If there’s one point of agreement across Canada, and increasingly among its concerned allies, it’s the dismal state of the Canadian Army. But despite growing global threats and rising expectations, the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF biggest problem is not a shortage of money; in fact, as a recent Radio-Canada investigation reveals, it’s the inability to spend what it already has that’s dragging the military into deeper dysfunction.
Defence Minister Bill Blair in strong words described the CAF as being in a “death spiral” during the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence in March. It’s not hard to see why. The forces are currently short about 16,000 personnel. Critical procurement programs are behind schedule or indefinitely stalled. NATO continues to pressure Canada to meet the 2 percent of GDP defense spending target, but spending alone isn’t the cure.
From 2017 to 2026, Canada’s defense budget has surged by 70 percent, yet capability and preparedness have lagged dramatically behind.
A Procurement Machine That Moves at a Glacial Pace
Peel back the layers, and what emerges is a pattern of procurement paralysis. Programs stretch out over decades, with costs ballooning and deliverables shrinking. Frigates, submarines, and even basic tactical vehicles have all become sorry tales of bureaucratic overreach and poor execution.
The Canadian Army’s artillery acquisition is a particularly sobering example: it took two decades to acquire just over 100 artillery pieces – while Russia lost over 1,500 in just two and a half years in Ukraine!
Thus, this reflects a deeply embedded dysfunction in how Canada plans, funds, and executes its defense strategy.
Billions Left Unused, Year After Year
More funding may sound like a solution, but according to Radio-Canada, “if tomorrow morning the Canadian government were to allocate $15 billion more annually to the Department of National Defence to meet its NATO commitments, the Canadian Forces wouldn’t know what to do with it.”
Unspent defense funds have surged. Since 2018-2019, annual underspending has ballooned from $500 million to $2.5 billion by 2021-2022, roughly 9.4% of the total defense budget. Go back further, and the numbers are even more confounding: in the decade before Trudeau came to power, nearly a quarter of the Department of National Defence’s procurement budget, over $7 billion, went untouched.
The 2017 defense policy paper, “Strong, Secure, Engaged,” had promised a bold new chapter with $553 billion in additional spending over 20 years. But seven years later, many of those promises remain unfulfilled, and the gap between rhetoric and reality is only widening.
Why Can’t Canada Spend Its Defense Money?
Officially, the Department of National Defence says it adopts a “flexible funding model,” allowing for fluctuations in how projects are financed across years. But insiders paint a different picture. Chronic project mismanagement, an inability to meet timelines, and a shortfall of skilled personnel – both civilian and military – have created a toxic cycle. As a result, funds go unspent, projects go unfulfilled, and Canada falls further behind its allies in strategic readiness.
A Department Stagnant While the World Moves Forward
Between 2010 and 2023, Canada’s federal public service workforce grew by 26%, yet the Department of National Defence (DND) experienced almost no growth in staffing, only a marginal 0.2% increase. This comes despite an overwhelming surge in the scope of projects aimed at modernizing Canada’s defense capabilities, including the acquisition of planes, helicopters, tanks, and ships. As one source close to the department’s budget process bluntly stated to Radio-Canada, “We don’t lack projects or ideas for spending money; we’re just incapable of doing it.”
Procurement Problems, An Ongoing Struggle
The challenges surrounding defense procurement are not new, and they have become a point of contention across the political spectrum. Figures like federal ministers Jean-Yves Duclos and Bill Blair, opposition MPs such as James Bezan, and DND’s own annual plans all indicate the same issue – systemic inefficiencies that continue to plague the department.
Critics, including Bezan, argue that the Trudeau government’s defense policies have failed to deliver on their promises. He pointed out that the “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defense policy document, released under the Liberals’ leadership, was little more than a series of unfulfilled promises. According to Bezan, “They missed every marker set out in the original defense policy for defense spending, resulting in massive gaps in equipment and readiness. Trudeau has overspent in every department except our military, yet his government promised to cut almost $1 billion annually from the defense budget and allowed over $10 billion more to lapse over eight years.”
The Cost of Delays, A Decade of Inaction
Perhaps the most glaring example of the DND’s failure to meet its own deadlines is the delayed replacement of the Royal Navy’s destroyers and frigates. Announced in 2011 by the Harper government, this project was supposed to deliver 15 new combat ships, but thirteen years later, not a single ship has been built. Instead, Defense Minister Bill Blair’s recent visit to the Irving shipyard in Halifax to mark the “first steel cut” felt like a long-forgotten milestone. What was originally slated to cost $26 billion is now projected to run up a staggering $60 billion. And the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, has estimated that the final price could balloon to over $80 billion, approximately $5.3 billion per ship.
Despite these massive cost overruns, the Trudeau government insisted that efforts to improve defense procurement were underway. In his speech at CANSEC 2024, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Jean-Yves Duclos stressed the government’s commitment to reforming the system. “Defense procurement can be a long and arduous process. We are undertaking a review of defense procurement to determine how we can accelerate the process. To achieve this transformation, we will need to challenge the status quo,” Duclos said.
The Army’s Struggles. Recruitment and Readiness
Meanwhile, the Canadian Army faces an array of challenges that further undermine its operational readiness. With a shortfall of over 16,000 personnel, compounded by poor living conditions and outdated recruitment efforts, the Army is struggling to maintain its strength. Its equipment gaps, including inadequate air defense systems and artillery, prevent Canada from integrating effectively with NATO allies or responding to emerging global threats.
Moreover, deficiencies in training and subpar infrastructure have compounded these challenges, damaging both morale and operational capacity. The need for systemic reform and significant political will has never been more urgent.
The Canadian Army is struggling with a series of interconnected crises that threaten its ability to recruit, retain, equip, and train personnel capable of addressing the evolving nature of warfare in the 2020s.
These challenges go beyond logistical and administrative inefficiencies; they strike at the very heart of the Army’s operational capacity, endangering Canada’s ability to defend itself and to contribute effectively to collective security alongside its allies.
Retention is a growing issue that adds to the problem. Many soldiers leave the service due to poor living conditions, limited opportunities for career progression, and the constant stress that comes with burnout. Housing shortages at major military bases, such as Petawawa and Edmonton, add to the financial strain felt by service members and their families.
For example, soldiers stationed at Petawawa report having to contend with rising local rent prices, forcing some to commute long distances or accept substandard on-base housing. These challenges not only contribute to high attrition but also damage morale, leaving the remaining personnel overburdened and demoralized.
Cultural and Societal Shifts Impacting Recruitment
Beyond these logistical challenges, changing societal attitudes towards military service present a growing hurdle. The military is increasingly viewed as out of touch by younger generations, and concerns over instability and insufficient support for veterans deter many from considering a career in the Armed Forces. Canada’s current recruitment strategies are struggling to connect with the aspirations of today’s youth, who often perceive military service as disconnected from their career goals.
In contrast to countries like the United States and Australia, which have built successful recruitment campaigns that illustrate military service as a path to career development—particularly in fields like science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)—Canada’s messaging lacks a clear, compelling narrative.
The country’s defense forces fail to promote their role in shaping national security and contributing to global peace in a way that resonates with modern priorities. If Canada hopes to reverse the decline in recruitment, it must reconsider its approach and craft a message that aligns more closely with the interests and values of younger Canadians.
Deficiencies in Equipment and Training
The Canadian Army’s challenges extend far beyond recruitment and retention issues only, encompassing critical deficiencies in equipment and training that render it increasingly ill-prepared for modern warfare. The military’s procurement system, burdened by persistent delays and budget overruns, has struggled to provide the tools required to meet evolving threats.
While Canada has made some upgrades to its fleet of Light Armoured Vehicles, these vehicles remain inadequate against adversaries armed with sophisticated technologies like drones and precision-guided munitions.
The Army’s arsenal also lacks crucial systems such as long-range artillery, advanced air defense systems, and unmanned aerial systems. These gaps are particularly concerning given the rapid pace of technological advancements in warfare. NATO allies, including Poland, have made substantial investments in modernizing their forces, including acquiring HIMARS artillery systems. Canada’s delays in procuring similar equipment underscore a dangerous complacency and a failure to keep pace with the threats of the 21st century.
During recent NATO exercises, Canadian forces struggled to integrate with allies equipped with advanced electronic warfare and drone systems, showing the operational risks posed by these technological shortcomings. While Canada’s contributions to NATO operations, such as the deployment of 800 troops to Latvia, are symbolically important, they lack the scale and sophistication needed to present a credible deterrent to Russian aggression. In contrast, Germany’s expanded deployment to Lithuania, which included cutting-edge combat vehicles and integrated air defense systems, illustrates the kind of technological commitment that Canada must strive to match.
The Unmet Promises of ‘Strong, Secure, Engaged’
The Liberal government’s defense policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, was hailed as a transformative strategy that promised significant investments in defense. However, many of its key commitments remain unrealized. For instance, the procurement of new logistics trucks, which has been a pressing need for years, has faced continued delays. As a result, Canadian soldiers are still relying on aging vehicles ill-suited for modern operations. While acquisitions like Leopard 2 tanks are steps in the right direction, they do not compensate for decades of underinvestment in the Army’s capabilities.
Training Gaps and Modern Warfare
The Army’s training infrastructure has also failed to adapt to the rapidly changing nature of warfare. In modern conflicts, success increasingly depends on the integration of advanced technologies such as cyber capabilities, autonomous systems, and electronic warfare. Unfortunately, Canada’s training exercises remain focused on outdated paradigms that emphasize conventional warfare rather than adaptability and technological integration.
For example, while nations like the United Kingdom and the United States have already incorporated joint multi-domain operations into their training regimens, Canada’s approach remains rooted in traditional tactics. The recent Maple Resolve training exercise, though valuable for basic readiness, revealed significant gaps in Canada’s ability to simulate electronic warfare scenarios or counter-drone operations – domains that are becoming critical in high-intensity conflicts.
Substandard Living Conditions and Infrastructure
The Army’s operational challenges are compounded by inadequate housing and infrastructure, which further hinder its readiness and morale. Many soldiers are forced to live in substandard housing or face exorbitant rental prices near bases, placing unnecessary strain on their financial and emotional well-being. The lack of adequate facilities for training and medical care only adds to these burdens, creating an environment in which morale continues to deteriorate.
This neglect is more than just an oversight – it represents a breach of the social contract between the state and the service members it asks to defend the country. For example, reports from bases like CFB Edmonton highlight deteriorating barracks, plagued by issues such as mold and insufficient heating, symbolizing the government’s disregard for the welfare of its military personnel.
A Scattershot Deployment and Strategic Incoherence
The Canadian Army’s approach to deployment exemplifies its broader strategic incoherence. The decision to stretch limited resources across numerous missions dilutes their effectiveness and places undue strain on already overstretched personnel. A prime example of this is the deployment in Latvia, where a small contingent of troops, without the necessary logistical or technological support, highlights the perils of prioritizing quantity over quality. A more focused and strategic approach, such as reinforcing the Latvia deployment or reallocating resources to Arctic security, would better align with Canada’s strategic priorities.
The Arctic is a critical domain for Canadian sovereignty and national security, yet the lack of investment in key capabilities, such as icebreakers, surveillance systems, and mobility platforms, has left Canada vulnerable. As competitors like Russia and China increasingly eye the Arctic for resource development, Canada’s absence of a robust security presence in the region puts its interests at risk. The recent announcement of Chinese interest in Arctic resource development underscores the urgency of strengthening Canada’s presence and capabilities in this domain.
Political Will. A Key Ingredient for Change
None of these reforms can succeed without strong political will. The Trudeau government demonstrated little inclination to tackle these challenges, favoring symbolic gestures over real change. The present government might provide the political leadership required to confront these issues head-on, assuming that defense becomes a core policy priority. However, even under new leadership, the path to recovery will be difficult. The depth of the systemic problems within the Army demands long-term planning, consistent investment, and a cultural shift within the military to embrace innovation and adaptability.
While recent speeches suggest the possibility of reform, action must follow words to revitalize the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and fulfill its national and international commitments. These include contributions to NATO and ensuring that Canadian forces are ready for high-intensity conflicts. The war in Ukraine has shown the need for decisive national leadership and a unified commitment to defense, qualities that have often been lacking in Canadian governance, bureaucracy, and public opinion.
The conflict in Ukraine also indicates the importance of military equipment suited to high-intensity, mobile warfare, and the need for such equipment in substantial quantities. The war of attrition is back, as evidenced by the staggering losses of Russian military equipment – nearly 9,900 pieces of military gear, including 2,400 trucks, 2,200 infantry fighting vehicles, and 1,900 tanks. Ukraine’s counteroffensive operations have also resulted in significant equipment losses. The human cost of this conflict has been staggering, with estimates of over 500,000 dead and wounded on the Ukrainian side alone.
Steve Saideman, Professor of International Affairs at Carleton University, points to one of the critical issues in this modern conflict: how can Canada prioritize quantity in an era where procurement strategies have focused on acquiring top-tier equipment capable of serving multiple roles? This shift, Saideman argues, may be incompatible with the high-intensity warfare Canada would face in a conflict with China or Russia. In his words, “I just don’t see Canada having that capacity. If we got into a serious shooting match with either China or Russia, we’d lose ships, and that would require replacement faster than the replacement ships that we’ve been doing right now.”
The Last Bit, A National Will to Adapt
For Canada to meet the challenges of the 21st century, there must be a firm national will and political conviction to adapt to these new realities. Military historian Sean Maloney asserts that this will is critical: “It is absolutely fundamental to any effort that you’re talking about. And it does not exist in this country, either at the elected political level, in the bureaucracy, or the population.” The Canadian military possesses resources, but it lacks the ability to deploy them effectively. The road to recovery will not be easy, it will require reforming processes, fostering innovation, and rebuilding national resolve.
Whether Canada can make these changes in time to meet the rapidly evolving security challenges of the 21st century remains uncertain, but the need for decisive action has never been clearer.
