Paid parking DND property

[LineJumper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.