Thank you, Ms. Glover, for that question.
It was a very interesting discussion. It was actually over two years that we discussed this. First of all, when we first started developing the PRPP, several of the provinces shared their concerns that this would cost their local businesses more money. They were concerned about that. Certainly, some of the provinces encouraged us to continue to look at the options in CPP to see if there was some way to improve it. In the midst of that we were actually doing a triennial review of the Canada Pension Plan, and that's when we came up with the findings that it is actuarially sound; it's in good shape.
In politics, if you have everyone saying this is a good idea, that's consensus, and that's what we had. We did not have consensus from the provinces to pursue at this time a Canada Pension Plan expansion.
We moved forward with that. Some of the provinces actually wished we had moved faster. Quebec, for example, actually reflected their plan to move very quickly with this in their last year's budget. They think this is a great option for people within their jurisdiction. They're ready to go, and many other provinces are ready to go. We'll be having the consultations on the regulations coming out soon. We think this certainly is accepted better by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as I quoted before.
Let me just read you another quote:
For every one percentage point increase in CPP premiums beyond the current 9.9 per cent rate, it would cost 220,000 person-years of employment and force wages down roughly 2.5 per cent in the long run.
That is troubling. That's why many of the provinces said go forward with the pooled registered pension plan.