Thank you very much, Chair.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses who are presenting before the committee.
This is an important issue, and I'm glad we're having this discussion in committee. There were certain remarks that the Liberal Party made very clearly with respect to the proposed Canada-Korea free trade agreement.
We are a trading nation. As Ms. Baron mentioned, 40% of our GDP is attributed to trade, and we recognize that. The Liberal Party has a long history of free and fair trade, and we signed many trade agreements when we were in government, but we have some legitimate concerns with the free trade agreement with South Korea. Primarily, the first area of concern revolves around market access. This is an area in which we have concerns with respect to non-tariff barriers.
I'm glad, Ms. Baron, that you mentioned RIM. That's a case I want to cite as an example of non-tariff barriers. My understanding is that RIM had considerable difficulty penetrating the South Korean market and getting their product out there.
There is a WIPI platform currently in place in South Korea, which has prevented not only RIM but other international companies from being able to sell their product in that market. That's an example of a non-tariff barrier. It's not tariff-related, but this particular platform creates a cost structure that makes it very difficult for RIM to be competitive to sell their product. RIM, as you know, is a Canadian success story and wants to do well not only in Canada but abroad as well.
Obviously the other concern with non-tariff barriers has to do with the automotive sector. Of the $2.5 billion deficit that was cited by Mr. Sinclair, roughly $1.6 billion of that is attributed to the auto sector and the parts sector. So a lot of the trade imbalance exists in that industry as well, and their concern--they've cited this on numerous occasions--is with non-tariff barriers.
There is the issue of market access. We want to know, in your opinion, how this free trade agreement would genuinely deal with that, because it has nothing to do with tariffs, but with these non-tariff barriers.
The second issue is jobs. There are going to be winners and losers in this free trade agreement, so there are going to be some jobs lost and some jobs gained. The concern I have, which has been expressed by many others, is that we might lose good, high-paying Canadian jobs. What will they be replaced with? While the unemployment rate might be low, there is a concern that high value-added, well-paying Canadian jobs are being replaced by lower-paying jobs with fewer benefits. That isn't necessarily reflected in the macroeconomic numbers that are shown.
The third question is about the dispute mechanism. Do you have suggestions for how we can enforce that? Because when a country is in violation and we go through the WTO process, by the time the issue is resolved the market is already distorted, and jobs are lost. It's therefore very difficult to replace some of the concerns that revolve around that.
My last question is for all the speakers, if they have time. Why do you think we have separate deals for the environment and labour cooperation? Why do you think that exists? And why can't that be incorporated as part of the original FTA that we are currently negotiating?
Those are some of my questions.