We try as much as possible to avoid being perceived as advisors. Imagine what a tricky situation we would be in if, after giving some advice, something didn't work. They would say that it was the commissioner who advised them to do this or that. So we definitely keep things separate.
In terms of sustainable development and strategies, there was a void. The government was not showing any leadership. So the departments were developing sustainable development strategies and each one was going about it in its own way. For a few years, we more or less occupied that space by indicating to them what, in our opinion, constituted a good sustainable development strategy. We produced two documents on our expectations in terms of sustainable strategies. Then, we stopped doing that, because in our view, that was a departmental responsibility. They have to get together and develop their own strategies.
A committee was struck under the former government, but it never really delivered the goods. Environment Canada was clearly given a mandate to play a leadership role and to help departments set their priorities and implement them through individual strategies. That committee no longer exists.
Also, I don't know whether this relates to your question, but when we establish the subject of our audits, we do so with the help of a committee of experts from outside our office, in order to ensure that we are on the right track in terms of setting goals for the audit and results. We consult them twice in connection with an audit. So we get help from various experts, depending on the subject of the audit, who provide insight different from ours or that of the departments.