Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's passionate speech. She highlighted a number of important details about the bill, but I would like to go back to the definitions, which are just as important.
There can be such a thing as too many definitions when the time comes to go to court or make legal decisions. An overabundance of definitions can be restrictive. The flip side is a legal vacuum, and definitions can vary from one country to another. When it comes to defining harassment, a person can say they have been physically harassed or even assaulted, and there is also the definition of psychological harassment. It varies from person to person.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the importance of including definitions in Bill C-65. Does she think the government will agree to the amendments about definitions that the NDP is going to propose in committee?