Certainly one of the challenges under the Indian Act, as I explained earlier, is that as a band member, you're protected under the Indian Act. Someone off-reserve, a mortgage insurer like CMHC or a lender, cannot get a judgment against you in terms of going after your income or any assets you hold on-reserve. As well, given that the land is held communally, you have no legal rights to the land. Clearly that is a challenge, and it explains why private sector financing is limited on-reserve, because everyone has to take a look at that. When you're lending off-reserve, you rely on the fact that if you fail to pay your mortgage, lenders can go to the courts and say they want a judgment against this individual, and they are responsible, and they can go after garnished wages and go after the assets.
When that's not available, you're really looking at a completely different lending structure, and that's why everyone is so keen about looking at the mechanisms without taking away from what the Indian Act is trying to accomplish. And it respects the communal nature of the land. I don't think there are many first nations out there that want to see the land given up, so if you're a member on-reserve and you default, they don't want to see that land being taken off the reserve, for obvious reasons. It is a real challenge in terms of what kinds of mechanisms you can set up to get around it. In business terms I'd call it a credit enhancer.
Some other mechanism needs to be in place. CMHC's pilot is one, which is a trust held off-reserve, but there will be others, and I think there are a lot of private sector lenders--us, the AFN, individual communities--all looking at the business arrangements they can make to respect the situation in terms of the Indian Act, but to make some changes and find a way for private capital to flow.