Plus it contains a few economic misconceptions...
Tariffs exist in part to protect domestic industry - jobs - from the vagaries of a global market. If cheaper US milk is sold in Canada, Canadian milk producers will have to choose whether to sell their own products more cheaply or else close down and go out of business. If it is not possible for these farmers to sell at a lower price and still remain profitable, then that choice is not a choice at all.
The idea that free trade = loss of jobs is not supported by the current body of economic literature. Paul Krugman wrote an excellent article illustrating why this is the case in the 1996 issue of Harvard Business Review.
The TPP will offer a method by which companies can attack laws that affect them, suing governments through a tribunal for such offenses as trying to protect youth from cigarette marketing images, trying to protect the environment from dangerous industrial contaminants, or even refusing to pass laws removing or suppressing regulations where beneficial to corporate activity. These are all issues that already happen under various trade deals.
First of all, tobacco companies are specifically banned from using the ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) that he is alluding to. Second, the ISDS is not a court, but rather an arbitration panel. It will have no power to change any existing laws - the most a company can do is seek monetary damages. Third, there are definitely legitimate reasons a company would want to take an issue to arbitration; it's not just some corporate power-grab like people think. There are many situations in which a foreign government could pass a law with the explicit purpose of making it impossible for the domestic company to enter it's market.
"Free trade" as the TPP proposes is nothing new - globalization has already happened, and we are all the beneficiaries.
The U.S. and several countries involved still maintain several tariffs in important industries. For example, the U.S. currently maintains tariffs on dairy and beef, which will be removed under the TPP (given the state of our agricultural industry, it would be easier to sell if our partners globally were willing to part with theirs). We know it will give a significant boost to U.S. exports by removing tariffs placed on our goods by the other countries in the agreement. Tariffs and trade barriers undermine comparative advantage. They're one of the worst possible things you can do for global economic growth, and getting rid of them is almost an unalloyed good (the exception being countries which get screwed by not being especially good at anything).
The TPP has been negotiated in heavy secrecy.
There are legitimate reasons treaties like this are secret. Basically they don't want to have the treaty become politicized. Say industry A and it's workers are going to take a big hit from the treaty, but industries B, C, and D, as well as the average consumer will make some gains. If it were open, industry A throws a fit and nukes the press with attack ads. The public freaks out over an issue it doesn't really understand and demands industry A doesn't take a hit. Negotiators' hands now are tied because the other country knows the negotiators now cannot negatively effect industry A. Additionally, industry A would use its influence congressman to vote "No," especially if industry A had even a moderate handhold in the congressman's district.
Remembering NAFTA Gives Insight Into Why Trade Deals Are Kept Secret. <-- excellent interview that goes into further detail