Trade in agricultural products significantly expanded under NAFTA; however, critics note that it came at the expense of smaller farmers, who were not able compete with an increase in the number of pesticide-heavy factory farms, particularly in Mexico. Small farmers resorted to deforestation to farm more land and were still unsuccessful. Additionally, the increased demand for agricultural products led to unsustainable water use. Similarly, the expansion of the mining sector, especially in Mexico, came at the expense of local landowners, with subsequent industrial pollution. At the time that NAFTA came into force, Mexico's environmental laws were lax and enforcement virtually non-existent; critics note that even after almost three decades, they are yet to improve significantly. There are cases that indicate that the poor environmental regulatory regime prompted some Canadian and US companies to move their operations to Mexico to reduce their environmental-compliance costs.

On the other hand, NAFTA provided Mexico exponential economic growth and jobs for a growing population. Mexico's agricultural exports constitute an important source of foreign exchange and exports to Canada and the US. The increased presence of some foreign companies in the agricultural sector has also shown improvements in labour standards and implementation of sustainable environmental practices. Critics argue that CUSMA's environmental chapter is not much of an improvement from the NAFTA side agreement, NAAEC, as it fails to reference global climate change or the Paris Agreement. Environmental groups suggest that CUSMA's environmental provisions are inadequate due to the vague and unenforceable language that gives the three trading partners too much leeway in the type of environmental laws and policies they pursue domestically, if any at all. At the time CUSMA was negotiated, environmental advocates were vying for inclusion of binding environmental provisions for climate, water, and land pollution and provision s that would ensure the seven international environ mental multilateral agreements-namely, the Basel Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, t he Montreal Protocol, t he Rotterdam Convention, the Stockholm Convention, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change- were ratified by all three countries, which would ensure greater accountability among the three nations fo r breaking environmental rules.

Based on the given information above, answer the following questions.

1. Some sovereignty is surrendered w hen a country signs an international agreement. What role should trade agreements play with respect to environmental policies?

2. In your opinion, is it ethical for a company to take advantage of lax environmental regulations to reduce its operating costs and thus increase its profits? Why or why not?

3. If a certain course of action with respect to the environment is illegal in Canada but legal in Mexico, which legalstandard should a Canadian company follow when operating in Mexico? Why?