Thank you, Mr. Easter.
I'm not going to comment on Canada. I will comment on Colombia, which has signed and implemented a number of free trade agreements, some of which have in some aspects—for example, we will receive a lot of foreign investment but perhaps our exports to those countries are not growing as much as our imports.... Why? Because we had high or higher tariffs, so when they came down it was obvious that the country with the lower tariffs was not going to benefit as much.
I know that Canada increased its exports to Colombia by 19% in one year. That is a very significant number, especially when the types of things we are buying are industrial machinery and vehicles. Those are products that generate a lot of value-added and a lot of jobs.
Specifically on exports, it has been useful, but my point is that the alliance is not just a free trade agreement; it goes far beyond that. It has a lot to do with countries that share values, believe in basic principles, and want to harmonize rules to create a bigger market.
As you know, when you talk about economic liberalization the first liberty is goods. You also have services, investment capital, goods, and people. Perhaps the European Union is the only example of a successful effort at liberalizing capital and people in some aspects, but any economist will tell you that harmonizing rules brings down a lot of barriers and creates a lot of opportunities.
In the case of Colombia and the Pacific Alliance, we already had free trade agreements with Mexico, Peru, and Chile before we started this. We see it as a much deeper integration. For us, it's not just an FTA.