The "deficit" to which Trump refers is most likely the trade deficit - the negative side of an imbalance in the value of respective imports and exports between two countries. If so, the figure he mentioned is too high by about a factor of 6 or 7. Maybe there are some other imputed costs (eg. the value of Canadian military "freeloading") stuck in there by whoever feeds him information. Because countries don't have exclusively bilateral trading relationships, it's close to pointless to worry about bilateral trade deficits. Worrying about the net trade balance (ie. the sum of all bilateral balances) isn't much use either. The trade balance is just a defined number, and doesn't account for all money flows (eg. investment back into the country by those on the surplus side of a trade balance).
Suddenly fretting about the US being an unfriendly trading partner is foolish at best and transactionally partisan at worst. We've known from disputes over various matters (eg. softwood, agriculture) that the US is not a uniformly friendly trading partner. Recall that the Obama administration blocked Keystone XL, the first Trump administration approved it, and then the Biden administration cancelled a permit (one among Biden's flurry of executive orders, for those keeping score of executive orders). Canadian politicians and voters have been on notice for many years that getting oil and gas out of the interior of the country to ports on Canadian shores was a useful high-value long-term economic strategic aim.
I see Ford has decided the present turmoil isn't too severe to preclude opportunistically seeking to increase his "mandate". Selection and maintenance of the aim and concentration - he has failed, along with the federal Liberals, by dissipating resources into unnecessary battles which ought always to be avoided.
Those calling for Canadian unity now because they think their interests are about to be damaged should have made sacrifices earlier when it pleased them to privilege their regional interests over those of other parts of Canada.
There are still GDP-enhancing internal improvements to be made. A few have been talking about interprovincial trade, and a few about big projects. For some the threat is not too great to object to change (eg. new pipelines); I suppose their interests are not at risk and it is fair to criticize them for not being "team players" now. I can guess that if the tariff threat goes away, all the talkers will wipe their brows and stop talking and keep status quo. Until we see real and substantially valuable improvements to interprovincial trade and trade infrastructure and international trading arrangements/agreements, the tariff threat is a useful crisis/opportunity. To believe this is not less patriotic than sidelining the House for political advantage, calling a provincial election for political advantage, or proposing measures that would impose disproportionate costs on parts of the country. The difference is that to believe it is to seek net improvement after the time at which the tariff fight ends.
