I'm not legal counsel, but my own opinion is that the definition that was arrived at is meant to cover a continuum. It's that “harassment and violence” means.... What it means is that every time it shows up in the legislation, it's seen as along this continuum. In other words, the process is the same; there is no differentiation between an act of harassment and an act of violence. It's behaviour along this continuum of harassment and violence.
To reinsert the word “or” would be problematic for the flow of the legislation, because it would introduce the concept of harassment being a type of thing that is different from violence, whereas the definition that was arrived at on Monday is that it's a continuum of behaviour.