Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In your document, you say that the purpose of an FTA is not to eliminate trade surpluses or deficits in certain industries, but rather to increase bilateral trade and investment opportunities for both parties.
If we balanced trade in all industries so that, for example, there is as much Korean rice in Canada as Canadian rice in Korea, that would make no sense. However, we must ensure that within the framework of a free trade agreement, the spin-offs are as great for Canada as for the other country involved. When we negotiate a free trade agreement, we are securing access to markets. In fact, NAFTA was one of the main reasons why Canada wanted to negotiate.
In the case of Korea, things are not so clear, given the trade that is going on. We essentially export agricultural products, minerals, metals and wood pulp. Those are the raw materials needed by Korean manufacturers. So, we're not securing anything, because Koreans need those products. Given the growth in China, they are even more eager to ensure access to those raw materials.
However, they export vehicles, automobile parts, electrical devices, computers, rubber and steel. So it seems to me that in the context of an agreement with Korea, what we're securing is access for Korean products to the Canadian market rather than the opposite.
I still do not understand why Korea has suddenly become a target of choice for negotiating a free trade agreement, unless, as you said, it will lead to other agreements with Japan, China and countries of Southeast Asia.
In that context, I understand even less why, at the APEC meeting in Santiago in 2004-2005, Canada rejected the recommendation that had been made to enter into negotiations with the economic community of countries from the Asia-Pacific region. I still do not understand why Korea rather than another country.
The shipyard matter was broached, but you did not talk about it in your presentation. So, I would like to know in very concrete terms where the negotiations are at.
Finally, you spoke obviously about investment and business opportunities. I would want to make sure that within the framework of this free trade agreement, we would not end up with a mechanism like the one in the North American free trade agreement that this committee denounced on a number of occasions. I am referring to the mechanism set out in chapter 11 regarding the protection of investments.
We are in favour of the protection of foreign investment here and the protection of Canadian investment abroad. However, we believe that the mechanism set out in NAFTA is excessive because it gives companies the possibility of bringing States before special groups. We prefer the OECD mechanism.
So with regard to the protection of foreign investment, what formula are you considering, if indeed that is the case?