Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to be joining you at committee today.
I'm going to start with Mr. Benson and the Teamsters. I did meet with the youth group. You should be very proud of the work that they do. They presented very professionally. It was very, very good.
You mentioned a couple of things about having the definitions in the law and how important it is, because none of the conversations we have here, nothing we say in the debates in the House of Commons, will be material when there are lawyers interpreting what the law actually says. To my understanding, at least one definition is being removed from the Labour Code.
Can you explain how important it is to have definitions written directly into the law, the benefits to doing so, and then maybe your thoughts on that if they're not put into this law through an amendment in the future, the value of the bill going forward without the definitions expressly written out?
I'll make a side note on this. The Quebec HR association has a “psychological harassment” definition that they use. I make the statement that you trust accountants with your money, so why wouldn't you trust your HR or OHS—occupational health and safety—to qualified personnel in an employer/employee environment? You have people on both sides who are qualified to do the job, who understand what the law says, understand what regulations say, and they have a code of conduct that they personally have to adhere to.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.