I think that in any relationship that works between a chairman and a minister--and that goes for both ministers--the practice has varied over time. There are informal consultations, and they're taken very much on an expertise basis. Any advice I give would not bind my colleagues; it would not bind us in any kind of decision. Information gathering, particularly for new ministers, is an important role. We try to be helpful in terms of where we've been and where we're going--so yes, that goes on, and I believe should go on, but I think what we were referring to earlier was that there is a process whereby the act requires consultations, and we generally don't make those documents public. In fact, generally we don't make them public; we leave them for the person seeking the advice, namely the minister, to make public if he or she chooses.
I'm not sure whether some of them are obtainable under access to information. We certainly would draft those formal responses with a view to their being our official word, and if they were ever what we call ATIPable--if they were ever accessible under freedom of information--we would want to make sure they were appropriate and reflected our views.
The last thing we'd do is try to rush out with press releases on those consultations. We send them back to the minister, invariably, and I can think of three or four occasions over my term when we've done that. We don't stamp “Confidential” on them, because in a sense they aren't, but they are certainly advice that the minister can then choose to do with as he or she sees fit. Frankly, I haven't seen very many of them see the light of day. I don't know what the status is in that regard.
I hope that's responsive to your question. It certainly doesn't rule out informal consultations on a without-prejudice basis.