The former Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was the subject of controversy and controversy in Canada and was touted as a theme in the 1988 Canadian election. In this election, more Canadians voted for the anti-free trade parties (Liberals and New Democrats), but the split of votes between the two parties meant that the pro-free progressive Conservatives (PCs) came out of the polls with the largest number of seats and thus took power. Mulroney and the CPCs had a parliamentary majority and passed the NAFTA bills and bills passed by Canada and the United States in 1987 without any problems. Mulroney was, however, replaced by Kim Campbell as head of the Conservatives and Prime Ministers. Campbell led the PC party in the 1993 election, where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abolish NAFTA. Mr. Chrétien then negotiated two additional agreements with Bush, which undermined the LAC consultation process and worked to “quickly follow” the signature before the end of his term, to give up time and to hand over to new President Bill Clinton the necessary ratification and signature of the transposition law.  Many critics of NAFTA saw the agreement as a radical experiment developed by influential multinationals who wanted to increase their profits at the expense of ordinary citizens of the countries concerned. Opposition groups argued that the horizontal rules imposed by nafta could undermine local governments by preventing them from enacting laws or regulations to protect the public interest. Critics also argued that the treaty would lead to a significant deterioration in environmental and health standards, promote privatization and deregulation of essential public services, and supplant family farmers in the signatory countries. According to a 2012 study on tariff reductions on NAFTA, trade with the United States and Mexico increased by only 11% in Canada, compared to a 41% increase in the United States and 118% in Mexico.
:3 In addition, the United States and Mexico benefited more from the rate reduction, with an increase in social benefits of 0.08% and 1.31%, with Canada recording a decrease of 0.06%. :4 From the outset, critics of NAFTA feared that the agreement would lead to a move of U.S. jobs to Mexico, despite the additional NAALC. NAFTA, for example, has affected thousands of U.S. auto workers in this way. Many companies have relocated their production to Mexico and other countries where labour costs are lower. However, NAFTA may not be the source of these measures. President Donald Trump`s USMCA should allay those concerns. The White House estimates that the USMCA will create 600,000 jobs and increase the economy by $235 billion. Clinton signed it on December 8, 1993. The agreement came into force on 1 January 1994.
  At the signing ceremony, Clinton paid tribute to four people for their efforts to reach the historic trade agreement: Vice President Al Gore, Council of Economic Advisers Chair Laura Tyson, National Economic Council Director Robert Rubin and Republican Congressman David Dreier.  Clinton also said, “NAFTA means jobs. U.S. jobs and well-paying American jobs. If I didn`t believe it, I wouldn`t support this agreement.  NAFTA replaced the old Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. There is broad agreement among economists that NAFTA has benefited North American economies. Regional trade increased sharply in the first two decades of the treaty, from some $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016.