In accordance with Article 102 of NAFTA, there are 6 stated objectives of the Treaty. Nevertheless, the most-favoured-nation (MFN) clause played an important role in NAFTA. Through NAFTA, all co-signed countries obtain the most frequent status, which means that they must treat all parties equally on trade. Thanks to the most-favoured nation, countries should not favour investors from non-NAFTA countries or show more favour towards foreign investors. In principle, they should all be treated in the same way in the agreement. According to Chad P. Bown (Senior Fellow am Peterson Institute for International Economics), “a renegotiated NAFTA that restores trade barriers is unlikely to help workers who have lost their jobs, regardless of their cause, not take advantage of new job opportunities.”  After diplomatic negotiations in 1990, the heads of state and government of the three nations signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.  The signed agreement then had to be ratified by the legislature or parliament of each country. However, between the late 1990s and the late 1990s, the Canadian dollar fell to record levels against the U.S. dollar. Cheaper Canadian precursors, such as lumber and oil, could be purchased duty-free by the Americans, and Hollywood studios sent their teams to make many films in Canada because of the cheap Canadian dollar (see “Runaway Production” and “Hollywood North”). The removal of tariffs has meant that market forces, such as monetary values, influence the economies of both countries more than tariffs. Other ancillary agreements have been adopted to allay fears about the potential impact of the Treaty on the labour market and the environment.
Critics feared that, in general, low wages in Mexico would attract U.S. and Canadian companies, leading to a relocation of production to Mexico and a rapid decline in manufacturing jobs in the United States and Canada. Meanwhile, environmentalists were worried about the potentially disastrous effects of rapid industrialization in Mexico, which has no experience in implementing and enforcing environmental legislation. Potential environmental issues were addressed in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which established the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. NAFTA achieved all seven goals and established the region`s largest free trade area in terms of gross domestic product. It has also increased foreign investment in all three countries. Ultimately, NAFTA created the framework for trade in North American countries. While the creation of the free trade agreement has had good and bad results, there is no denying the increase in cross-border trade. During the negotiations, Canada retained the right to protect its cultural industries and sectors such as education and health. In addition, some resources, such as water, should be removed from the agreement.
Canadians have failed to win free competition for U.S. government procurement. Canadian negotiators also insisted that a dispute settlement mechanism be included.  A 2015 study showed that Mexican welfare increased by 1.31% as a result of NAFTA tariff reductions and by 118% for Mexico`s intra-bloc trade.  Inequality and poverty have decreased in the regions of Mexico most affected by globalization.  Studies from 2013 and 2015 showed that small Mexican farmers benefited more from NAFTA than large farmers.   Analyses of the free trade agreement often find that its impact on both countries depends on the difference in value between the Canadian dollar and the United States dollar. Between 1990 and 1991, the Canadian dollar appreciated sharply against the U.S.
dollar, making Canadian industrial products much more expensive for Americans and making U.S. industrial products much cheaper for Canadians who no longer had to pay high tariffs. . . .