I repeat, it's not a subsidy that we want. We're talking about a budget envelope; that's no doubt what you mean. I suppose that the budget envelope would be comparable to that of the automotive sector.
We represent some 300 members in Quebec. The small organizations are definitely requesting a very small amount in order to refinance. It's all well and good to have invested $170 million over two years in research and marketing programs to encourage innovation, but if the businesses are unable to get through the crisis, they'll never be able to benefit from those amounts. All the government programs presuppose a contribution by the industry. You're not completely subsidizing the research institute. To conduct research, the industry has to add its share to those of the governments; that's normal. However, we don't even have any more money for that. We are now perceived as people in a critical position, sources of risk for the financial institutions, and they are prevented from lending us money at a commercial rate or at a market rate.
Bombardier is operating on loans at market rates. How is it that it's good for Bombardier and for the automotive sector, but not good for an industry that employs 825,000 people across Canada? In Quebec, 100 of the 300 businesses that were members of our council have shut down indefinitely as a result of bankruptcy. So we're operating with one-third of the businesses. Imagine that hit the populations, resource regions and the regional economy are taking. It isn't just the forest industry that's in poor shape, but also the businesses, like the hairdressers and all the others.
We're asking you to think about that budget envelope. What is preventing the government from deciding to make $2 or $2.5 billion of its accessible credit available to the forest industry and to provide a single channel? It might be Canada Economic Development, or whatever. That's where we would send applications, which would be processed on a priority basis and very quickly. That would be taking positive action.
That's what we're asking; it's not difficult.