According to a 2018 Sierra Club report, Canada`s commitments under NAFTA and the Paris Agreement were at odds with each other. The Paris commitments were voluntary and those of NAFTA were mandatory.  In supporting NAFTA, the Clinton administration and a majority of Congress wisely rejected calls for a return to the same protectionist policies demonstrated by the Smoot-Hawley tariff laws that contributed to the emergence of the Great Depression. Many of these protectionist demands came from unions that feared that NAFTA would cost the United States jobs in older industries. Despite these concerns, however, workers will realize that they, too, are better off as consumers in a growing economy when nations can trade freely with each other and workers are exposed to the rigors of international competition. According to a 2013 article by Jeff Faux published by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other states with a high concentration of manufacturing jobs have been the hardest hit by job losses due to NAFTA.  According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, about 682,900 U.S. jobs were “lost or displaced” as a result of the trade deal.  Recent studies were consistent with Congressional Research Service reports that NAFTA had only a modest impact on manufacturing employment and that automation accounted for 87% of manufacturing job losses.
 In 2008, Canadian exports to the United States and Mexico totalled $381.3 billion and imports amounted to $245.1 billion.  According to a 2004 article by University of Toronto economist Daniel Trefler, NAFTA brought significant net benefits to Canada in 2003, with long-term productivity increasing by up to 15% in industries that experienced the largest tariff reductions.  Although the decline in the number of low-productivity firms reduced employment (up to 12% of existing jobs), these job losses lasted less than a decade; Overall, unemployment in Canada has declined since the legislation was passed. Commenting on this compromise, Trefler said the crucial issue of trade policy is to understand “how freer trade can be implemented in an industrialized economy in a way that recognizes both the long-term gains and short-term adjustment costs of workers and others.”  President Donald Trump promised during the election campaign to repeal NAFTA and other trade agreements that he considered unfair to the United States. On August 27, 2018, he announced a new trade agreement with Mexico to replace him. The U.S.-Mexico trade agreement, as it was called, would maintain duty-free access for agricultural products on both sides of the border and remove non-tariff barriers to trade, while further promoting agricultural trade between Mexico and the United States and effectively replacing NAFTA. In June 1986, Edward L. Hudgins, then a Heritage analyst, wrote, “An American Strategy to Resolve the Debt Crisis in Mexico.” In this background report, Hudgins called on the Reagan administration to explore “other special free trade and investment agreements” with Mexico. Hudgins said: “The possibility of a comprehensive free trade and investment area [between the United States and Mexico] should be explored. Ultimately, a comprehensive free trade area between the U.S.
and Mexico should be sought, similar to the U.S.-Canada pact that was being negotiated [at the time]. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented to promote trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The agreement, which eliminated most tariffs on trade between the three countries, entered into force on 1 January 1994. Many tariffs, notably on agriculture, textiles and automobiles, were phased out between 1 January 1994 and 1 January 2008. Regardless of the debate about its long-term implications, NAFTA is undoubtedly one of the most important trade agreements in recent history. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the remaining 11 TPP members, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to proceed with a revised version of the trade agreement without U.S. participation.  According to a 2017 report by the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think tank, bilateral trade in agricultural products tripled between 1994 and 2017 and is considered one of the largest economic impacts of NaftA on Canada-U.S. trade, with Canada becoming the largest importer of the U.S.
agricultural sector.  Canadian fears of losing manufacturing jobs to the U.S. did not materialize as manufacturing employment remained “stable.” However, since labor productivity in Canada is at 72% of labor productivity in the United States. Hopes of closing the “productivity gap” between the two countries have also not been realized.  NAFTA achieved its seven objectives and created the largest free trade area in the region in terms of gross domestic product. It has also increased foreign investment in all three countries. Four years later, Heritage analyst Michael Wilson argued in an executive memorandum titled “Bush and Salinas Should Begin Free Trade Negotiations Between the U.S. and Mexico”: “What were once distant neighbors now appears to be evolving into economic and geopolitical partners. George Bush should not only strengthen these cooperative relations by supporting Salinas` economic reforms, but also quickly negotiate a free trade agreement with Mexico. After U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January 2017, he attempted to replace NAFTA with a new agreement and began negotiations with Canada and Mexico. In September 2018, the United States, Mexico and Canada reached an agreement to replace NAFTA with the Agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada (USMCA), and the three countries ratified it by March 2020.
NAFTA remained in effect until the implementation of the USMCA.  In April 2020, Canada and Mexico informed the United States that they were ready to implement the agreement.  The USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020, replacing NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States to remove barriers to trade and promote trade competition between the three countries. Among the provisions of the agreement is the abolition of customs duties, taxes on foreign goods, on many goods. The agreement also provided for tariff reductions, a different type of tax on imports and exports, the enforcement of intellectual property and agreements to treat investors from these three countries favourably. This favourable treatment means that the three countries must treat each other`s investors in the same way as investors from their own countries. NAFTA came into force on January 1, 1994, replacing an earlier trade agreement between the United States and Canada, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. In addition to this agreement, two sub-agreements have been adopted to address other concerns: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Workers` Cooperation.
 As early as 1984, President Ronald Reagan passed the Trade and Tariff Act, which allowed the president to negotiate free trade agreements more quickly. At Reagan`s initiative, Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney supported the President and Canada-U.S. relations. The free trade agreement was finally signed in 1988; It entered into force a year later. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariffs Act, which itself built on and amended the previous Trade Act of 1974. This law gave an improved “fast-track” power to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements and streamlined negotiations. .