I don't know if it's for nothing. I will never say that work that enhances transparency is work for nothing.
Recommending that directors general be included as designated public office holders actually comes from this committee. It was the number one recommendation back in 2012. Usually the directors general are invited to meetings because they're the ones who are operationally hands-on in the departments. If people meet with them to get some work done, they should have to be transparent about those communications. That was the recommendation of this committee.
The only issue was people were concerned that they would also be subject to the five-year prohibition. That is the consideration that needs to be made about whether or not they should be in that group. I would say probably not because they don't have the same level of network, possibly.
That is the consideration, and that was a recommendation from this committee, to extend transparency to those who are actually working on the policies and operations of different departments.