As I mentioned, we conducted a study that looked at 20 different non-agricultural sectors at the two-digit level, including food processing, so there is some agricultural content in that. We simulated what would happen as a result of tariff liberalization or elimination on both sides given the imbalanced starting point between the two countries and the likely elasticities of demand in response to that.
We identified 15 sectors that would lose jobs and output as a result of the net impacts of the deal, and as I mentioned computers and electronics was the hardest hit. We identified four that would win. Those included mining other than oil and gas, food manufacturing, wood products, and paper manufacturing. You have identified some of those sectors in which we do have Unifor members working, and I acknowledged that at the beginning of my testimony.
In terms of aerospace, I am skeptical that there will be a significant benefit to Canadian aerospace from the Canada-Korea trade agreement. Aerospace is another one of those crown jewel industries, if you like, with strategic spillover effects in terms of innovation, supply chain stimulus, and so on. Korea has been very active at using levers of state policy, including public capital through state development banks, export promotion strategies, and tight links between suppliers' skills development and original equipment manufacturers to nurture a home-based aerospace sector just as we have been in Canada. That explains exactly why we are a successful aerospace producer.
We're seeing the challenge from other countries as well, such as China and Russia, which are dealing with Bombardier but are demanding domestic content as a condition of their access to those markets. I would also suggest that just because a lineup of business representatives come before you to say that something is going to be beneficial does not guarantee that it will be beneficial for the Canadian economy as opposed to for individual business or for the business community in general. The business community, of course—