Harper’s death stare all about connecting

Stephen Harper was looking at you last night.

The Conservative leader stared straight into the camera – and into your eyes – as he largely ignored his political rivals and spoke directly to voters during both installments of the televised debates.

Call it effective. Call it creepy. Call it a steady gaze. Call it a death stare.

Call it whatever you want, but the man who wants to return as prime minister was clearly coached to stay above the fray as he listed his economic achievements, shrugged off a contempt finding and urged voters to grant him a majority government.

The Conservative national campaign chairman hinted at this strategy before the debates, telling the Star the party viewed the events as an opportunity to address voters directly.

“A debate is not about what one candidate says to another,” said Guy Giorno. “A debate is about what you say to people who are watching.”

That should have been a clue, but while it was expected that Harper would try to avoid any passionate one-on-one sparring, it surprised many observers that the advice to speak directly to Canadians was meant to be taken so literally.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe obviously noticed, and dared Harper to do things differently for the Frenchlanguage debate Wednesday night.

“I hope you will have the decency to look me in the eye when you respond to me,” said a post on the Twitter account for Duceppe ahead of the debate, although Harper did not change a thing.

Josh Greenberg, an associate communications professor at Carleton University, found the technique effective.

“Knowing he’d face three skilled debaters looking to knock him off balance, ‘Angry Steve’ didn’t come out to play -instead, we saw a PM who remained calm and composed, who never got rattled, never broke a sweat and whose tone of voice remained even throughout the debate,” Greenberg wrote in a blog post Wednesday morning, recapping the language debate . “Harper knew precisely where his camera was located and effectively spoke to it, and thus directly to
Canadians watching at home.”

Elly Alboim, an associate professor of journalism at Carleton University and former parliamentary bureau chief for CBC-TV, said establishing eye contact with the audience shows concern, but avoiding eye contact with the others in the conversation can be tricky.
“It’s a delicate balance,” Alboim said. “Looking exclusively at the camera and not at the people you are debating … creates a kind of weird tension between the two potential audiences and what seems to be appropriate behaviour.”

Alboim said Harper probably achieved what he wanted.

“I think it’s effective,” Alboim said. “I think an audience tends not to notice these things on a technical level, but they certainly have a different reaction to someone appearing to speak to the directly and watching two people talk in conversation.”

Communications consultant Barry McLoughlin said he would normally advise clients to begin by addressing the questioner and then turn to the camera, but he thought the camera-only method served Harper well on Wednesday.

“It kept him focused and kept him in the tone of voice that he wanted to adopt – a balanced and a calm tone of voice.”

Frances Woolley

Financial literacy: Test your knowledge

The Globe and Mail
Monday, December 20, 2010

In the late 1960s, Jeff and Ann signed a 25-year fixed-rate mortgage. It was a huge gamble. The interest rate they agreed to pay for the next quarter century, 8 per cent, was high by 1950s or 1960s standards. Just over ten years later, interest rates had doubled, and they knew they had done the right thing.

Others, who signed mortgages in the late 1970s at 10 per cent, and renewed those five years later at punishing terms,
did not fare so well.

The Bank of Canada knows how low interest rates are by historical standards. This is the Bank’s polite way of saying “you’ll be in serious trouble if interest rates rise”:
The proportion of households with stretched financial positions that leave them vulnerable to an adverse shock has grown significantly in recent years, as the growth rate of debt has outpaced that of disposable income.

But what are people supposed to do? Incomes are stagnant, house prices are high. People take on debt to provide homes and an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families. This is the Bank’s polite way of saying “you’re
on your own”:

When taking on debt, households bear ultimate responsibility for ensuring that they will be able to service that debt in the future.

Responsibility is a good idea in principle. Yet good choices require good information, and what will happen to interest rates over the next 25 years is anyone’s guess. Moreover, people’s numerical abilities are often weak, so they do not know
just how vulnerable they are.

If you’ve chosen to read this column instead of watching funny animal videos on youtube, you’re probably more financially literate than the average Canadian. Click on the attached test to see how well you can predict the impact of interest rate
changes.

I determined my calculations using CMHC’s on-line mortgage payment calculator. If you answer all three questions correctly: congratulations. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you how much smarter you are than the average Canadian, because I do not know of any financial literacy test that asks these kinds of questions.

Follow Economy Lab on twitter @Economy_Lab

Previous articles by Frances Woolley:

• How to make an informed choice for charity
  
• Battle of the Blades bias: Why we should care
• The ‘hottie’ factor: Why some profs out-earn others
• Credit card minimums: Why you can’t resist
• Closing the aboriginal achievement gap at B.C.’s schools
• Missing women in China – and Canada too?
• The value of working for free

Publication: Globe and Mail
Date: Tuesday December 21st, 2010
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/what-does-the-future-hold-for-canadas-first-nations/
article1845642/?cmpid=rss1

We asked, you voted: What are the next eight discussions Canada needs to have?
We had a live discussion Tuesday at 12 p.m. ET on one of your top choices: The future of First Nations.
What can be done to improve the academic performance of First Nation children who attend school on reserve? What kind of innovations need to happen in local governance? What are some of the biggest challenges still faced by First Nations
in Canada, and what can the government do about it?

Tom Flanagan and Frances Abele took your questions.

Dr. Flanagan is the former Director of Research for the Reform Party of Canada, former Chief of Staff in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, and the former Manager of the National Campaign of the Conservative Party of Canada. His scholarly work has focused on First Nations and Metis rights in Western Canada. He has written several books on the subject.

Dr. Abele was Deputy Director of Research for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and has conducted research on Canada-Indigenous relations for three decades. She has worked with a range of Indigenous organizations and communities, including work on the Indian Act for the National Centre on First Nations governance. She is currently a Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University.

Natalie Stechyson: Welcome to today’s live chat on the future of First Nations- the sixth topic in an eight-part series on the next discussions you think Canada needs to have. I’m Natalie Stechyson – one of The Globe’s online editors. I’ll be hosting today’s chat with Tom Flanagan and Frances Abele. We’ll be getting under way momentarily.In the meantime, please start submitting your questions.

Frances Abele: Hello.

Natalie Stechyson: Thanks for joining us, Dr. Abele.

Natalie Stechyson: Before we get started, I’d like to add that the AFN was unable to join us today, but we will be coordinating another live discussion with Shawn Atleo for some time in the new year.

Tom Flanagan: Hi everyone. I’m online now.

Natalie Stechyson: Thanks for joining. Let’s get started. Why are reserves important to First Nations?

Tom Flanagan: Reserves are lands they can call their own. But ironically First Nations, for the most part, don’t own these lands; they are held by the federal Crown for the use and benefit of the First Nations. My recent book, BEYOND THE ACT,
proposes a method for allowing those First Nations who wish to own their reserves to do so.

Frances Abele: The reserves are, first of all, home. Though life on reserves has suffered from heavy administration and from the small size, economic problems, and so on … they remain home base. Their role for the whole nation is thus very
important.

Natalie Stechyson: We have a number of reader comments now.

Comment From Terry: There seems to be a wide spread in how well various first nations bands are doing in terms of development. what are the factors influencing which do well and which continue to suffer?

Frances Abele: The strength of First Nations governing institutions isvery important, and social capital

Tom Flanagan: All bands are labouring under a very unfavourable proprty rights regime. In this difficult environment, the ones that do better are usually those with vigorous, enlightened leadership. I would hope we could improve the legal
environment so ordinary people could succeed, not just outstanding leaders.

Frances Abele: There are also differences in economic circumstances –location, resources available, for example. The diversity ofcircumstances makes generatlization difficult.

Comment From Ron: It seems property rights and rule of law are two major ways to solve many problems natives face today. Who has been a bigger obstacle to such reform: the federal government, or Aboriginal leaders/communities?

Frances Abele: There is a substantial grass roots movement under way for the development of good governance on reserves. Federal responses must be keyed to these grassroots changes.

Tom Flanagan: Good, question, Ron. Probably everyone has been at fault in the past. I think the way forward is to create voluntary options, so that First Nations can progress at their own rate.

Frances Abele: The National Centre on First Nations governance (with a great website) is full of useful information and ideas on this question

Comment From Cynthia Robertson: The Indian Act has been seen as one of the most significant impediments to development in FN communities, how significant is the resistance to the potential for repealing this Act?

Frances Abele: The resistance by First Nations to repeal of the Act comes from a realistic fear that changes initiated “from above” may cause them to lose, not gain, more control. Land rights are incredibly important.

Tom Flanagan: I don’t think it’s realistic to talk about repealing the entire Indian Act. There’s not enough agreement among First Nations themselves about what should replace it. I would advocate supplementary legislation to create new voluntary
alternatives, as we’ve been doing for the last two decades, e.g., allowing bands to levy propoerty taxes on leaseholds.

Comment From Ross: Initiatives such as the use of leasing, the First Nations Land Management Act and variations on fee simple ownership are all well and good, but it’s usually the First Nations south of 50, close to markets that have the incentive
to participate, and do so. What can the other, often remote, 80% of First Nations do to generate economic development in the absence of resource projects in their backyard?

Tom Flanagan: Ross, I wish I had a good answer for you. The situation of many of these bands is heartbreaking. Some can take advantage of local resource developments, as is happening in northern Alberta. The much-maligned tar sands
are perhaps the biggest employer of native people in the country, and Fran Abele had something to do with that. But that doesn’t help reserves where nothing at all is happening in the neighborhood.

Frances Abele: I agree with you about the difficulty, and the importance of recognizing the distinct circumstances of northern reserves. There is no simple answer, particularly since many northern areas have a general problem with
development –given the structure of the Canadian economy.

Comment From Devin B.: With significant investments in the renewable energy sector in jurisdictions such as Ontario, do you believe there will be significant opportunities for Aboriginal participation? Do you foresee problems arising from the
constitutional duty to consult when developers propose to build renewable energy projects on First Nation lands?

Frances Abele: I think part of the answer for the northern reserves lies in their finding ways to work together, across sometimes considerable distances, to develop economic strategies. This in turn usually involves long-term funding for the
process, and supportive programming.

Frances Abele: I see the duty to consult as an opportunity. Canada as a whole needs better development planning practices, and especially, better capacity for long-term thinking.

Tom Flanagan: Regarding renewable energy, it depends a lot on which form you’re talking about. If it’s wind or solar, the First Nation could lease land for a site, but I don’t see what else they would do. If it’s run of river or biomass, the local people
could be more deeply involved in building and maintaining the facilities.

Comment From Alex Williams: To what degree do you think the knowledge of history is important in moving forward? It seems the lack of knowledge of non-native people in this country about the real-life mechanisms of colonization (including
the damaging history of much of the residential school experience, but beyond it as well) represents a huge hole in our teaching of history. Knowledge of this history – which has for so long been the burden of Aboriginal peoples themselves, must
be shared to the non-native population through education. We cannot not know our history if we are to propose any future direction. The history of disingenuous negotiation of treaty (or lack thereof), the Indian Act and its numerous incarnations,
the pass system (in which for at least 56 years First Nations peoples in the prairie provinces, people couldn’t leave reserve without a pass), the permit system (control of First Nations agriculture and forestry), legal controls such as from 1927-1951

they couldn’t hire a lawyer, to name some of the more egregious examples, need to be known and understood before we can call this history all of ours, and move forward together to see the structural and emotio

Tom Flanagan: Alex, I agree totally with you about the importance of studying aboriginal history, though students of the subject will inevitably come to
differing conclusions, and that’s beneficial in an open democracy. But whatever the history is, we have to move forward as best we can. As President Kennedy said, “We will be just in our time.”

Frances Abele: Thanks for this comment, Alex. I think the history of relations between Indigenous peoples and the newercomers is fundamental to understanding where we are today. That said, it is a history that has to be taught without a huge
dollop of collective guilt –responsibility to improve matters is another matter. I have noticed how discussions improve when facts are shared. While Tom is right that “interpretations” may vary, there is a good deal of our shared history that is welldocumented and can be known by all.

Natalie Stechyson: We’ve had a few questions on this topic, and there’s been a lot in the news lately about education and First Nations. What can be done to improve the academic performance of First Nation children who attend school on reserve?

Frances Abele: This is another one of those questions that is hard to answer generally. There are important initiatives in some places that show the value of parental engagement in the school (Alkali Lake in BC is one example). Improved access
to post-secondary support is another, particularly support that takes into account that many new students will be older and have families. Another aspect of this is the part that universities and colleges play in reaching out to ABoriginal students.
Tom Flanagan: Many reformers are suggesting that most reserve schools are too small and isolated, and that it would be better to create First Nations school boards for larger areas. Something like that is being tried in BC, though implementation
has been slow. I hope this will help, though I don’t know if it deals with the underlying cultural issue. Many, many reserve teachers report a lack of support from families and communities. No structural changes will succeed if families don’t support
the effort.

Tom Flanagan: Fran makes an important point about the danger of generalizing. Many, many First Nations parents do care deeply about education. But under current circumstances they often send their children to school off reserve.

Comment From Guest: How can we balance economic development of First Nations people with cultural preservation?

Frances Abele: This is a matter that all First Nations communities are addressing, and to my knowledge, it has not been a huge problem. Their goal is usually cultural continuity, not preservation, and healthy societies now. Much like the rest of
the country! Do you have something specific in mind?

Tom Flanagan: Guest, your question about economic development and cultural preservation is a very fundamental one. Personally, I think that First Nations that succeed in developing the economic potential of their lands will have more money
to spend on things like language preservation.

Comment From Guest: Nothing specific. Thank you for your answers.

Tom Flanagan: Good point, Fran, about continuity rather than preservation. First Nations are not museum pieces. Their culture is what they do. The earth belongs to the living, as Jefferson said.

Frances Abele: Thanks, Guest. There might be a difference between how Tom and I see this matter. Cultural continuity to me means that people have the opportunity to build their future on the foundations oftheir original culture.

Comment From Shawn: What do you see as an advantage and disadvantage to keep the Indian Act for the First Nations of Canada?

Frances Abele: I don’t see any advantages to the Indian Act. To me, the issue is how to move away from it in away that maximizes First Nations’ discretion and nation-building.

Tom Flanagan: Shawn, we absolutely have to have something like an Indian Act. The constitution makes First Nations islands of federal jurisdiction within the provinces. There have to be ground rules. If we repeal the Indian Act, we have to immediately pass a replacement. There are many ways to improve the Indian Act, but I think it’s a fantasy to try to simply abolish it.

Frances Abele: Tom, what do you mean by “islands of federal jurisdiction”? The RCAP envisioned a process of mutual recognition, entrenched, that would replace the Act.

Tom Flanagan: Agreeing to a degree with Fran, I think we can amend and supplement the Indian Act so as to increase First Nations’ self-determination. But we would still need legal prescription of federal responsibilities. By “islands of federal jurisdiction,” I was referring s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which gives Parliament jurisdiction over “Indians, and the lands reserved for the Indians.”

Comment From Guest 2: further to the question re: Aboriginal history, how can political will be created to be pro-active in addressing fundamental issues of racism and assimilation in Canada?

Frances Abele: I see. But for an example of how it could be done differently, you can look at the so-called “modern treaties” as an example. These become the fundamental legal document entrenching the relationship between the Indigenous signatories and the Crown. No Indian Act or replacement.

Frances Abele: Hello Guest 2. Sorry my reply just crossed your comment. I think open conversation, discussion in public, and lots of interpersonal contact is a big part of the answer.

Tom Flanagan: In response to Guest 2, I think racism hardly exists in contemporary Canada. I see the issue as allowing and perhaps helping First Nations to get beyond the dependency created by past policies.

Comment From Ted Winters: I do not believe there should be any treaties or Federal agreements. How are treaties or hand holding helpful to First Nations people?

Frances Abele: Ted, can you explain why you think negotiating a treaty is hand-holding?

Tom Flanagan: Ted, if we could start over, I might agree with you. But we’ve been negotiating treaties for 200 hundred years, and we entrenched them in the constitution in 1982. We have to make the best of the path our own governments
have chosen.

Comment From Alex Williams: Tom can you clarify how would you start over?

Tom Flanagan: Alex, I don’t think we can start over. My comment was meant to be counterfactual.

Frances Abele: Treaties establish an agreement between the original sovereign powers in North America and the Crown of the newcomers. They create a framework for peaceful co-existence –just as the Constitution Act 1982 does. I prefer to
live in a country that respects treaties (and contracts, for that matter).

Comment From Brett: I used to live very near the border of a first nations community in North Western Ontario and the reserve compared to the adjacent city was very impoverished. From watching the news releases about spendings and
governance of this reserve it seems from point of view (outside looking in) that it is bad governing in this reserve that is causing this to happen. Do you think there is a better way to give funds to reserves to help them help themselves? Should
we put a foot in and help the management of this funds they get to help rid this? Or is this a live and let live situation?

Tom Flanagan: Brett, I think the federal government can do a few things that would be beneficial. One would be an openness requirement for the FN government to publish its accounts, including remuneration of leaders. Another would be allowing the FN to own its land, and to make its own decisions about development. If the band is near a city, there must be some revenue potential there

Frances Abele: Thanks for this comment, Brett. The Indian Act is the root of many problems in reserve governance, for three reasons at least. (1) it concentrates economic and political power in the hands of a few leaders (2) lines of responsibility
tend to run out –to the DIAND and the Minister of Indian Affairs, by law and in practice, and (3) for many years, by law again, all Bands had to have elections every two years. These provisions have created a horrible and undemocratic base
on many reserves, from which people are trying to work their way out. There are now ways to opt our of the worse of these arrangements, and there is also the grassroots process that I mentioned earlier. This will happen one First Nation community at a time, but there is considerable sharing of experience now too.

Tom Flanagan: Yes, current opt-outs are already significant (e.g., First Nations Land Management Act), and I believe we can make them even better.

Frances Abele: I should add that in fact, the federal department of Indian Affairs audits First Nations governments and is empowered to “step in” when this is indicated.

Comment From Peter: The focus on treaties does little to enhance First Nations economic development activity. Allowing First Nations the freedom to negotiate with governments either at the Provincial or Municipal level to pursue business
opportunities may be a better approach. Federal government does little to help the First Nations in this regard.

Tom Flanagan: I agree with you, Peter. That’s why I think in the long run it will be better for FNs to own their lands and negotiate their own economic deals with their neighbours.

Frances Abele: Peter, it is open to First Nations, or their development corporations, to negoatiate with any parties they wish to, now. This occurs within the framework of the treaty relationship.

Comment From Peter: Successful governance means having a strong administration at the band level. Politicians need to set direction and allow their staff to administer programs and policies. Too often politicians try to be administrators to the detriment of their First Nation.

Frances Abele: I agree! And the separation of economic and political institutions is important as well.

Tom Flanagan: Very true, Peter. The Harvard Project in the United States has had a lot of useful things to say about how to depoliticize band governance. I think Fran and I are on the same wave length here.

Natalie Stechyson: We’re about to run out of time. Dr. Flanagan, Dr. Abele – any final thoughts?

Frances Abele: I would like to thank the people who took the time to write in. It was an excellent conversation.

Tom Flanagan: I’m actually quite optimistic. I think a lot of First Nations are making good progress. But it’s a long process.

Natalie Stechyson: Thank you for joining us today on globeandmail.com. That’s all the time we have. Thank you to our guests, Dr. Tom Flanagan and Dr. Frances Abele. And thanks to everyone for contributing their comments and questions.

Please join us tomorrow at noon EST for the next discussion in our series: electoral reform.

Summary
Dropping eco fees may be the best way for the Ontario government to cut its losses on the confusing, unpopular policy, but its effects will be felt for the next three months at least.

Even though stores are no longer charging the fee, Environment Minister John Gerretsen said the government will still pay $5 million to keep the program going.

“For the next 90 days, the government will absorb — through our general taxes — the cost of running the program,” he said.

Beyond that, Gerretsen said, “it remains to be seen” how the program will be funded.
Jonathan Malloy, an associate professor of political science at Carleton University, said the effect of the eco fees could linger when voters go to the polls next year. “Any time you bring in an unpopular policy and then you get rid of it you get hit both ways, one for coming up with a bad idea, then you may look weak for backing down,” he said.

TORONTO – Canada’s global reputation as a peaceful, orderly and clean country could take a hit as images of burnedout cruisers, smashed windows and clashes with cops are beamed around the world.

As blaring headlines and television images captured the nastiest confrontations outside the gates of the G20 summit, NDP MP Paul Dewar said the violence will sideline Harper’s pricey plan to showcase Canada as a nation rich in natural beauty and serenity.

“The images are not the ones that Harper was looking for,” he told QMI Agency, adding Canadians will be asking tough questions about the value and results for event’s $1-billion-plus price tag.

But Fen Hampson, director of the Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said mass mobilization of anti-globalization protesters has become par for the course for international gatherings of wealthy world leaders. He doesn’t think it necessarily reflects poorly on the host country.

“Everyone expects it. It has become the rite of summitry and the real question becomes how well we handle it,” he told QMI.

A “travelling road show” of anarchists should not detract from the value of the meetings, which provide an important and useful forum for leaders to hammer out solutions to pressing problems behind closed doors.

Alan Alexandroff, co-director of the G20 research group at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs, said the media attention to the violent demonstrations can distract the public from the substance of the meetings.

But he said holding the summit at a remote location is the only alternative, as there is great value in powerful leaders talking “frankly and openly” in an informal setting.

Peter Andree is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science

The Canadian government will stand out positively as the summits’ host on financial issues, but our policies are not in
tune with the 21st century on other issues, such as climate change and maternal and child health, said Carleton University
Peter Andrée, an expert on Canadian environmental policies.
“We are starting to be perceived as a backward country, a country that is putting its heels on the ground based on old values, and I think in some ways we are being left behind,” he said, referring to the lack of proper green energy policies and the ongoing abortion debate.

Read more:http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/19052010/20/turkey-s-work-iran-nuclear-deal-shows-emerging-diplomatic-power.html

Excerpt:

Jonathan Malloy is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science

«Les deux mouvements sont à la fois semblables et distincts», précise aujourd’hui Jonathan Malloy, professeur de sciences politiques à l’Université Carleton et spécialiste de l’imbrication entre politique et religion. «La différence, c’est que les néo-cons veulent un État le plus effacé possible alors que les théo-cons croient que l’État a un rôle à jouer dans la
construction de certaines institutions sociales, comme la famille, la religion, etc. Leur principale priorité n’est pas tellement
économique que sociale.»

Read more: http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/289515/courtiser-la-quatrieme-soeur

Excerpt:
“Everything … suggests that Europeans, France especially, are still interested in a tax and this is the biggest division
right now between Europe and ourselves,” said Fen Hampson, professor of international affairs at Carleton University. “The
debate continues and G20 is not in agreement.”

Panagiotis Tsiriotakis landed in Canada seven years ago from the sun-drenched, hilly isle of Crete, with no more than $200 and two drums of olive oil produced from his family’s groves.

He figured he would try to bottle the oil and sell it. His village in the Kolymvari Chania region is, after all, home to the oldest olive tree in the world, estimated to be more than 3,500 years of age. The olive oil, he says, is the “best in the world,” with its greenish hue and “kiss of fragrant Mediterranean air.”

Problem was, no one would give him a start-up loan.

“The banks didn’t want to see me. They all turned their backs,” Mr. Tsiriotakis said. “When you have zero, no one wants to help you. After, when you start making money, the doors open – but by then you don’t need them. Because I didn’t have a credit history, it made everything complicated.”

Then he heard about microfinance, a concept more commonly associated with the developing world. The aim is to provide credit and other financial services to low-income clients who lack access. It now reaches 175 million of the world’s poorest families in countries from India to Peru, many of whom start small businesses ranging from selling mangoes to providing cellphone services.

A local credit union in Toronto was offering small loans to people with low credit scores or no credit history, provided they formulate a business plan. Mr. Tsiriotakis applied, and got $5,000, which he used to buy bottles and pay shipping costs for more barrels of oil.

He worked out of his living room and used his Toyota Tercel as a delivery truck. Gourmet and health food stores became regular buyers. He paid back the loan, and got a succession of other loans from the credit union to expand.

Acropolis Organics now distributes almost half a million dollars worth of olive oil and balsamic vinegar a year into U.S. and Canadian markets. Mr. Tsiriotakis, 35, says he’s doing “very well,” acquiring a fleet of vehicles and holidaying in places like Brazil. He’s also a taxpayer who now employs two full-time and six part-time workers.

It’s a success story being played out across Canada as credit unions and community groups bridge the gap for entrepreneurial newcomers who can’t get a break elsewhere, pairing small loans with financial literacy and business planning help. Credit unions say it’s not just about corporate responsibility; they believe the practice makes business sense by creating loyal long-term customers who frequently move up the income ladder.

“Too often, microfinance gets treated as if it’s a charitable donation. It is not – it creates real benefits,” said John Lahey, president and chief executive of Alterna Savings, which gave Mr. Tsiriotakis his start.

Alterna has offered microcredit to about 340 business owners over the past decade. It has provided about $1.5-million in loans to people who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for traditional credit. The repayment rate isn’t as high as it is with traditional loans such as mortgages, but it still exceeds 90 per cent. And the credit union estimates the program has brought more than $1-million worth of additional business in products such as mortgages.

Mr. Lahey, himself a banker who spent 25 years at CIBC before joining Alterna, has become a microfinance champion. He wants to see it become a national initiative, offered by banks and credit unions across the country. He also wants the federal government to assist, through subsidies or by helping financial institutions allocate more resources to the program.

“It’s good public policy. It helps create jobs and get people off social assistance,” he said.

Alterna’s microcredit loans have helped start everything from staffing and job placement firms to tech support, landscaping, auto maintenance, catering and eco-fashion. A recent study by Carleton University, based on a sample of 47 Alterna loan recipients, found that a fifth moved off social assistance after receiving loans, while two-thirds saw increased incomes, and 60 per cent hired others to expand.

Canada’s big banks have so far been reluctant to move into the sector, although Royal Bank of Canada plans to try it out in Toronto. Bank of Nova Scotia, with one of the largest market shares for smaller Canadian businesses, runs microfinance programs through its Latin American subsidiaries, but none in Canada.

Edward Jackson, associate dean of research in Carleton’s faculty of public affairs, says his research has uncovered business opportunities in reaching out to immigrant markets.

Microfinance gives institutions a chance to “accompany these folks along the path of economic success,” he said. “As they move along that path … a good percentage will keep moving forward, getting better housing, for which they will need mortgages, generating more income, building their businesses, hiring individuals – and telling others about it.”

Vancouver City Savings Credit Union can testify to this. It offers loans to immigrants who lack a credit history and to lower-income residents; repayment rates exceed 96 per cent. The recession and its impact on immigrant job losses has caused applicants to spike.

A micro-loan can help “begin building a credit history and work towards economic self-sufficiency for newcomers,” said Catherine Ludgate, manager of community business banking at Vancity, who is fielding more calls from communities that want to start such programs. This month, she met with a start-up of newcomer Filipino immigrants who want to set up a lending system into their community.

Vancouver resident Nick Noorani welcomes this trend. He landed in Canada from Dubai in 1998. An unexpected layoff in 2003 put his wife and him in danger of losing their home, until Vancity stepped in with a small loan. He used the funds to start Canadian Immigrant magazine, a publication that has since been bought by Torstar. The loan let him hold on to his house, grow a business, boost his income and hire five others. “I would have closed at the second issue if it hadn’t been for that loan,” he says.

Mr. Noorani wants to see the idea grow. “Microfinance could change the lives of immigrants through this country,” he said. “We know a lot turn to self-employment because they have a hard time getting jobs, and this could be the perfect fit for them to start small businesses. The banks should start waking up to this. And immigrants are a market everyone wants.”

Mr. Tsiriotakis, the exuberant olive oil distributor, is sticking with the same credit union that gave him his first break. “Now that I’m making money, everybody wants to be my friend,” he said. “But why should I give them my business now? I’m staying where I am.”

By David Carment, Yiagadeesen Samy

As we all know, failed and fragile states have moved to the top of the policy “leaderboard” in recent years.

A number of resource-intensive initiatives have been launched to confront the various problems these states pose, and though there are “only” 30 to 40 fragile states in the world, they do attract a fair amount—some might say a disproportionate amount—of our attention in terms of our time, energy and money.

But what exactly are the problems that make these countries uniquely fragile and so difficult to fix?

Read more ….