On Friday Prime Minister Stephen Harper engineered a complete about face in his handling of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, citing a new allegation.

Two things come to kind after watching this performance. First, the words Harper chose to use appear to this observer to indicate that there are more stones to turn over with respect to his relationship with Mulroney.

Second, Harper has been in possession for over seven months of the specific allegations made by Schreiber which Harper now claims have changed his mind on starting an inquiry. Why?

Looking at the statement Harper made on Friday, Mr. Harper's chosen words on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair raise more questions than they were perhaps designed to deflect.

Why did Harper not act on Schreiber's allegations when he first became aware of them seven months ago?

Harper said that he and Mulroney "did not discuss Mr. Mulroney's dealings with Mr. Schreiber during that visit", in August of 2006.

Harper did not say that he had never discussed the Mulroney-Schreiber affair with Brian Mulroney.

Likewise, Harper went out of his way to say that "Mr. Mulroney has never spoken to me on behalf of Mr. Schreiber".

Harper did not say that Mr. Mulroney had never spoken to him about Mr. Schreiber, which is quite a different statement.

"On behalf" is a curious turn of phrase to use, one that implies a much different meaning than "about". Is Mr. Harper using a Bill Clinton language device here? Will we see a debate on what the meaning of "is" is evolve in this case?

Will Harper come out and simply state that he has never spoken to Mr. Mulroney about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair? Can he state that without equivocation?

Unless proven otherwise, this observer will assume that Harper in fact has discussed the Schreiber-Mulroney affair with Mulroney. To what end or purpose, who can tell, but this entire saga is one unanswered question after another and its long past time that all the questions were put and responded to.

While most questions are Mulroney's to answer, one question for Harper at least must be asked: why did Harper not act on Schreiber's allegations when he first became aware of them seven months ago?

One week ago Harper declared there would be no re-opening of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair and bullied off the Liberals from agitating for further review. At that time Harper was already in possession of the allegations made by Schreiber.

Harper did a turnabout on the issue on Friday not because of new allegations but because information - which he had been in the possession of for seven months already - became public.

In that context, Harper's elusive words used Friday continue a pattern of evasion and rightly should draw further attention to the current prime minister's role in this affair. A public inquiry by a special prosecutor is necessary to clear the air.