Does anybody else want to comment on that? Okay.
If not, then I wanted to further probe this issue of whether harassment should be defined in the legislation or in regulation. I think we've heard some perspectives from both sides.
Mr. Hynes, I know you suggested regulation. Maybe I'll just make a quick comment from my own perspective and then give you a chance to respond to that.
It seems to me that given some of these fine distinctions that we're talking about and the potential slipperiness in certain cases about what is covered by a term and what isn't, it is important that we have a clear definition, one that's well known and one that has broad buy-in. It would seem to me that the function of legislation is to establish the framework and also to deal with the most important aspects and leave the details to regulation, but to ask us as legislators to pass a bill that creates a specific process for dealing with something called “harassment” but that doesn't actually say what that something is is a little bit of an unusual way of legislating. It's like saying we're going to have a process for dealing with thing X and we'll leave it to the government in the future to define exactly what thing X is and revise that definition in the future. I suppose leaving it to regulation requires us to trust the good faith of government and to assume that they have the noblest of intentions in providing that definition, and very often I'm sure they do, but our function as a legislature is to hold the government accountable for establishing clear parameters when we legislate. It's not simply to say, “Okay, go ahead and define this thing that we think is very bad but have yet to define.”
Mr. Hynes, what do you think of those arguments? Do they hold water in your view?