One of President Trump`s main goals in the renegotiations is to ensure that the deal benefits American workers. The United States, Mexico and Canada have agreed on a laboratory chapter that introduces work obligations at the heart of the agreement, makes them fully enforceable and constitutes the strongest provisions of a trade agreement. The former Canada-U.S. free trade agreement had been the subject of controversy and division in Canada and was presented as a theme in the 1988 Canadian election. In this election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats), but the split votes between the two parties meant that the pro-Liberal Progressive Conservatives (PC) with the most seats came out of the election and thus took power. Mulroney and the CPs had a parliamentary majority and passed the Canada-USA-FTA and NAFTA laws of 1987 without any problems. Mulroney was replaced by Kim Campbell as Conservative leader and prime minister. Campbell led the PC party in the 1993 election, where they were decimated by Jean Chrétien`s Liberal Party, which campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or cancel NAFTA. Chrétien then negotiated two supplementary agreements with Bush, who had undermined the LAC consultative process  and had pledged to « accelerate » the signing before the end of his term, the time was up and had to hand over to the new President Bill Clinton the necessary ratification and signature of the transposition law.
 Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that they were ready to join the agreement if it was in Canada`s interest.  Freeland returned prematurely from his European diplomatic trip and cancelled a planned visit to Ukraine to participate in NAFTA negotiations in Washington, D.C. In late August.  According to an August 31 Canadian Press published in the Ottawa Citizen, the main topics discussed were supply management, Chapter 19, drugs, cultural exemption, sunset clause and de minimis thresholds.  It is clear that NAFTA remains a jarze for political views on globalization and free trade in general. Opposition to NAFTA has grown and made it much more politically difficult to adopt other similar free trade agreements. This is clear from the summer of 2005, when the Central American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came to a halt in Congress due to a lack of support. Two journalists, Dawn Gilbertson and Jonathan J. Higuera, who wrote in the Arizona Republic on the occasion of NAFTA`s tenth anniversary, summed it up as follows: « The reality of 10-year-old NAFTA is this: a still-developing story of winners and losers who are largely separated from where you work and what you do. » The same goes for the impact of NAFTA on small businesses. For some, it was a chance to grow and for others, it was a challenge. In its May 24, 2017 report, the Congressional Research Service (SIR) wrote that the economic impact of NAFTA on the U.S.
economy was modest. In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service summarized several studies as follows: « In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses that critics feared or the significant economic benefits predicted by supporters. The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, mainly because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there have been adaptation costs for workers and businesses as all three countries have prepared for more open trade and investment between their economies. « :2 Controversy over the treaty`s environmental provisions remained strong in the late 1990s. . .