Mr. Speaker, what hubris from the other side, from the member for Winnipeg North.
The Leader of the Opposition, even before that interview, made an offer in good faith to the government to work with it on trade-related matters and others, and we are doing that. The Liberals do not have to give us credit for that. Canadians will judge. However, I would ask the government, and especially government leaders, not to confuse Canadians by saying things that just are not true.
I have a few comments about the proposed agreement with Indonesia. Let me just say that it is a rounding error. The PMO released a statement, calling it “game-changing.” The chief economist for Global Affairs Canada actually said, “the projected economic gains are modest.”
While the minister tried to speak to all of the new tariff-free access we have, the actual state of facts is that 88% of Canada's exports to Indonesia already enjoy duty-free access. Any additional benefits from this agreement would only flow to 9% of Canada's exports. The remaining 3% would continue to face high tariffs. In fact, the estimated tariff savings for Canada's top exports to Indonesia are estimated to be only $14 million. That is less than a rounding error. The total estimated impact to Canada's GDP is $226 million, which is less than one half of 1%.
Do not get me wrong. A new trade agreement is good, but I think Canadians should know that it is not a panacea for the problems we face. Indeed, it is not even clear that this agreement is necessary.
Let me explain. Indonesia has already made its formal application to join the trans-Pacific partnership. It did so in 2024. It is expected to proceed through accession to that agreement in 2026, which is this year, so it is not clear to me that this agreement is even necessary. Furthermore, Canada is already in a trade negotiation with ASEAN, which is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. If that agreement proceeds, this agreement would, again, become redundant.
I am concerned that the government is spending valuable negotiating resources on an agreement that may not be relevant, when instead it should be focusing on our most important agreement, which is the agreement with the United States. Unfortunately, we have very little information about that because we hear one thing from the Americans, and then we hear another thing from the Prime Minister—