The tide seems to be turning on funding for Canada’s dilapidated military. Calls for increasing the Department of National Defence (DND) budget appear to be coming from all corners.

But just how widespread and representative are these voices?

Sure, 75 per cent of Canadians in a recent poll — timed with emotionally charged Remembrance Day ceremonies — said they thought military spending should be increased. But when it comes to a simple, “yes or no” question like, “Do you think x deserves more money,” you can get 75 per cent support for anything from health care to circus performers.

A more accurate measure is how military ranks as a priority against other budget priorities, like health care, education, environment, poverty and agriculture — each of which ranked as a much higher priority amongst Canadians in a poll conducted in recent weeks by GPC Public Affairs and Communications.

The pollster noted that support for military spending had not risen since they asked Canadians about the matter six months prior. According to another pollster, Ekos president Frank Graves, increasing military spending is “not a priority for the public,” and ranks “in the lower half of priorities. ”

Last week, the Senate committee on national security and defence recommended withdrawing all Canadian troops from overseas missions, an idea even the Conference of Defence Associations characterized as “a bit wacky.”

The recommendation is widely seen as a conversation starter, to get people talking about the committee’s earlier recommendation, to increase military spending by $4 billion-dollars. Committee members balked at suggestions that this money would actually have to come from somewhere, like reducing spending on social programs, or raising taxes.

The House defence committee has been a long-time booster of increased military spending, and in May, recommended a military spending hike of roughly 40 per cent in the short-term, and a more than doubling of defence spending in the longer term.

In 1999, the Canadian Defence Industries Association published a report listing the top federal ridings in terms of revenues and employment generated from the defence industry. Of the top ten, four of the ridings were represented by Members of Parliament who sat on the committee, including the chair and the two vice-chairs. The current chair, David Pratt, hails from Nepean-Carleton, the number two riding on the list, with $462 million-dollars and 1,379 jobs generated by the defence industry.

Meanwhile, defence industry lobbyists push for increased DND budgets behind the scenes. A great number of these hired guns are former senior military staff, particularly from the Materiel branch, the major purchasing office for the military. No other sector has the insider access the defence sector has, and because of the revolving door between the department and the companies lobbying it, no other sector is in a better lobbying position.

The stakes are high. Forty per cent of federal government procurement dollars are spent on the military, and much of this is spent on big-ticket items, with big profits for an industry already marinating in government subsidies. No wonder that, out of an industry list of the thirty top defence contractors, more than two thirds are Liberal party donors. (For comparison purposes, consider that between just 1 and 2 per cent of Canadian companies overall, make contributions to political parties of any stripe.)

The revolving door works well for public lobbying too. Many of the “experts” pushing for more defence spending have benefited from Defence department funding. The Security and Defence Forum (SDF), for example, is a $2-million dollar DND program “to develop a domestic competence and national interest in defence issues of relevance to Canada’s security.” The program boasts of the media attention it gets, in part through its university “centres of excellence,” many of which produce academics that provide “independent” commentary on defence issues.

Many of those employed by these centres, such as the University of Manitoba’s James Fergusson and the University of Calgary’s David Bercuson, are frequent media boosters of increased military spending.

And then, of course, there are the Americans. From U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci to Patrick Buchanan (you remember, that commentator from Right-Wing Whackistan), calls for increasing Canada’s military budget from south of the border are clearly designed to help offset the costs of the ever-expanding U.S. War on Terrorism, or for even more mercenary motives.

Even Defence Minister John MacCallum, an advocate of increased military spending, recognized this in a recent CBC Radio interview. Commenting on Ambassador Cellucci’s efforts to get Canada to purchase new military transport planes, he said, “Part of his job is to sell the products of his country. So I think part of his motivation there is to [promote] certain U.S. large planes made by Boeing that he wants us to buy.”

Perhaps not all of those pushing for more DND money have dollar signs in their eyes, and I’m sure that most are sincere in their desire to improve the Canadian Forces. But it’d be nice to hear from more people who don’t have a stake in the outcome.