I agree, it's hard to ask interesting questions in an environment of violent agreement, but let me attempt to provide an interesting answer.
The Trade Commissioner Service reports annually on the trade they've facilitated. I encourage you to take a look at that report, or it may be part of the departmental performance report. But the critical factor is that the Trade Commissioner Service is present on the ground in growth markets. We would certainly like to see an increased footprint of the Trade Commissioner Service in Asia, and particularly in Korea, to help amplify the potential benefits of this agreement and make connections.
I would also note that economic diplomacy is of great use to those large firms that, as I said, the CCCE members represent. Those 150 companies represent the majority, over 50%, of Canadian exports. They commend the Trade Commissioner Service, our ambassadors, and indeed the work of the government to us regularly in Asia, particularly because the nature of that relationship is that the government is seen as a partner in business, not least because Korean student enterprises and large Korean firms are very much working in concert with their government.
Overall it's a positive message. I would say that EDC's work to establish agreements with large conglomerates, large enterprises, in Asia that are looking for supply chain partners of both medium- and small-sized Canadian firms as well as large is really important. EDC has facilitated a number of large Asian firms to come to Canada and better understand potential new partners in their supply chains. It's that kind of work, not just EDC focused on Canadian exports out but some of the ability to attract investment into Canada.
I would commend the government for the extension of the domestic powers on a permanent basis to EDC. We feel that EDC is an important partner in, as I say, not only promoting Canadian direct investment abroad in exports but also attracting significant investment to Canada. I commend their work in that area as well.