I can give a sense of it.
As to the volume of those numbers I talked about, we also had an appreciation, working with the Department of Finance and others, that they were concentrated in particular sectors, particularly retail and hospitality. Our initial assessment was that we were likely going to see a gender differentiation there because the people getting hit the hardest were in sectors where women are overrepresented.
Another factor in terms of the GBA+ analysis was where to set the $5,000-income threshold. Women are also overrepresented in the part-time worker sector, so the decision was made to go with a lower income threshold, given that part-time workers were also disproportionately—it appeared, in the early analysis—impacted by the crisis.
Over time we got better granularity on this aspect and made adjustments to the program to reflect what we were seeing. From the very early stages, we did have a sense that this risked being an unusual recession in that it was, in effect, driven by government policies that caused the closures and not by the traditional economic forces that would have, for example, hit the financial or manufacturing sector hardest first.
I would say that the sophistication of that analysis was quite limited at the front end in terms of the days we had to pull it together. Over time it became more specific.