The argument we've been making is that we believe the definition is more suitably placed in the regulations because they allow it to be updated as our understanding of this particular issue changes and evolves over time.
The minister alluded to this in her comments when she talked about cyber-bullying. That was something we didn't even know existed a decade ago. Regulations don't change on a dime. They have to go through a process. Regulations are as strong, in terms of how they have to be enforced by those over whom they are held, as if the language was written directly into the law.
We believe the experts should be engaged fully in developing that definition of what is and what is not harassment. We believe that process will take some time, as it did when we went through part XX and did the violence piece of the occupational health and safety regulations. It's a process the parties should go through—the experts from labour, the experts from business, the experts from government, and outside stakeholders—so that we can engage fully and comprehensively to get a full understanding of what should and should not be contained in that definition.
At the end of the day, whether it's in the legislation or in the regulation, I don't think it makes a difference in terms of how it will be enforced, but I think having it in the regulation gives us the opportunity, under this broad framework the government will be creating with Bill C-65 and the changes to the Canada Labour Code, to go through that process, which will take some time, and I frankly don't think it could be solved at this table in the weeks ahead in finishing this piece of legislation in particular.