In an impromptu half-hour interview with the New York Times at his West Palm Beach golf club last Thursday, Donald Trump was not asked about the NAFTA renegotiation. So he brought it up himself.

“I’m the big trade guy. I got elected to a certain extent on trade,” he said. “You see, I’m renegotiating NAFTA, or I’ll terminate it. If I don’t make the right deal, I’ll terminate it in two seconds.”

Actually, he has to give six months’ notice of cancellation, and Congress must pass legislation to that end. But never mind … Trump does a lot of thinking out loud.

“But we’re doing pretty good,” he continued. “You know, it’s easier to renegotiate if we make it a fair deal, because NAFTA was a terrible deal for us. We lost $71 billion last year with Mexico, can you believe it? $17 billion with Canada.

“Canada says we broke even, but they don’t include lumber, they don’t include oil. My friend Justin says, ‘No, no we break even.’ I said, ‘Yeah, but you’re not including oil and you’re not including lumber.’ When you do, you’re losing $17 billion, and the other one (Mexico), we’re losing $71 billion. So the only thing that supersedes trade to me is war.”

The Times didn’t publish these comments as part of its front page exclusive on Friday, but did include them in a transcript of Trump’s conversation with reporter Michael Schmidt posted to its website.

On Saturday, Trump’s trade talk made it into a fact-check article headlined Much That Wasn’t True in a 30-Minute Interview. The Times pointed out that Trump’s figures were for trade in goods only, and did not include trade in services, and that in 2016 the U.S. had “a trade surplus of $7.7 billion with Canada, not a deficit of $17 billion.

“In Mr. Trump’s telling, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada disputed the president’s estimate of a $17 billion deficit when they discussed the issue behind closed doors, but he excluded oil and lumber to claim a balance. The trade balance data does, in fact, include oil and lumber.”

That’s Trump — making it up as he goes along. Trudeau got used to that in 2017. In a year end interview with CTV’s Lisa LaFlamme, the PM said Trump “has demonstrated that he’s a bit of a disruptive force … he does unpredictable things and sometimes they have positive impacts, sometimes they have negative impacts.”

But at least, Trudeau said, Trump is “consistent. He’s the same person in private as he is in public.”

That’s a diplomatic description — predictably unpredictable — of Trudeau’s interlocutor in managing Canada-U.S. relations, in which NAFTA is by far the most important file.

The question for Canada and Mexico isn’t about the language in the USTR paper — on the whole, it’s unobjectionable. The question is whether the Americans want the talks to succeed. The question for Canada and Mexico isn’t about the language in the USTR paper — on the whole, it’s unobjectionable. The question is whether the Americansthe talks to succeed.

Beyond the White House, Trudeau’s team has run an effective charm offensive with Congress and state governors, reminding them that Canada is the largest customer of 35 states, and that nearly nine million U.S. jobs depend on trade and investment with Canada. In 2016 alone, the U.S. exported US$267 billion of goods to Canada, while importing $278 billion, according to BMO Economics. This accounts for all of 1.5 per cent of America’s global trade deficit in goods.

In fact, as BMO deputy chief economist Michael Gregory has pointed out, “in 2016, the U.S. ran a $39 billion deficit in energy trade with Canada … meaning that it ran a $28 billion trade surplus across all other goods combined.”

But we do include oil in our trade numbers. Sorry about that, Donald.

Trump’s fixation on America’s deficit in trade in goods is reflected in the Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation, a 17-page position paper from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, first released last July and revised in November. The USTR’s number one objective in trade in goods is to “improve the U.S. trade balance and reduced the trade deficit with the NAFTA countries.”

The question for Canada and Mexico isn’t about the language in the USTR paper — on the whole, it’s unobjectionable. The question is whether the Americans want the talks to succeed. The first five rounds of talks saw zero progress. The sixth and penultimate round, scheduled for Montreal from January 23-28, could be make-or-break.

The U.S. has put at least five poison pills on the table: in rules of origin in the auto sector, a “sunset clause” on the agreement itself, a lack of reciprocity in government procurement at the sub-national level, the elimination of Canadian supply management in dairy, eggs and poultry, and the elimination of the independent dispute settlement mechanism, NAFTA’s Chapter 19.

On automotive rules of origin, NAFTA already requires 62.5 per cent North American content. But Trump is asking for 85 per cent, with at least 50 per cent U.S. content. Interestingly, the Canadian Auto Parts Manufacturers Association says that U.S. content in Canadian-assembled cars is already 63 per cent and 40 per cent in Mexico. And a report by Scotiabank Economics says that 75 per cent of auto content is already North American-sourced. Someone should explain these numbers to Trump; most of what he’s asking for has already been achieved.

Canada and Mexico will never agree to a five-year sunset clause demanded by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, but could probably live with the USTR paper’s proposal to “to provide a mechanism for ensuring that the parties assess the benefits of the agreement on a periodic basis.” That’s not unreasonable.

On government procurement, the Americans can’t “exclude sub-federal coverage (state and local governments)” and “keep in place preferential purchasing programs such as Buy America requirements on federal assistance to state and local projects.” No reciprocity, no deal.

On supply management, the Americans want more access to Canadian dairy markets, where they already run a $400 million trade surplus. Canadian dairy farmers, politically influential as they are in Ottawa, have other ideas. But milk and cheese should not be a deal-breaker.

A certain deal-breaker for Canada is the USTR demand to “eliminate the Chapter 19 dispute settlement mechanism.” Actually, the USTR paper also talks of establishing a DSM “that is effective, timely and in which panel determinations are based on the provisions of the agreement and the submissions of the parties and are provided in a reasoned manner.” That’s not objectionable language, but what do the Americans have in mind?

At the end of the day, the bedrock question remains unanswered: do the Americans want a new deal on NAFTA or not?

We may have a better idea after the last week of January in Montreal.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.