I think leaving the details to the regulations is the legitimate way of approaching an exercise like this. In the case of occupational health and safety in the workplace, we have the Canada occupational health and safety regulations, and that document is maybe 250 pages long. It has in it provisions that set the framework for the occupational health and safety requirements in the workplace. Employers are held to that standard, and compliance is enforced by the government.
For example, in the case of violence in the workplace, the definition of “violence”, as I understand it, is embedded in the regulations. The argument we've made is that the same should occur here. We don't necessarily negotiate, but we bring together the experts, those around the table with on-the-ground experience of what this looks like—the legal community, the business community, the labour movement, government officials, and others—and we work through the details of what that definition looks like. I think this bill, with the changes it will bring to the Canada Labour Code, does create a strengthened and strong umbrella framework for addressing harassment and violence in the workplace. It moves the chains along further from where they were previously, but in terms of those specific details around the definition, I fundamentally think that it just makes the most sense.