It's a good question, Mr. McCallum.
I think at the heart of the issue is that investment mutual funds are a financial service and that there are other financial services that are very similar, such as GICs and deposit instruments, which are exempt from the tax on the labour portion of the fee, which represents about 60% of the management expense ratio of the fund. If we assume that the average fund has a management expense ratio of about 200 basis points and there's $600 billion in the funds, there's $645 million of tax that right now is being attributed directly to the GST. The money is really Canadians' savings for retirement. It's a financial service, but it's categorized differently.
As my colleague has indicated, if we had harmonization with some of the provinces—Ontario, for example, where the provincial tax is currently 8%—that would take the $645 million in tax up to about $1.6 billion. Of that $1.6 billion, $1 billion would be taxable to the labour, if we assume that 60% rate on a financial service, whereas it wouldn't be if it were in a GIC.
At the heart of your question is that mutual funds are retirement savings. They are a financial service, but they are categorized differently. At the end of the day, if the government wants to encourage people to save and have money for retirement, then taking a potential extra $1 billion out, if there were harmonization in just one province alone, would have an adverse impact.