It's a pleasure to be here in this role, so thank you very much.
I would like to give you a brief overview of what we have done until now with the minister in these consultations. Some people have asked which persons and which groups have been consulted, and so on. As parliamentary secretary, I am here precisely to answer your questions. As for the process that has taken place to date and which we will be pursuing, the information I am going to share with you could help to guide your deliberations and consultations.
After we were elected in October, the minister began, immediately after she was appointed, to consult with people. A number came to her, but also we set out to do our best to go across the country and to begin to consult a variety of people in different sectors. When I was appointed at the beginning of December, I joined in on the process, and I can certainly speak to the people whom I have consulted with, just from my own notes.
There was industry. We have tried to touch base with: the agricultural industries, agrifood as well as animals; the seafood industries; manufacturing; both North American auto makers and Japanese auto makers who are in Ontario; the auto parts industry; the financial services industry through the chambers of commerce; the chamber of commerce itself; and other commercial participants in the economy. We've done our best to meet with trade unions and will continue to meet unionized labour, big and small. We've met with most of the major labour unions across the country. The minister has indeed been on the shop floor in a Ford plant in Oakville to discuss concerns with the actual membership. I met with port authorities across the country—I met with the Halifax Port Authority, for example. There's the pharmaceutical industry and also think tanks.
We'll eventually get a list out of what we've done so far. We have actively engaged in particular with universities and think tanks, a number of whom are very critical of the agreement in areas such as ISDS and intellectual property. If you consider the actual depth of consultation, in that regard in many ways it's much deeper. We had a full-day conference at the Munk School, organized by professors Dan Breznitz and Ariel Katz of the University of Toronto and the Munk School. It included Canada's leading critic on ISDS, Professor Gus Van Harten from Osgoode Hall Law School, and Michael Geist, one of the leading critics. Michael has been consulted a number of times in depth on various aspects of the TPP.
We've been out seeing everybody. We have heard opinions for and against. We've consulted with governments and with NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières. We have been hearing varied opinions for and against. We'll continue to do so as you deliberate as well, and you may want to hear some of the very same people we have consulted with—that's your prerogative—as you should. You need to illuminate every corner of the agreement that you feel needs illumination. We'll continue to do this as well. At the end of the day, we want to have the best information in front of us before we make a decision on ratification.
Again, there are strong opinions for and strong opinions against. We have seen very passionate pleas, if you will, to be included in the agreement, in particular stressing the downside of not being included in an agreement that goes forward without Canada. We've seen some very passionate critiques of various aspects of the agreement as well.
That's where we are. By all means, I am happy to answer questions.