I wish people would stop wanting to micromanage their governments. Some things, like negotiation, military planning, or crime investigation don't work when all their details are made public as they happen. Trade deals are never secret once they're completed so it's not a cover-up. You elect leaders who you believe will work in your interests and leave them to get the job done. If they do it wrong, you can unelect them or their whole party next time. This actually happened in America when people didn't like the TPP that Obama agreed to behind closed doors and they elected Trump who withdrew from it.

Why is it so important to have business input into treaties but not important to have consumer input?

What if we want to hold government accountable?

With all due respect to the average consumer (including myself), I don't think their input is particularly valuable. They want lower prices for goods and for people not to be laid off. I don't think the average consumer has much to offer on Vietnamese shrimp subsidies and their effect on the global supply chain. Getting input from businesses doesn't mean blindly following them, but they do have a lot of information to offer.

> Much of the terms of this treaty were negotiated behind closed doors with "industry leaders" (large corporate interests) invited to attend.

In other words: Business as usual.

It will be ratified in Canada without a doubt. The negotiations spanned both Liberal and Conservative governments, and the public wants contingency plans for US trade disruptions. Trump has made very clear that he does not value free trade with Canada, and his threat to dissolve NAFTA is a serious one. Expanded trade with Europe (CETA) and the Pacific Rim (CPTPP) would strengthen Canada's negotiating position by reducing our dependency on the United States.

It's fortunate that the United States left the TPP. They were the ones demanding draconian intellectual property laws. With the US gone, the worst clauses could be removed and the agreement was greatly improved.

The full text has been public for a while now. I'm not a fan of everything in there, but the good outweighs the bad. Linux Journal's concerns are based on a misunderstanding.