This issue is probably the most important consular issue at the most important time in our relationship with Mexico. The family of Dominic and Nancy Ianiero--one member was here today, Mr. Anthony Ianiero--and those who have been unfairly blindsided by this--Cheryl Everall and Kimberly Kim, who are also with us here today--deserve a full, appropriate, complete, and transparent explanation as to what transpired and what has led the Mexican officials to now declare that this case is over.
Mexico may believe this case is over, but Canadian parliamentarians do not. Out of an interest between the two countries, with over a million Canadians travelling to that destination every year, whether it is the Ianiero case, whether it is the Shawn Potts case, or whether it is the Brenda Martin case, there is a certain concern that has been raised by most Canadians that our consular and diplomatic efforts are not good enough if we do these things behind closed doors.
The former Mexican President has upheld the view of the Attorney General of Quintana Roo, despite his own police investigation that has cleared Ms. Everall and Ms. Kim, and has declared that he believes these two Canadians are guilty of those heinous murders of Canadians.
I've spent a bit of time on consular cases, as you know, and not once in my two or three years doing that job was the question asked in the House of Commons pertaining specifically to a case that was under my tenure. Yet there have been many questions asked of the minister. In 30 seconds of question and response we can't get the kinds of answers we so clearly deserve if we are going to continue to enhance our efforts with Mexico. I think it's important for Mexico to come clean on this, but at the same time to also recognize that it is in Canada's interest as well to ensure that we continue to give Canadians an assurance of a modicum of protection and safety when they're travelling to that country.
It is by all accounts no surprise to anybody here that the investigative abilities of most Mexican officials are negligent, poor, and incapable of protecting Canadians, let alone their own citizens. I have no difficulty talking about the Mexican jurisprudence and saying that we cannot interfere with their system, but that catch phrase cannot be used as a defence to allow Canadians to be continuously left to fend for themselves, with only the rare consular visit they get, or the lip service we often give to these important cases.
So I not only support the motion by Mr. Wilfert, but I think it would give the ministers a golden opportunity to explain once and for all what has been done and what should be done, and answer, canvass, and perhaps field questions as to whether or not Canada's diplomatic effort should include--as was suggested yesterday by Ms. Everall and Ms. Kim--a diplomatic protest.
I don't know what the answers are. I know that our diplomatic efforts up to this point have failed. They've not only failed Canadians, but they continue to potentially damage our reputation, our trade relationship, and our tourism industry with Mexico. This is not in Mexico's interest, and it's certainly not in Canada's interest.
So I think it's extremely important for us to bring this issue to light in a two-hour session with both ministers responsible, given all that has been said. We need to not just talk about engaging at the highest levels, but deal with what I think most Canadians expect, which is a government that's prepared to stand up for them when they wind up in difficulty. If indeed the minister has done these things, he will have an opportunity to explain them. The minister will also perhaps have an opportunity to hear, from the wisdom of many of the members who have been sitting on this committee for many years, recommendations that should take place with respect to Mexico.
My colleague, Mr. Obhrai, spoke very passionately about what has been done. I want to clarify for him, in case he didn't see the press conference yesterday, that the minister has not indeed followed up with his commitment to have contact with the families. We know that we have within the Department of Foreign Affairs a very dedicated and strong group of individuals who work tirelessly at the consular level, but they cannot work if they do not have political support. I'm suggesting there has to be a much better and more coordinated effort. This too could arise from this case.
We do not want, with respect to Mexico or any other country, a repeat of what could have been done at the early stages. For instance, there should be a protocol with the Mexican officials to allow Canada to collaborate, as it does with many other nations, with investigative abilities at the outset. Then important and crucial evidence wouldn't be compromised. Evidence was compromised to the extent that not only did we not get to the bottom of who killed Dominic and Nancy, but we also compromised the integrity and innocence of Canadians, which I think is both unfair and wrong.
And to all Canadians who are watching this, who have seen this thing unfold, I think it is a travesty for us not to have reacted. As I predicted in February 2006, we are probably never going to see the end of this. It is 14 to 15 months after that incident. It is clear to me that if we don't get it right at the beginning, we are never going to get it right.
And that's not something I'm here to chastise the minister about; I'm simply here to point out to the minister that more can be done. Allow his consular officials to do a better job; give them the resources and the political profile, and, by all means, in the interests of both countries, let's augment our diplomatic relations with those two nations so this never happens again, for the sake of justice.
