October 6, 1999
To the editor:
As a public service, I have a Web page (www.urielw.com/deception.htm) that documents various clear and striking examples of deception by trusted public authorities, for example former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop.
A recent experience in Ontario, in which I saw French culture protections abused for legal advantage, led me into contact with Cité libre. Here I discovered many claims of a similar nature, to the effect that opinion leaders in Quebec are manufacturing support for separation by deceiving the Québécois.
This, I thought, would be a topic well worth adding to the Web site. How extraordinary that the breakup of a nation like Canada -- and all manner of ensuing strife, which no one can foretell -- could occur because separatist voters literally did not realize what they were voting for; because they had demonstrably erroneous notions; because these notions had been deliberately instilled in them by people they regard as their leaders!
I ended up contacting Robert Sauvé, whose recent book on this subject is reviewed in your Fall, 1999 issue. Written by an economist, the review is not a glowing one, but it is somewhat favorable and it does treat the book seriously. I was surprised, therefore, to find that Sauvé’s primary specific allegation of deception by Québécois leaders does not survive the most elementary scrutiny.
Challenging a contention he attributes to separatists, that federal taxes paid by Québécois exceed the money Quebec gets back from Ottawa, Sauvé offers an analysis showing that Ottawa’s spending in Quebec -- including salaries paid to federal civil servants, and purchases of goods and services -- exceeds taxes paid. As any economist or informed citizen might realize, this is a thoroughly irrelevant comparison.
A dollar paid in federal taxes constitutes a clear cost of one dollar. Ottawa’s “spending” of one dollar in Quebec is by no means a countervailing benefit. A $50,000 salary paid to a federal civil servant residing in Quebec, included by Sauvé in his measure of spending, is clearly not a benefit to Quebec having a $50,000 value. The person is, after all, working for the salary. Sauvé’s error is analogous to confusing revenues with profits.
One misguided book may be of no consequence, but for Cité libre to mention it as a credible contribution makes me wonder to what depths the perennial Canadian debate on this issue has fallen.
The review opens by noting: “fundamentalists of the independence movement will no doubt dismiss this book ....” This is what participants on both sides of the unity debate should do, if the object of debate is reconciliation rather than the empty joy of mutual denunciations.
Uriel Wittenberg
Toronto