I would suggest that we need to look at some of the things they have done that get around some of the objections with respect to the scope being too broad. In terms of defining some of the words that are used in this legislation, let me bring up a couple of examples.
One has to do with extraterritorial provisions. The anti-spam and message-altering provisions that exist at the moment apply to any message when a computer system located in Canada is used to send, route, or access the electronic message. The key word here is “route”. As you know, the way the Internet works is that we can have messages flowing through Canadian computer systems that don't originate in Canada and are not ultimately going to end up in Canada. The use of the word “route” is problematic in this particular case. That is an example that I think perhaps you may want to address. We need to address it.