The underlying principals of the TPP are a flat competitive structure that allows countries to compete on equal footing with the markets in question. It's meant to be "pure" capitalism. Once you know that the trade agreements start with that as a first principal these somewhat provocative and inflammatory tidbits without context such as "CBC must be required to operate on a for profit basis" make more sense.
One of the main concepts it's meant to snuff out is the concept of unbalanced competitive advantage owing to operating within a country's borders. Such as if domestic electronic companies that are exempt from certain taxes that foreign companies aren't, that gives domestic companies an unfair competitive advantage in their operations, and limits the ability for countries to partake in "free trade".
The model it's based on is in stock markets, companies are beholden to their shareholders, and shareholders generally want the long term value of their companies to improve, and that is done through maximizing profits. How that is actually done is up for interpretation of course and at the end of the day it's quite hard to argue "this particular move or initiative did not meet the goal of maximizing long term profits". Having everybody follow the same set of rules all ties back into the ideal of creating a flat competitive marketplace between the countries.
I think there is a lot of context-less tidbits and one liners which are being used to spread a lot of misinformation about the nature and details of the TPP. I'm not saying it would be a positive benefit to Canada as a whole, but maybe don't get all your information about it from places like, say, the Huffington Post. The editorial narratives of Bloomberg, Economist, etc. have their own journalistic slant on things as well.