I'd have to agree with Jacques. The trade commissioners with whom we've had the most success have a history with the actual customers we're dealing with. I actually find it a bit of a detriment when there is a change, because getting a new trade commissioner up to speed, where they visit the customers and where they have the relationships with the customers and the trust, is a long process. So if they're constantly rotating, one gets a huge disconnect.
A good example of this would be Japan. The trade commissioners in Japan have an excellent relationship with the customers. That's a situation where there is cultural bias. They do business differently from they way we do in North America, so having that cultural understanding and established relationship gives us credibility.
I would definitely support that we support trade commissioners in priority sectors for extended periods of time and make that happen.
The only area I would see where there could be an improvement is to have a matrix where there is a performance return on investment in an area. Something like that could prove to be value added. But I believe in the key areas there is a definite case for the return the trade commissioners are providing.