Some treacheries are so large that it takes a while to take them in. Witness the “Buy America” trade deal, negotiated at Stephen Harper’s instigation between the US and all Canadian provinces – including the NDP governments of Manitoba and Nova Scotia.

Through this trade deal whatever protection was left for the Canadian and provincial governments to give preference to buying local goods and services has been put at risk in exchange for being “given a chance to bid on whatever remains of US federal and state economic stimulus projects up until February 17 (when the project awards will be complete)”, according to a news release by the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). Canada has made some bad bargains since the first of the free trade agreements, but this is probably the worst.

Angelo DiCaro of the CAW has said: “In the meantime, the deal leaves governments vulnerable to the terms and conditions of the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), which restricts public purchasing rules”.

CAW economist Jim Stanford said this means “… access to public purchasing in all provinces, and all cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Where the Buy American exemption is time-limited, Canada’s offer is mostly permanent. Our provincial and municipal procurement is worth tens of billions of dollars every year – and this is the first time these immense purchases will be subject to the provisions of international trade law”.

According to the Globe and Mail, foreign companies will now be able to compete with local companies for “ … everything from construction contracts to managing health records”.

Maude Barlow, chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, said: “… under the trade deals, provinces and territories, as well as their municipalities and Crown corporations, will be locked into a market-based approach to procurement, at the expense of social, environmental and employment-related goals”.

“Canada has committed way more and in a more permanent way than it is getting in this deal”, she said. “The sub-nation procurement market is the motherlode for corporations … and you can say bye to buy local”.

Let’s be clear about what this means. From now on your tax dollars will be spent on paying people from other countries to take jobs and the social safety net away from Canadian citizens.

Many wondered what Harper would get up to during the time government was prorogued. It looks like the answer is just about any bloody thing he wants to.

And while the Conservative government sells out the social benefits that ordinary Canadian citizens repeatedly say makes them proud of their nation, our Prime Minister assures us that it is alright to show pride for our country at the Owelympics. The man certainly deserves credit for his flare for the ironic.

The gift economy

During the Feb. 13 conversation on community well-being organised by Teresa Beers and Sandra Thomson, Hendrick deWilde observed that governments can no longer be counted on to provide for those who need a hand up, and Gabriolans are responding to that fact through what he calls “the gift economy” - meaning donations and volunteerism.

DeWilde also observed that this generosity includes trying to provide for Gabriolans who are homeless. He wondered what the community will do about the likelihood that more will come to the island as the information gets out about Gabriola’s generosity. At what point do those without homes on Gabriola stop being homeless Gabriolans?

These observations are not discrete.

There was a time when the Canadian vision of social justice was predicated on a “rights-based” society. This is the belief that all members of a society have the “right” to the necessities of life - food, shelter, and clothing - simply because they are a member of that society.

This stood in contrast to the concept of charity, in which members of society gave out of the goodness of their hearts – and of course the fatness of their wallets.

As the gap between the rich and the rest of us becomes larger and the number of fat wallets decreases, the problem with one side of the charity paradigm becomes obvious. The other side is no less problematic however, and it is this: when all are not taken care of and resources are limited, how do we decide who is “worthy” of our care?

It is the impossibility of this choice that has confirmed the economic position of many a “bleeding heart socialist” – and led to Medicare. Of course those with no qualms about their moral superiority are not averse to deciding who is deserving and who is not. Those with empathy but less confidence in their moral objectivity will usually prefer that all are cared for.

In a world in which governments everywhere are abandoning responsibility for the well-being of ordinary citizens, the conundrum falls into the lap of caring Gabriolans: how far does our responsibility for the well-being of all extend? And who decides?