Mr. Speaker, on February 27, I asked the Prime Minister to launch an inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. It is now April 7. My question of February 27 had to do with the timing of a public inquiry. I find it strange that, in response to my question on launching a public inquiry, this government continues to demonstrate its lack of transparency and public accountability.
The Conservative government has now received the ethics committee report which was in serial a main report and an opposition dissent and a government dissent. The main body of that report calls for a broad scope of study. The government has also received the recommendations from Professor Johnston which calls for a narrow scope public inquiry. Professor Johnston has also suggested that it would be unnecessary to have a fully public inquiry.
I should think that the government's greatest wish would be to offer Canadians clear information on Mr. Mulroney's dealings. It would be the government's greatest wish, I would think, to get to the bottom of this issue, but we would not know it from the members of the committee who saw no evil, heard no evil, spoke no evil, although that is not always true, but they heard and saw no evil.
They must have thought that Mulroney was a ghost. His presence is felt in the House. His presence is felt in the boardrooms and corridors of the nation's businesses. His presence is certainly felt in a number of hotel rooms where he received cash.
Unlike the script that the government was willing to provide Canadians, Professor Johnston did not go totally along with the ending. In fact, Professor Johnston's report which should call for the immediate, fully public inquiry of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair was very clear in suggesting that yes, Mr. Schreiber should have all documents presented to the inquiry. We agree with that, all opposition parties. I think the government agrees with that, although we would never know from the committee members. They seem to say there was nothing wrong.
Professor Johnston has concluded otherwise. He has concluded that there is grist for the mill of a fully public inquiry by what I would call the good, the bad and the ugly. The good is, on the report of Dr. Johnston that an inquiry should start immediately, Bear Head is alive. Bear Head was a project in Cape Breton that called for the manufacture of armoured vehicles in Cape Breton. It was killed by the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. Mulroney, in a communication with Mr. Spector who gave evidence, yet lobbying went on fully in the year 1991 with government officials. The question is, why? Dr. Johnston asks, why did this occur? We agree with him. Dr. Johnston concludes that there is great public concern over what payments were made, when, how and why. It is a matter of public concern, but the government spokespeople do not seem to be saying that.
Dr. Johnston has said that there is great public concern over what services were actually rendered by Mr. Mulroney when he was over meeting with Mitterrand, Yeltsin and other now deceased public leaders, as evidenced by a conversation with Fred Doucet who only heard those two names in one and a half hours of conversation in a room in the Hotel Pierre in New York.
The bad is that the libel suit for which Mr. Mulroney was paid $2.1 million will not be reopened. The Airbus and GCI money which was spread over this country through the PC Canada fund, through back doors of the prime minister's--