“You can be for it, or against it, but just don’t call it a free trade agreement.”

So says Brock international relations expert Blayne Haggart on Monday’s signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The TPP would form the world’s largest trading bloc covering some 800 million consumers. Its members still need to ratify and sign the agreement.

“While the deal commits its 12 member countries to reduce or eliminate tariffs across sectors of the economy, it reportedly includes many provisions that go far beyond traditional trade concerns,” says Haggart, assistant professor in the Department of Political Science.

Haggart says that the virtues of “free trade” itself are unquestioned in mainstream policy circles. Free trade is based on the theory of “comparative advantage,” which holds that countries should produce and export the goods and services they’re most efficient at, resulting in lower prices.

“But a lot of what’s in this Trans-Pacific Partnership literally has nothing to do with the principle comparative advantage, which means it can’t be legitimated by saying it’s a ‘free trade’ agreement” he says.

He points to the agreement’s reported intellectual property provisions as being a “windfall” for pharmaceutical and digital industries in particular, saying that stronger intellectual property provisions are actually a “de facto trade barrier.” While free-trade agreements are supposed to reduce prices, stronger intellectual property protections actually make products like drugs more expensive.

Haggart also raises concerns about the agreement’s reported investor-state dispute mechanism, which essentially would allow foreign companies to sue countries for various reasons. “This could have a negative effect on the quality of our democracy.”