Thank you very much for your question.
I'd like to point out that for an emerging country such as Peru, the idea of having an economic policy is based on reducing systemic poverty that exists in the country. Since 1992 we have begun a new policy of free trade in Peru and we have sustained this through different governments. We feel that over the years the level of poverty in Peru is declining significantly. When this government came to power the levels of poverty were at 42% and the levels of extreme poverty were at 22%. Poverty is declining. Today it is at 38% and extreme poverty is at roughly 18%. This is to say there has been a decline in poverty through our policy of free trade.
Now, with regard to the specific issues of investments, there has not been an impact study on the free trade agreement with Canada. But I'd like to say that free trade with Canada will happen after our signature of the agreement with the U.S. It is a mirror to this agreement, but it's not necessarily the same agreement. What I mean to say is, we feel that Canada didn't get the same advantages as the U.S. got in its free trade agreement with the U.S. through the most favoured nation clause or through the different taxes or tariff clauses. The reality of our markets are different, and the U.S. is a majority partner in trade with Peru—about a third of our trade is with them—whereas Canada is a minority stakeholder, a minority trade partner for Peru. So this had an effect on the various advantages of the agreement. With Canada there has not been an impact study, but in the case of the U.S. it did get done.