The first nations that come to our door to borrow have gone through a pretty rigorous process. Most of the first nations are pretty well organized, from a governance perspective as well as economically. They have their projects already in mind in terms of what they want to do. Our basis of operation is.... It's based on their own-source revenue. A lot of first nations generate revenue from various sources. They need to be long term in nature to support the long term.
Each revenue stream has a different leverage factor. For instance, a lot of first nations have transfer agreements with provincial revenue. In Ontario, a FIT contract with OPA would be a perfect example. The first nation would come to us with their contract. We would lever that into the market and then loan them money, up to what they can leverage. We don't want to get into a position where we have a big loan to one first nation that covers more than 20% of our loan portfolio. We manage that.
I think it's the economic opportunities that exist in the different regions: that's how the first nations actually go for this. It's challenging right now in Alberta, so a lot of them are looking at infrastructure projects. In Ontario it's energy. In Manitoba it's the same kind of thing.
In Manitoba we have an isolated first nation that has fly-in access, winter road access, six weeks of the year. They have to bring all their food, their fuel, everything in during this period. They have agreements with the provincial government that provide them annual revenues that can go on for ever and ever, different rebates on tobacco, fuel, and other things like that. This first nation is actually looking at building an all-weather road with a long-term maintenance contract with the provincial government.
It's this type of thing. The first nations are looking at what they need the most. In Saskatchewan a first nation was lacking houses. They built 71 houses last year with their own-source revenue. In Alberta the Siksika—