I'd prefer to say this. On the level of disclosure and on the level of what cabinet ministers, as distinct from other members, should need to disclose or do, there is a difference, which we've been able to accommodate in our act. For example, cabinet members cannot operate a business. Believe it or not, they also cannot practise a profession, although I've dealt with that as a matter of interpretation. As long as you are just retaining membership in your profession, it doesn't amount to practising.
But there is a difference between what members of the cabinet have to abandon and what other members don't have to abandon. We've been able to provide easily for that difference in the act, which is quite a simple document.
Insofar as the larger issues are concerned—the issues of principle—my view has always been that the principles are the same. There is no need. If we were asked to provide both a code and an act and to make the same differentiation as between types of membership in the House, I would resist that idea.