:
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss my 2017 fall report on the Royal Military College of Canada.
The Royal Military College of Canada is a federally funded university. While other universities can provide the undergraduate education that officers are required to have, only the Royal Military college has the mandate to provide that education in a military environment with a focus on military leadership, ethics and training.
Our audit focused on two areas. First, it focused on whether RMC produced the quality of officers that the Canadian Armed Forces needed at a reasonable cost. Second, it focused on whether National Defence ensured the proper conduct of officer cadets and staff at RMC.
[English]
We concluded that RMC couldn't demonstrate that it produced officers at a reasonable cost, and we concluded that there were weaknesses in military training at RMC. RMC emphasized academic education over military training.
We found that the quality of RMC's academic programs was good but that the operating costs per student to provide that education were the highest in Canada—about twice the average cost for a student at a similarly sized university. Several factors increased the operating cost per student, including the number of programs offered, the salaries of military staff in non-academic roles, and the very low student-to-faculty ratio. We also found that the cost of educating and preparing officer cadets at RMC was almost twice that of producing officer cadets through other officer entry plans.
The higher costs at RMC were partly attributed to higher standards that it sets for its graduates. However, National Defence couldn't demonstrate that these higher standards resulted in officers who were more effective than those from other officer entry plans.
Furthermore, we found that the governance structure of RMC was characterized by confusion and conflict between academic and military visions, and there was no clear mechanism to integrate academic and military objectives.
Finally, we found that RMC didn't provide officer cadets with adequate training and leadership on the proper conduct expected of future officers. RMC depends on its military training staff, academic faculty, and senior officer cadets to work together to enforce rules, teach leadership, and instill military ethics. We found that military staff didn't always have the necessary skills or experience to instruct and guide officer cadets, and that the academic environment didn't consistently support teaching military discipline and values. While RMC took action when serious incidents of misconduct were reported, the number of incidents involving senior officer cadets showed that RMC hadn't prepared them to serve as role models for their peers.
[Translation]
During our audit period, National Defence conducted its own assessment of the culture and training environment at RMC. We found that many of the assessment's observations were relevant, and we included them in our report. However, in our opinion, the impact of the assessment is likely to be limited because more than half of its 79 recommendations did not recommend concrete actions but called for further study.
We made six recommendations to reduce operating costs, improve governance, and strengthen military training. National Defence has responded that it will address each recommendation.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to speak with you and members of the committee about the Auditor General's sixth report on the Royal Military College of Canada.
[Translation]
I'm pleased to have the Commander of the Canadian Defence Academy, Rear-Admiral Luc Cassivi, with me today.
[English]
Admiral Cassivi is himself a graduate of Collège militaire royal.
The Canadian Defence Academy is the headquarters responsible for ensuring coherent and integrated professional military education for the Canadian Armed Forces. This includes overseeing not only RMC, but CMR Saint-Jean, the Canadian Forces College, and the Chief Warrant Officer Osside Profession of Arms Institute for non-commissioned member professional military education.
Rear-Admiral Cassivi reports directly to the chief of the defence staff. I have every confidence he will implement the changes necessary to ensure that RMC generates the best possible Canadian Armed Forces officers in the best possible way.
On that note, let me start by thanking the Auditor General for the work undertaken by his office in completing this report.
[Translation]
We appreciate his efforts to identify ways RMC could be further improved.
We agree with all six of his recommendations and have a plan to implement every single one.
We are also engaging the officer cadets themselves on this important conversation about the college.
[English]
Every year for the last five years, the graduating class has provided valuable feedback through a survey on their RMC experience. We take their feedback seriously and will continue to act on it as needed.
The Royal Military College of Canada, which is Canada's only military university, is a unique institution dedicated to maintaining and transmitting the profession of arms. Its mission is to produce officers with the ethical, mental, physical, and linguistic capabilities to lead with distinction in the Canadian Armed Forces. As a military unit characterized by military rules, regulations, and routines, RMC develops officer cadets' qualities of military leadership and trains them to lead subordinates, plan operations, and enforce regulations.
During the summer, officer cadets do on-the-job training or military training off-campus in areas such as logistics and infantry.
[Translation]
It instills officer cadets with the military culture and ethos that are the foundation of the profession of arms.
[English]
As a degree-granting university, RMC ensures that officer cadets enter the Canadian Armed Forces with the educational grounding to be effective in an environment where intellectual demands continue to rise. It has a proven history of excellence. Canadian military heroes, like Billy Bishop and Leonard Birchall, have graduated from RMC. So too have astronauts like and Chris Hadfield Olympic athletes like Sharon Donnelly, and businessmen like Hartland Molson, to name a few.
I'm confident that in years to come, RMC will continue to foster and develop exceptional leaders for our Canadian Armed Forces and for our country.
[Translation]
But I also recognize that changes are necessary. These changes will ensure the university can continue to meet the needs of its students of the Canadian Armed Forces, and the government and people of Canada.
[English]
Even before the Auditor General's audit, work was under way to assess how we could continue to improve aspects of RMC. General Vance ordered a special staff assistance visit, SSAV, to RMC in August 2016. Seventy-nine recommendations stemmed from that report when it was made public in March of last year.
General Vance committed to implementing all of them and added 11 related items for a total of 90 recommendations. In fact, several of the Auditor General's recommendations echo these findings. I am pleased to say that we've made progress on implementing them.
However, the Auditor General has helped us identify other challenges, and we welcome his perspective.
As the Auditor General has noted, many of our planned actions involve additional study. This is because the audit findings raise some key questions that we need to address to ensure that RMC produces high-quality officer cadets at a reasonable cost. What exactly do we expect from RMC and its graduates? How should RMC be similar to other academic institutions? More importantly, how does it need to be different to accomplish what we expect? What is the appropriate cost for that difference? The studies we have planned will help us answer those questions and more effectively implement the Auditor General's recommendations.
The Auditor General recommended that we improve and integrate the military training that officer cadets at RMC receive. We're doing that. This is a recommendation that we also arrived at through the RMC SSAV report.
As a result, we are currently reviewing the full complement of military training activities that officer cadets participate in throughout the year. For us, that means both the academic year which the Auditor General studied and the summer training period. One of the things that make RMC unique is the fact its students conduct highly focused military training with the navy, army, or air force during the summer months.
[Translation]
We consider that training to be an important part of the RMC experience, even though it doesn't happen at RMC.
[English]
As part of their academic study, all officer cadets study RMC's profession-of-arms core curriculum, which provides foundational military knowledge to prepare them for a career in the Canadian Armed Forces.
By undertaking this review, we will ensure that officer cadets' academic studies and military training are better integrated.
The Auditor General recommended that we explore ways to reduce RMC's operating cost per student. We're doing that. We are starting with a review of the cost per student, and we're reviewing the number of academic programs we offer at RMC.
Royal Military College prides itself on providing a rich and stimulating academic curriculum in both official languages that exposes officer cadets to diverse subjects, perspectives, and ideas, and it will continue to do so, perhaps though, with a refined offering.
The Auditor General recommended that we make sure the high standards we expect of RMC's graduation class are, in fact, required, and that they result in better qualified officers at a reasonable cost. We're doing that.
We expect a lot from officers in the Canadian Armed Forces and it is our responsibility to make sure our officer cadets are trained to meet the high demands. We believe RMC's high standards help motivate officer cadets to become the best officers and citizens they can be. We're looking closely at factors like retention and career progression to better understand how meeting those standards translates into career indicators for RMC graduates.
We are examining the cost of putting officer cadets through the regular officer training program and studying it against costs at comparable allied military institutions. So far, we are finding that RMC's costs are on par with, or less than, similar institutions in Australia and the U.S.
The Auditor General recommended that we more clearly define the role of the Commandant as the authority for the day-to-day business of the college and we are doing that. Per the SSAV report, we've already extended the length of the commandant's command tour to three years. That will allow for longer-term planning and ensure better continuity for each cohort of students.
[Translation]
We are also reviewing the academic governance framework.
[English]
We recognize that it is vital for leaders of RMC to clearly understand their roles and functions so that they can model effective and efficient leadership for officer cadets.
The Auditor General recommended that we revisit our criteria for appointing senior officer cadets to leadership positions, and we've done that. RMC exists to train military leaders, and one of the best ways for them to learn is by doing. This is why we view appointments to leadership positions as opportunities to develop. We also recognize the responsibility we have toward these young leaders and those in their charge. We have recently implemented a number of changes in the leadership appointment criteria.
As of January, officer cadet leaders are selected on merit using a clear list of criteria. They each are approved individually by the commandant, and every single one has a dedicated mentor from DND or the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Auditor General also recommended that military training staff should have the proper skills and training to help officer cadets develop their leadership skills. We agree, and we're doing that. Following a similar recommendation from the SSAV report, we have made sure that the military staff who are posted to RMC have the suitable rank and leadership experience to support the officer cadets. We are increasing staff orientation and training to ensure that they are well equipped for the tasks we require of them.
Since RMC was founded in 1874, it has evolved continuously to meet the changing needs of our women and men in uniform.
[Translation]
Today, Royal Military College is a university with a difference.
[English]
It trains some of our future officers absolutely, but it also provides professional development programs for our senior non-commissioned officers. It provides indigenous youth with one-year educational and leadership experience through the Aboriginal Leadership Opportunities Year. At the end of the year, these youth can choose to join the military, or they can return to their communities with new-found leadership skills. It is home to researchers who provide expert advice not only to DND, but to other government departments as well, in the areas of study like cyber, electronic warfare, and space. One of its unique assets is its SLOWPOKE-2 nuclear reactor, a research reactor that has been of benefit to Canada for over 30 years.
RMC is a national institution that trains leaders of tomorrow. We are committed to making sure it offers the best training possible but, we agree, at a reasonable cost. The Auditor General's report and our responses to his recommendations will position RMC to grow into the future as it has been doing for more than 140 years.
Thank you. We look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you all for your attendance today.
In terms of the report itself from the Auditor General, I am reminded of the famous words of my late friend Jack Layton: “hashtag fail”. This is a really bad report.
This military college has one purpose—to turn out educated, professional leaders for our armed forces—and you're failing spectacularly, in my opinion, on your core function.
I want to preface my remarks by saying that I have been to the college during my time as an interim defence critic when we had a leadership race. For the better of a year, I was the critic, and one of the things we did was tour there. Two things struck me. I was impressed by the professionalism of what I saw, but I was also struck by how much money was spent, and I will come to that in a second.
The other thing is that, in my background, I've also been the civilian head of the OPP and responsible for all policing in Ontario. I understand esprit de corps. I support the concept of the Royal Military College. I think it makes all good sense, given our importance as a G7 country, that the armed forces that we have may not be the biggest in the world but they should be the most professional. We can do that. I know that's what we strive for, and in many if not most areas, we achieve it.
I'm not against the concept or the money being spent, but I have to tell you, folks, that if you go into the boardroom, you'll find there are beautiful leather chairs, each one individually embroidered with the coat of arms of the college. It's all beautiful, but we don't have anything like that on Parliament Hill and most places associated with government. That's why I prefaced my remarks. I'm not opposed to the idea that we have an elite training centre. What I am opposed to is spending that kind of money and getting such abysmal results.
I also want to say, Deputy, that I had to reorient the way I was going to present things, because your remarks today really upset me. I'm going to go through a number of them, and I'm going to reflect what you said and then what's in the audit report. It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes we get this disconnect between what the audit finds and what deputies' communications people say they should bring in and brag about. When it's contrary to what the report says, that's unacceptable, and more work needs to be done.
Chair, I would ask if you could let me know when I have one and a half minutes left. I have one important item and I want to definitely make sure I get it in there. I don't want to lose it, because I get like that.
On page 5 of your report, just now, Deputy, you said:
The Royal Military College of Canada, Canada's only military university, is a unique institution dedicated to maintaining and transmitting the profession of arms.
On page 17, 6.73, here's what the Auditor General said:
Overall, we found that the Royal Military College of Canada did not provide Officer Cadets with adequate training in leadership and in the proper conduct expected of future officers.
That's a pretty big disconnect, Deputy, and it's not the only one. That's why I went this way. I was thinking, “Really, you could roll in here with this?”
Page 6 of your remarks—and I want to support my friend, Mr. Arya—is a bit much in terms of the waste, but that was dealt with. You said, Deputy, on page 6:
As a military unit characterized by military rules, regulations and routines, RMC [the Royal Military College] develops officer cadets' qualities of military leadership, and trains them to lead subordinates, plan operations and enforce regulations.
I'll bet the communications department was thrilled with this product.
What does the Auditor General say, as we re-enter reality?
The study also observed that there was no evidence to show that RMC graduates had a stronger grasp of military leadership or proper conduct.
The deputy goes this way. The Auditor General goes that way. It's really shocking. There's more.
In the deputy's remarks today, she said, and I quote, “I am confident that in the years to come RMC will continue to foster”—which suggests something's already being done and now they're going to continue that great stuff—“and develop exceptional leaders for our Canadian Armed Forces and our country.”
When we come back to reality, we get this in paragraph 6.57:
National Defence’s analysis of career progression among officers found that there was no significant difference between Officer Cadets who graduated from RMC and officers who entered the Canadian Armed Forces through other plans.
I read this report and it was quite shocking to see some of the numbers that came out, and I want to first say a big thank you to the Auditor General and his team for doing this work. Thank you also to the department for being here today.
Some of the numbers I saw in the report were $55,000 per student, full-time equivalent, as the annual cost of education. When I looked at the operating expenses, I saw that, as with many educational institutions, staffing is by far the largest cost.
When I looked at the responses from the department with respect to the AG's recommendations, I saw, when looking at recommendation 6.44 in the AG report, that “National Defence should explore ways to reduce the Royal Military College of Canada’s operating cost per student and consider reducing the number of programs offered”. To me, there's the matter of the programs offered, but there's also the matter of how much money you're spending to offer those programs, and if staffing is by far your largest expenditure, then you have to look there.
One of the numbers from the report with respect to science is a ratio of five students to one professor. In engineering, it's seven students to one professor. I've been to university, and I can tell you, first year, you walk into a science class and there are 200 students and one professor. I understand that you can have better learning when you have a lower pupil-to-professor ratio, but there comes a point where it just doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure you can have a few more students for that professor and it won't make any difference in the level of learning for the students with that professor.
I know you're doing a number of reports and you're comparing the cost per pupil with allied educational institutions. Are you going to actually look at the positions you are hiring and whether or not they are necessary? Are you going to look at how much they're being paid and whether that salary is appropriate to the amount of work they do? If you have a professor with five students, that's a lot less marking than a professor would have in a school that has 100 or 200 students. What do you plan to look at in your analysis?
I will follow up on the questions I asked earlier.
In his report, the Auditor General pointed out that some years, in some programs, particularly the French studies program and the English literature program, there had only been one or two graduates. This probably indicates that certain programs need to be reviewed.
I understand the challenge. The college wants to offer a complete range of programs. As I mentioned earlier, I was a teacher as well as the director of a college in Gaspé, where I am from. In Gaspé, the challenge is to get enough students into the programs. There are many CEGEPs, in Rimouski, Matane, Quebec and Montreal. It's important to offer general programs that attract students. Keeping that up is important. Since the number of students is declining, the challenge is to not abolish programs, because that makes an institution somewhat less attractive.
So, three to five colleges got together and used new technologies to continue to offer their programs. This was done through distance teaching. These tools allow students, some of whom are in other cities and in certain cases at home, to benefit from a range of programs that are important to them. These can be college level programs in literature, languages, nature sciences or the humanities, for example.
Perhaps you could see whether you could use new technologies to offer certain programs in co-operation with the other colleges, so as to reduce costs.
Have these avenues been explored by the Royal Military College of Canada?
:
I apologize, Mr. Christopherson, that you thought I was trying to spin or mislead this committee. That's absolutely not my intent. It's not how I manage.
There are 90 recommendations out of the SSAV report that the CDS initiated before the Auditor General had begun his report, because we knew there was a problem at the Royal Military College. We agreed with every recommendation that the auditor made, and we are pursuing all of the recommendations. The SSAV report is about 50% complete now in terms of completing the actions, and we will do a follow-up on the SSAV and, of course, the Auditor General and this committee will be following his report very carefully.
Some of them will take time. Some of them are structural changes to the college. Some of them are structural changes to how we provide the education in the college. Some of the things we need to do will require investment in the college, because the infrastructure is not in good shape. That wasn't what they studied during the audit, but it is something we are responsible for ensuring we maintain.
The changes to the expectations of the cadets are well under way. I think this is a cyclical issue, and the education and the development of officers in the Canadian Armed Forces is something that requires constant attention. We have to evolve as the student body evolves, and we have to change our approach as the expectations of society change.
In this case, we've swung too far to the academic side of the house, and we probably reduced our focus on the military aspects. That is what Admiral Cassivi has been charged with examining, and as you've heard, he is very active in doing that.
I think there are some things in terms of the student behaviour, the officer cadet behaviour, that we need to consider. They're students, they're young, and they make mistakes. We would rather they make their mistakes at the college than on the battlefield, and they have opportunity to make mistakes. It is good that the Auditor General has pointed out to us some of the failings and perhaps how we dealt with them, but he also noted that when there was a serious transgression, it was dealt with immediately.
The health and welfare of the cadets at RMC are amongst the chief of the defence staff's and my greatest priority. He's changed the structure of the oversight of the college in order to ensure that he has a direct line of sight in, which is why it now reports through Admiral Cassivi, and Admiral Cassivi reports directly to him. It's why he initiated the SSAV report.
I don't think that we're spinning. I think there are changes that need to be made, but I will disagree with your characterization of the performance as being abysmal. I think there are ways we can improve how we show value for money, but I can't guarantee to you that the cost of educating a cadet at RMC will equal the cost at a civilian university. It is a different structure. It has different outputs. We have to prove those outputs have value and that we get good value from them.