Thank you for your question.
I don't remember when we started to review the data, but I know that our review concluded in 2012, and our first report was published in 2014.
In the beginning, we were able to review the data thanks to an agreement between the RCMP and 299 other police forces. In total, 300 police forces provided data, and we reviewed it. Certainly, at that time, it wasn't clear, in the files, whether the missing or murdered young woman or girl was aboriginal. There was a gap there. In the 2015 report, we were able to review all the files and specify whether individuals were truly aboriginal. That's why there is a difference between the figures in the 2014 and 2015 reports.
With respect to the people who were improperly identified, it's clear that in the past 20 years, Canadian police practices did not require that people be identified based on their membership in a particular group. The data we collected aimed to determine whether these people were female or male, for example. Since our 2014 report, the data from all Canadian police forces identify aboriginal women, whether they are Métis, Inuit, or first nations.
As for the investigation and prevention measures, we ensured that there was better supervision of investigators. We implemented the National Missing Persons Strategy. In addition, we updated our policies regarding investigations of homicides and missing persons.
In terms of prevention, we organized a number of media campaigns, using posters and television ads. We worked a lot with the five national aboriginal organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada. The objective is to develop tools that can be used in the future, for example, in training RCMP officers. That said, when I work on something, I like to share it with other police forces.