'Canard' airplanes have the theoretical advantage of all surfaces contributing to lift, thus a higher efficiency, higher payload possible for the same engine power and airplane size, and also that the stall of foreplane having a higher attack angle would put nose down, preventing main wing to stall, as wing's critical angle of attack not reached, what in fact, isn't true.
The proposed arrangement, inspired in Saab's Viggen, has the improved TO/L performance of a foreplane placed in an upper position respect to the main wing (Av Mag Intl, Janv 1973), plus the 'Induced Rolling in the right direction', of an Inverted 'V' or 'A' arranged foreplane, its trailing edge moving surfaces acting both as elevons and rudders.
The possibility of both foreplane and wing stalling is reduced by allowing the foreplane incidence change from +90º to -90º respect to the fuselage axis (Curtiss P-55 Ascender); preserving elevons instead of an all moving Canard surface as in 'Eurofighter', would add safety in avoiding consequences of nose-up momentum making airplane go beyond critical angle of attack for both foreplane and wing, and surface control mechanisms would be made more simple.
Placement of engines in pods over wing, as in VFW 614, would reduce noise footprint, and if placed in the fuselage mid-line, in the region of Center of Gravity/Pressure-Lift Center of Airplane would make it more stable in flight.
Current Canards do have a very small surface foreplane, and building an airplane as proposed, with a more surfaced foreplane, would help in improving payload and stability, foreplane having a greater contribution to lift if bigger.
The straight leading edge of foreplane and main wing is good for low-speed operations, while a wing shape in 'Reversed Delta' (Mustang P51, Alexander Lippisch X-112 & X-113 ramwing concept), would maintain the high speed efficiency of pointed wings, and low speed performance/handling of straight wings; 'Supercritical airfoil' use is possible.