I have some experience in falling out of favour with the ruling party, as Clerk of the House of Commons over the years that I occupied that post. Also, I have fallen out of favour with Her Majesty's loyal opposition from time to time. So I think it's a question of striking a balance. Yes, aggressive advocacy is required by the commissioner, but strategic aggressive advocacy I think is effective. To just go on the “Speakers Corner” and advocate transparency in government is one thing. Advocating it with a strategic intent of achieving something is what I would like to devise as a plan. Of course, this committee has to be part of it. As I said, you can't just delegate this to the commissioner. I wasn't trying to preach or sermonize to the committee with that comment. The power the commissioner has, even in his advocacy role, flows only from Parliament. Sure, the personality can probably add something to it, but it's your authority that the commissioner carries forward.
At the same time, because I've been an officer of Parliament, and still am as an honorary officer of the House, I cannot substitute myself for the legislator. If you decide to do something with the statute, at the end of the day that's a decision of Parliament, and as commissioner I have to live with it. I may not like it. I may even gently criticize it--not to the point of contempt, but certainly in the hope of keeping the file going.
I don't have a problem with taking on an aggressive championship-style role and falling out of favour with ministers or senior bureaucrats. I've been there before.