As somebody who has kicked this around a bit, I think there's a big difference between legislation and regulations. Over the past three decades that I've been doing this, more and more people are saying that they'll deal with it in regulations. Fact: what you say here, what your intention is here, and what the minister says in the House mean nothing. This has to be contained in the four corners of the act.
That's why we want a definition of mental health in the section where you talk about definitions. If it is not there in the regulatory process it will not exist.
As for talking about the regulatory process and leaving it to them, there are several issues with that. First of all, we have the consultations: Gazette, part I, and Gazette, part II. We also have bureaucratic agendas. We have a great deal of people who can influence it, and your legislation isn't bound by the one-in, one-out rule. The one-in, one-out rule says that if you want to bring something in, you have to take something out. For example, you can have protective clothes, but we're taking your gloves; by the way, that's not quite a real one, but the gloves part is.... If you want prevention on the job site, if you want to be preventive, I'd urge you to put the definitions in the act so they will be dealt with.
Otherwise, I'm very sad to say that it will not appear in the regulations. Intentions are not worth a pitcher of warm spit in the regulatory world.