Okay. Thank you for that.
My next question is for Mr. Lachaîne. I have a question about the start-up community. I take your point that there are groups of people who can't demonstrate a loss of revenue that would qualify them for the wage subsidy if they had no revenue in the first place or, in many cases, did not even exist last year. I think the new businesses that can demonstrate revenue month over month have somewhat been taken care of, but you've quite rightly pointed to some of the highest-growth-potential firms that exist in Canada.
When I've reached out to members of the start-up community, one of the points they've made to me is that not all businesses are without money right now, because they've had a pre-existing angel investor from before crisis. The VC community, however, is looking forward in the short term with a lot less confidence than it had even just a couple of months ago.
For these firms that are not without cash but are looking for their next round of funding from a pool of investors who are just not there, I'm wondering whether the better approach might not be a revenue-based wage subsidy, but some sort of a program that would provide grants to companies in the innovation space. Or perhaps they could even look at BDC, which is fairly plugged into this network, in taking equity stakes in companies, maybe not with a view to hanging onto them forever, but to demonstrate to the community of investors that, hey, BDC has confidence that the start-up community can exist.
Would a program of that nature fill the gap more effectively than a wage subsidy if it's a market-based approach that would give an opportunity for start-ups with real viability and potential for success to get access to further working capital?