Canada’s Army Is Slowly Rotting Away

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points and Summary: Canada’s Army suffers from a severe recruitment and retention shortfall, outdated equipment, and inadequate training—crises that erode its ability to defend the nation and support NATO.

-Poor living conditions, lack of modern technology like long-range artillery and advanced air defenses, and meager Arctic capabilities underscore this crisis.

How Canada’s Army Reached Crisis Mode—and What Must Happen Next

The Canadian Army faces a confluence of crises that threaten its ability to recruit, retain, equip, and train warfighters relevant to the character of war in the 2020s.

These challenges are not merely logistical or administrative; they fundamentally undermine the Army’s capacity to defend Canada and contribute to collective security alongside its allies. Addressing these issues demands both a candid acknowledgment of the systemic dysfunctions and a bold commitment to reform. A future Conservative government under Pierre Poilievre might provide the necessary political will to tackle these shortcomings, but the solutions will require sustained focus and resources.

The Army’s recruitment and retention crisis is a critical vulnerability. The military consistently fails to meet recruitment targets, with some estimates suggesting a shortfall of over 10,000 personnel across the Armed Forces. This is not merely a numbers issue; it is a capability crisis. Without sufficient personnel, the Army cannot staff its units, maintain training cycles, or prepare for deployments. Retention compounds the problem.

Many soldiers cite poor living conditions, limited career advancement opportunities, and burnout as reasons for leaving the forces. Housing shortages at key bases such as Petawawa and Edmonton exacerbate financial stress on service members and their families, creating a vicious cycle of attrition that leaves remaining personnel overburdened and demoralized. For example, soldiers stationed at Petawawa report that rising rents in the surrounding area force many to commute long distances or live in inadequate on-base housing, further straining morale.

Changing societal attitudes toward military service further exacerbate recruitment difficulties. Younger generations often view the military as out of touch, and perceptions of instability and inadequate veteran support deter many potential recruits. Unlike countries such as the United States or Australia, where recruitment campaigns emphasize patriotism and career development, Canada’s messaging lacks coherence and fails to resonate with the specific aspirations of today’s youth. This absence of a compelling narrative about the Army’s role in Canada’s security and national identity only deepens the recruitment crisis. The United States’ recent campaign linking military service to opportunities in STEM careers offers a model of how Canada might better align its messaging with modern workforce expectations.

The Army’s deficiencies extend beyond personnel to its equipment, which is increasingly inadequate for modern warfare. Canada’s military procurement system, mired in delays and cost overruns, has failed to deliver the tools needed to confront contemporary threats. The Army’s Light Armoured Vehicles, while upgraded, are insufficient against adversaries equipped with advanced drones and precision-guided munitions. The absence of long-range artillery, advanced air defense systems, and unmanned aerial systems leaves the Army ill-prepared for the realities of high-intensity conflict. For instance, NATO allies such as Poland have invested heavily in modernizing their forces, including the acquisition of HIMARS artillery systems, while Canada’s delays in similar procurements reflect a dangerous complacency. During recent NATO exercises, Canadian forces were unable to integrate effectively with allies using advanced electronic warfare and drone systems, highlighting the operational risks posed by these gaps.

The much-touted Strong, Secure, Engaged defense policy promised significant investments, yet many of its commitments remain unrealized. The procurement of new logistics trucks, for example, has languished for years, forcing soldiers to rely on aging vehicles ill-suited for modern operations. Recent acquisitions, such as Leopard 2 tanks, are steps in the right direction but fail to compensate for decades of underinvestment. These shortcomings are starkly evident when comparing Canada’s contributions to NATO operations with those of its allies. In Latvia, for instance, Canada’s deployment of 800 troops—while symbolically important—lacks the scale and technological sophistication to serve as a credible deterrent to Russian aggression. This modest contribution undermines Canada’s standing within NATO and raises questions about its reliability as an ally. In contrast, Germany’s expanded deployment to Lithuania—complete with integrated air defense systems and cutting-edge combat vehicles—demonstrates the type of commitment that Canada must aspire to.

Compounding these equipment challenges is the Army’s inability to adequately train its forces for the evolving character of war. High-intensity conflicts increasingly require integration of advanced technologies such as cyber capabilities, autonomous systems, and electronic warfare—domains where Canada lags significantly. Training exercises often fail to reflect these emerging realities, leaving personnel ill-prepared for modern battlefields. For instance, while countries like the United Kingdom and the United States incorporate joint multi-domain operations into their training regimes, Canada’s approach remains grounded in outdated paradigms that prioritize conventional tactics over adaptability. The recent “Maple Resolve” training exercise, while valuable for basic readiness, revealed significant gaps in Canada’s ability to simulate electronic warfare scenarios or counter-drone operations, areas that are increasingly decisive in modern conflicts.

Infrastructure and housing issues further erode the Army’s ability to support its personnel. Many soldiers live in substandard housing or face exorbitant rental costs near bases, straining their financial and emotional well-being. The lack of adequate facilities for training and medical care exacerbates these challenges, reinforcing a sense of neglect among the ranks. This neglect is more than an oversight; it represents a breach of the social contract between the state and those who serve it, further diminishing morale and trust in leadership. Reports from bases such as CFB Edmonton highlight how deteriorating barracks, plagued by mold and insufficient heating, have become emblematic of the government’s neglect.

The Army’s scattershot deployment model exemplifies its broader strategic incoherence. The decision to spread limited resources across multiple missions dilutes effectiveness and strains already overstretched personnel. In Latvia, the commitment of a small contingent—without sufficient logistical or technological support—illustrates the pitfalls of prioritizing quantity over quality. A more focused approach, such as doubling the Latvia deployment or reallocating resources to Arctic security, would better align with Canada’s strategic priorities. The Arctic, in particular, represents a critical area for Canadian sovereignty and security, yet investments in Arctic capabilities—including icebreakers, surveillance systems, and mobility platforms—remain woefully inadequate. This neglect leaves Canada ill-equipped to confront the growing ambitions of near-peer competitors like Russia and China in the region. The recent announcement of Chinese interest in Arctic resource development underscores the urgency of enhancing Canadian capabilities in this domain.

To address these systemic issues, Canada must rethink its approach to recruiting, retaining, equipping, and training its warfighters. Modernizing recruitment strategies to appeal to diverse demographics through digital platforms and targeted messaging is essential. Retention efforts must focus on improving pay, benefits, and family support programs, including subsidized housing and allowances for soldiers stationed in high-cost areas. Reforming the procurement system to reduce bureaucratic delays and enhance accountability is equally critical. Partnering with allies on joint projects could streamline acquisitions and ensure timely delivery of advanced technologies. A significant increase in funding for military housing and infrastructure is non-negotiable, as is a comprehensive overhaul of training programs to reflect the realities of multi-domain operations and technological integration.

A Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank of the Royal Welsh Battle Group on Exercise Prairie Storm at the British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) in Canada.
The prairie of Alberta has provided an excellent opportunity for the British Army to train on a large scale since 1972. The British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) is an organisation situated on one of the most sparsely populated areas of the Alberta plain.
BATUS is equipped with in excess of 1000 vehicles including a full complement of Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Each year a Regiment is sent there for six months to take the part of the ‘enemy’ for the other Regiments that are there to train each year.

Political will is the linchpin of any meaningful reform. The Trudeau government has shown little appetite for addressing these challenges, favoring symbolic gestures over substantive change. A future Conservative government under Pierre Poilievre could provide the necessary impetus, assuming it prioritizes defense as a core policy area. However, even under new leadership, the path forward will not be easy. The systemic nature of the Army’s problems demands long-term planning, sustained investment, and a cultural shift within the military to embrace innovation and adaptability.

The Canadian Army’s dysfunctions are not merely administrative failures; they represent an existential threat to its ability to defend Canada and contribute to international security. From recruitment and retention crises to outdated equipment and inadequate training, the Army’s shortcomings leave it ill-prepared for the character of war in the 2020s. Practical solutions exist, but they require political courage and a willingness to prioritize defense over short-term political calculations. If a future Poilievre government can rise to the challenge, it might just restore the Canadian Army to a position of relevance and credibility in an increasingly volatile world.

About the Author: Andrew Latham 

Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN.