Public Accounts Committee on March 1st, 2018

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Ferguson.

The other issue I want to address is the fact that the military move from place to place after two or three years. Gentlemen, this is part of your tradition. I know what I'm talking about. I was born and raised and still live in Quebec City, near the Valcartier Garrison,

I know this phenomenon well. I have childhood friends I knew, lost track of and saw again. Their parents were in the army and were then posted here and there.

My question is for you, Rear-Admiral Cassivi, but Ms. Thomas might also be helpful.

With respect to this typically military obligation to change locations every two or three years, do you believe that there should be an exception in the case of the Military College, since it still requires slightly longer follow-up?

[RAdm Luc Cassivi]

Thank you for your question.

It's interesting to maintain continuity in the mentoring and guidance we do through military training programs, and to ensure that people can continue to advance their careers.

Our current goal is to reduce the number of rotations of less than three years. We really need three years to get as many people as possible from the military wing and to be able to deliberately plan the rotations to maintain continuity that makes sense.

On the commander's side as well, we are keeping a minimum of three years to ensure a degree of program alignment and cohesion between the military and university wings. We want to be able to build a relationship of trust, because the personalities have a lot of effect on the results. For periods longer than this, it would depend on the case and the need for services. It depends on what is happening in the world.

In the past 10 to 15 years, for instance, especially given the operational demands in Afghanistan, this required much faster rotations. There were many operational demands and rotations at the front. So, there will always be some realities that will lead us to make some exceptions to the rate of rotation. However, our interest is to keep personnel rotation to at least three years.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Rear-Admiral, I don't have the honour of wearing your uniform, but I have always been surprised that the rotation is so fast in the Canadian Army. I speak to you as a civilian, and not as a military member. I always wondered if it was efficient to make so many changes and rotations. You said that you try to keep the staff for three years, as if the three years were the target to reach. I understand that this is the current rule, but in your opinion and experience—I don't want to embarrass you if your remarks go against those of the staff; tell me if I'm going too far—do you think extending the rotation to five years could meet your needs at the Royal Military College of Canada?

[RAdm Luc Cassivi]

It is an option that we are ready to study. It has advantages, I can't deny it.

On the principle of age, I understand that it would be interesting, but rotations of more than three years would make it more difficult to meet the needs of the service in relation to producing personnel and assigning senior positions. It would also reduce the diversification of the experience.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Rear-Admiral.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you for the report, Mr. Cassivi.

Mr. Christopherson, you have seven minutes, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

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. So 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 board room, 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, he 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have a minute and a half.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. Hopefully we'll get a chance to get to some of the other stuff, but you get my drift.

I don't normally have a big problem with action plans, I have a huge problem. I have been to the National Defense University in the U.S. That's where I bought this; bought it, by the way.

In their action plan, Chair, they say, “We will conduct a review and analysis to confirm whether the cost per student of operating RMC is reasonable, compared to similar Allied military institutions.” No. That is not the comparator. Take a look at what the purpose of the audit was. It wasn't to compare the professionalism coming out of RMC with other Allies' results. That was not the study. The study was this, in the focus of the audit found on page 1: “This audit focused on whether the Royal Military College of Canada produced the quality of officers that the Canadian Armed Forces needed at a reasonable cost.” The comparator is other training costs in Canada, not other Allied military institutions.

If need be, I want to have a major fight on that one, because that's not what this study is about, to compare one elite organization with another elite organization to see how well they're producing. It's an interesting concept, but that's not what this audit was about. This was about how much it costs us to put somebody through RMC versus other processes and about whether we're getting better officers or not. And we are not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. You'll have a chance—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That was just a warmup. I'll be back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You'll have a chance to come back.

M. Massé, you have seven minutes.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson, for that important preface.

As a result, to go into the details of what Mr. Christopherson has stated, I would like to understand from the figures provided by the Auditor General why the ratio of students to teachers is so different from that of other universities. For example, in your arts program, the ratio is twice as high. We are talking about 10 students per teacher whereas, in Canadian universities, there are 23 students per teacher. In science, it's three times higher or a little more, five students for one teacher, while in other universities there are 16 students for one teacher. In engineering, it's more than three times more. Explain to me why this type of ratio is found at the Royal Military College of Canada?

My question is for Ms. Thomas or Rear-Admiral Cassivi.

[Jody Thomas]

The student-teacher ratio at RMC is significantly smaller. We have a very large faculty. The intake of students is smaller every year, as we explained earlier, because of the size of the infrastructure and the training that's given there. We limit the number of students who come in.

One of the things we do pride ourselves on is the quality of education received. That is enhanced by a smaller student-teacher ratio. A first-year engineer in their first-year engineering seminar at RMC won't be in a theatre with 200 or 300 other students. It will be very small, with very focused education as a result.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Your instructors must have a strong interest in working at the college, given these ratios. I was lucky to be a teacher in another life, and if I had the number of students mentioned here, I would have been particularly happy. I think I would have had a great career at the Royal Military College.

Would you like to comment, Rear-Admiral Cassivi?

[RAdm Luc Cassivi]

Yes. There are other factors to consider, such as the fact that all the programs are bilingual and that, sometimes, an instructor teaches in English only and another, in French only. It's based on their availability.

With regard to the programs currently offered at the college, one of the criteria is diversity. We want people to have some freedom so that they can pursue and develop their interests related to their studies. In some of our programs, there are a lot fewer students than there may be elsewhere, which explains the current ratio. As part of the studies that we will be doing on some of our programs, we will determine whether it is necessary to streamline some of them.

You also have to look at the research that is done through these programs, which is a benefit to the Department of Defence. If you do research and professors are employed to carry it out, the fact that they teach at the same time in these programs is also an advantage.

It's not a linear equation. There are several factors to consider.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I understand it well.

The report piqued my curiosity, so I visited the college website to see what programs and courses were offered. I must say that I was a little surprised. There may be a trail to explore.

Some programs on the French language, literature and culture include courses on medieval theatre, classical theatre, life and death of the great heroes of Antiquity and writing under the Old Regime. As for undergraduate programs in the English language, there are also courses on medieval literature. There are also courses on Shakespeare and 18th century satire.

To be perfectly honest, I would like to ask you how much these courses, which may be of interest to a person wanting to study the literature, could be useful and instructive for Royal Military College students wishing to pursue a career as officers in the Canadian Army, Navy or Air Force.

[RAdm Luc Cassivi]

As I said earlier, we are instituting some intellectual freedom. In fact, we want this university education to help facilitate problem solving, critical thinking, and so on. Over time, we have embraced greater diversity by accepting that the faculty have some academic freedom.

All programs are approved by the senate of the college and are subject to the rigour of the process, as is done at any other university in the country. Since I'm not a member of the senate, my influence is very limited. However, we take into account research and interests to deliver programs that are more specific and what we need.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

As I understand it, the audit took place between 2013 and 2016 or thereabouts. So you had the opportunity, a long time ago, to read the report and the recommendations. You said that you will study the teacher-student ratio and the programs.

Since you were made aware of the report's recommendations, what has National Defence done to find ways to reduce the cost of operations and instruction as well as the overall costs of the college?

In other words, what have you done since the report was tabled to analyze this issue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Thomas, you have the floor.

[Jody Thomas]

The report came out in the fall, in the middle of the academic year. We're not changing the curriculum in the middle of the academic year. We're working with defence scientists to look at the best mix of programs within the college. We've said in our action plan that we are doing a lot of studies. We are because we are not going to take precipitous action. We have very clear timelines on when we're going to perform and produce the results, which we'll certainly share with this committee.

The infrastructure in the college is aging. We're going to invest more in the college. While that's upfront cost, it will reduce operating costs over time. We are looking at the mix of academic and military staff on the campus employed by RMC. In some cases, we're putting more people there because we want to ensure more oversight of the cadets. In the short term, that may force up some costs, but we hope to rationalize the number of programs and ensure that we provide a high quality education by perhaps reducing the number of subjects. The opening of Collège militaire royalwill also reduce some of the impacts on RMC itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Thomas.

We'll now move to Madam Gallant, please. You have five minutes. We're in the second round.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned the Slowpoke reactor, that you use it for neutron activation analysis, neutron radioscopy, tomography, gamma spectroscopy, delayed neutron counting, and liquid scintillation counting. That's pretty unique for a university. I know McMaster has one as well. Is any commercial research conducted using the reactor, or is it full to capacity by use by the students?

[RAdm Luc Cassivi]

We'll reserve that question and come back to you. I don't have those details exactly on what need there is. There is some civilian research, in co-operation, particularly with law enforcement, in some analysis that goes on for forensic purposes, but I don't have the research details with me.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I just wondered whether or not you were using that as a revenue generator of any type, because I know that's the way McMaster helps to defray the costs. It is costly to keep up to date with the CNSC, and all the other safety regulations.

Does having that asset there allow for specialized roles for the officers who graduate, CBRN, or any other nuclear-related professions in the Armed Forces?