I think that in the case of appointment procedures for some other officers of Parliament, or indeed for judges, some of those appointments are made by the executive branch. What I would look forward to is how my conduct in fulfilling the duties of this position and serving the House and its interests.... This, I would say, is the mandate and is what will guide me. Similarly, an individual once appointed, say, to the bench becomes part of the judicial branch despite the fact that they were appointed by the executive branch, and they fulfill their duties accordingly.
Certainly I view the role of law clerk as being to act as a servant of this institution, the House of Commons, serving the members both with respect to legal advice and legislative advice and representing the institution in litigation. In some of the cases I was involved in, you had the law clerk's office in litigation and you had the Attorney General not always with the same position. I see that as continuing, and it is certainly how I would see the mandate, in light of the separation of powers.