Although the agreement existed decades later, it was no longer at the forefront of Canadian politics.  It was replaced in 1994 by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Jean Chrétien`s Liberals were elected in the 1993 election, in part with a promise to renegotiate important parts of NAFTA`s work and environment. In fact, an agreement was reached with Bill Clinton`s Democrats, who created separate secondary agreements to address both concerns. Finally, the 2008 financial crisis had a profound impact on the global economy, making it difficult to determine the effects of a trade agreement. Apart from some areas where the effect is not yet entirely clear, NAFTA has had a fairly obvious impact on the North American economies. The fact that it is now in danger of being abolished probably has little to do with its own merits or mistakes, and much more so with automation, the rise of China and the political consequences of September 11 and the 2008 financial crisis. The idea of a trade agreement actually goes back to the administration of Ronald Reagan. During his tenure as president, Reagan made an election campaign promise to open up trade in North America by signing the Trade and Tariff Act in 1984, which gave the president more negotiations on trade deals without problems. Four years later, Reagan and the Canadian Prime Minister signed the Canada-Americans. Free trade agreement.
In the 1980s, Congress and political experts agreed that multilateral trade rules were not sufficient to remove the key foreign barriers facing U.S. companies due to the weak dispute settlement system, that « hidden » barriers did not follow trade disciplines, and that important trading partners , like China, did not stay outside the rules. Indeed, under the so-called « Super 301″ regulation, the largest trade legislation of the 1980s, the 1988 omnibus trade law, was passed to combat systematic trade barriers. This legislation and U.S. attempts to address barriers in Japan and South Korea raised growing international concerns in the late 1980s and early 1990s about U.S. unilateralism. The debate in Canada on the implementation of the negotiated agreement was very controversial. Canada`s opposition Liberal Party, led by John Turner, strongly opposed the agreement and said it would « tear it apart » if it became Prime Minister. The opposition New Democratic Party, led by Ed Broadbent, also strongly opposed the agreement.
Both parties criticized the fact that the agreement would infringe On Canadian sovereignty and argued that Canada would effectively become the « 51st state » of the United States if the agreement were implemented. They also expressed concern about how Canada`s social programs and other trade agreements such as the Auto Pact would be affected.  NAFTA is often held responsible for things that could not be its fault. In 1999, the Christian Science Monitor wrote about a town in Arkansas that it would « collapse, like so many NAFTA ghost towns that have lost jobs in the needle trade and in production in places like Sri Lanka or Honduras. » Sri Lanka and Honduras are not parties to the agreement. It is also difficult to isolate the effects of NAFTA because of rapid technological changes. Supercomputers in the 1990s boasted a fraction of the computing power of today`s smartphones, and the Internet was not yet fully commercialized at the time of nafta. Real manufacturing output in the United States increased by 57.7% between 1993 and 2016, although employment in this sector fell. Both trends are largely due to automation.
The CRS cites Hanson, which has placed technology second only to China in terms of employment impact since 2000. NAFTA, he says, is « much less important. » Many economists believe that any implementation of trade means is indeed protectionist and ho