The controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks taking place in Ottawa this week have been making headlines for a number of reasons. The talks were moved from Vancouver to Ottawa, seemingly at the last minute. Protesters believe this move was meant to intentionally frustrate their efforts, while the office of Ed Fast, the International Trade Minister, sites fiscal reasons, saying the move saves more than $150,000 in “hosting costs.”[1] Venue, of course, is not the only controversy surrounding the TPP talks.

In case you haven’t been following, the TPP is an ambitious trade agreement, drafted in 2005 and still in discussion–though originally scheduled for completion in 2012. It involves 12 Pacific Rim countries, affecting over 800 million people worldwide.[2] The scale of the TPP is hard to imagine: it is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing nations representing more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP.

One of the loudest and most often repeated criticisms since negotiations began has been a lack of transparency, with all talks occurring behind closed doors. Since the extremely controversial chapter on Intellectual Property Rights appeared on wikileaks last November, revealing discussions and disagreements between members, tensions have continued to rise.[3] The issues covered in this chapter would have serious impacts on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents.

Groups like Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) and Medecines Sans Frontiers (MSF) have taken a strong stance on the issue, warning against the harm that TPP could cause by preventing access to affordable medicines to those most in need in LMIC/developing countries. Citing plans for stricter and longer enforcement of drug patents, they fear that millions could be left without generic, affordable alternative drugs that are desperately needed to save lives, and unable to pay the high costs of the protected brand name versions. MSF’s Access Campaign has released several clever info-graphics to encourage public awareness and participation

.

Meanwhile, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry[4] and others claim that increased protection of patents will motivate companies to continue investing and innovating. Russel Williams, President of Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, believes protection of intellectual property strengthens protections for health innovation. He contends that this protection attracts international investment and encourages research and development in Canada, which plays an important role in improving health care and achieving economic growth. [5]

Certainly there are strong arguments on both sides of this hot debate, the results of which will be felt worldwide. Whatever your beliefs, it’s clear that many members of the public want more transparency and influence in the decision making process. What do you think?

[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-deny-shifting-trans-pacific-partnership-talks-to-ottawa-to-stymie-protests/article19458945/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

[3] http://wikileaks.org/tpp/

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/big-pharma-could-win-inte_b_4310643.html

[5] http://www.canadapharma.org/news.asp?a=view&id=35