As we mentioned in our remarks, we are very supportive of the bill in principle. We're also very supportive of the objective of dealing with spam and harmful or malicious computer programs that could have detrimental effects. We agree with the approach of opting in as opposed to opting out in the United States. As Mr. Courtois said, the issue is really recalibrating it to remove the inadvertent potential problems. There are several ways in which that can be dealt with. Some people will have different views on the best way to do this, because although there are certain common elements internationally, there are still variations from country to country. There needs to be discussion and debate on the appropriate approach for Canada to do this right.
As a matter of general principle in talking about spam, if the definition of the electronic commercial message were targeted at the real subject matter that's of concern to the country--these direct marketing types of messages that are the focus internationally--that scope would get the 17 bad companies that everybody's concerned about and not inadvertently catch the Canadian businesses that are just trying to hang on in these tough economic times.
On consent, if we move from express consent to the international standard of further implied consent, there is no way the 17 bad apples could ever prove they had implied consent. We would be able to catch the entities we're really concerned about without inadvertently catching legitimate Canadian businesses.
On the exceptions, if we didn't try to be very specific and identify every exception in advance, but left it to a flexible and realistic principle, we'd be far advanced.
On spyware, many countries simply rely on their criminal code provisions to deal with it. Canada has several provisions that would be applicable today, such as mischief in relation to data, and the unauthorized use of a computer. So there isn't necessarily a case that we need it. But if we were going to do it there are models in other states, particularly the United States, that have spyware legislation. They deal specifically with malware and define what it is. If we moved in that direction we would have a bill that everyone around the table would accept in principle.