According to the Sierra Club, NAFTA has contributed to large-scale export-oriented agriculture, resulting in increased use of fossil fuels, pesticides and GMOs.  NAFTA has also contributed to environmentally harmful mining practices in Mexico.  It has prevented Canada from effectively regulating its oil sands industry and has created new legal opportunities for transnational companies to combat environmental legislation.  In some cases, environmental policy has been neglected as a result of trade liberalization; In other cases, NAFTA`s investment protection measures, such as Chapter 11, and measures to address non-tariff barriers to trade have threatened to discourage stronger environmental policy.  The most severe increases in pollution attributable to NAFTA were in the base metals, Mexican petroleum and transportation equipment sectors in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.  The former Canada-U.S. free trade treaty was the subject of controversy and controversy in Canada and was presented 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.
 USMCA countries must comply with IMF standards to avoid exchange rate manipulation. The agreement requires disclosure of market interventions. The IMF may be summoned as an arbitrator if the parties argue.  According to a 2013 Jeff Faux article published by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other high-concentration manufacturing states were most affected by NAFTA job losses.  According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, the trade agreement has “lost or supplanted” some 682,900 U.S. jobs.  Recent studies have agreed with congressional Research Service reports that NAFTA has little influence on manufacturing employment and automation, accounting for 87% of manufacturing job losses.  In a joint statement last month, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Rights and the Natural Resources Defense Council asked their members to oppose the USMCA.
They said the new trade deal did not go far enough and would “promote further pollution and job destocking, provide subsidies to notorious polluters, and extend Trump`s polluting legacy by several years.” The negotiations focused “primarily on car exports, tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as the milk, egg and poultry markets.” A provision “prevents any party from enacting laws that restrict the cross-border flow of data.”  Compared to NAFTA, the USMCA increases environmental and labour standards and encourages domestic production of cars and trucks.  The agreement also provides up-to-date intellectual property protection, gives the U.S. more access to the Canadian milk market, imposes a quota for Canadian and Mexican auto production, and increases the tariff limit for Canadians who purchase countries of a