Perhaps I can start.
First, with regard to RIM, I think that problem can be resolved without being part of an FTA, and it shouldn't be, because it would involve us giving up concessions that we probably don't have to give. We just need to put more public pressure on. This is an anomaly that should not have happened.
So I think that can be resolved. RIM already exists there in an iDEN platform, and with a little more pressure, this one will go away.
On the automotive, it is more substantial, but I'm not sure there are hidden trade barriers in the automotive area. I'm not an automotive expert, but when I look at the statistics, foreign cars in Korea have doubled since 2004. Even this year, January to October, year-to-date the sales are up by 32%. Ford sales are up by only 8%, but everybody else is doing great.
I think what it says is that you need to adjust culturally to the market and provide the kinds of services. Of cars made in Canada, there are a million cars a year sold in Korea. Cars made in Canada, the smaller cars, should be very attractive and very well priced.
We see some cars—Toyota Corolla, for instance—that have been brought over by Canadians there. There's a lot of interest in that car.
So I believe there are opportunities. What we have now is the worst of all worlds. Canada is relatively open. We don't have a lot of barriers here, but there are a lot of barriers in Korea. That's why the FTA, to the mind of the people who have their feet on the ground over there, is valuable for Canadians, because it will remove these barriers.
I do think we need to think about how to help companies to adjust, not in terms of sheltering them from global competition—we need to get out there and compete—but there should be some kind of adjustment to help them, whether it's training for the people or whatever. But based on the growth in services and the fact that we can address our gap in trade through things like automotive, I believe this is a good opportunity.
I'm running out of time here.