That's a very good question.
I think you do it in a way that recognizes that there is no perfect solution or situation. Currently, we don't have access to conventional financing through banks unless we are in a position to guarantee those loans. We need new opportunities and initiatives that take away some of the concerns and some of the risk.
Quite frankly, I struggle with this question, because I know many individuals who, all things being equal, would be approved for a mortgage if they applied for one off reserve, based on their credit strength, their credit history and their ability to repay. That same individual applying for a mortgage on reserve may not be eligible for that same mortgage because of risk, and the risk that the bank or financial institution can't come in and seize the property. Through initiatives like Yänonhchia', we're finding ways through tripartite arrangements whereby the land and the unit are still held as collateral but the relationship is between the financial institution and the individual who has the creditworthiness to be able to secure that mortgage in the first place.
It's a question of being open to taking on some risk that financial institutions won't take. That's why I'm saying the NACCA network and indigenous financial institutions play a pivotal role. They will go in and conduct business, and they will take the risk that conventional banks won't. At the end of the day, we believe in our people. Any profits that are generated through initiatives like Yänonhchia' are going to be reinvested right back into new loans and new mortgages so that more members of our community can benefit.
Yes, risk is a big issue. I'm hoping that through the work we're doing and the education of financial institutions and the government, the risk of lending for mortgages on reserve will be no greater than lending for mortgages to non-indigenous Canadians off reserve.
We deserve, and should have, the same tools and access that non-indigenous Canadians have off reserve for housing.