# IR in Edmonton



## Line052 (26 Jan 2012)

Looking at being posted this APS to Edmonton and due to Family education requirements at my current posting I will most likely be going IR for the first year. I have heard that I will be required to live in the Shacks on IR in Edmonton, unsure if this includes having to eat at the mess as well. Is this the only option that is offered? I am wondering how they can not allow you to have the same QOL on IR in Edmonton that is afforded those on IR here in Kingston, where they are permitted $1600 to secure accomidations. I was hoping to take 1 of my dogs with me to Edmonton as well as to have a place for my Spouse/son to stay when they visit me. I do realize that it is my choice to go on IR but I question that I can not live on the economy like other locations.

Any insight or info is appericated


----------



## Strike (26 Jan 2012)

The only reason a base would allow you to live on the economy is if the base does not have accomodations available to IR personnel.  Kingston is regularly full to the brim with people who HAVE to live in shacks due to courses and what-not, which explains why IR is offered on the economy.

Edmonton has occasionally allowed pers to live on the economy, but that is usually because people are being posted to the base at a time when the area is full up with augmentees getting ready to deploy or people on course.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2012)

Make sure that they have quarters available that meet the standards for IR ...

See this thread ...

And yes, they can force you to live in the shacks ... provided that those shacks "meet" that standard. Many bases do not have enough shacks that meet the standards (private washroom facilities, cookspace etc), so those pers can rent off-base if none that meets standards is available.

Although, I do hear that there are numerous pers being forced to move into below the residential standard on-base accomodations while IR, and at least two grievances coming that I know of. Time will tell.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> The only reason a base would allow you to live on the economy is if the base does not have accomodations available to IR personnel.  Kingston is regularly full to the brim with people who HAVE to live in shacks due to courses and what-not, which explains why IR is offered on the economy.
> 
> Edmonton has occasionally allowed pers to live on the economy, but that is usually because people are being posted to the base at a time when the area is full up with augmentees getting ready to deploy or people on course.



Kingston doesn't have many shacks that meet the IR residential standard. That's why some are housed in on-base PMQ apartments and most in off-base.


----------



## Grunt_031 (26 Jan 2012)

The new quarters (Same as Wx)  in Edmonton will be ready this summer and will meet the requirements.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2012)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> The new quarters (Same as Wx)  in Edmonton will be ready this summer and will meet the requirements.



And, there you have it.


----------



## Fdtrucker (27 Jan 2012)

In Wainwright while on IR you have to eat in the All Ranks Kitchen. We do not have a cook space in 654 or 653.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Couldn't IR be considered "transient" in certain lights?    ;D



Yep. In Borden, I was IR, but was 'kept' in a transient suite for the duration.

Likewise mt 3 X 1/2 days post-deployment this past December, I was into a suite rather than a hotel.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jan 2012)

Check the CANFORGENS for recent changes to SE, etc which came into effect on 01 Jan 2012.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Check the CANFORGENS for recent changes to SE, etc which came into effect on 01 Jan 2012.



That'll have to wait until I get back to work. But, already auth'd me to start apartment hunting.


----------



## Loachman (27 Jan 2012)

Our OR says that it works out to about $4.00 less per day, but nobody's actually done the calculation yet.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jan 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Our OR says that it works out to about $4.00 less per day, but nobody's actually done the calculation yet.



Really?  What about deducting days when you go home on the weekend?  Or deducting the leave when you take it as opposed to the two days per month they used to automatically deduct?  Some months are going to be much less.  For me, February will suck.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Really?  What about deducting days when you go home on the weekend?  Or deducting the leave when you take it as opposed to the two days per month they used to automatically deduct?  Some months are going to be much less.  For me, February will suck.



That's how it (the rules) was my first IR posting. I've got zero issues with that as when I'm home, I am not separated from my family/residence. I'm quite OK with the taxpayer not paying me separation allowance on days that I'm not separated from them --- quite like you lose the days of IR when yiou are TD'd where your family is.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's how it (the rules) was my first IR posting. I've got zero issues with that as when I'm home, I am not separated from my family/residence. I'm quite OK with the taxpayer not paying me separation allowance on days that I'm not separated from them --- quite like you lose the days of IR when yiou are TD'd where your family is.



Never had that in Ottawa.  They just deducted the two days per month for leave and if you were on TD.  Oh well, I really don't care.  It actually only boils down to one day a week anyway.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Never had that in Ottawa.  They just deducted the two days per month for leave and if you were on TD.  Oh well, I really don't care.  It actually only boils down to one day a week anyway.



It changed while I was in PEI on IR - 2006 I believe it was that it changed.

When I began my IR there, we had to report the days that we were "reunited with our families" (ie: they were in PEI OR I was in Gagetown at the family home) and the days we were on leave and days that we were on TD somewhere (as our meals and accommodations were being covered by the CF then anyway) and all of those days were deducted from the calendar days in the month.

They've simply reverted to the old way of doing business --- and most certainly, the most cost-effective way of doing business.


----------



## wesleyd (28 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's how it (the rules) was my first IR posting. I've got zero issues with that as when I'm home, I am not separated from my family/residence. I'm quite OK with the taxpayer not paying me separation allowance on days that I'm not separated from them --- quite like you lose the days of IR when yiou are TD'd where your family is.



What about when you are forced to burn leave off and cant go home? Is it fair for SE not to be collected then? Or how about when you are on special leave because you worked a Saturday? I agree with not paying when you are on leave at home. When I first took leave I brought me leave pass in expecting to not get SE those days but was told they do not deduct that anymore. The CBI contradicts itself, stating that SE is meant to compensate for additional expenses while separated from family and DF&E while  a few paragraphs later it states SE will be ceased when on leave of any type. I would imaging there will be some clarification on that in the next several weeks as there has been in the past.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> What about when you are forced to burn leave off and cant go home? Is it fair for SE not to be collected then? Or how about when you are on special leave because you worked a Saturday? I agree with not paying when you are on leave at home. When I first took leave I brought me leave pass in expecting to not get SE those days but was told they do not deduct that anymore. The CBI contradicts itself, stating that SE is meant to compensate for additional expenses while separated from family and DF&E while  a few paragraphs later it states SE will be ceased when on leave of any type. I would imaging there will be some clarification on that in the next several weeks as there has been in the past.



Who is forcing you to stay wherever to burn off your leave? Or is that your choice? If you are on leave - with a valid leave pass - have at 'er. So yes, you can be forced to burn off your leave, but you can't be forced to stay away from your family while doing so.

So, what's wrong with the CBI again? It's to compensate you for additional expenses while away from family and F&E. If you choose not to go home to your family while on leave, that's personal.


----------



## wesleyd (29 Jan 2012)

I would love to go home every time I am on leave. But 600 dollars plus tax to fly home I cannot afford. LTA is only offered once per year.
 I was saying the CBI contradicts itself by saying SE should be ceased even when on special leave. I cannot fly home for one day or a weekend every month, my unit does not allow for CTO so I have to submit special leave forms, 2 per month for the 8 evenings and 1 weekend per month extra that I work. To say it is a personal choice to not be with my family is just wrong.


----------



## s_other (30 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Kingston doesn't have many shacks that meet the IR residential standard. That's why some are housed in on-base PMQ apartments and most in off-base.



"Shacks" and "residential" are two very separate issues, though.  While yes, Kingston is full and all IR mbrs are living on the economy, mbrs posted to bases with ample barrack space are still expected to reside in quarters.  When that's the case (on IR with the benefit of R&Q), there is no "standard" according to the Treasury Board.  They even specifically mention a tent.

I've noticed the term "IR standard" has popped up quite a bit around here, though, and I can't seem to find a source for it.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2012)

s_other said:
			
		

> "Shacks" and "residential" are two very separate issues, though.  While yes, Kingston is full and all IR mbrs are living on the economy, mbrs posted to bases with ample barrack space are still expected to reside in quarters.  When that's the case (on IR with the benefit of R&Q), there is no "standard" according to the Treasury Board.  They even specifically mention a tent.
> 
> I've noticed the term "IR standard" has popped up quite a bit around here, though, and I can't seem to find a source for it.



No, all IR pers in Kingston do NOT live on the economy.

Now, as for living in quarters if there is space ... we've already said that --- a couple of times. The link to the quarters residential standard is given in a previous post in this thread.

Yes, a tent is mentioned because, like me, many IR pers still go to the field on ex/trg when posted somewhere IR ... when that occurs, tents are acceptable.


----------



## McG (31 Jan 2012)

s_other said:
			
		

> I've noticed the term "IR standard" has popped up quite a bit around here, though, and I can't seem to find a source for it.


http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pub/lai-il/doc/dndlai-ilmdn-eng.pdf

If you search the doc for "IR" you will find pers on IR are entitled to "Residential Accommodation Standards" (which is defined starting on Pg 9).  However, "Training Accomodation Standard Type III" is acceptable for periods of less than 6 months.


----------



## s_other (1 Feb 2012)

I wouldn't hitch my horse to that ref.  Unfortunately, it says "may request residential accommodation," not entitled.  As we all know, what we want and what we're entitled to vary greatly.

The part that would concern me most is that Separation Expense (the foundation of IR) is now governed by CBI 208.997, which has a subsection of "208.997(7) (Amount – Rations and Quarters)
If rations and quarters are available at public expense, the amount of SE is limited to: (a) rations and quarters at public expense;" (the other sub paras are about parking, SE rate, and and hook-ups).  The definition of "quarters" is (found in the same CBI):

“quarters” means an accommodation — without 
cooking facilities  — available to a member at 
public expense, and includes “government and 
institutional accommodation” as defined in the 
National Joint Council Travel Directive, as 
amended from time to time.

A quick search of "government and institutional accommodation" at the NJC site says that these are "federal government training centres, universities, colleges, Canadian or foreign military establishments, Veterans Affairs Canada hospitals, trailers, tents and other facilities owned, controlled, authorized or arranged by the Crown, including other educational institutions that provide sleeping accommodation."

As you can see, there is nothing that states any particular standard.  Quite simply, if rations and quarters are available, you can be stuck in a mod across the hall from some Pte fresh off his QL3 and sharing a washroom with four other people, something I was lucky enough to experience for two months.  DCBA is cracking down on abuse of certain benefits in the CF, and IR is right up there.


----------



## McG (1 Feb 2012)

s_other said:
			
		

> I wouldn't hitch my horse to that ref.  Unfortunately, it says "may request residential accommodation," not entitled.  As we all know, what we want and what we're entitled to vary greatly.


Yes, it does say "may request" and this does equate to "not entitled."  However, that means a member on IR is not entitled to live on base.  If accomodations do not exist or do not meet the standard, then the member can be told "sorry, you've got to find a place on the economy."  You are doing some sort of gymnastics to take "not entitled to residential accommodation" and convert it to "obliged into lesser accomodations."

Get down to pg 16/29.  For quarters to have been allocated to a person on IR, those quarters must have met the standard.

... of course, you are also correct that the new CBI trumps any existing CF/DND direction.  By that CBI definition of accomodations, if Cat 1 Trg Accomodations are available, then that is the local standard for IR living.


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2012)

s_other said:
			
		

> I wouldn't hitch my horse to that ref.  Unfortunately, it says "may request residential accommodation," not entitled.  As we all know, what we want and what we're entitled to vary greatly.
> 
> The part that would concern me most is that Separation Expense (the foundation of IR) is now governed by CBI 208.997, which has a subsection of "208.997(7) (Amount – Rations and Quarters)
> If rations and quarters are available at public expense, the amount of SE is limited to: (a) rations and quarters at public expense;" (the other sub paras are about parking, SE rate, and and hook-ups).  The definition of "quarters" is (found in the same CBI):
> ...



It also uses the word "shall" a few times; you are aware of the definition of "shall" and "shall not"?? You are a clerk ...

"_*Shall not*_ use training accomodations as long term quarters."

"The applicant’s rank or position *shall not* be considered as a factor except for Designated Residences."

Clerks are usually very keen on the proper interpretation and usage of "Shall/Shall Not" too.

The second quote brings me to another point as I've been told that a certain location is making IR troops below a certain rank level automatically live in quarters while others of certain higher ranks are automatically sent downtown to apartments. Also not allowed IAW policy. If a room that meets the Residential Standard is not available --- pers of both ranks go into apartments (or into a below standard room if the BComd will have a room that does meet the standard will become avail by the end of 6 months - he can not plan to keep people here longer IAW policy). If Residential standard rooms are available, then both go into shacks --- regardless of rank IAW the policy. If only one room is available, then IAW policy one goes into shacks and one goes into an apartment, and that apartment dweller is supposed to be whoever applied last (ie once the shacks was full) NOT whoever holds the higher rank.


Now as for the "no longer than 6 months", there is also a ref that states that it is the Comd resp to ensure that, if they do not have rooms that meet the residential standard, they have a resp to ensure that they instill plans to develop and modify rooms so that they do meet the standard.


I don't know about you, and I'm no clerk, but that's an awful lot of clear rules regarding IR people that you seem to think should be thrown out the window based upon your insistance of looking at training accomodations. They are different beasts. You'll note that your NJC ref above also refers to "training" accommodations.

You also dig through the appropriate refs and you'll find that NJC actually is "up to a 2 bedroom apartment" ... on the residential front. 

You're missing something if you honestly believe that mod tents are acceptable accomodations for ANYONE posted long-term to any location (let alone those on IR who are entitled to residential accommodations) and that the NJC authorizes you to do so. A clerk eh? Glad you're not at this Unit as failure to read all the refs and interpreting those you read in whatever manner you want just wouldn't be acceptable around here.


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2012)

s_other said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> As you can see, there is nothing that states any particular standard.  Quite simply, if rations and quarters are available, you can be stuck in a mod across the hall from some Pte fresh off his QL3 and sharing a washroom with four other people, something I was lucky enough to experience for two months.



Were you on training at the time and collecting TD? Were you IR posted? Did you miss the "up to 6 months" in the ref?



> DCBA is cracking down on abuse of certain benefits in the CF, and IR is right up there.



We call this accountibility for our actions (including yours as the clerk). You find abuse, then CHARGE their asses, move to immediately cease their IR status due to that abuse, and leave the rest of us out of the "collective punishment". Some of us are NOT IR voluntarily and do NOT abuse the system. Start properly and fully dealing with the abusers when you uncover abuse/fraud and then TB would not have to get involved and change the rules to screw us honest folks for whom IR is not a "personal choice". The big CF system sits back and does little to nothing about abusers and those riding the gravy train (and there's shitloads of them who "just don't want to move my family") is precisely WHY the rest of us get screwed.

I know a guy who went IR three years ago while his daughter was in grade 12 because he didn't want her to have to switch schools mid-way through her senior year. It was authorized. GOOD. It's 3 years later, his kid is graduated, his wife doesn't work so isn't be kept there by any job/medical issue etc, but he's STILL IR ... WHY?? It should have been authorized for only 6 months as his daughter would have been graduated and therefore his reason for requiring it DONE. And, better yet, why the hell is the taxpayer paying for it still? That's abuse. IR is intended as a short-term assistance to families seperated, not a life-long extended entitlement. And, there's lots of folks like this one out there ...

Deal with those cases, then you may start spouting off to me about your erroneous "right" to make me live in a mod tent.  :


----------



## CountDC (1 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I know a guy who went IR three years ago while his daughter was in grade 12 because he didn't want her to have to switch schools mid-way through her senior year. It was authorized. GOOD. It's 3 years later, his kid is graduated, his wife doesn't work so isn't be kept there by any job/medical issue etc, but he's STILL IR ... WHY?? It should have been authorized for only 6 months as his daughter would have been graduated and therefore his reason for requiring it DONE. And, better yet, why the hell is the taxpayer paying for it still? That's abuse. IR is intended as a short-term assistance to families seperated, not a life-long extended entitlement. And, there's lots of folks like this one out there ...



and my 2 here - has anyone ever actually checked to see if he has been approved beyond 6 months?  Example - I received an SA claim for a member.  As a clerk I did what I am supposed to do and verified on his file that he did not already have a claim for the period and that he was approved.  My finding - not only was he not approved he hadn't been approved for the last 6 years.  He had a 1 year approval from when he was first posted. No extension ever requested or approved.  He continued to submit his claims, have them signed off and the clerks paid them.  No questions asked by anyone in the chain.  The outcome - he was approved for those claims already paid +6 months more to move his family.

As for the SE regulation - I highly recommend anyone looking at SE read through it and ask questions including any clerks that have not done SE in awhile.  I sure as hell will be if I ever have to do SE again.


----------



## s_other (1 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It also uses the word "shall" a few times; you are aware of the definition of "shall" and "shall not"?? You are a clerk ...



You keep sticking to the original ref, which as has already been noted in this thread (not even by myself) as trumped by the CBI's.



> The second quote brings me to another point as I've been told that a certain location is making IR troops below a certain rank level automatically live in quarters while others of certain higher ranks are automatically sent downtown to apartments.



I can't speak on that because, as you said, it varies on location.  However, in the case of Jr/Snr NCM designated barracks, an MWO is not going to be ordered to live in the Jr's barracks.  At that point in time it would be up to the BComd if they would auth the mbr to live on the economy due to lack of appropriate accommodations relevant to the rank level.




> Now as for the "no longer than 6 months", there is also a ref that states that it is the Comd resp to ensure that, if they do not have rooms that meet the residential standard, they have a resp to ensure that they instill plans to develop and modify rooms so that they do meet the standard.



Never heard of it.



> I don't know about you, and I'm no clerk, but that's an awful lot of clear rules regarding IR people that you seem to think should be thrown out the window based upon your insistance of looking at training accomodations. They are different beasts. You'll note that your NJC ref above also refers to "training" accommodations.



It says "federal government training centres."  I don't know if you're trying to equate this with a Maj posted to St-Jean being forced to sleep in recruit barracks, which is simply not the case.  However, some mbrs on Basic do qualify for SE and those "government training centres" are where they would sleep, unless we're now authorizing Week 4's to live on the economy.  Keep in mind the NJC is a federal regulation - some things in there don't apply to the CF because we simply don't support those facilities.



> You also dig through the appropriate refs and you'll find that NJC actually is "up to a 2 bedroom apartment" ... on the residential front.



Seems irrelevant to the topic at hand, since we're talking about quarters/barracks.



> You're missing something if you honestly believe that mod tents are acceptable accomodations for ANYONE posted long-term to any location (let alone those on IR who are entitled to residential accommodations) and that the NJC authorizes you to do so. A clerk eh? Glad you're not at this Unit as failure to read all the refs and interpreting those you read in whatever manner you want just wouldn't be acceptable around here.



You're going a little petty.  Obviously no BComd is going to recommend mbrs stay in a tent while on IR (it was an obvious exaggeration on the definition), and their accommodations will be appropriate for their rank.  The point at hand, however, is that this room standard that all mbrs on IR are entitled to doesn't exist, and is strictly dependent on what barracks are available at the applicable base.  At a Cpl level, your room in Borden could have a private washroom while the Jr NCM barracks in Petawawa would not.  I can't speak on the ref you keep harking back to, but the revamped CBI's do not reference it and would have a tough time getting approval if the matter was brought to DCBA.


----------



## s_other (1 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Were you on training at the time and collecting TD? Were you IR posted? Did you miss the "up to 6 months" in the ref?



Temporary Relocation.  It's also the same barracks where all TR/IR Jr NCM's stay.



> We call this accountibility for our actions (including yours as the clerk). You find abuse, then CHARGE their asses, move to immediately cease their IR status due to that abuse, and leave the rest of us out of the "collective punishment". Some of us are NOT IR voluntarily and do NOT abuse the system. Start properly and fully dealing with the abusers when you uncover abuse/fraud and then TB would not have to get involved and change the rules to screw us honest folks for whom IR is not a "personal choice". The big CF system sits back and does little to nothing about abusers and those riding the gravy train (and there's shitloads of them who "just don't want to move my family") is precisely WHY the rest of us get screwed.



IR is only not voluntarily if you're a service couple, which may be your situation and if it is, then you're completely in the right.



> I know a guy who went IR three years ago while his daughter was in grade 12 because he didn't want her to have to switch schools mid-way through her senior year. It was authorized. GOOD. It's 3 years later, his kid is graduated, his wife doesn't work so isn't be kept there by any job/medical issue etc, but he's STILL IR ... WHY?? It should have been authorized for only 6 months as his daughter would have been graduated and therefore his reason for requiring it DONE. And, better yet, why the hell is the taxpayer paying for it still? That's abuse. IR is intended as a short-term assistance to families seperated, not a life-long extended entitlement. And, there's lots of folks like this one out there ...



This is where we're on the same page.  Situations change for mbrs that make IR no longer necessary, and people don't want to say anything because they love the gravy train (there's a hotel in Ottawa chock full of them).  They're going after the mbrs who have been on IR 5+ years because they don't want to move, or have separated from their spouse and no longer fit the criteria, or got married after their COS date so they could bank a few extra bucks.  People abuse IR in so many creative ways, but if used in its original intention, it's a great benefit.


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2012)

s_other said:
			
		

> You keep sticking to the original ref, which as has already been noted in this thread (not even by myself) as trumped by the CBI's.
> 
> I can't speak on that because, as you said, it varies on location.  However, in the case of Jr/Snr NCM designated barracks, an MWO is not going to be ordered to live in the Jr's barracks.  At that point in time it would be up to the BComd if they would auth the mbr to live on the economy due to lack of appropriate accommodations relevant to the rank level.
> 
> ...



The NJC does indeed address "Residential Standards" for pers who are isolated, unaccompanied, foreign posting which are quite different than Training Standards; it is in one of the annexes or appendixs. It comes with a chart based upon household size & income and what is considered to be an acceptable "residential standard" for those pers/pay levels based on Canadian Census data and average expectations of average Canadians. All refs include the point that this is applicable to CF, RCMP as well etc. From the bottom of the scale (single person / lowest income) the brackets show a 3 room dwelling (Living, Kitchen, Bedroom) and it specifically states that there is to be a bathroom but that it does not count towards the room count. It then states that 2 berooms are acceptable because the 2nd bedroom can be used as a den / spare bedroom for 'visitors'.It also states that the rooms can be in an "open concept" whereby the sitting area, cook space etc are combined as one large area, but that these areas must exist.

I read it, yet again, today at work; it's there.

PS: All "quarters" are barracks; not all "quarters" residential quarters. Your ref says "quarters", dig further into the thing and you will indeed find the standard for "residential quarters" (which says it is applicable to CF, RCMP etc right in there, yet you say it is not).

Oh, and that scale and chart listed above from the NJC ... has every one being entitled to the very same until their pay grade hits 150 000K a year - then they get an upgrade. Funny that.


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2012)

s_other said:
			
		

> You keep sticking to the original ref, which as has already been noted in this thread (not even by myself) as trumped by the CBI's.
> 
> I can't speak on that because, as you said, it varies on location.  However, in the case of Jr/Snr NCM designated barracks, an MWO is not going to be ordered to live in the Jr's barracks.  At that point in time it would be up to the BComd if they would auth the mbr to live on the economy due to lack of appropriate accommodations relevant to the rank level.
> 
> ...



_*I'm *_a little petty? I'll retreat to my tent and come up with a proper retort to that comment.  :

As for the yellow bit ... further ... Certain ranks and above being told automatically that they can go into apartments downtown (whether or not there is an empty room of residential standard in 'their quarters') while pers below "rank X" (I'll call it that for shits and giggles) are being told "too bad, you're IR, you will live in the shacks" (whether those shacks meet residential or not).

And, as a point of note ... I (an MWO) lived across the hall from an IR Cpl, and right next door to an IR Maj in the shacks during my last IR posting. Why was that? Because those were the suites that were designated residential for IR pers; at that point in time - rank didn't matter only the IR status was relevant. We were all smokers, so all was well in the world with us *gasp* 'mixing' --- the sky did not fall.

Training is a key word in your ref is "training". You do realize that every base is NOT a training base yes? You also realize that the Canada School of Public Service is a Training Facility too? Where everyone stays in hotels??

PS: No one has said anyone on training status is authorized to be in "residential accomodations" - we've clearly stated that tents/trg accommodations are FINE for IR pers while TRAINING (including your BMQ example guy below). We've said that way more than once now in this thread and well before you came along and entered the fray. As a matter of fact, I said it to you again just yesterday. Were you now expecting me to say something different ref this BMQ guy you've brought up for some ungodly reason? 

The issue is, IR pers *NOT* on training status and their applicable standard.


----------

