I think five years is appropriate. I know that some people on the Hill question that, but the purpose of the ban is to ensure that people who, in the service of the Crown, for which they get paid a salary, amass a network of contacts—belonging to the people of Canada because they were amassed on the taxpayer's dime—don't turn around and use those contacts to fuel their lobbying practice. Five years was seen as an appropriate amount of time by Parliament at the time. I think that's the case.
I know that many people end up in lobbying. It's a valid profession, it's a lawful profession, it's a helpful profession and it's actually important in the development of public policy. However, I would hope that nobody goes into government hoping to come out lobbying. If that's the sort of person who is affected by five years, then I'm not sure that's a public policy problem.