I think it starts, as you've mentioned, with disaggregated data to look at what populations are being affected and where. Again, we started our study based on a ton of anecdotal information from women saying “I haven't been promoted” or “I've been laid off” or “I had to shut my business”, and we had to aggregate it and look at that.
We first went to whatever information is out there. The statistics were there within the July federal report on labour as well as in the 2016 census, but nobody was doing anything related to it. I don't know if an organization like ours has to step in to say that we need to do something with this information and that it needs to be targeted. I don't know if it's related to having the analysts look at the information in a different way to say that when we're talking about women overall, we can't talk about women overall. We need to look community by community to see if there is something specific that needs to happen.
When we're talking about 20.4%, it's such a high number within the unemployment rate. It's so jarring. That's the reason we said we need something specific. I know everyone is asking about the tangibles—