U.S., Mexico, Canada Heads Sign Trade Pact : Accord: Support is widespread in Mexico, mixed in Canada. U.S. debate will test the new Administration’s economic philosophy.

President Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney signed the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement in their respective capitals on Thursday, but final approval of the groundbreaking accord is far from assured.

It remains to be seen how hard President-elect Bill Clinton will fight for an agreement negotiated by his predecessor that does not reflect many of his fundamental ideas about economic relations between nations. The agreement, negotiated over the last 18 months, aims to remove all tariffs on goods moving among Canada, Mexico and the United States within the next 15 years.

Clinton believes that, in the post-Cold War world, trade no longer involves the mere flow of goods and services across borders, but touches more basic issues of national security, national interest and national identity. The debate over NAFTA will mark the first test for Clinton and his advisers of their “economic security” doctrine.

The accord now moves to the national legislative bodies in the three countries. In the United States, Clinton is to submit a package of bills to Congress to carry out the agreement. He has no deadline, but Clinton aides expect the legislation, including changes the new Administration believes are necessary, will be sent to Capitol Hill sometime next spring.

The pact has broad support in Mexico and should win approval easily. Its fate is less certain in Canada, though it is expected to be adopted.

The signing ceremony in Ottawa was disrupted by hecklers who interrupted Mulroney’s speech to complain that the pact would cost thousands of Canadian jobs. Free trade opponents forced their way into the Canadian Parliament and raised a U.S. flag to protest what they see as a sellout to the United States.

Although Bush’s speech at the rococo Organization of American States headquarters in Washington was not interrupted, the signing was met by a blizzard of fax messages from foes of the pact.

Labor unions, consumer lobbies and environmental groups strongly oppose the agreement on grounds that it does not contain adequate protection for displaced American workers, provide relief from an unexpected surge in imports or impose strict environmental standards on firms doing business in Mexico.

Bush hailed the 2,000-page pact as a “giant step” toward creation of a hemispheric trading zone that will bring prosperity to hundreds of millions of people.

“Because of what we’ve begun here today, I believe the time will soon come when trade is free from Alaska to Argentina, when every citizen of the Americas has an opportunity to share in new growth and expanding prosperity,” he said.

In Little Rock, Ark., Clinton called the trade agreement “an important step toward the economic integration of North America.” But he repeated reservations he voiced during the campaign, saying the pact “must be coupled with a plan to protect our environment and to prepare our entire work force to compete in the global economy.”

A senior Clinton trade adviser said the agreement would be submitted to Congress as part of a much larger package of legislation to provide retraining for workers who lose their jobs as a result of businesses moving overseas, to improve U.S. competitiveness and to ensure renewed domestic economic growth.

The senior adviser indicated that the President-elect was in no hurry to immerse himself in a fight over what he considers a flawed and unpopular agreement. He said that if NAFTA were submitted to Congress in its present form, it would be soundly rejected.

Proponents say it will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the three countries as trade barriers are lifted and new markets opened. They also say the jobs and wealth created in Mexico will ease massive illegal migration to the United States.

Opponents claim that most of the benefits will accrue to large corporations that move their manufacturing operations to Mexico to take advantage of labor costs, which are five to 10 times lower than in the United States and Canada.