Sure. The post-employment phase is when a person is leaving their role as a designated public office holder and they're now going into a new world. It depends on what they want to do. They may go into a retirement phase. They may want to engage in a different kind of work. If they do, what will that look like, and what restrictions are on them?
The point of the post-employment restrictions is to make sure that the public interest is protected. If you have somebody leaving, such as a cabinet minister who wasn't re-elected, they've gone from having this very powerful role inside government to being a private citizen. If we put restrictions on them, and we do, they should be appropriate. They should be there to protect the public interest. To me, they should not be any heavier than that, to the point where you're discouraging people from wanting to enter public office because they don't know what they're going to do after their career on the public side is over. Of course, the restrictions apply to not just ministers. They apply to staff and to people inside the public service as well. Again, we have those things there for a reason.
I think probably, if we look around at the countries we typically compare ourselves with, Canada is actually quite robust in our restriction of the post-employment phase. Even going back to some of the comments about the American jurisdiction, their emphasis, it seems to me, is on disclosure. Do what you're going to do, but tell people about it. Then it's up to the public to map on to see if you've done anything wrong, whereas—