Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Minister Valcourt

  • RCMP Report on Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women is Statistically Skewed

    In 2014, the RCMP released a report on their “National Operational Review” on the issue of “Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women” which amounted to 1181 women total – 164 missing and 1017 murdered.  The core conclusion of the report was that “Aboriginal women”* were over-represented in the numbers of murdered and missing. They cautioned readers that their report contained a certain amount of “error and imprecision” given the thirty year period of review, the human error of investigators, inconsistency of collection, and definitional issues.

    Let’s look at that caveat a little closer. The RCMP had to “limit” their file review to missing women who had been identified by RCMP on CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) as “non-white” female or “blank”. The category of “Aboriginal origin” was only recently added to CPIC and so could not possibly capture all Aboriginal persons. Similarly, the numbers do not include Aboriginal women who were mistakenly recorded as “white” or Aboriginal women who were reported missing but were never recorded. Given the high level of overt and systemic racism in policing as confirmed in the Donald Marshall Jr., Manitoba Justice, Ipperwash, and Pickton inquiries, the numbers of those missing never recorded could be extremely high.

    Now, let’s look at how the RCMP or other jurisdictions determine who is “Aboriginal”. The RCMP report notes that they used “perception-based assessment”. In other words, “how a police officer defines how an individual looks in terms of complexion and/or ancestry”. However, even this determination is not consistent across jurisdictions. Any number of jurisdictions use the following to identify persons:

                (1) official Aboriginal “status”;

                (2) officer discretion; and

                (3) self-identification.

    Based on the above, it would seem logical that the RCMP would miss identifying a large portion or even majority of Aboriginal persons. In the first methodology, I presume they meant to say “Indian status” or “Indian registration” because there is no formal or official “Aboriginal status”. I hope the RCMP know at least this much about the legislated identity of Indigenous peoples in Canada (hint: it’s in the Indian Act). For those that only use “Indian status”, that would exclude all the non-status Indians, Métis, and Inuit individuals in Canada. The most recent National Household Survey indicated that there were 1,400,685 Aboriginal people in Canada and only 637,660 of them were registered Indians. That leaves 763,025 individuals (more than half the Aboriginal population) excluded from possible identification as Aboriginal by RCMP standards.

    Even those who are identified based on their official Indian status, the RCMP fails to take into consideration the fact that there are well over 20,000 people with Indian status who do not descend from nor identify as “Indian” or “Aboriginal”. This is thanks again to the Indian Act which made non-Indian women and their non-Indian male and female children registered as Indians, despite their lack of Aboriginal ancestry or cultural connection. This equates to thousands of men with Indian status that are not in fact Aboriginal.

    With regards to the second methodology, the RCMP are identifying Aboriginal peoples based on a racist set of biological and/or physical characteristics which they unilaterally assign to Aboriginal people. In other words, “Aboriginal people” are treated as one race of people with certain pre-determined physical characteristics – like hair, eye or skin colour. They ignore the fact that Indigeneity is social, cultural, political, legal, territorial, and nation-based – not an identity based on race. This racist methodology would be as useless as trying to identify a Canadian citizen gone missing in the USA based on skin colour. Clearly, the RCMP would miss the vast majority of “Aboriginal people” using this kind of methodology.

    With regard to the third methodology of self-identification, the RCMP failed to indicate what percentage of jurisdictions actually rely on self-identification. This of course would not work in the context of a murdered or missing Aboriginal woman as she cannot self-identify. It might only work in the context of the woman’s family or friends choosing to identify her as Aboriginal. It is impossible to know how many people would voluntarily self-identify given the extent to which every level of the justice system is infected with overt and systemic racism as per the numerous justice inquiries. Many Aboriginal people have a justified fear of the RCMP stemming from residential school days, Starlight tours, and deaths in police custody – as well as provincial police forces for similar reasons.

    So, it is logical to conclude that the RCMP grossly under-counted the actual numbers of murdered and missing Aboriginal women in Canada. This conclusion is confirmed by the RCMP’s own admission that due to these methodological problems “a high number of Homicide survey reports where the identity of the victim (and/or accused) remained unknown“. This admission on their part is extremely important in understanding the racist dialogue which has recently unfolded at the Ministerial level.

    Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt has been very vocal in his refusal to conduct a national inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls. He has publicly stated that part of the problem is that First Nation men “have a lack of respect for women and girls on reserve”. Aside from the fact that he forgot Métis and Inuit people who don’t live on reserves, Valcourt went on to tell Treaty 6 Chiefs that 70% of the cases, Aboriginal women were killed by Aboriginal men. The RCMP refused to release the statistics on the alleged perpetrators as they claimed a commitment to “bias-free” policing. That commitment did not last long as they issued a letter several days later to Treaty 6 Grand Chief seeming to back up Minister Valcourt.

    The RCMP’s exact words to Treaty 6 Grand Chief Martial were as follows:

    “In considering the offender characteristics, a commonality unrelated to the ethnicity of the victim was the strong nexus to familial and spousal violence. Aboriginal females were killed by a spouse, family member or intimate relation in 62% of the cases; similarly, non-aboriginal females were killed by a spouse, family member or intimate relation in 74% of occurrences.”

    This statistic confirms that Canadian women are more often killed by their spouse or families than Aboriginal women. Yet, in the second paragraph of this letter, the RCMP explain that despite their bias-free policing policy and despite their confidentiality agreement with Statistics Canada, they would release the sensitive information relating to offenders anyway in order to back up Minister Valcourt’s claims that “70% of offenders were of Aboriginal origin”.

    Some commentators rushed to conclude that the RCMP statement does in fact support the Minister’s claims and (a) that this somehow reduces Canada’s culpability for both creating and refusing to deal with this crisis; and (b) that, in fact, 70% of offenders were Aboriginal. Neither of these conclusions are correct. The RCMP’s statistics, as noted above, are extremely skewed and unreliable when it comes to the identification of Aboriginal people – victims or offenders. It bears repeating that the RCMP’s own assessment of problems in its methodology led them to conclude:

    “a high number of Homicide survey reports where the identity of the victim (and/or accused) remained unknown“.

    This means that a high number of the accused in murder cases have an unknown identity. Therefore, the RCMP’s claim that 70% of the accused are Aboriginal is highly suspect at best and completely inaccurate at worst.

    There is also a problem with the assumption that because 64% of Aboriginal women are killed by their spouses or families, that those offenders were in fact “Aboriginal”. Aside from having to make the racist assumption that Aboriginal people only have relationships with other Aboriginal people, the statistics do not bear this out. If you look only at the case of First Nations people, the vast majority of First Nations have out-parenting rates (children with non-Aboriginal people) that are moderate to high. Specifically, 246 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 40-60%; 162 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 60-80%; and 49 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 80-100%. It is safe to say that no less than half of First Nations are in spousal or familial relationships with non-Aboriginal people. So, even if 64% of Aboriginal women are murdered by their spouses, it does not follow that those spouses are “Aboriginal”. Statistically, they are just as likely to be non-Aboriginal.

    One must also keep in mind that the RCMP did not include statistics on the number of RCMP and provincial police officers who have been accused of physically and sexually assaulting, murdering and/or causing to go missing, Aboriginal women in Canada. Despite a Human Rights Watch report which details accounts by young Aboriginal women and girls at the hands of the RCMP – the RCMP has refused to investigate its own members. We know at least one RCMP officer who lost 7 days pay for violating an Aboriginal women and one provincial court judge who plead guilty to physically and sexually assaulted Aboriginal girls as young as 12 years old.

    This shell game of numbers and statistics is meant to blame the victim and deflect attention away from Canada’s continued inaction to address this crisis which the United Nations has called a “grave violation” of our basic human rights. The crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls continues while Canada (through Valcourt) blames the victim and the RCMP fail to live up to their duty to serve and protect everyone in Canada.

    Shame on them both. Nothing in the RCMP numbers changes anything. Canada has a crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls regardless of who is doing the killing – and we need to address it.

    Don’t be fooled or distracted by Canada’s games. 

    We should all stay focused on pushing for both a national inquiry and for an emergency action plan to protect our women and girls and address the underlying root causes and inequities which make them vulnerable to begin with. * I use the term “Aboriginal” in this blog to reflect the terminology of the RCMP report only.

  • #StayUnited against #FNCFNEA

    Since the time I was small, I have always been told by Chiefs, politicians and elders about the importance of our unity – unity within our Mi’kmaw families, our communities and Nation. Leaders even spoke about the importance of inter-tribal or inter-nation unity. I come from a territory where the Wabanaki Confederacy, a political allegiance of multiple Nations, built upon our Nations’ diverse backgrounds for common purposes. The relationships which came from this confederacy have lasted until present day.

    At the same time, my elders were careful to explain that unity is not about sameness. Unity is a type of bond or treaty amongst Indigenous Nations which celebrates the different strengths, histories, cultures, insights and skills of each Nation and brings them together to make the whole stronger. Unity is a celebration or embracing of those differences to make the treaty group stronger in defending its sovereignty, territories or peoples. It is not an agreement on all issues at all times. Nor is unity about each Nation conforming to one way of thinking or acting. Diverse Nations inherently have different needs, outlooks, priorities and ways of accomplishing their goals.

    Several long-time leaders also told me that unity for the sake of unity can cause more harm than good. Unity for the sake of unity denies the very differences we celebrate as Nations and shuts out the voices of caution, overlooked facts, multiple perspectives and potential outcomes. Sometimes these lone voices are mischaracterized as oppositional, trouble-making, politicking or disloyal. Consensus building takes a great deal of effort and time; so when these brave voices speak out against the consensus, sometimes its hard not to lose patience or be frustrated.

    Yet, elders have told me that those voices which delay consensus for a time are sometimes the most loyal citizens – citizens who care so deeply about their community or Nation that they risk ridicule and exclusion to raise potential threats to the collective. They may not always deliver the message as we’d like or even have all the facts, but that is what consensus building is about – providing everyone with all the facts, potential outcomes and perspectives so that when a decision is made, everyone understands and accepts its – even if not in total agreement. I believe the future of our Nations depends on the consideration and inclusion of all voices.

    The biggest impact on our ability as Indigenous Nations to maintain our unity in times of need is the impact of colonization. Generations of colonial ideologies, residential schools, Indian Act restrictions, federal divide-and-conquer tactics, and systems of government-imposed rewards and punishments have impaired our ability to see unity as we once did. Canada has divided us into good Indians and bad Indians – those who comply versus those who resist. In so doing, the hard work of unity-building within Nations is impaired because the focus is on one-size-fits-all Indians. In fact, pan-Indianness is so ingrained that we often criticize ourselves for not being unified as “Indians” when we should be unified in resisting pan-Indianness.

    Our unity as Nations is like a treaty – a coming together of certain Nations at certain times to assert or defend certain causes. We can be united to defend our right to control education but different in how we want to assert that control (depending on each Nation’s priorities and needs). Sometimes our unity is based on historical relations, regional similarities or broad national interests. Our unity is no less powerful because the Mohawks educate one way and the Cree another. The similarity is in the assertion of sovereignty and jurisdiction over our right to control our own education systems, methods, content and outcomes.

    With regards to Prime Minister Harper and National Chief Shawn Atleo’s education “deal”, this was not made in a good way, nor in the spirit of unity. In fact, the countless secret meetings, lack of information, and surprise announcements are counter to our traditional ways of building consensus and capitalizing on our strengths and differences in unity. The biggest problem is that no space was ever made for the possibility that there would be no unity on this deal – the deal was made for us without us at the table. The result is wide-spread distrust, anger and reaction – all justified. Now, our leaders are forced to account to their citizens for decisions of which they had no part, causing even further disharmony amongst our Nations. Yet, none of this had to happen.

    For many decades, First Nations have been tightly unified on their views about First Nation education. While we may have taken very different approaches to other issues, on First Nation education we all agreed. First Nations are united in their views that we have jurisdiction over every aspect of our education systems (however we choose as individual Nations to define them) and that we should be the ones in control. We have always held the position that Canada must live up to its legal obligations to recognize and implement our treaty, Aboriginal and other rights to education with adequate funding. We have always asserted that Canada needs to make amends for the damages caused to our languages and cultures from residential schools by providing the supports needed to advance and protect them in current education systems – First Nations or provincial.

    How we choose to get there is up to us. Some of us may want to negotiate sectoral self-government agreements in education; some may wish to use the current systems with modified funding, some may want a treaty-based system, and others may want to design and implement their own systems independently with completely different funding agreements. We may have different methods, but we are united in defense of our right to choose how we will implement our right to control our own education systems. We are not all one mythical race of Indians after all.

    Our current initiatives in resisting the Atleo-Harper deal on education are not about sour grapes, jealousy, politics, the next federal election, the next AFN National Chief election, or who’s “right”. Those are all red-herrings critics throw in the mix to keep people from focusing on the real issue – control over our own education systems. The reason why so many Chiefs, grassroots citizens, academics, lawyers and Canadian allies are against this deal is because it violates our fundamental right to control our own education systems. We are not fighting against unity – we are fighting desperately to maintain our long-held unity in education.

    The Harper government has become very adept at its divide-and-conquer techniques. It also uses funding as a reward-punishment tool to further control and divide us. It’s most effective tool so far has been using First Nations individuals and organizations to promote its assimilatory agenda. Trojan horses filled with assimilatory Aboriginal warriors march forward to implement Harper’s plan under the guise of what’s good for us. The numerous bills being imposed on us all have wonderful titles and great media sound bites that distract us from what’s inside the bills. Calling a bill “First Nations Control” is a lie if what’s inside is increased Ministerial control.

    I think most of us expect this from Harper, but the most hurtful and offensive part is that we don’t expect our own leaders to do this to us. National Chief Shawn Atleo has hurt us all by acting as if he had the right to make this deal in the first place; by acting so secretively and outside our traditional ways of building consensus; and then standing in defense of this destructive bill – no matter what First Nations say. Part of being a leader is being humble and admitting when you have made mistakes. Atleo could still stand with First Nations against this bill, but he refuses to do so. Atleo destroyed our negotiating leverage in Ottawa and now he has broken our unity on education. He refuses to listen to us.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have time to commiserate about it – we have to act. We cannot give Harper any ammunition to use against us as he tries to ram this bill through the House and Senate. We have to show that Atleo does not speak for us, as the Minister is already relying on Atleo’s endorsement of the bill as his “proof” of consultation and consent. We cannot let Harper hide behind any First Nation individual or organization to roll out his assimilation plan.

    Most of all, we have to stay united against this bill to protect control over our education and save our cultures and languages for future generations. If we voluntarily allow Canada to legislate our treaty rights, there is no undoing it later. Harper is desperate to turn the treaty right to education into a discretionary program and service that is subject to Parliament’s budgetary whims. We can’t let Harper do that.

    Harper is scared of our voices. AANDC is running scared and is tweeting in defense of itself. Harper can see the growing opposition from First Nations and is speeding up the review of the bill. We have the power to stop this. When First Nations stand in unity, there is no piece of paper, no legislation, or crooked politician that can stop us. The “winter we danced” as Idle No More showed the world how powerful in peace our people are when we stand together. I’ve always believed in the power of our people to make change – let’s stay united on education and give our children some hope.

     

    #StayUnited against #FNCFNEA