I think it's appropriate. The way the Quebec legislation is drafted—I have looked at it because I reviewed all of Canada's legislation on the issue—their definition of “psychological harassment” is probably the best definition. In defining “harassment” and “sexual harassment”, the Ontario version is very good. It's meant to be flexible, because not every situation fits every definition, but it's broad enough. The way that the regulation in this bill is worded is in expressions of harassment and violence. You have a general definition in the legislation, and then you give more clarification in the regulation, and that can be updated more easily. You have exactly what the one question was; you had the basis, so everybody knows the rules of the game. Then, as society and our cultural values change, and as the law changes—because it is fluid—that is dealt with in the regulations. I think that's a fair compromise between the two viewpoints.
On February 22nd, 2018. See this statement in context.