Canada’s military recruitment crisis has reached a critical juncture, threatening the nation’s defense capabilities and international standing.
Despite various initiatives, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) face significant challenges in attracting and retaining personnel, leading to a shortfall of over 10,000 members. This deficit not only undermines operational readiness but also raises serious questions about Canada’s ability to meet its security obligations in the North Atlantic, the Arctic, and the North Pacific.
Canada’s Military Recruitment Crisis: Can It Be Fixed Before It’s Too Late?
The contrast with the United States is striking. After years of declining recruitment numbers, the U.S. military has managed to reverse the trend. The U.S. Army recently met its 2024 recruiting goal of 55,000 soldiers and has begun rebuilding its delayed entry pool, aided in part by the Future Soldier Prep Course, which has helped bring in candidates who initially did not meet enlistment standards. While challenges remain, the United States has demonstrated a willingness to adapt, refine its strategies, and invest in recruitment in ways that Canada has simply failed to do. The U.S. military has faced its own struggles in recent years, particularly in dealing with public skepticism over institutional priorities, but it has at least taken aggressive steps to address its recruitment problems.
The contrast with the UK and Australia is similarly striking. The British military has struggled with recruitment and retention, particularly in its army, where a reliance on outsourcing has exacerbated inefficiencies. The UK government initially contracted recruitment to the private firm Capita, hoping to streamline and modernize the process, but instead, the system became plagued by delays, poor communication, and a disconnect between recruiters and the military itself.
Potential recruits often faced months-long waits for basic processing, leading to significant dropout rates. Recognizing these failures, the British Ministry of Defence has now shifted recruitment services to Serco under the newly established Armed Forces Recruitment Service (AFRS), which will manage recruitment for the Royal Navy, the British Army, the Royal Air Force, and Strategic Command. While it remains to be seen whether this change will resolve the systemic issues that have plagued British military recruitment, it at least signals an acknowledgment of the problem and an effort to correct course.
Similarly, Australia has faced challenges in meeting its recruitment goals, particularly as it attempts to expand its armed forces in response to growing regional security concerns. Both countries, however, have at least acknowledged the scale of their problems and are taking steps to address them. Canada, by contrast, remains largely adrift, lacking the urgency needed to address its recruitment and retention challenges.
The Bureaucratic Breakdown in Canada’s Military
The CAF’s recruitment problems are deeply entrenched, stemming from a combination of bureaucratic inefficiency, institutional neglect, and cultural issues that have damaged the military’s reputation. The application process itself remains a major obstacle, as long delays in security clearances and medical screenings discourage potential recruits before they ever set foot in uniform. In 2022 alone, the CAF received over 70,000 applications, yet fewer than 5,000 candidates successfully made it through the system—an abysmally low conversion rate that points to a broken process rather than a lack of interest in military service.
Bureaucratic inefficiency is nothing new in Canada’s defense sector, but in recruitment, it has reached the point where the military is functionally strangling itself. Lengthy wait times for application processing, inconsistent communication with recruits, and a slow-moving, outdated enlistment process have all contributed to a situation in which prospective candidates simply lose interest and move on to other opportunities. Many who might otherwise have pursued a military career instead opt for private-sector jobs that offer quicker hiring processes, competitive salaries, and clearer career progression.
The CAF’s failure to retain personnel has further exacerbated the problem. Many service members leave not due to a lack of patriotism or commitment, but because they are frustrated by outdated equipment, inadequate pay, and an overall sense that the federal government does not prioritize the armed forces. The slow pace of modernization has created a force that struggles to compete with civilian careers offering better compensation and working conditions, making it difficult to convince young Canadians that a military career is worth pursuing.
Cultural and Institutional Challenges
Cultural issues have also played a role in the recruitment crisis. The CAF has been plagued by reports of sexual misconduct and leadership failures, damaging trust in the institution and making service far less attractive, particularly to women and minority groups. While public trust in military institutions remains higher than in many other government bodies, the damage done by these scandals cannot be ignored.
The public response has largely focused on rebuilding the CAF’s image, but efforts to make the military more inclusive have often come at the expense of a more fundamental goal: making it an effective and appealing career choice in the first place. Rebranding alone will not solve the problem if the deeper structural issues remain unaddressed.
Moreover, the military has struggled to define its purpose in the eyes of the public. Unlike the United States, where the military is closely associated with national identity and global power projection, Canada has historically maintained a more limited view of its armed forces. The idea of the CAF as a force primarily for peacekeeping—rather than for combat operations or deterrence—has created a recruitment challenge in its own right.
While Canada’s military has played significant roles in NATO operations and in defense of the Arctic, these missions are often overshadowed by the persistent and outdated narrative that the country’s military is primarily a soft-power institution.
The United States, though it has faced similar hurdles, has been far more pragmatic in addressing them. By introducing targeted programs to help borderline recruits meet eligibility requirements, offering competitive financial incentives, and streamlining the enlistment process, the U.S. military has found ways to sustain recruitment despite widespread concerns over declining trust in institutions. Unlike Canada, where discussions about military service often seem like an afterthought in national policy debates, the United States has at least recognized the severity of its recruitment challenges and taken concrete steps to mitigate them.
The Consequences of Inaction
The consequences of Canada’s recruitment failures are already visible. Across the branches, the shortfall in personnel is affecting readiness. Ships remain docked for lack of sailors, army battalions operate below optimal strength, and the Royal Canadian Air Force struggles to retain pilots and ground crews, raising questions about Canada’s ability to meet its NORAD and NATO commitments. These are not abstract concerns—they directly impact Canada’s ability to defend its own territory and contribute meaningfully to collective defense efforts.
Even more concerning is that these recruitment failures come at a time when global security is deteriorating. Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine, China’s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific, and emerging threats in the Arctic all require a robust and capable military force. Canada cannot simply rely on the United States to shoulder the burden of defense while failing to maintain its own readiness. If Canada’s military continues to shrink, the country’s voice in international security affairs will shrink along with it.
Pte Allen Jewell 1 RCR providing forward cover with his C9 weapon and wearing a new NBCD suit after coming under a simulation chemical agent attack at CFB Petawawa training area.
A Path Forward for Canada’s Armed Forces
Fixing Canada’s military recruitment crisis requires a fundamental shift in priorities. The recruitment process must be streamlined so that those willing to serve are not discouraged by unnecessary bureaucratic delays. Pay and benefits need to be competitive enough to make military service an attractive career rather than a last resort.
The military itself must modernize, not only in terms of equipment but also in how it engages with potential recruits and promotes itself as a viable and respected institution.
Addressing these challenges requires more than just policy tweaks—it requires a recognition that Canada’s security and sovereignty depend on having a capable and well-staffed military. The government must not only provide funding but also signal a serious commitment to defense, treating the armed forces as a national priority rather than an afterthought.
The problem is not that young Canadians are uninterested in military service. It is that the system they are being asked to enter is failing them before they even get a chance to serve. Without serious reforms, the CAF risks becoming a force that exists more on paper than in reality, leaving Canada dangerously unprepared for the security challenges of the coming decades.
The United States, Britain, and Australia have all faced their own recruitment struggles, but they have at least acknowledged them and begun the work of recovery. Canada, by contrast, is floundering. If Ottawa fails to act, it will not be a question of whether Canada can contribute to its own defense, but whether it has a functional military at all.
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. Andrew is now a Contributing Editor to 19FortyFive, writing a daily column.
