The definition in the act is a broad definition, I think. We have heard as well that there's a lack of clarity with respect to the definition. I think the definition contains other definitions, other terms that you need to refer to other terms, in order to determine what those terms mean.
In the recent Compu.Finder decision, the commission itself has provided some clarification and some guidance as to what in their view constitutes a commercial electronic message. I think the definition is so broad in order to capture circumstances where a party could be soliciting. If you want to make tweaks to the definition, it is your opportunity to do so. I do note that when the witnesses testified, people criticized the definition but didn't offer any suggestions for how we could clarify the definition. I would certainly be open to commenting on how we could clarify the definition, but I would exercise caution there. If you tighten it up too much, you might restrict our enforcement of real spam emails that are sent.
There are so many exemptions, some of which are not even consent-based, that if you have any kind of relationship with a party, you really can send a commercial electronic message.