Paid parking DND property

[Remius]

Fifteen pages on parking fees...

 

[mariomike]

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]

Fifteen pages on parking fees...

Because just like Senators, public servants and military members feel entitled to their entitlements.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Did you read what you just posted before you hit POST?

 

[upandatom]

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]

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

Ah, so this isn't about parking then?

 

[Halifax Tar]

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]

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]

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]

Many years ago, we had this discussion and the following information was presented:

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.

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:

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]

This is why I don't think people are listening at all to what they are saying:

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]

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.