Executive Summary

In her 2022 Independent External Comprehensive Review, which examined sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, The Honourable Louise Arbour raised concerns about a culture of misogyny and sexual misconduct in Canada’s two Military Colleges. She posited that sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces finds its origins, in part, in the culture of the Canadian Military Colleges and she questioned whether the situation at the Colleges was remediable.

Pursuant to Madame Arbour’s report, the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board was established to examine and make recommendations about whether the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston (RMC) and the Royal Military College Saint-Jean (RMC Saint-Jean) - collectively “the Colleges”, “the Military Colleges” or “the CMCs” - should continue to exist and, if so, to what extent and how they should be reformed.

The question of whether misogyny and sexual misconduct are so ingrained in the culture of the Military Colleges as to render them irremediable was a threshold issue for the Board. We therefore began our work with a multifaceted examination of the state of the CMCs. The Board undertook three visits to each of the Colleges, studied multiple information sources, reviewed input from approximately 400 Canadians from across the country and met in-person and virtually with several hundred stakeholders, including current and former Naval and Officer Cadets, military and academic leaders, professors and staff.

Through these extensive engagements, alongside a detailed analysis of a large quantity of qualitative and quantitative data which focused on systemic and structural issues, the Board was able to develop a rich picture regarding the history, evolution, design, dynamics, programs and living conditions of and at the CMCs. This yielded, in turn, a deep understanding of the state of culture and conduct at these institutions.

The Board is acutely aware that over the decades the Military Colleges have been the sites of deeply harmful and traumatizing experiences for some individuals, resulting from a range of harmful attitudes and behaviours. While the instances of such events are not prevalent, they continue to be present and to create harm. Moreover, despite the largely positive experiences of many who have attended the CMCs, we also know that there remain significant differences in the experiences and perceptions of women and men who are enrolled at the Colleges.

The Board acknowledges that robust policies, procedures and practices have been adopted at the Colleges to prevent sexual misconduct and to respond to it when it occurs. We believe that these top-down and grassroots efforts must continue to be pursued and given time to yield results.

However, in light of the time constraints of its mandate, as well as the fact that some of these mechanisms and tools have only been implemented recently, the Board was not able to fully assess their effectiveness. The Board has consequently recommended that, as has been done at several civilian universities, the Colleges be required to mandate and publish a comprehensive analysis of the impact and effectiveness of their policies, procedures and practices with respect to preventing sexual misconduct and supporting those who experience it.

We have also recommended that Health, Safety and Wellbeing Resource Centres be established at each College to help prevent and respond to all forms of harmful behaviour through a mix of education, intervention, response and advocacy. We have further recommended that the percentage of female Naval and Officer Cadets be increased from 25% (which was reached in 2024) to 33% by 2035, as a greater presence of women at the CMCs would have a positive impact on the culture of the Colleges and would be beneficial for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Finally, the Board has determined that a restructuring of the Cadet Chain of Responsibility (CCOR) is required to fully address issues of culture and conduct at the CMCs. This peer leadership model, which has for decades featured as a signature element of the Regular Officer Training Plan at the Military Colleges, was called into question by Madame Arbour, who recommended its elimination. The Board agrees with the concerns she raised but believes that key changes to the CCOR can mitigate harm and return value to the model. In particular, the CCOR should revert to its original purpose of providing practical opportunities for the Naval and Officer Cadets to acquire hands-on leadership experience, and any authority - real or perceived - for discipline over their peers should be removed from the Cadets.

In sum, the Board witnessed a profound commitment at all levels and within all constituencies at the Military Colleges to ensure that they are safe, healthy and respectful places in which each Naval and Officer Cadet is enabled to achieve their full potential. As such, we believe that although instances of misconduct continue to exist at the Colleges, significant progress has been made towards diminishing negative and unhealthy attitudes and behaviours, and we are confident that there is a collective determination to do more. It is this determination that has allowed the Board to conclude that Canada’s Military Colleges should remain degree-granting institutions, with a mandate to educate and train Naval and Officer Cadets to join the Profession of Arms and become officers in the Canadian Armed Forces.

However, this conclusion rests on another assumption: that there is, prima facie, inherent value in the Canadian Military Colleges. The Board did not take this for granted; we dedicated significant time and energy to identifying and evaluating the value proposition of the Colleges. The results of these efforts led us to conclude that the Military Colleges are indeed critical national institutions of significant import to Canada, that play a distinctive role in advancing the defence and security interests of our country. They are unique establishments that cannot be replicated by civilian universities or other military units within the Canadian Armed Forces. They should be sources of pride for Canadians and should reflect Canada’s ability to project national power. As currently organized and run, however, they have failed to demonstrate a distinct value proposition, to prove their value in relation to escalating costs or to assert their relevance vis-à-vis the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces or the country.

Through a process that included studying discrete thematic issues and undertaking comparative analyses (including an examination of the varied approaches to pre-commissioning military education in fifteen countries), we have concluded that while the current structural model of the Military Colleges remains the right fit for our country’s distinct needs and characteristics, major reforms are required vis-à-vis many aspects of the Colleges’ operations. To this end, in addition to our recommendations with respect to conduct, culture, health, wellbeing and peer leadership, we have also crafted a series of recommendations related to identity, governance, program design, and infrastructure, operations and support, all with a view to refocus, restructure, rebalance and rejuvenate the CMCs.

Refocus (Identity)

The Board believes that the Military Colleges must conceive of themselves and be understood to be military units. Although they grant university degrees, they are not the same as civilian universities. Rather, they are military academies whose primary purpose is to prepare officers to be leaders in the Profession of Arms for Canada, only one element of which is the delivery of an undergraduate university education. Their governance structures, authorities, activities, programs, training curricula, names, branding and public affairs/communications materials should all be revised and realigned in service of this distinct identity.

Restructure (Governance)

The Colleges have a dispersed, complex and inefficient leadership and governance model. The Board has recommended several changes in order to clarify and simplify structures, responsibilities and authorities. These include a proposal to designate the Commandants as the Presidents and Vice-Chancellors of their respective Colleges, vested with the authority to lead all aspects, military and academic, of the institutions.

We have also recommended changes to more effectively select and support the Commandants and Directors of Cadets, and to lengthen their tenures in order to give them greater time to be able to: understand the Colleges (which are unique even within the Canadian Armed Forces); provide greater organizational stability; build trust with the Naval and Officer Cadets and other key stakeholders; and establish the buy-in needed to lead the Canadian Military Colleges through significant change.

Rebalance (Program Elements)

The Colleges have long pointed to the 4-Pillar Program, which incorporates academics, military training, bilingualism and fitness, as manifesting the CMCs’ relevance to the Canadian Armed Forces. However, over decades the utility and viability of the program as currently configured has come into greater question.

Academics

The Colleges have talented professors who deliver a high-quality academic program, but as the curriculum has grown it has become less and less connected to the principal mission of the CMCs. Moreover, the demands the academic program places on the limited time of the Naval and Officer Cadets has negatively impacted the Cadets’ ability to dedicate attention to the other Pillars. Additionally, the very low ratio of students to professors has resulted in the Colleges’ academic programs being much more expensive to operate than those of the universities against which we compared the CMCs. (It should be noted that the Board used cost as only one of several comparators upon which it assessed the value of the CMCs, in acknowledgement of the fact that the unique nature of the Military Colleges impacts the overall cost-benefit calculus).

Military Training

The Military Training program at the Military Colleges is a source of deep dissatisfaction for the Naval and Officer Cadets due to a variety of weaknesses. It remains inferior vis-à-vis the breadth, depth, structure and quality of the training and development offered by Canada’s allies and partners around the world, and the time allotted to it is insufficient. This is troubling given that military training should be a primary purpose of the Military Colleges and a fundamental differentiator between the Colleges and civilian universities.

Bilingualism

The value of second language training is well understood by the CMCs, and the Board fully endorses the importance of a bilingual military for Canada in terms of identity, inclusivity and operational advantage. The current program design does not place sufficient value on this Pillar, however, as reflected by the limited time and lack of credit afforded to it.

Fitness

A high level of physical fitness is understandably a requirement for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including its officers. Achieving a high level of physical fitness should remain an important component of the Naval and Officer Cadets’ curriculum. However, a narrow conception of health and wellbeing, that is overly focused on physical fitness and is tied to testing and standards that do not exist elsewhere in the Canadian Armed Forces, has undermined the impact and value of the Fitness Pillar at the CMCs. This is exacerbated by the limited time afforded to physical activities, which are often jammed into early morning and late-night schedules, and the lack of credit given to them.

In light of this suite of issues, the Board has proposed a wide variety of interconnected recommendations. These include a reduction and redesign of the academic programs and the proposal to achieve, within five years, a minimum ratio of 15 students per professor - to be accomplished by both increasing the number of Naval and Officer Cadets and by reducing the number of professors.

We have also recommended that RMC Saint-Jean no longer offer a General and Professional College (CÉGEP) program and instead direct its resources towards its university-level programs, which should be expanded beyond the single degree that it offers. Concurrently, a number of other recommendations seek to elevate the standing and stature of RMC Saint-Jean as one of two equal Military Colleges in Canada, alongside the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston.

We have further recommended that a new Integrated Officer Development Program be introduced, composed of academic study, second language training, military skills and leadership development, and fitness, health and wellbeing courses. Academic credit should be granted for satisfying requirements related to each of these elements, to better recognize their importance and to ensure they are allocated appropriate time within the schedules of the Naval and Officer Cadets. Within this, ongoing second language training should be offered for those who wish to achieve a higher level of proficiency beyond the minimum requirements.

Additionally, a new three-year Military Skills and Leadership program should be developed that provides standardized, sequenced and substantive military training and is much more focused on character development, personal growth, experiential learning and hands-on practical experience.

Finally, the approach to fitness should be expanded to a broader health and wellbeing construct that includes education about a much wider range of issues such as nutrition, sleep, substance abuse, addictions and stress and anger management, so that the Naval and Officer Cadets have the understanding and tools to address these issues not only in relation to themselves but also in support of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces they will be commissioned to lead.

Rejuvenate (Infrastructure, Operations & Support)

The Military Colleges should be symbols of national pride and prestige which help project a positive image of the Canadian Armed Forces to Canadians and to the world. Attractive buildings, well-maintained grounds, modern facilities and secure sites should reflect the historic and ongoing significance of the Colleges and a high standard of respect for the Naval and Officer Cadets.

Unfortunately, given that infrastructure projects at the Military Colleges compete for funding with all other infrastructure projects in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, much of the campuses, particularly in Kingston, are in a state of disrepair. Funding requests for dormitories, libraries or athletic facilities must contend against aircraft hangars, jetties and barracks for prioritization. It is therefore not surprising that the Colleges do not generally fare well in these competitions. Moreover, while RMC Saint-Jean benefits from having a dedicated facilities management contract with an organization that is deeply invested in the overall success of the College, RMC has no such arrangement in place, which creates short and long-term negative impacts.

More broadly, mindsets and attitudes need to change, to place greater value on architectural excellence, quality design and high caliber workmanship, alongside a genuine commitment to respect the historical look and feel of the campuses and to maintain beautiful and inspiring environments.

The Board has consequently recommended that as Canada moves towards fulfilling its commitments towards greater defence spending, a dedicated funding framework should be established for

1. major capital projects,
2. minor construction, and
3. maintenance and repair

to support training and education establishments in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the Canadian Military Colleges. Baseline funding should be increased for all three as well. A dedicated facilities management contract should also be established at RMC in Kingston.

Ultimately, the recommendations the Board has made are interdependent and essential to an effective reform of the Military Colleges. Recognizing that responsibility for their implementation is held by different actors in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, often outside of the Military Colleges, we have recommended that:

• The Minister of National Defence provide a written response to this Report within 60 days of its receipt to provide clarity regarding the Government’s intent and expectations;
• An Implementation Team be established to oversee the development and execution of a sequenced, time-bound and measurable Implementation Plan; and
• The Minister of National Defence provide an annual report on the progress of implementation until all of the recommendations have been addressed.

The world is experiencing its most significant shifts since the end of the Cold War. Canada is no longer protected by geography, with threats coming from cyber space and outer space, from growing national emergencies including floods and fires and from foreign influence/interference in our systems and institutions.

More than ever, Canada will need an effective military led by a strong cadre of officers who are well-prepared to navigate this increasingly complex environment. The Military Colleges are uniquely equipped to develop the outstanding leaders required by the Canadian Armed Forces and they can serve as a major source for positive change both within the armed forces, and within society at large.

Although issues of negative conduct and culture remain at the Colleges, the Board believes that closing them is not the solution; exporting those challenges to other institutions would merely avoid addressing the very issues that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are seeking to solve.

Instead, Canada should continue to invest in and support the Military Colleges. They should be held to attaining and maintaining the highest standards, but must also be equipped with the leadership and resources required to do so.

Once refocused, restructured, rebalanced and rejuvenated, the Military Colleges will offer great value and be uniquely positioned to meet the needs and expectations of Canadians as our country takes on the critical challenges of the coming decades.

The undersigned concur with the content and recommendations of this Report.

Back to top