Mr. Chair, we heard in the testimony that the witness suggested there might be some alarm over what we're hearing in terms of the rationale around cabinet confidence. I listened with interest to Ms. Harder's line of questioning and Ms. Vignola's line of questioning. I certainly tend to agree. I need to better understand this idea of a hypothetical proactive cabinet confidence.
I'll state it in the form of a comment, not even as a question, Mr. Chair. We've been at this committee. Many of you know that I sit on public accounts. I have been dogged about having this government actually be open by default like they talk about. It's often the case, Mr. Chair, that we get the cabinet confidence blockade from cabinet itself, but I'm not sure that I've ever heard of a staffer or bureaucrat coming to committee to say that they have taken it upon themselves to proactively not disclose hypothetical, in a future-case scenario, information that should be readily made available to members of this committee.
Through you, what precedent did the witness refer to when taking it upon himself to use this hypothetical rationale of cabinet confidence?