This is generally a much simpler, less costly and predictable process than an attempt to challenge a business practice in a U.S. court. Canada has successfully used Chapter 19 to challenge the United States because of its restrictions on coniferous wood. However, it is difficult to say whether NAFTA is directly responsible for this decline. The automotive industry is generally considered to be one of the most affected by the agreement. However, although the U.S. auto market was immediately open to Mexican competition, employment in this sector increased for years after nafta was launched, peaking at nearly 1.3 million in October 2000. That`s when jobs started to soar and losses became steeper with the financial crisis. At its lowest in June 2009, the U.S. auto industry employed only 623,000 people. Although this figure has risen to 948,000, it remains 27% below its pre-NAFTA level.
Therefore, it is wrong to claim that all North Americans will be better off in the context of the new agreement. There will be losers, and there will be winners. The agreement would protect Canada`s 2.6 million exports of cars to the United States from tariffs. That`s far more than the 1.8 million cars That Canada exports on average each year to the United States. The U.S. record on services trade with Canada is positive: it imported $28.8 billion in 2015 and exported $56.1 billion. Its trade balance is negative – the United States imported $22.6 billion more worth of goods from Canada than it exported in 2017 – but the services trade surplus overshadows the goods trade deficit. The total U.S. trade surplus with Canada in 2018 was $9.1 billion. When Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA bill in 1993, the U.S. trade surplus with Canada was $9.1 billion. When Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA approval bill in 1993.
He said the trade deal “means jobs. U.S. jobs and well-paying American jobs. His independent opponent in the 1992 elections, Ross Perot, warned that fleeing jobs across the southern border would create a “great wake.” 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.