When I look at the history of the legislation, there was an individual at one point who was responsible for both the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct and the code for members under the Conflict of Interest Act. There was a court case on a few cases, and the issue was about whether or not there was bias, because no one was found to be guilty, in breach, on either the public office holder side or the lobbyist side.
So I think there is a reason to have the two sides separate. That said, and I said this in my opening remarks, if there's something to looking at putting the post-employment prohibitions under the Commissioner Dawson or the lobbying side, it would be that certain things do need to be harmonized because for the officers covered—the reporting officer and a designated public office holder—the definitions don't categorize the same number of people.
The post-employment times are different and so are the activities covered under post-employment.