To add to that answer, you connected that question about CPP costs with the way employers try to handle pension costs as part of total compensation. It is worth registering the point that when workplace pension costs go up, in the current arrangement, employers understandably take account of that when they're also then discussing with unions or workers about current wage levels. In other words, the pension costs go up; current wage increases are reduced, in effect, most often. I would suggest that employers would similarly take account of proposed increases in CPP contribution rates when they assess their ability to pay overall compensation, whether it's benefits costs, wage costs, or whatever.
It's important to recognize—I tried to make the point in my statement—that as in 1966, when CPP was introduced in the first place, an additional expansion of CPP, we think, is very likely to result in changing the room for reducing workplace pension costs for those employers who have those plans.
I'm prepared to acknowledge that some of those plans have been shown to have cost volatility. Employer costs are spiking in a way that the CPP cost never does. It would be understandable if an employer would recognize CPP expansion as an opportunity to say, “Maybe that makes more sense. It's less risky, less costly.” That could be an advantage for a lot of employers.