I'm going to conclude by addressing what I believe to be the core contradiction that led to the $4.6 million in waste identified by the Auditor General, and that is, that you and other public servants clearly identified that the Place Victoria option was not the best option for taxpayers. A retroactive justification seems to have since been contrived, but all of your own writings indicate the contrary. I want to know why you thought it was possible to change the rules of the game after the game was over, and then award the prize to the guy who finished fourth.
On March 4th, 2008. See this statement in context.