The
idea of joining the Turks and Caicos to Canada is a kind of chronic condition,
and it's back. In 1917, Robert Borden, the Prime Minister, thought of this when
passing by those Caribbean islands -- the same productive year in which he brought
in our income tax (which persisted) and conscription (which didn't).
At
present, the chief advocate of this idea is Peter Goldring, MP for Edmonton Centre-East.
He suggests these semi-desert islands should become our 11th province.
Their
distance from Canada is not a grave objection; think how far states of Hawaii
and Alaska are from the rest of the U.S., and the French departments of Martinique
and Guadeloupe from France.
The
better objection is that this is too modest a proposal. The Turks and Caicos,
at about 500 square kilometres, are far smaller than Prince Edward Island, and
the population, about 23,000, is less than Nunavut's.
Haiti,
on the other hand, could become a magnificent Canadian province in the West Indies,
with its seven or eight million people and 27,750 sq. km. In the 18th century,
it was the richest part of the West Indies. When Napoleon failed to reconquer
rebellious Haiti, he gave up also on the Louisiana territory, a vast chunk of
mainland North America, which at the time seemed a mere appendage to Haiti.
To
many, the warm climate would be an attraction, though I don't understand why Canadians
want to get away from our winter; it's like drinking non-alcoholic whisky, or
eating sole because it doesn't taste like fish.
By
contrast, a real benefit would be the addition of a large new francophone province
to reinforce the bilingual and bicultural character of Canada, now threatened
by Quebec's low birth rate. Quebec would no longer be able to exploit its unique
position as the only province with a large French-speaking majority.
As
for Haiti itself, think what Canadian dullness could do for this poor and unhappy
state, with our ever-simmering, mostly non-violent bickering!
Without
the inspiring, terrifying Haitian slave revolt of 1791-1803 against the French,
the British Empire would have been much slower in abolish slavery. The Haitian
revolution was a world-historical event.
Slave
revolts are rarely successful. Great and relentless violence is needed for previously
unarmed men who have not been allowed to organize themselves, if they are to prevail
against well-dug-in authorities. The Haitian revolution was victorious only after
a devastating struggle, under ruthless tyrannical leadership. The land and the
economy have never quite recovered. Tyrants of lesser mettle have succeeded the
heroes of 200 years ago, and a constitutional order has never settled in.
For
Haiti, Canadian-style corruption would be progress. Advertising agencies that
don't do real work for the money they get from the government would be an advance
over armed gangs in recurrent rebellion. Regional economic development programs
doubtless distort Atlantic Canadian economics, but for Haiti, they would provide
a decent infrastructure. There could be a Haitian Canada Opportunities Agency
(HCOA). And a measured degree of political patronage would nourish more or less
law-abiding political parties.
Haiti
has a longstanding connection with Canada through French-speaking Roman Catholic
missionaries. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the former president, is a former priest
who spent a few years in Montreal with the Salesian order he belonged to. As he
got too political, there was an attempt to ship him back here.
In
times of political turmoil, some Haitian immigrants to Canada -- chiefly in Montreal,
where there are 70,000 people in the Haitian community -- have returned to their
native country. In 1994, Charles David, a reporter at La Presse for a quarter-century,
took a leave of absence to become Haiti's foreign minister, when Emile Jonassaint
was president. La Presse announced that David would not return to the international
affairs beat when or if he came back. Meanwhile, Jonassaint's son Jean-Marcel,
a CEGEP teacher, went back after 23 years in Canada to become his father's private
secretary.
Similarly
last month, Paul Arcelin, a former professor at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal,
declared himself to be the political lieutenant to Guy Philippe, leader of the
rebellion against Aristide.
"I
love Canada," Arcelin told Sue Montgomery of the Montreal Gazette. "But it's such
an organized country compared to Haiti, and I feel I owe my life to the poor and
needy of my country."
Why
not have it both ways? Why not combine Canadian organization with Haitian neediness?
Political heroes, villains and meddlers alike could move back and forth easily
under the mobility rights section of the Canadian Constitution.
I
admit one possible drawback. Haiti would further complicate Canada's linguistic
life, because it is not exactly a francophone country. Though Haitians are educated
in French, the spoken language is Creole, until recently rarely written down.
It is derived to a large extent from French, but a distinct language. So we would
be adding one bilingual country to another.
