were doing right.  Savy? 

You still haven't actually answered my question as to where this benefit, taxable or not is an entitlement under any regulation.  until you do that, you haven't proven that anything was cut or taken away.  When you go on TD you are entitled to certain benefits under the regs for example.  nowhere does it state that you are entitled to parking as you think you understand it.

You are required to pay parking in certain locations or be taxed appropriately.  End state.

If you can't figure out why after all this or the links provided, nothing anyone says or does will change the way you see it.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> In every base orders I've read, you will find instructions on PMV parking, who is entitled, where you may park and a myriad of other parking regulations. Therefore the ability to park on base for free is recognized as provided by the CF to the members.



Ummmm?  Since when did Base Orders override CAF Orders and Regulations that keep DND in compliance with CRA and TBS Regulations?

I know every Base has Base Routine Orders, and most have references to Parking.  I am sure that no two Bases have identical Parking Regulations in their Base Routine Orders.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> And it's exactly this sort of thinking that isn't helping our little attrition problem which isn't getting any better.



Historic attrition averages out to 7%.  We are not having ahistoric attrition right now.



> It's pretty easy for an officer to spew out government policy when he is making a fat 100k a year.  Not so easy for a young private on 35k a year to sit there and take it.  If I don't agree with a policy, I will do my best to fight and change it, too many are just willing to sit there and take it or they just can't be bothered to care that much.



This change in enforcment was announced nearly a decade ago.  The old CFAO (29-9) directed that parking be paid - and there was outright disobedience of the Order (the O in CFAO) for a generation.  



> Instead of simply telling me why we can't do something, how about working towards coming up with a solution that can benefit all parties involved?  I never said my solution was perfect or if it is the best solution, I don't know that it actually is but to dismiss it without even providing any sort of alternative seems a little weak IMO.



Who are all the parties involved?  What about taxpayers who have to pay to establish and maintain the parkign lot?  How about CAF members who take the bus / run / bike in to work?  Or are the only people who count those who choose to drive in?  (Those who are required for duty reasons to have their vehicle are already exempt from paying for parking).



> I also never said to ignore policy; however, If I don't agree with something I will put my best foot forward to try and change it and to lobby for the benefit of my personnel and the organization.  Clearly this is a very divisive issue otherwise it wouldn't be such a popular topic on Army.ca.  That being said, I believe it's the leadership responsibility to put our foot down sometimes and fight for our soldiers, sailors and airmen.



At what point does "This is a legal order, given by a legal authority, that was ignored and is now being enforced" come into play?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Apr 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Again you are letting emotions get the best of you.  just because certain parts of the CF were providing certain benefits does not mean they could or that were doing right.  Savy?
> 
> You still haven't actually answered my question as to where this benefit, taxable or not is an entitlement under any regulation.  until you do that, you haven't proven that anything was cut or taken away.  When you go on TD you are entitled to certain benefits under the regs for example.  nowhere does it state that you are entitled to parking as you think you understand it.
> 
> ...



Oh I figured it out quite clearly, I simply think it's BS.  I think it's BS that parking is a taxable benefit and I think it's BS that members have to pay to park when they go to work.  I think both are BS.  My thinking is to come up with a way that alleviates or circumvents the problem entirely and puts more money in the members pockets at the end of the day.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Historic attrition averages out to 7%.  We are not having ahistoric attrition right now.



Hmmmm, I never said anything about historic, but our numbers aren't exactly healthy right now.  We are attriting more than we are able to produce is what I have been told or is this wrong?



> Who are all the parties involved?  What about taxpayers who have to pay to establish and maintain the parkign lot?  How about CAF members who take the bus / run / bike in to work?  Or are the only people who count those who choose to drive in?  (Those who are required for duty reasons to have their vehicle are already exempt from paying for parking).
> 
> At what point does "This is a legal order, given by a legal authority, that was ignored and is now being enforced" come into play?



Never said I had all the answers and I most certainly don't.  My goal is to try and help serving members and employees of DND(Civilians who work for us are just as important) any way I can.  If it means finding creative ways to interpret the rules, so be it.  As for people who pay to establish their own parking lot, well they shouldn't expect the government to fund their parking lot for them.  Governments don't create money, they only circulate it so the government paying someone to run a parking lot or providing some form of subsidisation for them is no different than welfare IMO.  Then again this is the East Coast and having spent 18 years of my life out there, I suppose that would be quite popular.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Oh I figured it out quite clearly, I simply think it's BS.  I think it's BS that parking is a taxable benefit and I think it's BS that members have to pay to park when they go to work.  I think both are BS.  My thinking is to come up with a way that alleviates or circumvents the problem entirely and puts more money in the members pockets at the end of the day.
> 
> Hmmmm, I never said anything about historic, but our numbers aren't exactly healthy right now.  We are attriting more than we are able to produce is what I have been told or is this wrong?
> 
> Never said I had all the answers and I most certainly don't.  My goal is to try and help members out any way I can.  If that means finding creative ways to interpret the rules, so be it.  As for people who pay to establish their own parking lot, well they shouldn't expect the government to fund their parking lot for them.  Governments don't create money, they only circulate it so the government paying someone to run a parking lot or providing some form of subsidisation for them is no different than welfare IMO.  Then again this is the East Coast and having spent 18 years of my life out there, I suppose that would be quite popular.



sorry drew, my response was for c_canuck


----------



## c_canuk (17 Apr 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Again you are letting emotions get the best of you.  just because certain parts of the CF were providing certain benefits does not mean they could or that were doing right.  Savy?



Certainly.



> You still haven't actually answered my question as to where this benefit, taxable or not is an entitlement under any regulation.  until you do that, you haven't proven that anything was cut or taken away.  When you go on TD you are entitled to certain benefits under the regs for example.  nowhere does it state that you are entitled to parking as you think you understand it.



As I said in my last post:

 "You may argue that the CF is not required to provide this benefit. You would be correct afaik, that there is no documentation saying they have to provide parking. However, the logistics of closing all parking and refusing to provide it would interfere with the CF’s operation."



> You are required to pay parking in certain locations or be taxed appropriately.  End state.



No argument, but up until now the only places you had to was where parking was contracted out, afaik, not crown owned parking.

The point is that the obvious and most fair solution was to tax the members appropriately, not create a business to charge for what was free.



> If you can't figure out why after all this or the links provided, nothing anyone says or does will change the way you see it.



I can't figure out why after all the posts and information provided you can't understand that the argument is: They didn't have to charge for parking, they could have just annotated T4s. 

The question of if DND is required to provide parking as a benefit or not is irrelevant. 

They were providing it, the CRA and the TBS recognized it as a provided benefit and said it needed to be taxed in some locations. 

Now the CF has decided to create a pay parking business instead of annotating T4s. 

This is not a question of overpayment; it is a question of DND running a business off the back of the troops vs just following the CRA and TBS's instructions of annotating T4s to claim the benefit. 

DND is certainly entitled to do so as long as the TBS and CRA accept it. But it's still a contentious thing to do.


----------



## c_canuk (17 Apr 2015)

a further comment to the above, Find me a reference or documentation that states DND is required to create a parking business.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> a further comment to the above, Find me a reference or documentation that states DND is required to create a parking business.



DAOD 1004-1


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Apr 2015)

OK! OK! OK!

We get it!

Military parking in Halifax is a disaster. It was a disaster when I joined in 1975 … and its still a disaster today.
Nobody was satisfied with the solutions in 1975 … and nobody is satisfied with the solutions today.
People thought the system was unfair in 1975 … and people think its unfair today.

Can somebody shoot this thread and put it out of its misery … Please!!!!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Apr 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> OK! OK! OK!
> 
> We get it!
> 
> ...



Hahahahaha!  Beatings will continue until morale improves!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Apr 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Hahahahaha!  Beatings will continue until morale improves!


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> OK! OK! OK!
> 
> We get it!
> 
> ...



So, it was a disaster 40 years ago when you joined.  It is still a disaster.  Therefore, it's your fault for not fixing it!   8)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Apr 2015)

Hey! I drive ships, not cars. 

I never had a problem parking my ship in Halifax (and come to think of it, nobody tried to make me pay for it  ).


----------



## c_canuk (17 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> DAOD 1004-1



from the reference:

"Employer Responsibility

4.5 Worker parking is generally not a DSP requirement. Charges for worker parking provided by the DND and the CF must be set at the fair market value (see section 6). Should there be a taxable benefit, the DND and the CF must ensure the benefit is reported in accordance with federal and provincial income tax legislation. Worker parking may only be provided if it is consistent with the principles of the responsible financial management and the sound stewardship of real property and immovables.
"
- supports annotating T4s

"6.5 DND and CF facilities have diverse and distinct characteristics, from bases and wings spanning several kilometres in rural areas, to small facilities located in urban areas such as armouries. For the purposes of establishing the list of custodial facilities to be assessed by the RPB, a defence establishment having an uninterrupted stretch of land would be considered as one facility, e.g. a base or wing, or a large installation such as a dockyard. Separate bases, stations and buildings that do not have an uninterrupted stretch of land would be considered as separate facilities. This is generally reflected in the location code in the Defence Resource Management Information System (DRMIS)."

Support that an entire base would have 1 parking rate, demolishing the "too complicated" argument for annotating T4s


There are clauses in there describing how parking may operate, emphasizing fair and equitable (no idea how selling more passes than spots fits into that) but no language requiring they develop a parking business that I can see.


You might start making an argument that under DAOD 4001-0, Management of Realty Assets, because of the vagueness of the wording you might be required to do so, however, that would apply to all crown owned parking regardless of if it's in an area where the fair market value is $0. That would be the can of worms that has all of the CF paying.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> from the reference:
> 
> "Employer Responsibility
> 
> ...



Section 8 describes how they can "create a parking business".  

Also see all the links below that point to acts, laws and references as to how fair market value principles are applied.  among many other things.

In your argument you seem to also ignore this:

worker parking is parking that may be made available by the DND and the CF to (the word may, not must)

and this

Worker parking is generally not a DSP requirement


----------



## c_canuk (17 Apr 2015)

No argument, I agreed they can under the ref, but my point is that it doesn't require it, which is what my original request was.

according to the ref,

DND is not required to provide parking. But if they do, and it's free parking, they must annotate T4s.

but conversely

DND is not required to provide parking. But if they do, and it's Pay parking, they must do it as laid out in the document.

My argument, as well as other's, is that they unnecessarily went for the more complicated solution that affects the troops the most.

I also don't believe that once Halifax is stabilized they won't start finding ways to push this elsewhere once the revenue (not profit because I doubt there will be any) numbers start showing up on budgets.

EDIT:

on re reading your post, you seem to think I'm arguing that DND must provide parking, and/or cannot charge for parking. I'm not. I have not and I will not. I've only argued:

1. that they have in the past
2. that free parking was noted as a taxable benifit by CRA
3. that benefit was revoked
4. there is no regulation saying they had to revoke it
5. there is no regulation requiring they charge for parking as the only option, there are alternatives that are better financially for the organization, imo, and for the welfare of the troops.

at no time did I ever say DND was required to provide it. I did say not providing it will create logistical problems, but I did not say they were required to.


----------



## exgunnertdo (17 Apr 2015)

> 6. Parking Charges and Fair Market Value
> Parking Charges
> 6.1 Charges for worker parking provided by the DND and the CF *must be set at the fair market value for all users*. For parking under the control of the DND and the CF, the local parking authority must implement charges at the fair market value as soon as possible, while providing a 30-day notice to workers of any adjustment to the charges.
> 
> ...



(emphasis mine)

I read that as - DND must charge for parking, based on fair market value. DSISSS can authorize a lower than fair market value charge (lower being down to "no charge") which may create a taxable benefit.

Shilo, Pet, Wainwright, etc - fair market value is 0
Downtown Ottawa - fair market value is $75/month (or whatever)

I don't see that the base commander has much choice? Other than to ask DSISSS for authorization to lower the charge. No idea if Ottawa is ever open to such requests.


----------



## c_canuk (17 Apr 2015)

I suppose that's the question, was a request sent in and if so was it denied?

If it was denied, then I would conceed the point that it was required.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> No argument, I agreed they can under the ref, but my point is that it doesn't require it, which is what my original request was.
> 
> according to the ref,
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but you have lumped in parking as part of the various cuts to CF members throughout this thread.   making it akin to things like PLD and pension contributions and what not.  all things that members are entitled to and are arguably being eroded.  You are not entitled to parking so if you don't get it you haven't lost anything if you do then guess what?  It's a bonus.  

The benefit was not revoked because the benefit you were getting was ILLEGAL.


----------



## c_canuk (17 Apr 2015)

I can understand where you are coming from, but I get hung up on they way it's being phrased.

I don't believe it was illegal, I don't think there was an intent to defraud. An oversight certainly. Along the same grounds as the TBS ignoring the directive of yearly PLD updates.

Was it an established benefit codified in regulations, no. was it a benefit, in a literal sense? Yes, the CRA and TBS believe it was, hence their insistence that the situation be corrected. 

Was there a way they could have met the requirements without making the members pay, yes. Was it pursued? I don't know.

It's all down to a single unknowable point, hopefully this situation won't expand.

You know what, it's Friday and sunny out, I'm going to go find something to do outside.

I withdraw all arguments and walk away from this one.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Apr 2015)

I sometimes wonder when I visit this forum whether we are a military or a congregation of lawyers?  This thread makes me feel like I'm talking to my girlfriend and her friends (they are all in law school).  Time to extract myself and go be a dumb jock again!  #brockvillerifleshockeytourney


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Apr 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> OK! OK! OK!
> 
> We get it!
> 
> ...



I always thought they should have put in a parkade when they knocked down the old C & POs mess on Stad.  That wouldhave helped.


----------



## kratz (17 Apr 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hey! I drive ships, not cars.
> 
> I never had a problem parking my ship in Halifax (and come to think of it, nobody tried to make me pay for it   ).



Are you listening good idea fariries?   :stirpot:


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2015)

kratz said:
			
		

> Are you listening good idea fariries?   :stirpot:



Automobiles and Sea Water don't mix well.


----------



## Teager (17 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Automobiles and Sea Water don't mix well.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

>



 ;D

This would be better; but more in line with an Army base than Navy:

http://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63462.0;attach=47984


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Apr 2015)

Paying to park on base.  What's next, pay toilets? Coin op bicycle racks? Next thing troops will have to pay for transport to the field.


----------



## orca73 (17 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> This would be better; but more in line with an Army base than Navy:
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=63462.0;attach=47984



Well that is one way of avoiding parking fees. But berthing fees might be more expensive.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2015)

:tsktsk: :clubinhand:  

Enough of that now.  "They" might be listening and trying to figure out how to make it a taxable benefit.  Wouldn't want to run risk of taking business from pay toilets and pay bike racks out there...


----------



## kratz (17 Apr 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Paying to park on base.  What's next, pay toilets? Coin op bicycle racks? Next thing troops will have to pay for transport to the field.



Kat, I think you just got a whole HQ promotion points with all those good idea fairy ideas.    :worms:


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Paying to park on base.  What's next, pay toilets? Coin op bicycle racks? Next thing troops will have to pay for transport to the field.



Only on some of the urban bases.  So there's at least one advantage to being posted to Shilo or Dundurn: free parking.


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Apr 2015)

I've actually pondered taking my kayak to the ship on a nice warm day during the summer....I wonder what they'd do?


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2015)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I've actually pondered taking my kayak to the ship on a nice warm day during the summer....I wonder what they'd do?



Send out the ready duty ship to investigate.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Send out the ready duty ship to investigate.



At least everyone will have had lunch.  No one wants to stop kayaks on an empty stomach.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (18 Apr 2015)

I remember years ago a fellow stoker used to bring his little 14' aluminum boat with a 20hp Evinrude on it to Nipigon from Eastern Passage. When the Coxn told him he wasn't allowed to do that, he asked the Coxn "Show me where it says that". In those days though, you didn't need to see rules; If the Coxn said no can do, then no can do!

On the lighter side just to really stir the pot, that nice big parking garage ISI has now, the one built likely with some of the monies provided in the $238 M 'advance', is currently providing FREE PARKING for ISI employees.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2015)

That's true, Pat.  My son is one of the lucky contestants.  (When he's not on lay off...)


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You, are an outsider and out of your lanes, to be quite frank.  I say this, because I came from your trade, worked here in it in Halifax and know the difference between the two worlds.  Many people are unhappy with the direction the RCN is going with respect to changes that are ongoing.  Some of it to be fair can be tacked onto leadership issues or lack thereof but that is not everyone's burr under the saddle blanket.
> 
> As for your slamming Pusser's reasoning, again, you're out of your lanes.  He makes valid points on health and habitabilty concerns which are real and viable.  On ship you are living and working in a contained system, anything that could adversely affect the health and fitness of the crew is a real concern.  Unless you've spent time at sea, you cannot appreciate how much you are affected by these factors.  There is a reason cleaning stations, however much they suck doing them, are important.
> 
> Pusser's reasoning on productivy/cost is sound.  Unlike Army bases, and yes, I served in 1CMBG, don't have the same needs as HMC Ships.  There are many factors that come into making sure sailors are available for work on time when required.  Both FMF and/or contractors may be on board doing major repairs to the ship on a tight timeline or schedule.  Planning for the projects can take weeks and months and can cost many millions of dollars.  It a project gets off track for whatever reason it can have a major detrimental effect on operations and deployments for that or other units.  Army units don't have the same logistical/repair needs a ship does, therefore there is much room to disagree with you on.  Productivity was one of the main reasons "sliders" were stopped.  FMF was not getting the work done on time that they needed to complete due to personnel issues on ship.  As much as I don't always agree with Pusser on things, he is more correct on this subject despite your objections.


Sorry, I'm well inside my lanes on this one.  This is not a conversation about how to prosecute a sub contact, how to conduct DC or even how to change the oil on a RHIB.  It's an issue that concerns leadership, fiscal responsibility and most importantly common sense.  

You argue it's a potential hygiene problem.  It's not.  Much larger ships with much less disciplined personnel on board who could care less about hygiene are able to continue to sail without massive infestations of vermin...they're called cruise ships.  And the companies have a vested interest in 1) making sure they remain vermin free while 2) keeping their passengers happy by allowing them to eat what they want, where they want.  They can seem to figure out how to pull it off and if they get it wrong, and they have to go to the extreme measures that Pusser alleges would be required, they are not only out the cost of the fumigation of a much, much larger vessel than anything we own, but also the lost revenues from cancelled and refunded sailings and the negative hit to their reputation.  Yet you guys are worried a sailor may store his lunch in his locker and from that you will be over run with cockroaches, mice and rats?  Yeah...sounds legit to me.  If the concern is that valid, simply treat everyone like adults and hammer anyone who breaks the rule about where lunches are to be stored.  Wasn't that the argument being made to counter the change to the drinking policy?  The group should not be punished for the transgressions of a very few?  Well, in this instance it is reversed, the group should not be benefiting from the potential transgressions of the very few.

You argue sailors need to be available to support the work of multi-million dollar projects.  Another non-issue if leadership is exercised.  It's called personnel management and it is what we, as leaders, are paid to do.  Make sure our people are available at the right time, at the right place, ready to do the job.  If planning for the job takes weeks and months, ergo the leadership of the ship has weeks and months to plan as to how it is they are going to make the right people available at the right time in order to support that task.  You don't feed the entire ship's company the entire time the ship is tied up alongside on the contingency that a small number of that ship's company are going to be required to work over lunch a couple of times a year.  And, that work is being conducted, for the most part, by Union workers.  Those guys down tools and head off for lunch and they make sure they take the entire time they are allowed...again, for the most part but particularly if the are part of the FMF.  On the very rare occasion things go sideways and people need to work over lunch to make things happen, do what the rest of us in the CAF do; utilize the existing rules and regulations to compensate our personnel who are forced to work over lunch via a MTEC or if you can preplan it, provide a Fin Code to the MOG5 galley and send the affected people there or hay box it to the ship.  

Imagine the outcry if I were to try to argue that MP in Halifax on patrol should be entitled to a free lunch because they have to cover the entire Halifax AOR so the patrolman might not be able to make it back to the Guardhouse for lunch.  Further, they have to be ready to respond at any time as a call for service can come in at any time.  And then, I try to expand that reasoning to providing lunch to the shift IC because they have to be available to supervise that patrolman.  And,well, if the Shift IC has to be available to supervise the patrolman, the Pol Ops WO needs to get a free lunch because he needs to be available just in case the Shift IC is tied up and, well, what the hell, even though the Unit Chief and CO of MPU Halifax and the rest of the day staff aren't actually doing the work on the road, they are at work and part of the Unit so ergo, they deserve free lunch as well.  Oh...and by the way, when I was at Halifax, the Guardhouse was infested with ants, mice and other vermin and that certainly didn't get us a free lunch, or a fumigation.  What it did get us was a lecture from the PMed Tech and a supply of mice and ant traps even though the infestation was not caused by unhygienic food practices by people who had to bring their lunch to work.

Pretty crap simple really.  Leadership 101.  Well within "my lanes".

Finally, think about this for a minute, and I'm going to low ball the costs.  1 x frigate's company of 200 pers.  $5 per day per person for "free soup and lunch" = $750 per day.  $3750 per week.  $15000 per month.  If all 12 frigates are back in the water and tied up alongside, that's $180,000 a month in free food the Navy is funding.

Yet Navyshooter is able to paddle his kayak right up to the jetty without worrying about being intercepted by anyone because the RCN cut the armed guards from the gates and boats from the water because it was too expensive.  Again, a simplified estimate, but $180,000 is the salary of about 38 Reg Force Cpl/LS per month, which is about the total number of Class B pers employed in FP at it's height to protect the Fleet.  So, security = expensive = bad.  But free soup and lunch = expensive = good.  Priorities, right?


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2015)

No.  You're out of your lanes, when it comes to what I am talking about, period.  I used to drive in your lanes, you're an outsider who doesn't live and work in the same enviornment as I said.  Don't agree?  TFB, we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> At least everyone will have had lunch.  No one wants to stop kayaks on an empty stomach.


By the time they are able to agree to who is actually responsible to stop the kayak, find a currently qualified small boat cox'n and bowman, track down a RHIB that is ready to go and then actually get on the water, Navyshooter will be on his way back home after having finished his day.


----------



## Stoker (18 Apr 2015)

Our ships are the same as cruise ships?........ :


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No.  You're out of your lanes, when it comes to what I am talking about, period.  I used to drive in your lanes, you're an outsider who doesn't live and work in the same enviornment as I said.  Don't agree?  TFB, we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.


Well, what the hell, might as well invoke Godwin's Law then.  You know who else supported free parking, soup and lunches right?  Hitler!   :


----------



## mariomike (18 Apr 2015)

garb811 said:
			
		

> You know who else supported free parking, soup and lunches right?  Hitler!   :



http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lVWzFCR_y6Y/maxresdefault.jpg


----------



## kratz (18 Apr 2015)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Our ships are the same as cruise ships?........ :



I'm still laughing so hard at this comparison. Shuffle board on the poop deck anyone?    :cheers:


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2015)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Our ships are the same as cruise ships?........ :


No, they aren't.  The only people on a RCN ship are disciplined professionals with a clear and distinct chain of command which is able to enforce standards and norms to protect the health, safety and welfare of each and every other individual on that ship.  Further, there are well defined customs and practices, such as cleaning stations, that ensure the entire crew is involved in maintaining the cleanliness of the ship.  Unlike a cruise ship where the vast majority of people on the vessel are solely concerned about having a good time and could care less about the potential problems they are causing as they go about their daily activities, trusting that the crew is going to clean up after them.

Yet you can't trust a RCN sailor to store his lunch in a fridge.


----------



## Stoker (18 Apr 2015)

kratz said:
			
		

> I'm still laughing so hard at this comparison. Shuffle board on the poop deck anyone?    :cheers:



Only after I get my stand easy soup ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2015)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Yet you can't trust a RCN sailor to store his lunch in a fridge.



Fine. Final comment.  Just where the hell are you supposed to put these fridges and microwaves that can hold up to a full complement (250) of sailor's lunches?   :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2015)

The last 3 pages are pure fucking pain to go thru.   Free lunches,  cleaning stations and kayaks.

 :deadhorse:


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Fine. Final comment.  Just where the hell are you supposed to put these fridges and microwaves that can hold up to a full complement (250) of sailor's lunches?   :



With his vast Naval knowledge I would estimate he would suggest we use the ships fridges and dry food storage spaces.  You know because we just store any food in those spaces anyways.  None of the food that goes in to those spaces gets inspected by the Snr PA, Victualler and Snr Storesmnan anyways.  We normally just let anyone bring any food they want into these spaces anyhow.  :

His comparison of ship of war to a cruise ship and the fact he has no understanding of cleaning stations or habitability rounds lost him his argument.  Well done JJT chalk that one up in the win column for you!


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Apr 2015)

garb811 said:
			
		

> No, they aren't.  The only people on a RCN ship are disciplined professionals with a clear and distinct chain of command which is able to enforce standards and norms to protect the health, safety and welfare of each and every other individual on that ship.  Further, there are well defined customs and practices, such as cleaning stations, that ensure the entire crew is involved in maintaining the cleanliness of the ship.  Unlike a cruise ship where the vast majority of people on the vessel are solely concerned about having a good time and could care less about the potential problems they are causing as they go about their daily activities, trusting that the crew is going to clean up after them.
> 
> Yet you can't trust a RCN sailor to store his lunch in a fridge.



Sounds like he is describing the folks who come from the wardroom to me bahahahaha  >


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The last 3 pages are pure ******* pain to go thru.   Free lunches,  cleaning stations and kayaks.
> 
> :deadhorse:



At least you get free parking... just say'n


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2015)

True.  But I lost my Hfx PLD to get it.   ;D

For the record, I don't think taxpayers should have to pay to park on parking lots that were paid for with tax dollars.  That includes CAF mbrs.

I remember being told to read the MARLANT parking orders when I was posted in to a dockyard unit before my current trade.  It was 29 freakin' pages IIRC.   :facepalm:

I dont like the comments from non-sea trades speaking like they are SMEs on navy life because they were working on the Dockyard or visited a ship.  Having a cursory view into life while along side doesn't really give you an informed opinion does it?  If you came as a PAX on an ASW event with us, would you frown and criticize LRP for our free flight feeding? We too could brown bag it but we dont.  The wing kitchen prepares and provides IAW their trade standards which are approved and regulated by the CAF log/cook SMEs.  

Opinions/informed opinions.   :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Apr 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The last 3 pages are pure fucking pain to go thru.   Free lunches,  cleaning stations and kayaks.
> 
> :deadhorse:



Not just the last three pages, but all 21 of them. This thread was started in June 2007, complete with merges of other threads on exactly the same subject.

All the same salient points have been made _ad infinitium_*. There will be no agreement, ever, between the one side and the rest. Get your final jabs in, because the comment section on this will soon be closed.

If someone wants to know the reasons and provenance of the decision, on parking discussed here, feel free to contact the CF Ombudsman, and when you get an answer you can contact a Mod for inclusion on the subject. That will finalize the thread.

Tick, tock......

---Staff---

_

* - adverb (Latin) ≡endlessly, always, for ever (and ever), infinitely, eternally, perpetually, for all time, in perpetuity, interminably, to infinity, evermore, unceasingly, boundlessly, unendingly, limitlessly, in perpetuum (Latin), without end or limit "The cycle repeats itself ad infinitum." _


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Apr 2015)

kratz said:
			
		

> I'm still laughing so hard at this comparison. Shuffle board on the poop deck anyone?    :cheers:



Better than pooping on the shuffle deck, I suppose.


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Fine. Final comment.  Just where the hell are you supposed to put these fridges and microwaves that can hold up to a full complement (250) of sailor's lunches?   :


Sorry, technical question, that is outside my lanes.   

You're right, I am an outside who has never "lived" it, but I took enough of an interest in learning the customs, traditions and the way of life of the RCN while in Halifax to have enough knowledge to poke holes in fallacies used as justification to maintain certain status quos.

Maybe it is logistically impossible to happen, for lunch alone.  I don't know.  I'm pretty sure soup is indefensible unless you start paying for it out of mess dues, like happens with RSM's coffee at Army bases.  But by the answers you RCN types who live it have given to try to justify it, I don't think you guys really know if it is or not either.  Just like parking, soup and lunch are sacred cows that nobody in the RCN is willing to take a critical look at before their hand is forced.  And I think that's wrong, morally and ethically, after seeing the ruling that forced the CAF to start charging rations to recruits, no matter what their marital status.  Instead of seeing what is coming and actually getting ahead of the game to come up with strategies to mitigate the impact of any changes, particularly for those who are going to be most adversely affected by this such, it's going to happen in a way that is both swift and harsh.  And fingers are going to get pointed in all the wrong directions as to why it happened.  Just like with parking now.

In the meantime, I need to come up with a reason to get down to Halifax.  Maybe I can get an invite to soup.  :camo:


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2015)

And I gave you a perfectly reasonable, solution to having parking as a taxable benefit administered using the previous parking system that was in place.  It poked holes in your reasoning of how and why it couldn't be done despite the grand show you put up.  And thanks, for instituting Godwin's Law.  I didn't know my dad went off to fight against free parking and free lunch, those fascist bastards...

At the end, I suppose each side here can accuse the other of, this in their theories of how and why the parking et al world turns, or not...


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2015)

I never said it couldn't have been accounted for as a taxable benefit.  I simply said that, no matter what system was in place, there was a cost to making the system function and it made sense to me for the Base Commander to stop eating the cost of that when his hand was forced and something had to be done to monetize the parking in Halifax.


----------



## Lumber (18 Apr 2015)

What I don't understand is, if free parking is a taxable benefit, then why didn't the military just decide to tax us on it! It would have been way cheaper!

Monthly Parking: $45 x 12 months = $540
Added income tax on free-parking: $540 x 40% = $216.

I'd rather they just take an extra $216 in taxes from me over the course of the year then $540.


----------



## Tibbson (18 Apr 2015)

So would everyone get that tax?  No, just the ones with cars.
So all the ones with cars get the tax?   No, just the ones who drive to work.
So the ones who drive to work get it?  No, just when the drive.

So...who keeps tabs on it all?  Who pays for the administration of the system?  Who does the extra work required for the pay system?

Just as easy to put in machines so those who use it can pay as they use it.


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2015)

Just in personnel costs, the "free" system cost in Halifax when I was there:

1 x CPO1 on Class B working as the parking coordinator.
2 x Cmre in the parking pass office, issuing parking passes. Granted they also dealt with day passes etc to give access to the Dockyard.
2 or 3 x Cmre special constables as parking enforcement.

That's 5 or 6 people being paid full time to support a "free" system.


----------



## Lumber (18 Apr 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> So would everyone get that tax?  No, just the ones with cars.
> So all the ones with cars get the tax?   No, just the ones who drive to work.
> So the ones who drive to work get it?  No, just when the drive.
> 
> ...



Do they exact same thing we are doing now. When you have enough time in, you apply for a free parking pass just like before, if you want it. If you do so, you get taxed on it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2015)

g811 The specials were issuing tickets to offenders then, just as they do now.  That generates revenue for your "free" system.

SL, they do it at the Airport.  You have a pass, it gets tacked onto your pay as a benefit as long as you have the pass.  Could be easily completed when you clear in at the pay office.  It's not rocket science.


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> g811 The specials were issuing tickets to offenders then, just as they do now.  That generates revenue for your "free" system.
> 
> SL, they do it at the Airport.  You have a pass, it gets tacked onto your pay as a benefit as long as you have the pass.  Could be easily completed when you clear in at the pay office.  It's not rocket science.


Nope, it generates revenue for the Receiver General of Canada, if the person pays up front.  If they go to court it generates revenue for the Province of Nova Scotia, who take an admin fee off the top, and the rest goes to the Receiver General of Canada.  In the meantime, the people and everything else making the system work are paid locally.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (18 Apr 2015)

I can't believe this thread is still alive.
Can we let it die a peaceful death....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2015)

I second that motion.   :nod:


----------



## Alberta Bound (18 Apr 2015)

So this discussion should be "parked"?!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Apr 2015)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> So this discussion should be "parked"?!


That'll cost you..........


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2015)

Yes, it's  become a     :trainwreck:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2015)

The demise was already coming. Done

---Staff---


----------



## Gunplumber (13 Sep 2016)

I had heard, or thought I did, that if there was no paid parking near a DND property that DND could not charge for parking there. Is this true?


----------

