Annex I – Four Pillars/Programme

Definitions

AFAN:

Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) qualification awarded to officers who have completed the Regular Officer Training Plan Royal Military College (ROTP-RMC) programme.

FORCE:

(Fitness for Operational Requirements of Canadian Armed Forces Employment) The FORCE evaluation is the mandatory physical fitness standard for the CAF. Physical fitness is one of the minimum operational standards related to the principle of universality of service. ^{Footnote 161}

Canmilcol (Canadian Military Colleges):

This abbreviations used to refer to the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) and the Royal Military College Saint-Jean (CMR SJ), which fall under command of Commander, Canadian Defence Academy (CDA)/Military Personnel Generation (MILPERSGEN).

LLPM (Leadership Level Progression Model):

The ROTP-RMC training progression system that defines the progression standards that must be met by N/OCdts.  It contains specific standards for each component of the Four Pillars that are required to be met in order to progress from one level to the next.  Completion of the Leadership Levels culminates in graduation from the ROTP-RMC programme and being granted the ‘AFAN’ designation. ^{Footnote 162}

Education:

The provision of a base knowledge and intellectual skills upon which information can be correctly interpreted and sound judgement exercised. ^{Footnote 163}

Training:

The provision of skills, knowledge and attitudes required to perform assigned duties. ^{Footnote 164}

Areas of Assessment

1. As directed in the VCDS mandate letter, the RMC SSAV was tasked to assess the climate, training environment, culture and programme construct at RMC in the area of Training and Learning – Four Pillars. The specific questions to be answered are as follows:
   1. What are the selection criteria for RMC N/OCdts?
   2. Do the selection criteria ensure that an officer cadet can succeed in the context of the Four Pillars?
   3. What is the basis for these pillars?
   4. Who has the authority to set the standards for each?
   5. How are the standards communicated to the N/OCdts?
   6. What is their understanding of the standards and relevant priorities?
   7. To what extent are these standards met?
   8. Does the training and learning environment at RMC support the accomplishments of these standards?
      1. If not, which pillar or pillars are not satisfied and why not?
      2. If not, in which pillar or pillars are the standards not met and why not?

Analysis

2. While responding to the questions from the VCDS mandate letter, the SSAV Team sought to determine how the RMC Four Pillar programme affected the training and learning environment at RMC based on feedback from as wide a range of stakeholders as possible, as well as their own observations, reflection and research. The paragraphs that follow address the specific questions related to the RMC Four Pillar programme.
3. Selection Criteria for ROTP-RMC N/OCdts.
   1. Description.
      1. Enrolment Process for N/OCdts. N/OCdts are enrolled by the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group (CFRG) upon acceptance by a Selection Board comprised of the Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN, as well as the Commandants and Registrars from both RMC and CMR SJ with CFRG representatives and some advisors. Applicants must meet academic entrance requirements, pass the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT), undergo an interview with a Military Career Counsellor (MCC), and complete a trade self-descriptor form prior to being considered by the Selection Board. The academic threshold for ROTP-RMC or CMR-SJ acceptance is an 85% average. There are some minor exceptions, based on a well-rounded file, for Employment Equity (EE) groups or for some varsity-level athletes. Regardless of the candidate’s academic record, the number one selection criterion is the military potential score combined with the trade self-descriptor.^{Footnote 165} In other words, a candidate who has a 95% academic average but does not score well on the CFAT and the trade self-descriptor will be considered less well-suited for military service than a candidate with an 85% academic average, but higher scores on the CFAT and trade self-descriptor. It is important to note that the CFAT has not been recently validated. A conditional offer is made to a candidate who has been accepted by the Selection Board, with enrolment being contingent upon successful completion of a Reliability Screening and Medical Assessment;
      2. Medical and Physical Fitness on Enrolment. The Medical Assessment is the same Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) used to assess the health of all CAF members, and is conducted by a Physician Assistant or Medical Technician and reviewed by a Recruiting Medical Officer. The PHA does not include a psychological evaluation other than general questions to be answered by the candidate regarding their medical or health history. However, during the interview, the Military Career Counsellor can assess the character of the candidate in the areas of conscientiousness and stability through the trade self-descriptor. Physical fitness is not assessed before enrolment. The level of physical fitness of those who enrol in the Regular Force is evaluated at the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School during Basic Military Officer Qualification (BMOQ) Module 1. The FORCE evaluation is the physical fitness standard for service in the CAF and for completion of the Basic Military Officer Qualification Module 1, and those who cannot pass it are released; and
      3. Assignment of RMC or CMR SJ. CFRG determines whether a N/OCdt will report to RMC or CMR SJ upon completion of BMOQ Module 1. The vast majority of Anglophone N/OCdts who completed their first year at CMR SJ reported having greatly benefitted from immersion in a francophone environment;
   2. Observations:
      1. Marketing, Attraction and Enrolment. The SSAV Team heard that CFRG is challenged in its ability to specifically market the ROTP programme, as a result of the centralized nature of the web-based and social media products which are managed by Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Affairs) (ADM(PA)). The SSAV Team also heard that much work has been done in an attempt to improve the situation, but that significant challenges remain. RMC (and CMR SJ) also contribute to creating an annual brochure about the ROTP programme that is provided by CFRG to potential applicants, but is often available only late in the application process. Finally, the SSAV Team heard a number of concerns from Training Wing, Academic Wing and other stakeholders with respect to the difficulty attracting and enrolling the highest quality candidates. Competition is stiff between Canadian universities and the centralized and relatively unresponsive nature of the CFRG marketing capacity, coupled with the late spring distribution of letters of offer to prospective ROTP candidates, has resulted in a perception that the ROTP programme is not attracting the strongest candidates. Such candidates may well receive, and be required to respond to, letters of offer from other universities before receiving a letter of offer from the CAF. As a result, some may accordingly opt not to wait to enroll in the CAF. RMC and, in particular, CMR SJ, have not been able to enrol to capacity for some time, with too few offers going out too late;
      2. Demands of the ROTP-RMC Programme. The ROTP-RMC programme is very intense and demanding. The inherent level of stress, both mental and physical, that such a programme puts on young adults is high and difficult to compare to that of other university students. Successful N/OCdts must be physically fit, emotionally and mentally resilient, self-disciplined, and academicly strong, possess leadership potential and be motivated. The SSAV Team heard that several stakeholders were of the general opinion that prior to enrolment most candidates appear to have led a sedentary lifestyle and frequently do not possess a high level of physical fitness. It was also noted by Training Wing, academic staff, and N/OCdts that N/OCdts typically have varying degrees of second language skills on enrolment depending on learning opportunities available in each province. Additionally, several members of the Academic and Training Wings, as well as medical and other supporting professionals reported that many of the N/OCdts lack the resiliency and self-confidence to deal with the challenges inherent with the programme. Many N/OCdts experience adversity or failure for the first time while attending RMC and their ability to cope and learn from those failures plays a pivotal role in their motivation to meet the standards; and
      3. N/OCdts who struggle with Four Pillar programme. Many N/OCdts end up having to change their academic programme or even their military occupation as a result of academic failure and the particular degree requirements of their initial trade choice. Whether voluntary or compulsory, the occupational transfer process is very lengthy. Several Training Wing staff expressed frustration over the perceived unwillingness of the Chain of Command to address N/OCdts who are struggling with the ROTP-RMC programme. The SSAV Team heard that the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT) may not have been updated for some time and is reflective of the generations from the 1980s and 1990s.
   3. Assessment:
      1. Marketing the ROTP-RMC Programme. CFRG reports having very limited capability with respect to website and marketing in general. Indeed, ADM(PA) has functional authority for DND/CAF websites and marketing nationally. CFRG currently relies on limited social media capabilities. It recently added an anglophone Facebook page to complement its existing francophone Facebook page, LinkedIn account and Twitter Jobs accounts. While the CFRG and Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Affairs) staff have worked hard towards improving the situation, the SSAV Team assesses that the CAF remains hampered in its ability to attract and inform applicants about the ROTP-RMC (and CMR SJ) programme and further work to address this may be required. The CAF needs to attract the newer generations in a highly competitive environment comprised of colleges and universities as well as the job market. CFRG requires the flexibility to provide a more insightful and up-to-date depiction of military life - in this case the RMC experience and the higher expectations and demands associated with the Four Pillars;
      2. Early Offers for ROTP-RMC. The SSAV Team assesses that the 146 early conditional offers that were sent out as of December 2016 are a very positive step to addressing some enrolment challenges for both RMC and CMR SJ. Additional Selection Boards were scheduled for January, February and March 2017 in order to process the best suited files as promptly as possible in order to meet the Strategic Intake Plan’s requirements in terms of military occupation (MOS ID) requirements but also taking into consideration Employment Equity targets for women, visible minorities and Aboriginal representation. The SSAV Team assesses that this practice of early offers should continue and be accelerated if possible;
      3. Selection of Military Occupation. With very few exceptions, military occupation (MOS ID) selection is done as part of the enrolment process. Those few cases where candidates were enrolled without an assigned MOS ID, it has required twice the work on the part of all stakeholders as the candidates had to be re-assessed for suitability in a potential gaining trade MOS ID prior to a final decision being made. The 1998 Withers Report recommended that ROTP N/OCdts not select their MOS ID until February of the second year of study.^{Footnote 166} The SSAV Team considered this earlier recommendation but given current realities, the CFRG argument in favour of assigning MOS ID at the time of enrolment is sound in that the vast majority of N/OCdts remain in their original MOS ID. Commander CFRG also pointed out that a generic officer MOS ID is not very attractive to the target audience. The pre-selection of MOS IDs also enables Development Period 1 Training Schools to plan and course load summer training activities which would otherwise be very difficult to do effectively. The SSAV Team assesses that the current practice of assigning MOS ID on enrolment should continue;
      4. Expectations of the ROTP-RMC Programme. Although some N/OCdts reported knowing little about RMC prior to their arrival, CFRG actually provides a plethora of information, including the expectations of a N/OCdt enrolled at RMC. The SSAV Team was not able to verify whether this information is also readily available at each Recruiting Centre, so there may be issues there. Additionally, all candidates receive joining instructions from the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School as well as from the Colleges themselves. Both RMC and CMR SJ produce annual booklets that are handed out as part of the ROTP recruiting campaign and to interested applicants throughout the year. These booklets provide an excellent overview of the academic and admission requirements, the academic programmes, the Four Pillars, life at the Colleges, etc.^{Footnote 167} The revised RMC and CMR SJ pamphlets were not available in time for the start of the 2016 ROTP campaign. The SSAV Team assesses that while CFRG provides ample information about the ROTP-RMC programme, whether this information is readily available at each Recruiting Centre needs to be verified. In addition, the RMC and CMR SJ annual pamphlets need to be created much earlier; and
      5. Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT). The SSAV Team assesses that given the attributes of the newer generation and potential changes in requirements of the CAF, this test may be out of date and no longer fully meets CAF requirements;
   4. Recommendations:
      1. Early Selection Process. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that the selection process put in place by CDA/MILPERSGEN headquarters, RMC, CMR SJ and the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group in 2016, including the early offers, should be retained, accelerated if possible, and an annual review of the quality of N/OCdts recruiting process be conducted to identify potential areas for improvement;
      2. Attraction of New Generations. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that the Commander Canadian Forces Recruiting Group be given more direct control over the public marketing campaigns for CAF recruiting and in particular the ROTP-RMC programme;
      3. ROTP-RMC Brochure. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that RMC provides Canadian Forces Recruiting Group with updated material affecting the ROTP-RMC campaign not later than mid-July annually for the following year;
      4. Validation of the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT). (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test be re-validated as soon as practicable and every five years thereafter to ensure its ongoing relevance to CAF requirements;
      5. Information on CAF Fitness Expectations. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group, in consultation with the Director General Morale and Welfare Services and the RMC Athletics Department consider providing those offered admission with access to the DFit site for the purpose of providing additional tools to assist them in adapting to the fitness standards of the CAF;^{Footnote 168}
      6. Assignment of Anglophone N/OCdts to CMR SJ. (Supporting Recommendation)   It is recommended that the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group give consideration, in line with the overall objectives of the CMR SJ programme, to sending N/OCdts with no or very little French language skills to CMR SJ to complete their first year immersed in a francophone speaking environment; and
      7. Assignment of Military Occupations. (Supporting Recommendation)   It is recommended that CDA/MILPERSGEN consider giving the Commandant of RMC direct liaison with appropriate staff in Chief of Military Personnel/Commander Military Personnel Command in order to effect the occupational re-assignment of N/OCdts in order to reduce the wait period for Compulsory or Voluntary Occupational Transfers.
4. Selection Criteria and N/OCdt versus success rates in the Four Pillars.
   1. Assessment: The recruiting process can only assess the potential of a ROTP candidate – there is no guarantee that the N/OCdts will possess the necessary drive or attitude to realize that potential. Additionally, successful completion of the BMOQ course does not, in itself, provide assurance that the N/OCdts will be successful in the next phase of their professional development. Indeed, many basic training graduates never complete their Development Period (DP) 1 objectives^{Footnote 169} and are released from the CAF or re-assigned to another occupation. It should not be surprising that after a reasonable period of assessment at RMC, some N/OCdts do not seem to “have what it takes.”   The SSAV Team assesses that given the limitations of what can be expected through the recruiting process, it is more realistic to accept and plan on a certain degree of attrition as N/OCdts progress through these phases of training and development. The SSAV Team assesses that what is needed is an environment where there are clear and relevant standards that are applied evenly, and for those N/OCdts who cannot meet the requirements of the ROTP-RMC programme, to be provided with honourable, supported and timely options to exit or move to other occupations or CAF components.
5. Basis for the Four Pillars.
   1. Description. The legal basis for the Four Pillars that define the overall ROTP-RMC programme is article 4.02 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Military Colleges (QR Canmilcols), which specifies that: “the course of study [at RMC] consists of the following programs as prescribed by the Minister: academic; military; physical education and athletics; and social development.”^{Footnote 170} This latter component has been interpreted as reflecting the requirement, as a prerequisite for graduation, for a level of functional competency to be achieved by N/OCdts in their second official language.^{Footnote 171} Achieving the components of the Four Pillars results in the awarding of the ROTP-RMC qualification on graduation – ‘AFAN.’ This designation is not recognized within the CAF Professional Development System (PDS) as a Qualification Standard (QS) or Officer Specialty Qualification (OSQ). All ROTP-RMC programme graduates are commissioned as General Service Officers (GSOs) and must meet the common requirements specified in the CAF Officer General Specifications (OGS).^{Footnote 172} The ‘AFAN’ designation and the Four Pillar standards that the N/OCdts are required to attain are unique to RMC. The current Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN direction to Commandant RMC outlines the objectives for the ROTP-RMC programme in terms of achieving standards in the Four Pillars, based upon a RMC Training Policy that was completed in August 2014;^{Footnote 173}
   2. Observations:
      1. Overall range of views. The SSAV Team observed that while a majority of the stakeholders consulted felt that the Four Pillars programme was a good model, achievable and helped the N/OCdts to grow towards their potential as future leaders in the CAF; there were a significant number of individuals across all the stakeholder groups who were of the view that there were some problems with how the programme was implemented and its lack of linkage with the CAF PDS;
      2. Strengths of the Four Pillar programme. The SSAV Team observed that many of the stakeholders, including numerous N/OCdts, understood and valued the Four Pillars programme. Many recognized the opportunities the operational environment of RMC provides in terms of developing their knowledge, leadership abilities, fitness, and bilingualism levels. The SSAV Team interviewed N/OCdts who appeared to thrive in the RMC operational environment and who impressed the Team members with their drive, poise and mature outlook. The SSAV Team also received feedback from some Academic Wing members that other Canadian universities have a positive view of the multi-dimensional aspect provided by the Four Pillars programme in developing students’ competencies, and some have expressed particular interest in the RMC Core Curriculum. The following are representative examples of input received by the SSAV Team:
         1. “RMC provides a unique university environment where military-relevant undergrad and post graduate education is provided in fields that are not covered in other Canadian universities. Examples provided: Military platform control systems, cyber operations/warfare, Electronic Warfare, Materials sciences.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing);
         2. “Four Pillars - System is not perfect but has excellent value. The standards are achievable with the right level of effort and motivation. AFAN has to mean something.” (Interview with a N/OCdt); and
         3. “I have no problem with the Four Pillars. It is a good challenge. It's okay to struggle a bit in first year, but after that, you should be able to achieve them, especially PT standards which are low for 20 year olds.” (Interview with a N/OCdt)
      3. ROTP-RMC (AFAN) Qualification. The SSAV Team observed that while many stakeholders understood the intrinsic value in striving to achieve excellence across the Four Pillars of the RMC programme, a significant number expressed deep concerns over the lack of clarity of the value of the ROTP-RMC (AFAN) designation within the broader context of the CAF. RMC attempted to build a Qualification Standard for the ROTP-RMC programme, but it was rejected on the basis that all RMC graduates are commissioned as GSOs. The effect the SSAV Team observed is that many at the College have a sense that RMC operates in its own realm, producing officers with a “pseudo-qualification” that the N/OCdts strive to achieve, yet holds no tangible meaning after graduation: this causes somewhat of a “crisis of purpose” for many stakeholders at RMC. The following are representative examples of the comments received by the SSAV Team:
         1. “AFAN should be a more valued achievement. We give so much importance to the four pillars, so graduating with AFAN should have more weight and influence on your career then it currently does. Otherwise there is no point of keeping the standards since they are not reinforced in meaningful ways.” (Written submission from a group of N/OCdts);
         2. “Member was a former RMC N/OCdt. His motivation for reaching AFAN was mostly based on the pride to graduate and marching out the Arch with Scarlet’s” (Interview with a member of the Training Wing); and
      4. Pride, Purpose and Identity. The SSAV Team observed that while many stakeholders across all groups expressed strong support for the ideals and mission of RMC, many also stated that they sensed an erosion of pride in the institution, both internally and externally. They indicated that RMC suffered from a “crisis of identity” because N/OCdts and staff do not necessarily see a clear linkage or progression from the ROTP-RMC programme to the mission and roles of the CAF. Many expressed that this lack of sense of identity was amplified by conflicting messages and priorities as to whether RMC is primarily a university “with a difference” or a military unit where N/OCdts also strive to receive an undergraduate degree. As discussed in Annex F, Command and Control and Governance, RMC has been organized by the MND as a unit, but its Senate is empowered (under Ontario law) to grant university degrees.^{Footnote 174} Regardless, these perceptions have a negative impact on the sense of purpose at RMC and hence, pride, purpose and identity in and of the institution itself. This also manifests itself by how N/OCdts feel they are perceived by the public. For example, a number of N/OCdts expressed concerns about wearing their uniforms in Kingston as they had witnessed or been the subject to criticism, harassment or ridicule by members of public, in particular other university students. The following are representative examples of comments received by the SSAV Team:
         1. “RMC suffers from an 'Identity Crisis:' Is it a university where you wear a uniform or a military unit where you go to school?” (Interview with a N/OCdt); and
   3. Assessment:
      1. Basis in Policy of the Four Pillar programme. The SSAV Team assesses that overall, the RMC Four Pillar programme generally has a basis in law, having been prescribed by the MND in regulations;^{Footnote 175}
      2. Components of the Four Pillar programme. The SSAV Team assesses that the components of the Four Pillar programme are consistent with the strategic vision for the CAF officer corps, as described in Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada.^{Footnote 176} Specifically, the ROTP-RMC programme emphasizes achieving excellence in each of the Four Pillars and advocates an ethos of “Truth, Duty, Valour.” The components of the programme map closely to desired professional attributes of all CAF members of Responsibility, Expertise and Identity, unified by a common Military Ethos. The RMC ethos maps to the required military values as understood within the Canadian military ethos, namely: Duty, Loyalty, Integrity and Courage; ^{Footnote 177}
      3. Four Pillar programme recognition and meaning. While the operational environment at RMC is designed to motivate N/OCdts to strive for excellence in pursing their academic and leadership potential, the lack of formal recognition outside of RMC of what the ROTP-RMC programme delivers imposes challenges to motivate the N/OCdts to achieve the excellence in the components of the programme. That challenge comes in the form of a lack of sense of legitimate purpose and identity for both members of the staff and many of the N/OCdts themselves, who are expected to follow a programme and achieve standards that are not necessarily reflected in some cases in the CAF QS for DP 1. Upon graduation, some N/OCdts perceive that there is little tangible benefit in having achieved the components of the Four Pillars. That perception is at times reinforced through negative views some members of the CAF have towards graduates of the ROTP-RMC programme. Although analysis on behalf of the Chief of Military Personnel (CMP) has shown that although ROTP-RMC graduates made up approximately 25-27% of commissioned officer intake in 2012-2013, they accounted for approximately 55-57% of General and Flag Officers. This seems to indicate a correlation between completion of the ROTP-RMC programme and service as a senior leader in the CAF.   However, the SSAV Team assesses that the CAF needs to identify the benefit to the CAF of the requirement for those in the ROTP-RMC to achieve the components of the Four Pillars programme, and put in place measures to validate the extent to which that benefit continues to be achieved; and
      4. End to End Review (E2ER) Process. The SSAV Team assesses that the lack of clarity in the value of the ‘AFAN’ designation is fundamental to some of the systemic issues observed at RMC and needs to be addressed in order to optimize the learning and training environment. The End-To-End Review (E2ER) of the CAF PDS has been directed by the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and is being conducted by CDA/MILPERSGEN HQ.^{Footnote 178} The SSAV Team understands that the scope of the E2ER could be broadened to include a review of the ROTP-RMC programme in relation to the officer QS and subsequent Needs Analysis. Once decisions have been made on the approach, it should be integrated into the RMC governance framework.
   4. Recommendations:
      1. End-to-End Review (E2ER) of ROTP-RMC programme. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that CMP direct that as part of the End-To-End Review (E2ER), of the CAF PDS, an assessment of the ROTP-RMC Four Pillar programme be conducted in terms of its relationship to the CAF OGS and QS for officer Development Period 1 (DP1) and to identify solutions that will formalize its role within the CAF PDS. Once this is completed, the QR (Canmilcols) should be amended to reflect the results of that review in terms of the course of study prescribed by the MND;
      2. Improved CAF Senior Leadership Awareness. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that CMP approach Armed Forces Council (AFC) to support an effort to build senior leadership awareness and engagement with the ROTP-RMC Four Pillar programme with a view to ensuring it is addressing the needs of the CAF; and
      3. RMC Annual Orientation. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that Commandant and Principal of RMC establish an annual orientation session; which includes all members of the staff, faculty, and N/OCdts; that aims to reinforce the RMC mission, purpose, programme objectives and priorities.
6. Authority to set the standards for each of the Four Pillars.
   1. Overall Authorities. In accordance with the QR&O (Canmilcols), the overall authority for setting the standards at RMC lies with the Minister of National Defence (MND): “Standards for qualification and conditions for repeating a college year shall be as prescribed by or under the authority of the Minister.”^{Footnote 179} The CDS, who is charged, under sub-section 18(1) of the National Defence Act, with the control and administration of the Canadian Forces, has assigned functional authority to the CMP, in the functional area of military personnel management, including professional development. ^{Footnote 180} Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN has been designated by CMP/Commander MILPERSCOM as the CAF Training Authority for common professional development training and education. Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN chairs the CDA/MILPERSGEN/Canadian Military College (CMC) Programme Review Board (PRB). This PRB sits twice annually and has the mandate to ensure that the RMC (and CMR SJ) programmes are consistent with CAF objectives and employment requirements. The CDA/MILPERSGEN/Canadian Military College Programme Review Board reports to the Professional Development Council (PDC), chaired by CMP/MILPERSCOM;
   2. Academic Standards Authority. The MND is the Chancellor and President of RMC. Ontario’s The Royal Military College of Canada Degrees Act, 1959 empowered the RMC Senate to confer degrees in arts, science and engineering.^{Footnote 181} The RMC Board of Governors (BoG), established in 1997, is responsible to review and approve the academic programme offered at RMC on behalf of the MND, on the basis of their quality and suitability for academic recognition by the appropriate accrediting bodies.^{Footnote 182} The Principal of RMC is responsible to ensure that RMC maintains nationally and internationally recognized academic integrity and quality standards as an accredited degree granting institution;^{Footnote 183}
   3. Military Standards Authority. Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN is designated as the CAF Training Authority for common professional development, training and education. Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN exercises that authority through the CDA/MILPERSGEN/CMC PRB^{Footnote 184} and through CDA Directives to both military colleges.^{Footnote 185} In practice, the source document for the current standards that are applied at RMC is the Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC) Training Policy for Regular Officer/Reserve Entry Training Plans (ROTP/RETP).^{Footnote 186} This document was created by RMC, on behalf of the Commandant, and published as “Version 0” in August 2014.^{Footnote 187} In 2015 and 2016, Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN issued Directives on the ROTP/RETP Training Policy.^{Footnote 188 Footnote 189} These directives ‘operationalized’ the 2014 policy document and included the standards that N/OCdts are to achieve, by year, in order to successfully complete the ROTP-RMC programme;^{Footnote 190}
   4. Fitness Standards Authority. Physical fitness is a minimum operational standard as set out in 5023-1, Minimum Operational Standards Related to Universality of Service.^{Footnote 191} As well, the OGS stipulate that: “It is the inherent responsibility of all CF officers for promoting their own and other’s fitness and well-being, to thereby enhance the physical resilience needed to face the diverse challenges of life within the CF.” ^{Footnote 192} All N/OCdts must meet the Basic Military Swim Test standard and the Minimum Physical Fitness Standard (MPFS) or FORCE Test in accordance with CAF standards as defined in A-PD—055-002/PP-003 Officer General Standards. The RMC Physical Performance Test (PPT) and Physical Education syllabus however are specific to RMC and conducted in accordance with RMC standards. Notwithstanding this, in accordance with DAOD 5023-2, the RMC PPT is recognized as having standards equal to or exceeding the MPFS incentive standard;
   5. The RMC PPT standard measures the physical fitness level of N/OCdts.^{Footnote 193} Although it has not been scientifically validated, each component represents a collection of different norms and standards. N/OCdts must attain the minimum in each component of the test as well as a minimum score of 250 in order to pass the test. Retests are conducted within five to nine days. A first or second year N/OCdt who fails the PPT must attend Supplementary Physical Training (SPT) four mornings a week at 0545hrs. N/OCdts on SPT are evaluated every four weeks after the RMC PPT. Once they pass an SPT PPT they may be allowed to perform self-directed training until the next RMC PPT. SPT is not offered to third and fourth years N/OCdts, however they are offered the services of the SPT coordinator.^{Footnote 194} The minimum standards for the PPT are as follows:

      Table 5: RMC PPT Minimum Standards

      Component	Minimum Standards
      	Male	Female
      20 Metre Shuttle Run	84 laps	64 laps
      Illinois Agility Run	17.8 secs	19.4 secs
      Standing Long Jump	195cm	146cm
      Push Ups	28 repetitions	14 repetitions
      Sit Ups	35 repetitions	35 repetitions

      Note that first year N/OCdts must meet lower standards for the PPT.

   6. Bilingualism Standards Authority. The objective of the Bilingualism Pillar is to develop in N/OCdts the ability to communicate in both official languages. The programme comprises attending second language classes and practicing by following the alternating (every 2 weeks) “Language of Work” policy at RMC.^{Footnote 195} The basis for officers’ second language requirements is set out in the Officer General Specification;^{Footnote 196}
   7. Language training is provided by RMC’s Language Centre in small group classes according to level of proficiency. Classes are fifty minutes in length and held daily with instruction focusing on reading comprehension, written expression and oral competency. A ten-week summer second language course is offered between second and third year at both RMC and CMR SJ for all N/OCdts who have not yet obtained the Public Service Commission standard for functional (BBB) in their second official language. This is the standard required to graduate with the AFAN designation.^{Footnote 197} N/OCdts who achieve the BBB profile prior to graduation are excused from second language training;
   8. Observations:
      1. Academic Standards. From a review of the available documentation and through the interview process, the SSAV Team determined that while the RMC Board of Governors (BoG) has the authority to review and approve the academic programme on behalf of the MND, in practice however, the RMC BoG has not fulfilled this function with respect to the RMC academic programme. MND directives state that the Principal is responsible for forwarding recommendations to the Senate for the establishment of new courses of study or amendments to existing courses to better achieve the objectives of the colleges. In practice, the Principal of RMC, who also informally serves at the Academic Advisor to Commander CDA, exercises de facto authority over academic standards at RMC through governance mechanisms such as the RMC Senate.^{Footnote 198} It is important to note that the accreditation and cyclical review of degree programmes involves gaining and maintaining recognition by institutions outside of the DND/CAF, with the requirement to do so being acknowledged in both the BoG Terms of Reference (ToR) and the Ministerial Directives for the Principal. In particular, all academic programmes at RMC are subject to cyclical reviews under the auspices of the Council of Ontario Universities’ Quality Council via RMC’s Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). In addition, the six engineering programmes at RMC are accredited by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB). The SSAV Team also observed that, in the academic environment, the reputation of a university or college is its primary currency. A university with a strong reputation attracts and retains highly qualified academics, which turn attracts the best students. This ‘spiral of virtuosity’ is what drives good universities. Conversely, if a university loses its reputation, it will neither attract nor retain well qualified academics, nor the best students. The following are some representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
         1. “Those who come here and say they "want to put the M back in RMC" are insulting the whole College and show they don't know the College. The added military value of RMC is realized from two fronts: 1-No other universities have programmes like ours: Engineering and Science with Political Sciences, English/French, Leadership and Ethics, etc. No other Arts programmes have math. No other university has that kind of focus on bilingualism or sports. 2 - The Academic Wing includes a very strong Military Faculty as well as several ex-military officers. These academics provide context and insight that is unique to RMC - no other university can provide that.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing);
         2. “Individual noted that a former Principal worked very hard to ensure RMC academic programme could withstand scrutiny. He was well connected and as part of Wither's Report team, brought the recommendations on Academic Wing to life as follow on. Key part of this was increasing the Military Faculty component at RMC. That surge of Military Faculty over time was converted to retired Military Faculty and helped to create a backbone of stability in some of the departments as well as help bridge the gap of understanding between the Academics and Military components of RMC.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing); and
         3. “The Academic/Education Pillar requires specific certifications to retain its credibility as a university level programme. ICAP and NCEAB are the standards for engineering degree granting universities. This must be maintained or there will be a detrimental impact on the quality of education of CAF officers. Changes can impact negatively on the quality of students and faculty.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing).
      2. Military Standards. On review of available documentation and through the interview process, the SSAV Team found that since 2012, a concerted effort has been made between RMC and CDA/MILPERSGEN to create a substantive Training Policy for the ROTP/RETP programme. Prior to that, the standards for the military or leadership component of the ROTP/RETP programme drew largely from the QR (Canmilcol) and Canadian Forces Administration Order (CFAO) 9-12. Since CFAO 9-12 does not really address military training requirements or standards, the gap was addressed by the Commandant of RMC setting the standards for the Military Pillar. From 2012 through to the present, significant strides have been made in systematically defining and articulating the standards expected at RMC in terms of the Military Pillar, under Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN and the Commandant of RMC.^{Footnote 199} The positions exercising the authority to determine which standards are applied to the military component of RMC programme are largely within the CDA and RMC realm. The following are some representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
         1. “RMC vs. "real military". RMC should replicate existing military standards. First unit and how it operates should not be a surprise.” (Interview with an External Civilian stakeholder);
         2. “PMT: have a neutral opinion, but the College (or CAF) needs to ask "what are we trying to achieve with programme?" (Interview with a member of the Training Wing); and
         3. “PMT: opinion is there is a lot on policy but they are not taught 'officership' or 'what commission means'. Has PMT been validated? Execution appears haphazard. Cadets not sure what about.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing).
      3. Fitness Standards. The SSAV Team observed that Defence Administration Order and Directive (DAOD) 5023-2 references the Physical Performance Test (PPT) as exceeding the Minimum Physical Fitness Standard (MPFS) incentive standard. It is possible for Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN to establish the PPT as a standard on behalf of the MND, and it may be permissible for the Commandant of RMC to add to that direction by requiring the test be conducted twice a year, but this is inconsistent with DAODs. In accordance with DAOD 5023-2 the test should be valid for 365 days. Although the PPT is denoted as exceeding the MPFS in DAOD 5023-2 it is not clearly established in the DAOD as the standard for an RMC N/OCdt even though it is delineated in CADWINS;
      4. Second Official Language Standards. The SSAV Team observed that while the requirement to achieve second language standards are clear in the Officer General Specifications and in the CAF Second Language Training Plan^{Footnote 200} some stakeholders, N/OCdts and staff, did question the requirement to achieve a BBB profile prior to graduation. The Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN has set the requirement in the CDA Directive;^{Footnote 201} and
      5. Role of RMC Board of Governors. The SSAV Team observed that the mandate and role of the RMC Board of Governors (BoG) vis-à-vis its authority over the ROTP-RMC programme and associated standards, has evolved over time. The SSAV Team heard that the original (1997) Terms of Reference (ToR) for the BoG included the authority to review and approve the programme in each of the Four Pillars. Those ToR were subsequently changed and removed the authority of the BoG with respect to all but the Academic programme. While the BoG retains the mandate to review and approve the RMC academic programme, it does not do so in practice. Other than a perceived requirement to have a Board of Governors to comply with practices in other Ontario Universities, the SSAV Team heard that the current role of the BoG is unclear. The SSAV Team was made aware that there is an initiative to set up a sub-committee of the BoG to review the BOG ToR.
   9.  Assessment:
      1. Exercise of authority to set RMC Standards. The SSAV Team assesses that while the authorities to set the standards for each of the Four Pillars have some basis either in law, policy or directives, the nature of the standards setting process is made fairly complex by virtue of the unique combination of academic and military standards for the RMC programme. It appears that the Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN or the Commandant of RMC has exercised the authority to set the standards to be achieved by N/OCdts undergoing the ROTP-RMC programme. Other than the Academic programme, there appears to be limited input by external stakeholders within the CAF (i.e. Commanders of Environmental Commands and Canadian Joint Operations Command) on what standards are set for the other three pillars of the ROTP-RMC programme;
      2. Military (Leadership) Standards. The SSAV Team assesses that Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN and the RMC Commandant are exercising the authority to determine which standards are applied to the military component of the ROTP-RMC programme. While the standards are derived from higher level CAF foundational documents, such as the OGS, the decision on which standards are applied at RMC rests with stakeholders internal to CDA/MILPERSGEN and RMC. A concerted effort was made by CDA/MILPERSGEN and RMC from 2012 to 2016 to create a policy basis for the standards. While this has clarified what standards apply and how, the degree of oversight and review of those standards by stakeholders external to CDA/MILPERSGEN and RMC is unclear. This has contributed to feedback the SSAV Team received that pointed to perceptions of ‘disconnects’ between the Military Pillar standards applied at RMC, and those of the CAF in general. A review of the authorities and process to set the standards in the Military Pillar would be of benefit;
      3. Academic Standards. The SSAV Team assesses that the authority to approve the Academic Programme at RMC has been delegated by the MND through the Directives for the Principal and the BoG ToR. However, while the ToR for the RMC Board of Governors indicates it is responsible to approve the RMC academic programme, it does not appear to do so. In practice, the Principal of RMC, through the Senate, exercises the de facto authority over RMC academic standards. For clarity purposes, this discrepancy should be addressed as part of the proposed review of the BoG ToR and this issue has been explored in more detail in Annex F – Command and Control and Governance;
      4. Physical fitness Standards. The SSAV Team assesses that the authority to set the fitness standards within the Four Pillars was exercised by Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN in issuing the CDA/MILPERSGEN directive. The PPT is part of the published college standards. The CAF level policy basis to support the standards requirement of the RMC PPT is unclear. As well, the RMC Athletic programme does not appear to be supported by DFit under the CAF Fitness and Sports Programme. DFit is responsible to fund the centralized staff and RMC does deliver components of the FORCE programme (i.e. conducting Force Fitness testing). The PPT should ideally be based on essential tasks or occupation/operational requirements and be validated. These should be supported by the Commandant of RMC and approved by Commanders CDA/MILPERSGEN and Military Personnel Command;
      5. In 2017, RMC will replace the 20 meter shuttle run (MSR) element of the PPT with a 1.5mile run. The 1.5mile run is assessed as rewarding maximal effort and being simpler to train for. Prior to 1998, the 1.5 mile run was used as the aerobic component of the PPT. The RMC Athletic staff have recommended a one-year transition period will see the PPT including the 1.5 mile run with PPT re-tests using the 20 MSR. The SSAV Team assesses that this would be prudent; and
      6. Bilingualism Standards. The SSAV Team assesses that the authority to set the standards for bilingualism at RMC was exercised by Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN through the CDA/MILPERSGEN Directive. The requirement for N/OCdts to achieve a BBB is derived from the Officer General Specifications and in A-P3-050-SLT/PH-H01 Training Plan Military Second Language Training Programme (MSLTP) Canadian Armed Forces French Curriculum (CAFFC) but the requirement to achieve that level while at RMC is much sooner than for other CAF officers based on the CAF Second Language Training Plan.
   10. Recommendations:
       1. Military (Leadership) Pillar and Standards. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that a review of the authorities and process to set the standards in the Military Pillar of the ROTP-RMC programme be conducted. If possible, this should be done as part of the overall ROTP-RMC Programme review and formalization within the End-to-End Review (E2ER) that has been recommended as part of this report;
       2. Fitness Pillar and Standards. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that the RMCC Fitness Pillar programme be reviewed with the aim of formalizing the authorities for setting the fitness standards at RMC and the methodology for enforcing those standards. Further, it is recommended that a Project Management Team, led by DFit with RMCC Athletic Department participation, validate the requirement and construct of the PPT conducted at RMC. This should be done as part of the overall ROTP-RMC programme review and formalization within the End-to-End Review (E2ER) that has been recommended as part of this report; and
       3. Change to 1.5 Mile Run. (Supporting Recommendation) As per the recommendation of the Athletics Department, a transition period should be implemented which would see the 1.5 mile run used during the main testing period and the 20 Metre Shuttle Run (MSR) for all re-tests for a period of one year.
7. Communication of Four Pillar standards to the Cadets.
   1. Description. Communication of the standards expected of N/OCdts is provided through a number of documents, including the QR (Canmilcols), CFAO 9-12 (ROTP), the Cadet Wing Instructions (CADWINS) and RMC College Standing Orders. In addition, Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN has provided direction on the Leadership Level standards to be achieved by N/OCdts and the associated expectations in terms of academic, military, fitness and second language performance standards.^{Footnote 202} For N/OCdt, the CADWINs are the primary means of communicating standards and expectations.   These are available on the RMC internal network. Standards are known the Training Wing staff, PSP and Second Language instructors. The Academic Wing communicates the standards and with respect to academic performance through the annually published RMC Undergraduate Calendar.^{Footnote 203}
   2. Observations:
      1. The SSAV Team observed that RMC HQ, Training Wing and N/OCdts generally had good awareness of the standards expected within the Four Pillars. Athletics Department staff were well versed in the fitness standards, as were Second Language instructors with the bilingualism standards. Academic Wing staff were generally well versed with standards as they applied to the RMC academic programmes; however, in some cases awareness of other standards, in particular the requirements associated with Leadership Levels, was uneven.
   3. Assessment:
      1. The SSAV Team assesses that the standards associated with each of the Four Pillars are communicated well within the orders, directives and instructions at RMC. Furthermore, most of the staff appeared to be cognisant of those standards.
8. [The N/OCdts] understanding of the standards and relevant priorities of the Four Pillars.
   1. Description. N/OCdts are expected to achieve the standards all four pillars in order to fulfill the ROTP-RMC programme and are encouraged to strive for excellence in each during their time at RMC. It is important to note that the operational environment at RMC is in part, designed to provide the opportunity for N/OCdts to learn how to prioritize their time and effort across competing demands in order to prepare them for their career as officers in the CAF.
   2. Observations:
      1. General. The SSAV Team observed that RMC is a large and complex organization. The demands of running a university, and fulfilling the requirements of a military unit combined with some 1,000 N/OCdts who work under a modified command and control structure of their own makes for a very unique environment. Coordinating major events and day to day scheduling in such an environment is a challenge. While the position of the Commandant RMC has anecdotally been described at the final arbiter of the N/OCdts’ division of time, the SSAV Team found that in practice, management of priorities between the demands of the Four Pillars, in particular for the N/OCdts, is not systematic. The SSAV Team observed that significant numbers of individuals, across several groups, commented on problems N/OCdts experience at RMC in balancing and prioritizing the demands between the Four Pillars of the programme;
      2. N/OCdt Understanding of the Standards in the Four Pillars. The SSAV Team observed that, the 209 N/OCdts who were interviewed generally demonstrated a good understanding of the standards expected to be achieved in each of the Pillars. Feedback was less about what the standards were, but more about the achievability, purpose or relevance. This was particularly so for the Professional Military Training (PMT) portion of the Military Pillar and the PPT standards for the Fitness Pillar;
      3. Conflict/Competition between the Academic and Military Wings. The SSAV Team observed that the working relationship between the Training and Academic Wings was challenging. It appeared that at times, the interests of each competed with, rather than complemented, the other and sometimes N/OCdts would either be caught in the middle, or would ‘play one against the other’ for their own purposes. This also exacerbated the time demands on N/OCdts due to what was frequently described to the SSAV Team as a ‘breakdown in communications’ between the two elements in particular. The SSAV Team noted that the Commandant of RMC has clearly articulated his intent that RMC should be run within: “a mutually supportive One-College-Team atmosphere.”^{Footnote 204} While there were accounts and examples of excellent cooperation between members of the Training and Academic Wings – which benefitted the N/OCdts – the SSAV Team heard more accounts of where there was a lack of communication or engagement. The following are some representative examples of comments received by the SSAV Team:
         1. “Training Wing, Academic Wing and Athletic Wing do not have lots of cohesion. Priorities are sometime confused.”(Interview with a N/OCdt);
         2. “There is a lack of communication between the Academic and Training Wings, as well as divisions within the Training Wing. There can be open animosity between Academic and Training Wing (e.g., at faculty board meetings). Academic Wing considers in some cases that Training Wing doesn't understand N/OCdts. In some cases, the Academic Wing provides information to Training Wing (e.g., about N/OCdt missing classes), without getting response. This animosity filters into everyday communications and dealings; N/OCdts sometimes take advantage of it.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing);
         3. “N/OCdts study hours are not protected. Sports, Training Wing and other activities are imposed during the 1900-2200 hours timeframe. Routine predictability (pattern) is broken. Training Wing seems to ask N/OCdts to do things during their study time more and more, part of the effort to "put the 'M' back in RMC" (Interview with member of the Academic Wing); and
         4. “Military Training often clashes with (or steps on) other pillars (e.g. during Mid Terms, Academic Wing asked for time for N/OCdts to study - Military Wing gave two weeks but that was not enough to accommodate all the mid-terms schedule.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
      4. Balance and priorities between the Pillars. The SSAV Team found that there was a consistent undertone of belief that RMC was actually more like “One pillar and three good ideas” in terms of the relative importance and balance of the programme. This was a prevalent view point from the Academic and Training Wings, and from the N/OCdts themselves. In reality, the majority of N/OCdts who fail to graduate from RMC are academic failures. This is well known and results in a privileging of the Academic Pillar above the others in terms of de facto priorities. Based on a preponderance of feedback from stakeholders at RMC, there appears to be a lack of proactive, systematic college-wide coordination of requirements and activities across the Four Pillars. N/OCdts are sometimes left to deconflict activities across the Four Pillars on their own. Although there is an appointed Deputy Commandant of RMC, the position is in fact the Director Advanced Military Studies and is a dual role.^{Footnote 205} The following are some representative examples of comments received by the SSAV Team:
         1. “Individual indicated that there is no obvious mechanism that is pro-active in designing balance across the Four Pillars of the RMC core programme.” (Interview with a member of RMC HQ);
         2. “Four Pillars consist of the four departments, with no clear mission statement as to how pillars are to be achieved. Where are the orders setting out the relationship between the four? Where are the professors, athletic staff, when things go wrong? Disagree with Academic Wing perception that N/OCdts contact professors first, and that Training Wing are too harsh and uncaring (but N/OCdts are exposed to those views). However, Training Wing is responsible for dealing with academic misconduct and all other conduct and performance deficiencies. Academic Wing is not familiar with what Training Wing does.” (Interview with a member of the Training Wing);
         3. “Time is the big issue: Lack of balance across the Four Pillar activities. N/OCdts forced to cut corners.” (Interview with member of RMC HQ); and
         4. “Four Pillars: Good idea, not well thought out. If breakdown is 25-25-25-25 in terms of time spent on each pillar, then won't work for academics (e.g., often have to skimp on assigned readings). Wings do not communicate. Physical Performance Test was conducted during midterms.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
   3. Assessment:
      1. N/OCdt Understanding of the Standards. The SSAV Team assesses that N/OCdts generally have a good understanding of the standards expected of them in the Four Pillars of the ROTP-RMC programme. This does not mean; however, that these intelligent and inquisitive individuals will not question the relevance of the standards, in particular for the PMT portion of the Military Pillar, and the PPT standards within the Fitness Pillar. Assuming the standards are validated, an effort by RMC leadership and staff to explain and reinforce the rationale behind the standards – to in effect explain the “why” – would be of considerable benefit to inculcate in the N/OCdts the purpose and relevance in striving to achieve those standards;
      2. Unit Cohesion. The SSAV Team assesses that cohesion and mutual support between the elements of the college responsible for each component of the Four Pillars appears to be less than optimal. This is particularly true between the Academic and Training Wings. While the Commandant of RMC has articulated the intent that the college should operate as a unified whole, the reality appears to be that there is competition and conflict amongst parts of the college. While maintaining a healthy level of competition and discourse can been very beneficial, this does not appear to be the prevalent case at RMC. This negatively impacts the quality of the RMC experience for the N/OCdts, and creates difficult working conditions for the staff of RMC themselves. Steps should be taken as a priority to address the level of cohesion and mutual support between the Wings of the College, in particular the Academic and Training Wings;
      3. Priorities and Balance between the Four Pillars. The SSAV Team assesses that while the ROTP/RETP Training Policy emphasizes that all pillars of the RMC programme carry equal weight; in practical terms, the demands of the academic programme are such that the majority of N/OCdts must place their priority of effort on achieving academic requirements for their undergraduate degree. While the Commandant of RMC is considered the ‘final arbiter’ of the time and priority demands at the college, there lacks a dedicated staff function to actively manage and synchronize the programme demands across the Four Pillars on a continuing basis. The SSAV assesses that this synchronization function would likely require engagement with, and direction to, the key leadership across the college – thus a senior position. There is potential in formalizing the Deputy Commandant position and assigning the programme synchronization and management to that position; and
      4. The SSAV Team assesses that consideration be given to re-aligning the components of the Four Pillar programme in order to re-focus on academics and leadership development and potentially improve the synchronization of the delivery of the programme for the N/OCdts. Leadership development could be comprised of an integration of existing elements of PMT, fitness and bilingualism, as well as the leadership practicum within the Cadet Chain of Authority. These are thought to be the skills, attributes, knowledge and experiential practice that all contribute towards the development of N/OCdts are leaders and future officers. In this model, the RMC programme could be communicated as a Two Pillar programme: Leadership Development and Academics but still retain the essential components that make up the existing programme.
   4. Recommendations:
      1. Unity of Purpose. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that, as a priority, the Commandant and Principal work deliberately to build a stronger working environment amongst the elements of RMC, in particular the Academic and Training Wings. The intent of the One College Team approach, based in the 2016 Commandant’s Priorities, needs to be internalized by all staff at RMC and an environment of mutual respect, support and cooperation established to ensure that all members of RMC are focused on achieving the unit mission;
      2. Synchronization and management of the Four Pillar programme. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that RMC create the capacity to synchronize and manage the execution of the Four Pillar programme on a continuous basis. The Commandant and Principal of RMC should consider assigning this role to an existing position, or consider formally establishing the Deputy Commandant position at RMC and assigning this role;
      3. Alternative ROTP-RMC Programme Delivery Model. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that consideration could be given to re-aligning the components of the Four Pillar programme in order to re-focus on the fundamentals of achieving academic and leadership development outcomes. Leadership development could be consolidated under the Director of Cadets and could comprise integrated military training and education, physical fitness and bilingualism; and
      4. Buy-in to the objectives of the Four Pillars. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that RMC improve the way it communicates the rationale for the validated standards and requirements of the Four Pillar programme to the N/OCdts. Particular effort should be made to ensure the “why” is explained and the enduring value of striving for excellence over the course of a professional career as an officer in the CAF.
9. Extent to which the standards in the Four Pillars are met by the Cadets.
   1. Description. The required standards for each of the Four Pillars of the RMC programme are articulated in the current ROTP/RETP Training Policy as part of the Leadership Level Progression Model (LLPM).^{Footnote 206} The standards are progressive and correspond to attaining successive Leadership Levels within the LLPM. The standards culminate in those that are required to be considered to have completed the ROTP-RMC Four Pillar programme for graduation. Successful graduates are granted the ROTP-RMC qualification ‘AFAN’ which is entered into their personnel file.^{Footnote 207} In summary, the standards required for completion of the Four Pillars, hence graduation from the ROTP-RMC programme, are as follows:^{Footnote 208}
      1. Academic. N/OCdts have met the requirements for a Majors, Honours, or Engineering Bachelor’s Degree.
      2. Military (Leadership). N/OCdts have:
         1. Completed a cadet senior leadership appointment;
         2. Completed critical elements of LL4 leadership training; and
         3. Demonstrated appropriate conduct and ethical behaviour.
      3. Fitness. N/OCdts have:
         1. Passed the CAF MPFS test;
         2. Passed the Physical Performance Test standard and are in good standing; and
         3. Completed the Physical Education syllabus for Military and Combative Skills.
      4. Bilingualism. N/OCdts have achieved the Public Service Commission standards for functional (BBB) in one’s second official language.
   2. The QR(Canmilcols) allow the Commandant to authorize the withdrawal of an N/OCdt from RMC (e.g., for failure to meet prescribed physical fitness standards, inadequate progress, or unsuitability for continued training at a college).^{Footnote 209} However, Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 9-12, Regular Officer Training Plan, authorizes a Commandant to make a recommendation to National Defence Headquarters to cease or repeat training when an officer cadet is making unsatisfactory progress in the development of officer-like qualities or any military phase of training. Finally, the CDS has designated the RMC Commandant as having release authority with respect to N/OCdts released for unsatisfactory performance.^{Footnote 210} The Academic Regulations also state that the Senate may at any time require a student to withdraw from the University if his or her conduct, attendance, work or progress is deemed unsatisfactory;^{Footnote 211}
   3. In addition to this framework, a Canadian Military College (CMC) Programme Review Board (PRB) has been established, with the objectives of ensuring that the RMC and CMR SJ programmes are consistent with CAF objectives and employment requirements, and that the programmes between the RMC and CMR SJ are harmonized. The PRB is responsible to review the CMC programmes for the subsequent academic year and recommend changes to the CDA/MILPERSGEN CMC Training Directive or Training Policies for Commandant CDA/MILPERSGEN approval. PRB participants include Commandant CDA/MILPERSGEN; the Commandants of RMC and CMR SJ and their respective CWOs; the RMC Principal and CMR SJ Academic Advisor; key CDA/MILPERSGEN staff positions; and representatives from the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), Canadian Army (CA), and the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF);^{Footnote 212}
   4. The results of the PRB are briefed to the Professional Development Council (PDC), and to the Board of Governors. The role of the PDC is to provide strategic guidance and oversight of the CAF officer and NCM professional development (PD) framework, CAF individual training and education (IT&E), and CAF doctrine related to leadership, command, and the profession of arms. The PDC in turn reports to Armed Forces Council;^{Footnote 213}
   5. Observations:
      1. Success Rate in Meeting the Standards of the Four Pillars. Through a review of available documentation and interviews, the SSAV Team observed that the percentage of N/OCdts who have been successful in achieving the required standards of the ROTP-RMC programme on graduation averaged to 78% over the period 2011 to 2016 inclusive. Details are in the below table. While those that do not achieve the required standards failed one or more of the Pillars, the majority of the programme failures were in failing to meet one or both the physical fitness and/or bilingualism requirements;^{Footnote 214 Footnote 215}

         Table 6: AFAN Designation Attainment Rates

         Grad Status	RMC Programme Year
         	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
         Total Grads	222	263	234	214	226	212
         Pass AFAN	200	212	188	165	147	148
         Fail AFAN	22	51	46	49	79	54
         % Failure	10%	19%	20%	22%	35%	25%

         1. Value of the Standards in the Four Pillars. The SSAV Team observed that most N/OCdts see the intrinsic value in the challenge of achieving the standards prescribed in the Four Pillars on graduation and do not see a reason to change this. Some others question the value and believe that while it may be a worthwhile model, the way it is executed is poor;
         2. Status of N/OCdts who do not meet Four Pillar Standards. The SSAV Team observed that because the ROTP-RMC programme is not considered a CAF Qualification Standard (QS) and is not a requirement in the Officer General Specifications (OGS), the policy basis to remove or release an N/OCdt who does not meet some of the RMC-specific standards from the RMC programme is unclear. N/OCdts who meet the OGS standards by completing the Basic Military Officer Qualification, an undergraduate degree at RMC, meet the CAF standard FORCE Test (MPFS) and the Basic Military Swim Standard (BMSS) are still commissioned on graduation. If N/OCdts do not meet the minimum standards for the RMC Physical Performance Test, do not achieve the functional level (BBB) in their second language, nor gain experience in junior or senior bar positions, they are still commissioned on graduation. Those N/OCdts who do not succeed in all Four Pillars do not receive the ROTP-RMC (AFAN) qualification, but other than not getting the personal and professional satisfaction of having achieved the objectives of the Four Pillars, there are no other tangible consequences upon graduation. The SSAV Team observed that this situation creates the perception of a double standard at RMC between those N/OCdts who achieve all the requirements of the Four Pillars, and those who do not. The following are some representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
            1. “There is no Qualification Standard/Training Plan or even an Officer General Specification (OGS) reference for the ‘AFAN.’” (Interview with member of CDA/MILPERSGEN Headquarters);
            2. “Policy Gap: Lack of policy clarity in the options available to cadets if they fail to meet one or more of the pillars.” (Interview with a member of Training Wing); and
            3. “Four Pillars - System is not perfect but has excellent value. The standards are achievable with the right level of effort and motivation. ‘AFAN’ has to mean something.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
         3. Enforcement of the Standards. Significant numbers of individuals, across several groups were of the view that standards under pinning the Four Pillars were not necessarily applied evenly, were not based on CAF requirements, were not realistic given the RMC academic programme, or created a situation of inequality/friction amongst the N/OCdts in terms of those achieving and those who are not. While the standard required to achieve the Academic Pillar is straightforward and well accepted, the SSAV Team observed some specific issues with the application of standards in the other three pillars:
            1. Physical Fitness Standards. The SSAV Team observed that N/OCdts who have not met the physical fitness standards still graduate from RMC, but do not receive the ‘AFAN’ designation. The SSAV Team heard that this situation is seen by a significant number of N/OCdts and members of the Training Wing as devaluing the RMC experience and affecting the level of pride in the institution. As an example of the typical pass rates, in 2016, of 838 N/OCdts who undertook the Physical Performance Test (85% of the Cadet Wing) an average of 84% passed while 13 to 15% failed. Of the 15% who did not undertake the test the primary reason for not completing the test was due to medical restrictions. The standards for the Physical Performance Test are clearly delineated in Annex B to Chapter 4 of CADWINS. They are also articulated in the joining letter sent to all new recruits. For 2017, the joining letter will also include a recommended training programme in order to address concerns raised that candidates accepted into ROTP-RMC can prepare for the Physical Performance Test prior to arriving at RMC. The following are representative examples of comments that the SSAV Team received:
            1. “Physical Performance Testing is a ‘pass or fail’ system. You may have a score of 395 and still fail because you miss one push up. This system doesn't take for account effort, progression, or improvement.” (Interview with a N/OCdt);
            2. “Hard working people graduate with persons who failed 9 Physical Performance Tests; devalues ‘AFAN’” (Interview with a member of the Training Wing); and
            3. “Huge concerns about the Physical Performance Test standard change with 20 MSR replaced by the 1.5 miles runs. This likely will increase Physical Performance Test failure and injury. (Interview with a member of the Athletic Wing).
            2. Bilingualism Standards. The SSAV Team observed that N/OCdts who have not met the second language standards still graduate from RMC, but do not receive the ‘AFAN’ qualification. Similar to physical fitness standards, the SSAV Team heard that this situation is seen as negative, but not to the extent of failing to meet the physical fitness standards. The SSAV Team heard that approximately 90% of RMC N/OCdts are able to achieve the BBB standard, At CMR SJ, the success rate is also 94% - over one or two years. The SSAV Team noted that in some cases, N/OCdts who failed to meet the second language standard were working on their third or fourth language, such as N/OCdts of Asian heritage. These types of cases may in fact increase as the CAF moves to increase the diversity of the officer corps. The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
               1. “The standards for SLT are not enforced as much as the Physical Performance Test for example: the profs can be absent for weeks at a time without replacement, so OCdts fall behind and it is not their fault.’ (Interview with a N/OCdt);
               2. “SLT - very hard for some - department is very helpful although I went two months without a professor last year.” (Interview with a N/OCdt); and
               3. “Individual noted that SLT programme quite efficient: takes 640 hours for average N/OCdt to achieve BBB, whereas PS average is between 1040-1080 hours of instruction.” (Interview with member of the Academic Wing).
            3. Military Standards. The SSAV Team heard concerns, primarily from the N/OCdts, that the enforcement of the standards that applied to the Leadership component of the Military Pillar (Junior and Senior Bar positions) was sometimes uneven, biased or hobbled by the way the Leadership Level Progression Model (LLPM) has been implemented. The SSAV Team observed; however, that failures in the military component of the Four Pillar programme trend significantly lower than for physical fitness and bilingualism over the past 6 years.^{Footnote 216 Footnote 217} As with physical fitness and bilingualism, N/OCdts who fail to meet the requirements of the military pillar, but still pass BMOQ and their academic programme, still graduate from RMC and are commissioned. They do not receive the ROTP-RMC designation. Failures due to conduct or disciplinary issues are handled through the CAF Code of Service Discipline, or through the warning, counselling and probation process and can result in release from the CAF.   The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
               1. “…OCdts were told that if same Leadership Level for two years, would be kicked out. This is not happening, and everything is the same (can see that you are probably better off for achieving in all the pillars, but it is frustrating). The CAF must sometimes bite the bullet: for some people, it is obvious that the military is not for them at this stage in their lives. They should follow another option.” (Interview with a N/OCdt);
               2. “Leadership Level Model is iffy - natural leaders may not get formal leadership opportunities because they are behind in Second Language Training or Physical Performance Test.” (Interview with N/OCdt);
               3. “The N/OCdt Chain of Authority is essential for learning leadership. The disciplinary process is useful.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing); and
               4. The new Level of Leadership Model is not a driving/striving force for Cadets who may experience difficulties in achieving for example Physical Performance Test.” (Interview with a member of the Training Wing).
         4. Removal from ROTP-RMC Programme. The SSAV Team observed that when N/OCdts do not achieve the standards in one or more of the Four Pillars, RMC procedures require that each case is reviewed at the Progress Review Board (PRB) as described above.   The SSAV Team heard significant concern from the Training Wing staff and even the Academic Wing staff, that although files were staffed for PRB decision, removal of N/OCdts from the ROTP-RMC programme is rare. The SSAV Team heard that as a result, Training Wing staff expends considerable effort managing the ‘bottom 10%’ at the expense of mentoring and coaching other N/OCdts. The SSAV Team also heard that the philosophy of the Chain of Command is to ensure that N/OCdts are given every opportunity to succeed in the programme and sometimes PRB recommendations provided by Training Wing staff are not supported. The SSAV Team observed that this causes concern and frustration not only within the Training Wing, but amongst the N/OCdts, due to the perception that other than academics, the implications of not meeting the standards in three of the four pillars are largely inconsequential.   The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received.
            1. “Staff is frustrated at having to do "useless" Progress Review Board paperwork as it doesn't lead to any concrete actions or removals from training. “Progress Review Boards are extra work for nothing. No value".” (Interview with member of the Training Wing); and
            2. “There were rumours that Progress Review Boards would be ordered for those that missed two or more pillars but then we never heard of it again. Nothing changed, people are still here. Why?” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
   6. Assessment:
      1. Rationale for ROTP-RMC Standards. The SSAV Team observed that the fitness, bilingualism and leadership requirements stipulated within the Four Pillars of the RMC programme are not contained in the Officer General Specifications (OGS) for Development Period 1 (DP1) N/OCdt and junior officers. The OGS do not address the ROTP-RMC programme within DP 1. The SSAV Team heard that this becomes a challenge in enforcing standards requirements that are not recognized outside of RMC. The standards in the Four Pillar programme at RMC are in some cases, higher than in the CAF for the same officer Development Period. The DP 2 syllabus used for the RMC Professional Military Training is beyond that which is expected of a newly commissioned Second Lieutenant/Acting Sub-Lieutenant (Navy). Graduates from RMC are not commissioned with any additional qualifications, as explained earlier in this report. There is nothing indicated in the CAF OGS, or Common Officer Qualification Standards that stipulate a requirement for these higher standards. The SSAV Team assesses that the CAF needs to identify and provide the rationale why a certain portion of ROTP/RETP officers are required to achieve higher standards (i.e. Those that go through the RMC and CMR SJ programme) during their time at those institutions. Does the RMC programme produce a better officer? Do those officers progress differently than others? What is the value of the ROTP-RMC programme to the CAF overall?;
      2. Enforcing Standards. Generally, standards as stipulated in CDA/MILPERSGEN directives are being enforced at RMC in terms of progression through the Leadership Level; however, not meeting those standards does not preclude graduation and commissioning, as long as N/OCdts successfully complete their degree programme, pass the BMOQ, Basic Military Swim Standard and FORCE Test, and adhere to expected military conduct and deportment.   Assuming a rationale for the standards for the ROTP-RMC programme is agreed by the CAF, there will be a need to apply those standards evenly. At present the disparity between graduates who have achieved the standards of the Four Pillars and those who have not creates a negative undercurrent within the Cadet Wing and amongst the Training Wing staff who are charged with implementing the programme. While the LLPM was put in place in an attempt to address this gap, the reality remains that there are two types of RMC graduates. The SSAV Team assesses that this has an impact on the morale of RMC, at several levels, and has led to an erosion of pride in the institution and meaning behind the achievement of the ideals represented by the Four Pillar model. The situation is exacerbated by the lack of a clear rationale for the standards at RMC to be higher in some cases than the CAF;
      3. Physical Fitness Standards. The requirement to pass the RMC PPT standard is clearly defined within the Leadership Level Progression Model and hence part of the ROTP - RMC (AFAN) designation, however N/OCdts who have not passed PPT are permitted to graduate and be commissioned. This is seen as devaluing the value of achieving the ROTP-RMC programme. Complaints from N/OCdts with respect to the PPT were common. Specifically the SSAV Team heard that many individuals who did not meet the PPT standards missed the minimum number of push-ups, and perceived that this was due to non-standardized application of the protocol among evaluators. The SSAV Team learned that the Athletic Department analyzed Evaluator results from the Fall 2016 PPT and determined that the variance between staff members was less than 2%. Although the standard is well defined and it would appear that it is applied evenly, there may be valid physiological reasons to explain why some individuals struggle to achieve the standard. It may be appropriate to consider whether the ability for N/OCdts to perform one or more specific physical movements, such as push ups, should have such an important impact on completion of the ROTP-RMC programme; and
      4. Bilingualism Standards. The SSAV Team noted that the target of achieving a functional profile of ‘BBB’ in the second language of the N/OCdts is above the expectations in published CAF guidelines for officers to achieve this level in the CAF in the same timeframe. A functional profile of ‘BBB’ is the level expected for Major/Lieutenant Commander to achieve in their second language as part of the promotion criteria for the next rank.^{Footnote 218} The SSAV Team assesses that the goal for N/OCdts to achieve a functional profile in their second language level is valuable, should be expected from a Federal institution, and may help to distinguish part of the value inherent in completing the ROTP-RMC programme. The SSAV Team noted that there were some issues regarding the availability of instructors to support the Bilingualism Pillar, and if this standard is to be enforced, RMC must ensure that this part of the programme is resourced to meet this requirement. Finally, there should be some future consideration to factor in the reality of an increasingly diverse language background of N/OCdts as the CAF strives to achieve its diversity objectives.
   7. Recommendations:
      1. Rationale for the ROTP-RMC Standards. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that CMP/Commander MILPERSCOM, as part of the End-to-End Review (E2ER) process, identify the rationale for the higher standards expected of N/OCdts in the ROTP-RMC programme. When established, this rationale should be clearly captured in policy;
      2. Validation of ROTP-RMC standards. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that CDA/MILPERSGEN conduct regular validation of the ROTP-RMC standards with graduates and their superiors;
      3. Enforcement of ROTP-RMC Standards. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that should a legal or policy basis for the required standards in the military, fitness and bilingual components of the ROTP-RMC programme (Four Pillars) be established (see recommendation above), CDA/MILPERSGEN and RMC should ensure that there is a clear and enforceable basis for removal of N/OCdts from the ROTP-RMC programme; and
      4. Transition out of ROTP-RMC programme. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that CDA/MILPERSGEN and RMC work with CMP/Commander MILPERSCOM on establishing respectful transition options for N/OCdts who do not meet ROTP-RMC programme requirements with the aim to ensure that individuals who are not able to meet the required standards at RMC, are given clear options, treated with dignity and given the support they require to transition in a timely manner from the ROTP-RMC programme. The Commandant RMC should liaise directly with key CMP/Commander MILPERSCOM staff to ensure transition options are provided to N/OCdts in a timely manner.
10. RMC training and learning environment support towards achieving standards.
    1. Description. Paragraphs 2 through 4 of this annex describe the training and learning environment at RMC and draws from the ROTP/RETP Training Policy^{Footnote 219} and latest Commander CDA/MILPERSGEN Training Policy Directive ^{Footnote 220};
    2. Observations:
       1. The Leadership Level Progress Model (LLPM). The SSAV Team observed that views on the effectiveness of the Leadership Level Progression Model and its implementation varied. A significant number of individuals across the various stakeholder groups viewed the Leadership Level Progression Model as generally useful, but had problems with aspects of its implementation. Others viewed the Leadership Level Progression Model as demoralizing, punitive, and creating situations whereby some N/OCdts felt ostracized by others. Views were evenly split between those who agreed with the Leadership Level Progression Model as a system, and those who did not. Many found it to be confusing. The issues the SSAV Team heard were as follows:
          1. Impact on leadership opportunities. A prevalent issue was the perceived negative impact on leadership opportunities for N/OCdts who were ‘held back’ (usually for Physical Performance Test or Second Language Test reasons) thus losing the opportunity to be assigned leadership positions within the Cadet Chain of Authority. The SSAV Team heard that is was apparently difficult to achieve the same Leadership Level as the N/OCdt’s academic year after having fallen behind, even if an extraordinary effort is expended to try to catch up. In some cases, individuals give up and become cynical or suffer low morale and self-esteem. N/OCdts told the SSAV Team that this limited their development opportunities as leaders prior to graduation and went against one of the primary reasons for attending RMC – to develop leadership skills. The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
             1. “Disagree with the leadership levels criteria. For example, [N/OCdt] has a medical condition for which [N/OCdt] needed surgery last year, so has been held to Leadership Level 2 since second year because of this. [N/OCdt] still works with med specialist to improve, and hopes to be able to do Physical Performance Test soon: [N/OCdt] could get to Leadership Level 3, but only has one semester left. Does very well in academics (85%!).” (Interview with a N/OCdt);
             2. Leadership Level system is not really effective and is confusing. There is no middle ground for leadership opportunities (outside top five or if you miss one pillar). No options of Leadership Level 2s.” (Interview with a N/OCdt); and
             3. “Four pillars are good in theory, but not in practice. Biggest problem is Leadership Level 2 with N/OCdts losing leadership opportunities due to problems with push ups.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
          2. Impact on Morale. There was dissatisfaction that N/OCdts can still graduate from RMC with only having achieved Leadership Level 1 or Leadership Level 2 in the same way as others who have achieved the standards in all the pillars. The SSAV Team heard that this can be demoralizing for those N/OCdts who work hard to achieve all aspects of the programme. This was also a contributor to a level of Training Wing frustration with the Leadership Level Progression Model implementation. The SSAV Team also heard that application of the model was inconsistent across the Squadrons and Divisions. Some tracked and enforced the Leadership Level of the N/OCdts, others were reported to be more flexible and allowed N/OCdts to wear the Leadership Level indicator of their Academic year, even if they had not met the required Leadership Level standards in each pillar. The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
             1. “Either enforce [Leadership Level] progress if it is to be kept, and expel those who cannot meet the requirements of ‘AFAN’ or discontinue the programme. There is no reason why the [Leadership Level] progression should be kept in place if cadets not meeting the standards of the programme are graduating.” (Written submission by a group of N/OCdts to the SSAV);
             2. “The new Level of Leadership Model is not a driving/striving force for N/OCdts who may experience difficulties in achieving for example Physical Performance Test.” (Interview with a member of the Training Wing);
             3. “Essentially if we are the product of RMC, why is the college comfortable with having [Leadership Level-2] 4^th year N/OCdts graduate? Surely they should have been expelled from the college...” (Written submission from a group of N/OCdts); and
             4. “The leadership levels destroyed the cadet chain of authority: removed any respect that existed between the years.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
          3. Stigmatization. A significant number of N/OCdts were of the view that the implementation of the Leadership Level Progression Model caused those that do not progress with their academic year classmates to be ostracized, isolated, and suffer damage to their self-esteem. Some felt that it was a public humiliation to those who do not meet the objectives and have the insignia on their uniform be a daily reminder that they are ‘inferior’ to their peers, even if they are working hard and making significant progress, or are held back due to a physical injury or medical condition. The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
             1. “Leadership Levels are a good idea, but implications were not well thought out. Previously, OCdts needed to obtain ‘AFAN’ at the end of fourth year, but the effect of setting the milestones for each year is to inject more stress. Leadership Levels give rise to perspective that "cannot meet minimum standards". There are some N/OCdts who are very arrogant. They discount the efforts of those who are struggling in one pillar but are otherwise succeeding. Cannot be given bar position unless pass Physical Performance Test. What is the point of RMC if you don't get an opportunity to exercise leadership? Finding other opportunities to do so, including Peer Assistance Group.” (Interview with a N/OCdt);
             2. “Leadership Level Model: understands the intent but it is very confusing for cadets. Can lead to an ‘elitist culture.’" (Interview with a member of the Training Wing); and
             3. “…Perception that has lost friends and respect of peers because of wearing lower Leadership Level. Has been very hard and had an effect upon morale: however, had some previous life experience and was able to overcome this where other OCdts with less experience might not be able to. Only Physical Performance Test issue is push-ups.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
       2. Over-programming of N/OCdt Time. The SSAV Team heard from a number of stakeholder groups of concerns over the accumulation of demands amounting to ‘over-programming’ of the N/OCdts’ time. This was described as a large contributor to the stress and morale issues felt by the N/OCdts at RMC, in particular those pursuing Engineering or Science degree programmes. While some N/OCdts appeared to thrive in the challenging environment at RMC, many considered that the combination of concurrent demands in the Four Pillars led to ‘saturation’ and promoted a culture of cutting corners in order to be able achieve the minimum standard in each. A perception prevailed that the N/OCdts do everything poorly in order to do everything. The following are some representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
          1. “Individual of strong view that N/OCdts are overburdened. Failing in their professional development because overloading teaches them to cut corners to survive.   The institution needs to ensure they succeed in the way we want them to really succeed.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing);
          2. Individual indicated that the overall load has grown on the N/OCdts. This results in more stress and less time.” (Interview with member or Training Wing); and
          3. “Time [management] is the ‘long pole in the tent’ for the N/OCdts and the RMC overall. One of the time processes had to be the lead process. There needs to be high level and informed participation in the decisions being made about schedule and priorities. This process begins in the Feb timeframe of the year before and continues from there on in.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing).
          1. Inconsistent and Short Notice Demands. The SSAV Team observed that there was an inconsistency or imbalance in the relative demands between Academic, Military, Fitness and SLT Pillar activities. Sometimes activities were planned at the last minute for one Pillar, which in turn impacted on N/OCdts being able to meet the demands in other areas. Typical examples were of training or mandatory briefing activities imposed on short notice which impacted on academics, study time, or sports. The SSAV Team heard that sometimes unrealistic demands were placed on N/OCdts through due to a lack of synchronization/calendar coordination that resulted in last minute changes, missed meals and wasted time. At times, it appeared that N/OCdts are left to their own devices to figure out how to de-conflict the Four Pillar demands. The following are some representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
             1. “Military Wing and Academic Wing not communicating (mess dinner cancellation at last minute because of an academic function for cadets)” (Interview with member of the Training Wing); and
             2. “Cynicism is prevalent in senior cadets - a coping mechanism. Based on abundant rules that don't make sense, last minute schedule changes affecting academics, uneven quality.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
          2. Lack of Decompression Time. The SSAV Team heard that N/OCdts lack appropriate periods in the academic and training year to decompress from the combined loads of academics, military and other activities. It was observed through anecdotes that N/OCdts often turn to the consumption of alcohol to self-medicate and withdraw from the pressures. This is frequently done off campus, in the City of Kingston, which can lead to negative perceptions and repercussions on individual N/OCdts and on RMC as a whole. The following are some representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
             1. “Individual view is that "RMC cannot be a 4 year boot camp." There are times to do this (FYOP, etc.) but it needs to ease off to support a good learning environment for the N/OCdts. N/OCdts being woken up at 0600 every day, for questionable value 'military training' is a stressor and because it is done always and for 'questionable reasons' it serves to erode the value of the school overall. (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing);
             2. “Stressors: always have something on mind, feel guilty for relaxing, Physical Performance Test, academics, personal identity: stress to define values, what defines you individually or as an officer. Nothing on self-development.” (Interview with a N/OCdt); and
             3. “Depends on the individual. Both these Cadets are senior Bar Cadets and have been involved in extra-curricular activities as leaders throughout their four years - they credit those activities with relieving some of the stress.” (Interview with two N/OCdts).
          3. Lack of respect for designated evening study time. The SSAV Team heard from N/OCdts, Academics and Training Wing staff and a number of external groups that the designated evening study time for N/OCdts is not always being respected. At times the SSAV Team heard that the designated evening N/OCdt study time was encroached on by activities imposed by the Cadet Chain of Authority, Training Wing, Athletic Department and other short notice demands. In addition, the SSAV Team heard that the behavior of some N/OCdts in the dormitories during the designated study periods was poor. Cases of loud music, excessive gaming, interruptions and boisterous discussions were raised. There appeared to be inconsistency in how N/OCdts in leadership positions (bar positions) addressed these problems, or where RMC staff supervised the situation.
       3. Professional Military Training (PMT). The primary method for training delivery at RMC is based on the operational/training environment and the leadership practicum where N/OCdts ‘learn by doing’ in bar positions within the CCoA. Professional Military Training provides general theoretical instruction on military subjects. The Professional Military Training syllabus has been created in house at RMC based on defined Officer Development Period 2 objectives.^{Footnote 221} The SSAV Team observed a very consistent view, in particular from N/OCdts, that the conduct of Professional Military Training at RMC was considered low value, irrelevant and not a good use of time. There were some aspects of Professional Military Training that were viewed as positive and value added, such as: Environmental or Military Occupation Code (MOC) Weekends; presentations by ex-cadets on leadership and personal perspectives as a junior commissioned officer; and, practical hands on types of experiences, such as the Professional Military Training activities conducted at CMR SJ.   The SSAV Team learned that CMR SJ has taken an alternative approach to the delivery of Professional Military Training by combining the weekly periods into three full training days per semester and integrating one of those days with a training weekend per semester in order to provide the opportunity for a more concentrated and in depth training opportunities. The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
          1. “PMT: have a neutral opinion, but the College (or CAF) needs to ask "what are we trying to achieve with programme?" (Interview with a member of Training Wing);
          2. “Individual of view that Training Wing military activities are injected sometimes just for the sake of doing it. Some activities don’t make sense nor have a clear linkage to developing leaders/meeting the CAF objectives. Teach how to get around the rules, instead of teaching N/OCdts how to solve problems” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing); and
          3. “PMT currently has little training value. MOC Weekend is the only relevant training that will help me prepare for my future in the CAF.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
       4. Integration of Leadership Development. The leadership development environment at RMC also includes an education component of the Core Curriculum and the specific courses delivered by the Military Psychology and Leadership (MPL) Department. The SSAV Team heard that the delivery of leadership development for the N/OCdts is not systematically coordinated between the theory given through Military Psychology and Leadership courses, Professional Military training, interaction with the Academic Wing delivering elements of the Core Curriculum; and the experiential practicum of the N/OCdts’ Cadet Chain of Authority leadership appointments (bar positions). While it was evident to the SSAV Team that members of the Academic and Training Wings responsible for these aspects of leadership development were highly dedicated to the objectives of their respective elements, there were few signs of a deliberate approach to integrate these elements into a more effective overall leadership development experience for the N/OCdts. The SSAV Team heard that this lack of a coherent and integrated approach represented a ‘missed opportunity’ for RMC and the CAF to “professionalize” the N/OCdts for a career as commissioned officers.   The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
          1. “Core courses include Intro to Psychology, then Organizational Behaviour, and then Ethics & Professionalism. Their contents are reviewed every year, with a review and then discussions amongst faculty (including trying to maintain consistency between English and French courses). Changed this year to make more interactive through assignments. Offers some insights into OCdt view of RMC. There is no integration between the educational and practical aspects of leadership (USAFA apparently does a good job of merging the practical and theoretical aspects of leadership). Took a long time to get access to AFAN manual. Training Wing becomes mired in negative aspects of leadership.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing);
          2. “MPL should be more involved in the PMT programme (link between theory and action).” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing); and
          3. “PMT should be used with regard to ethical vignettes/scenarios that would allow us to develop this important dimension.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
       5. First Year Orientation Programme (FYOP). The SSAV Team heard that the execution of the First Year Orientation Programme has been of varied quality over the years. The Team heard of non-specific incidents of harassment, abuse of authority by N/OCdts conducting the programme, a lack of supervision by RMC staff, and physical training being conducted in such a way that a significant number of N/OCdts ended up getting injured. Most of these accounts related to events that occurred two to five years in the past. The SSAV Team heard that for the most part, the First Year Orientation Programmes conducted in 2015 and 2016 were significantly improved and appeared to address the issues raised in previous years. There were still concerns expressed about the level of supervision by RMC military and PSP staff, the impact of the programme on First Year N/OCdts’ academics, as well as a lack of standardization across the programme as a whole. The following are representative examples of comments the SSAV Team received:
          1. “Individual had several observations of FYOP: Specifically that there is a lack of Regular Force Officer/NCM supervision during what is a critical phase for N/OCdts.” (Interview with a member of the Training Wing);
          2. “This Cadet was with FYOP Staff last two years - FYOP Staff Training was not adequate. In his first year, he had no training in how to run a class. In his second year, he had just come off Phase 2 Infantry and was much more confident running a class and leading first years. (Interview with a N/OCdt);
          3. “Teaching calculus to 1st years during FYOP is impossible. They don't have time for homework and cannot develop proper study habits.” (Interview with a member of the Academic Wing); and
          4. “FYOP was a great way to learn about the College, its history. It helped create team cohesion. For many it was the first time facing difficulty and stress. Being IC of the day was good for leadership development, ensuring the group met its timings. It made us push ourselves physically and work as a team (e.g. all first years would do push ups while one of us would run up to get the coat we forgot). The onus would be on the individual to go as fast as possible for the good of the group.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
       6. Athletic Programme Delivery   It was evident from the interviews conducted with the PSP staff and others, that the members of the Athletics Department are very dedicated to their work and have the welfare of the N/OCdts at heart. There are a number of issues that impede their efforts ranging from: the de-confliction of facilities/equipment with CFB Kingston; aging infrastructure; obtaining information on the fitness status of N/OCdts whether it is any medical employment limitations (MELs) or the results from their FORCE Test during Basic Military Officer Occupational Qualification training; the additional administration imposed by the event and travel approval processes; and, most significantly, the reduction in hours/pay of the staff themselves. Supplemental Physical Training is provided four days a week at 0545hrs for 1st and 2nd year N/OCdts who require it. On average there are approximately 70 to 80 N/OCdts requiring Supplemental Physical Training with one coordinator to run it. The programme is perceived as only a preparation for the Physical Performance Test;
          1. “Ontario University Athletics have set standard of care which RMC is not currently meeting (e.g., doctor, sports or athletic physiotherapist at all games). Assistant position hasn't been filled for seven years (part of problem is that it is difficult to find right qualifications). In an ideal world, would have full-time all year position, have full-time eight-month assistant, and would have clinic open to serve Varsity athletes all day and in the evening so that they could drop by and receive assistance.” (Interview with a member of the Athletics Department);
          2. “[Good] Relationship with Base Kingston physiotherapists, but no coordination between Health Services and the Athletic Department. Health Services tend to be rigid in prohibiting physical activity, and have declined to share information with someone who is not part of the Chain of Command, on the basis that it is medical info. However, Varsity athletes may not share the information themselves because they wish to keep active.” (Interview with a member of the Athletic Department); and
          3. “Supplemental PT is at 0545 hours, mess hall open at 0630 hours but inspections are held at 0700 hours. No time for breakfast.” (Interview with a N/OCdt).
       7. Bilingualism Environment. The SSAV Team observed that overall, the bilingualism component of the RMC Four Pillar programme was considered to be generally successful with close to 90% of the N/OCdts achieving the required functional (BBB) standard by the time they graduate. Some issues were relayed to the SSAV Team as follows:
          1. A lack of opportunities for N/OCdts to formally progress beyond the BBB level;
          2. A lack of instructors, which has resulted in the cancelling of some classes, sometimes for weeks at a time, which has impacted negatively on the progression of N/OCdts in their second language;
          3. The “Language of the Week” routine at RMC is seldom respected in terms of using French and likely reflects the higher percentage of Anglophones at RMC; and
          4. The locations for summer Second Language Training do not typically allow for immersion of N/OCdts in the language and cultural environment conducive to learning.
    3. Assessment:
       1. The Leadership Level Progress Model (LLPM). The Leadership Level Progression Model was implemented to address the problem of N/OCdts not meeting the standard in one, or more, of the Four Pillars of the RMC programme, yet still graduating from RMC. This was seen as diminishing the credibility of the RMC programme.^{Footnote 222} The issue of credibility of the RMC programme is consistent with other observations of the SSAV Team. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Leadership Level Progression Model has not resulted in improvements to the numbers of graduates who have met the standards of the RMC programme. As shown in Table 2 to this Annex, the success rate of N/OCdts achieving the requirements of the Four Pillars on graduation has gone from approximately 80% overall for the years 2012 – 2014 prior to implementation, down to 65% in 2015 and 75% in 2016, following implementation;
       2. The SSAV Team assesses that while the intent behind the Leadership Level Progression Model may be sound, in implementation it has led to unintended consequences that have had a disproportionately negative impact on those N/OCdts who may struggle to progress at the same rate as their peers in one or more of the Four Pillars, for any number of reasons. This can result in loss of leadership opportunities in the Cadet Chain of Authority – part of the raison d’être for attending RMC – and stigmatization of those who are unable to achieve the standards at the same rate as their peers. The result is disruption to the cohesion of the N/OCdts within their respective academic years, and the inadvertent creation of two classes of N/OCdts at the college. Individuals who, for one reason or another, do not achieve the prescribed standards for their given progression level, literally wear a mark of ‘failure’ on their sleeve. This can have devastating effects on self-esteem and can ironically become a de-motivator as the progression levels are viewed more as a punishment regime than a developmental opportunity by some of the N/OCdts. As well, some N/OCdts find the Leadership Level model confusing and it is not evenly applied across the Squadrons, so some are held to their Leadership Level, while others are not. The SSAV Team assesses that it may have also become a contributing factor to the prevailing culture of cynicism and negative morale that the SSAV Team observed at the college. In the end, the implementation of Leadership Level Progression Model has not solved the problems it was supposed to have solved at RMC, while it has introduced unintended negative consequences to the RMC experience for a significant percentage of the N/OCdts;
       3. The SSAV Team assesses that the implementation of the Leadership Level Progression Model should be critically re-examined as a priority and a decision made to either modify this approach, such that it removes the potential for stigmatization and negative associations towards the development and progression of some N/OCdts, or withdraw it completely and return the RMC programme to an academic-year based progression, as it was prior to 2014. The SSAV Team assess that it does remain necessary for N/OCdts be held accountable for achieving prescribed standards in order to ensure the development of their intellectual, leadership, fitness and ethical foundations, but this should not come at the cost of building self-esteem and group cohesion. The four or five years that N/OCdts spend at RMC should be considered as a ‘golden opportunity’ to inculcate them into the profession of arms and build them into self-confident and capable junior officers who will provide value at their first unit. The SSAV Team is not convinced that the Leadership Level Progression Model, as it is currently implemented, helps to realize that opportunity;
       4. Programming of N/OCdt Time. The SSAV Team assesses that the learning environment at RMC would benefit from a more deliberate and ruthless approach to programming the time of the N/OCdts. It is recognized that a key objective of the RMC programme and operational environment is to teach individuals how to manage conflicting priorities, time constraints and multiple demands on their energy and mental focus, in order to prepare them for the prevailing conditions of service within the CAF. Notwithstanding this intent, the RMC Four Pillars programme demands on the time of the N/OCdts should be applied deliberately and be well coordinated amongst the various components of the Four Pillars at the college. While surmounting challenges can be a significant positive stressor and contribute to the development of character and coping strategies, these challenges should be designed into the programme and not introduced haphazardly through inadvertent conflict and competition between the components of the RMC Four Pillars programme and other activities introduced into the N/OCdt timetable. Particular attention should be given to ensuring that the scheduled study time for N/OCdts is protected from interruptions by activities imposed by the Cadet Chain of Authority, Training Wing, Athletics Department, and by the behaviour of N/OCdts themselves in the dormitories (i.e. Gaming, playing of music, loud conversations, competitions, etc.);
       5. The SSAV Team assesses that as part of the deliberate approach to programming N/OCdts’ time, there should be opportunities for decompression, as is consistent with the practice in most CAF units. Expecting N/OCdts to spend four or five years within an environment that offers few opportunities for individual reflection and low stress, positive group activities, especially for N/OCdts who are not part of varsity teams or competitive clubs, is likely counter-productive to building well balanced officers. Appropriate decompression opportunities that are built into the programme will likely help to alleviate negative and excessive behaviours when N/OCdts ‘escape’ from the confines of RMC;
       6. The SSAV Team assesses that a key to success in this area would be assigning to a position responsible for the detailed coordination of the Four Pillar programme between the components, and reporting directly to the Commandant, and Principal, of RMC. This could be a role for the Deputy Commandant of RMC, should that position be formally established. Adopting a common, college-wide calendar or timetable would be an essential tool to accomplishing this. Internalizing the “One College Team” philosophy across all elements of RMC to foster cooperation in delivering the best possible programme for the N/OCdts would be very important;
       7. Professional Military Training (PMT). The Officer General Specifications for Officer Common Qualifications focus Development Period 2 at the officer progression period from Lieutenant/Sub-Lieutenant (Navy) rank to Major/Lieutenant-Commander (Navy) rank.^{Footnote 223} Development Period 1 focuses on progression from Naval or Officer Candidate (N/OCdt) to Lieutenant/Sub-Lieutenant (Navy). The SSAV Team assesses that while the aim to provide military training for N/OCdts to achieve Development Period 2 (DP2) objectives is laudable, in execution, Professional Military Training at RMC is falling short of providing meaningful and relevant training for N/OCdts. It can be repetitive and contributes to over-programming of N/OCdts’ time while providing them with an abundance of theory, yet few practical skills;  
       8. The SSAV Team assesses that a revised approach to Professional Military Training should be considered in order to restore its relevance and provide concrete skills and knowledge that would benefit N/OCdts on their first unit-level posting after graduation. The Professional Military Training syllabus should be limited to providing training consistent with Development Period 1 requirements – most of which would be already covered in the Basic Military Officer Qualification training – with some limited refresher training where appropriate. Additional content should be added that provides value-added and practical training and education oriented towards providing N/OCdts with specific knowledge and tools that are directly applicable to their role as a junior officer in their first units. Examples of value-added modules would be; Delegated Officer Certification Training, Assisting Officer, Range Safety Officer, Winter Warfare, and personal weapon qualifications (pistol, C7 rifle); case studies in the military estimate process and practical field/base/maritime exercises oriented at allowing N/OCdts to hone the development of plans and delivery of orders at the sub-sub unit level. Case studies of military ethics and decision making from CAF operations and training scenarios should be added to internalize the theoretical aspects taught as part of the Military Psychology and Leadership syllabus. This would ensure the curriculum is focused on content relevant for their initial unit postings such that a newly graduated officer from RMC can ‘hit the ground running’ with common military skills and knowledge that provide value and depth to the slate of junior officers available to Commanding Officers. This approach would, over time, create an awareness of the value that junior officers who are RMC graduates bring to CAF units and organizations and would begin to exploit the opportunity presented by having N/OCdts in a military environment while pursuing their academic degree over a period of four to five years;
       9. The SSAV Team assesses that taking this approach would address the perceptions that Professional Military Training is not relevant and would make better use of the investment in N/OCdt time. If done judiciously, it could reduce the overall time demands on the N/OCdts by removing repetitive or low-value added aspects. For example, removing much of the Development Period 2 objectives and reducing the time spent conducting drill practices to only that which is required to meet similar standards to what exist at the unit level in the wider CAF would free up schedule time. Graduates having the reputation of ‘being good at sword drill’ on arrival at their first units, while useful in some cases, on its own is not a skill that contributes to the operational effectiveness or leadership capacity of a CAF unit. On the other hand, officers arriving at their units with a set of valuable CAF qualifications already completed and appropriate to fulfill the expectations of the front line leadership roles they will take on, can have a direct impact on the operational effectiveness of a unit, ship or squadron;
       10. The SSAV Team assesses that a working group comprising key stakeholders from CDA/MILPERSGEN, RMC, CMR SJ, Canadian Joint Operations Command and Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force training representatives, along with input from senior N/OCdts, would be required to scrub down the existing Professional Military Training syllabus, map it to Basic Military Officer Qualification, First Year Orientation Programme and Development Period 1 objectives, and insert a number of ‘value added’ qualifications as explained in the paragraph above with a view to formalizing a common ROTP/RETP Training Plan. Part of this review should include looking at the scheduling of Professional Military Training with a view to concentrating effort into longer, and more meaningful, training and education sessions. The approach taken at CMR SJ of combining the scheduled PMT periods into three full days each Semester and coupling one of those days per Semester with an existing training weekend, is assessed as a worthwhile model to consider, although it is likely that different combinations will be required depending on the qualifications and skills being sought. There may also be additional training costs involved, which would have to be factored in (i.e. ammunition, training materials, etc.). Once approved by Commander, Military Personnel Command, it should be recognized in the Officer General Specifications, perhaps as a “Basic Military Officer Qualification (BMOQ) (with additions)” and could re-use the ‘AFAN’ designation to denote it. This would also serve to instill practical meaning to the ROTP-RMC designation and likely go a long way to addressing perceptions within the CAF of the value of officer graduates from RMC;
       11. Integration of Leadership Development. The SSAV Team assesses that the leadership development of N/OCdts prior to graduation from RMC would benefit from a more systemic integration of the academic, theoretical, practical and experiential opportunities that exist at the college. In alignment with the above recommendations on the delivery of Professional Military Training, a coordinated and complementary approach to combining the study of military history and technology, the moral, ethical and philosophical foundations of leadership and applying all of these to the practicum of leadership within the RMC environment, would contribute significantly to the ‘professionalization’ of N/OCdts during their time at RMC.   Further, if the focus of front line Squadron and Division Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Members was placed on coaching and mentoring the N/OCdts, in line with the theoretical and practical knowledge provided through such an integrated leadership development programme, in cooperation with the Academic Wing, the result could be a valued and effective programme to inculcate N/OCdts into the profession of arms, and reinforce the attributes of Identity, Responsibility, Expertise and the Military Ethos;^{Footnote 224}
       12. The SSAV Team assesses that a combination of CDA/MILPERSCOM headquarters and RMC Training and Academic Wing staff would likely be required to participate in a working group charged with restructuring the delivery of leadership development at RMC with the aim to integrate the components of the Core Curriculum, Military Psychology and Leadership studies with a revised Professional Military Training Plan towards a systematic and deliberate approach to inculcate N/OCdts into the CAF profession of arms. This restructuring would need to include the application of theory and knowledge into the practicum of the leadership opportunities resident with the Cadet Chain of Authority, mentored and coached by Division and Squadron Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Members. Done successfully, an integrated leadership development programme, combined with strong and positive leadership role models at the college, would likely go a long way to improving the sense of purpose of the learning environment at RMC;
       13. First Year Orientation Programme (FYOP). The SSAV Team assesses that past deficiencies in the conduct of the First Year Orientation Programme have been, in large part, recognized and addressed by the leadership at RMC over the past two years. There remain some issues that require concerted effort to ensure that the delivery of this critical phase in the integration of N/OCdts into the RMC environment is done in the best way possible. Specifically, while N/OCdts should still be given the responsibility to run the programme due to the leadership opportunities it provides, they must be supervised, including after hours, by the Training Wing and Athletics Department staff at RMC. This period is an important bonding experience for N/OCdts so execution of the programme must be such that all N/OCdts receive the same quality of experience. Priority should be given to training and instruction in RMC-specific knowledge, skills and traditions and avoiding duplication with Basic Military Officer Qualification content. As part of the recommended review of RMC Professional Military Training, a further review of what is provided during Module 1 of Basic Military Officer Qualification training and the RMC First Year Orientation Programme should be done with a view to eliminating unnecessary duplication.   Finally, the SSAV Team assesses that should the above steps be taken, it would likely be possible to reduce the length of the programme and minimize the impact on academic classes for the First Year N/OCdts;
       14. Physical Fitness Programme Delivery. There are a number of issues that surround the delivery of the physical fitness component of the Four Pillar programme. These are assessed as follows:
           1. Supplemental PT (SPT). The Supplemental PT Programme while beneficial in assisting some cadets to pass their Physical Performance Test is not adequately resourced given the current staff to student ratio of 1:80. Anecdotes of N/OCdts slipping away from training or not giving it their full effort were given. Further, the programme does not benefit all N/OCdts, only First or Second Years. Because the Physical Performance Test is offered at 0545hrs in the morning, it is seen as punitive, conflicting with other activities such as morning room inspections that cause N/OCdts to miss breakfast altogether. Conducting it early in the morning impacts N/OCdts’ sleep as well as their preparation time in the morning before classes. If the SPT programme is to achieve its intent then it needs to be resourced, delivered at a time that does not conflict with other activities and minimizes the impact on N/OCdts’ sleep; and
           2. Passage of Information. The Athletics Department staff have expressed frustration that medical employment limitations (MELs) are not provided to them by the medical clinic. Another area wherein information is not readily passed is the result of the BMOQ fitness testing. As a result, RMC must re-test all incoming First Years on the MPFS. This imposes a duplication of effort and a level of confusion over the RMCC fitness standards;
       15. Bilingualism Environment. The SSAV Team assesses that currently, the majority of Anglophone N/OCdts requiring Summer SLT will attend classes in Kingston while most Francophone N/OCdts will complete Second Language Training (SLT) in Saint Jean. This may be due to the availability of staff to instruct in either language at each location. N/OCdts excused SLT or for whom there is no organized MOC training chooses the location where they wish to complete on-job employment. The SSAV Team noted that notwithstanding the intent of Language of the Week, it falls short of what it is intended to accomplish. It may be because the majority of cadets are anglophone and not sufficiently proficient in French and therefore cannot meet the intent of communicating orally and in writing in their second language. Similarly, not all of the staff are sufficiently proficient in French to enforce the “Language of the Week.” Expecting N/OCdts and staff to write in French if they do not even have a profile is considered counterproductive. Improving proficiency in French requires confidence to speak in French, a solid vocabulary and understanding of French grammar. The SSAV Team noted that anglophone N/OCdts who started at CMR SJ in Preparatory or First Year tend to do much better in achieving bilingualism objectives because of the immersive environment; and
       16. In addition, the SSAV Team assesses that RMC lacks opportunities for language training beyond the required BBB. Once N/OCdts have attained the standard they are no longer offered training. Options to learn other languages do not exist at RMC despite the fact that demographically the major languages of the world are Chinese, Spanish and Arabic. There are some opportunities for N/OCdts to improve their language skills during summer OJE however most choose to a location where they can work in their primary language, thus missing out on an opportunity to become more fluent in their second official language.  
    4. Recommendations:
       1. Leadership Level Progression Model (LLPM). (KEY RECOMMENDATION)   It is recommended that the Leadership Level Progression Model be critically re-examined as a priority and a decision made to either modify the approach, such that it removes the potential for stigmatization and negative associations towards the development and progression of some N/OCdts; or, withdraw it completely from the college programme and return to an academic-year based progression, as was the case prior to 2014. This review should be convened under the authority of Commander, Military Personnel Command;
       2. Programming of N/OCdt Time. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that RMC create the capacity to do day to day integration, de-confliction and coordination of the delivery of the component activities within the Four Pillar programme. As part of this, the Commandant and Principal RMC should consider implementing the following:
          1. Adopting a single, common, college-wide calendar or timetable;
          2. Reinforcing and internalizing the “One College Team” philosophy across all elements of RMC, including during staff and N/OCdt orientations;
          3. Incorporating opportunities for decompression within the N/OCdts’ schedules that allow for personal down time and low stress activities that foster group cohesion and build informal support networks within the N/OCdt body;
          4. Ensuring that the scheduled evening study time for N/OCdts is protected from interruptions or disruptions; and
          5. Adding instruction on time management and good study tools and habits.
       3. Content of Professional Military Training (PMT). (KEY RECOMMENDATION)   It is recommended that Commander, Military Personnel Command, convene a working group comprising key stakeholders from CDA/MILPERSGEN, RMC, CMR SJ, Canadian Joint Operations Command and training representatives from the three Environmental Commands (Navy, Army and Air Force) to review and scrub down the existing Professional Military Training syllabus, map it to Basic Military Officer Qualification, First Year Orientation Programme and Development Period 1 objectives. The aim would be to create a progressive, relevant and value-added Professional Military Training Plan that would include input from the Environmental Commands and CDA/MILPERSGEN on a set of common qualifications, practical skills or knowledge that would be considered value added by the Services for junior officers arriving at their first units. Consideration could be given to the following:
          1. Delegated Officer qualification;
          2. Assisting Officer Course qualification;
          3. Winter Warfare qualification;
          4. Personal weapon qualification (pistol, C7 rifle);
          5. Range Safety Officer qualification; and
          6. Case studies in the military estimate process and practical field/base/maritime exercises oriented towards providing N/OCdts opportunities to develop tactical plans and orders.
       4. Delivery of Professional Military Training (PMT). (KEY RECOMMENDATION)   It is recommended that delivery of the revised Professional Military Training syllabus be reviewed by the Commandant and Principal of RMC with the aim to determining the best way to schedule it within the restraints of the RMC programme. Consideration should be given to combining instruction periods into larger blocks, potentially on a monthly/semester basis in order to concentrate effort and optimize the learning opportunities for N/OCdts. Creating hands-on training through a multi-day field exercise environment, at least once a year, should also be considered;
       5. Integration of Leadership Development. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that Commander, CDA/MILPERSGEN convene a working group charged with restructuring the delivery of leadership development at RMC with the aim to integrate components of the Core Curriculum and Military Psychology and Leadership studies with the revised Professional Military Training Plan. This integrated leadership development approach should focus towards a progressive and systematic inculcation of N/OCdts into the CAF profession of arms. It should be aligned with the practicum of leadership that is part of the Cadet Chain of Authority. It should build in active mentoring and coaching by Division and Squadron Commanders and Senior Non-Commissioned Members;
       6. Leadership Development Progression Plans. (KEY RECOMMENDATION) Is it recommended that in line with the outcome of the above recommendation, Commandant RMC consider creating leadership development progression plans that are customized to each individual N/OCdt. The plans would detail development objectives to meet or exceed the standards for the Four Pillars. The development plans would be agreed between each N/OCdt and their respective Squadron Commander, and Division and Squadron Commanders and Senior NCMs would actively coach and mentor N/OCdts towards the attainment of their goals;
       7. First Year Orientation Programme (FYOP). (KEY RECOMMENDATION) It is recommended that RMC continue to improve the execution of the FYOP using the 2016 Training Plan as a start point, while implementing the following additional measures:
          1. Third and Fourth Year N/OCdts should continue to conduct the programme as this provides good leadership opportunities. They must continue to be given the one-week preparation period;
          2. The programme must be supervised, including after normal working hours, by RMC military and Athletic Department staff;
          3. The content of the FYOP should be rationalized against the content of Part 1 of the Basic Military Officer Qualification course, with a view to eliminating unnecessary duplication and focusing the RMC programme on RMC-specific knowledge, skills and traditions as well as team-building; and
          4. The length of the FYOP should be reduced, commensurate with the preceding steps, in order to minimize the impact on academic classes.
       8. Ontario Universities Athletics Association (OUAA). (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that RMC ensure that the requirements of the OUAA are being fully met by the Varsity team programme at RMC;
       9. Supplemental PT. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that RMC ensure an acceptable staff to student ratio by hiring the required additional coordinators. Those PSP staff could also provide added capacity to address other requirements; namely expanding SPT to include all N/OCdt years that require it, capacity to supervise the conduct of PT during FYOP, instruction on Sports Nutrition and Health N/OCdts, and mentoring/supervision of N/OCdt leading sports and PT sessions;
       10. BMOQ Fitness Testing Results. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that CDA/MIPERSGEN HQ direct Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School (CFLRS) to release the BMOQ MPFS (FORCE Test) results of N/OCdts prior to the start of FYOP each year;
       11. Bilingualism Environment. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that the RMC Language Centre be given a more active role in developing a plan to improve how Language Weeks are carried out, with consideration to maximizing the opportunities that are afforded to N/OCdts to use their second language in the work environment at RMC;
       12. Summer Second Language Training and Immersion. (Supporting Recommendation)   It is recommended that CDA/MILPERSGEN and RMC review where summer language training is conducted with a view to maximizing the second language immersion opportunities for Anglophone and Francophone N/OCdts at CMR SJ and RMC Kingston respectively; and
       13. On-Job Employment (OJE) and Internship for N/OCdts. (Supporting Recommendation) It is recommended that N/OCdts who have not achieved their bilingualism standards be encouraged to conduct their summer On-Job Employment (OJE) at units or organizations that will permit them to be fully immersed in their second language.