Settler colonialism in Canada

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Settler colonialism in Canada is that process and the consequences of the progressive colonization of the lands of the Indigenous peoples in Canada already present at first contact. As colonization progressed, the Indigenous peoples, or First Nations, went through forced displacement, genocide as well as assimilation. The treaties signed between the Canadian Crown and the First Nations, many of which were designed to both allow settlement and protect the First Nations were often ignored in enforcement. Governments in Canada in many cases ignored or chose to deny the aboriginal title of the First Nations, first recognized in 1763. The traditional governance of many of the First Nations was replaced with government-imposed structures. Many of the Indigenous cultural practices were banned. First Nation's people status and rights were less than that of settlers. The impact of colonization on Canada can be seen in its culture, history, politics, laws, and legislatures. The former colonies that existed having evolved into the Provinces that exist now.

The current relationship of Indigenous peoples in Canada and the government is one that has been heavily defined by the effects of settler colonialism and Indigenous resistance.^[1] Canadian Courts and recent governments have recognized much of the injustice, eliminating much of the discriminatory practices, however ongoing popular protests have shown that there is much left to be done.

Government policies[]

Doctrine of Discovery[]

The Christian Doctrine of Discovery is a legal doctrine upon which settler colonialism is justified in Canada.^[2] The doctrine allowed Christian European explorers to claim non-Christian lands for their monarch based on papal bulls.^[3] The doctrine was applied to the Americas when Pope Alexander VI issued Inter caetera (1493), giving Spain title to "discoveries" in the New World.^[3] This was in reaction to Pope Nicholas V's Dum diversas (1452) and Roman Pontifex (1455), which sanctioned Portugal's colonization of North Africa, which led the creation of the transatlantic slave trade.^[3] Subsequent conflict in North America between the French and English governments regarding land claims were settled by the French defeat in the Seven Years' War and the following Royal Proclamation of 1763.^[3] Although French Canadians faced discriminatory treatment by English Canadians, eventually the two ethnic groups formulated a Canadian origin myth involving two "founding races", a narrative which ignored the indigenous contribution to Canadian history.^[4]

This fundamental misunderstanding regarding underlying title forms the basis of the "land question" in Canada. In the landmark Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia decision, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected all Crown arguments for Aboriginal title extinguishment, acknowledging the Doctrine of Discovery is racist.^[2] While this calls into question the legitimacy of the Canadian settler colonial state to exist on Indigenous territories, what this Supreme Court decision means on the ground remains to be seen.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763[]

Royal Proclamation of 1763

The Royal Proclamation of Canada is known to be one of the most important treaties in Canada between Europeans and Indigenous peoples. The Royal Proclamation by King George III established the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown, which recognized Indigenous peoples rights as well as defining the treaty making process which is still used in Canada today.^[5] The Royal Proclamation also acknowledged the constitutional right that Indigenous peoples have the right to sovereignty and self government. Within the document, both sides agreed that treaties were the most effective legal way for Indigenous peoples to release control of their land, however the Royal Proclamation was drafted by the British government without any Indigenous input which resulted in a monopoly over the purchase of Indigenous lands by the Crown.^[6] The Proclamation banned white settlers from claiming the land that was being populated by Indigenous peoples, unless the land had first been purchased by the Crown and then sold to the settlers.^[7] As time passed white settlers became eager to establish their own communities and extract resources to send back to Europe, forgoing the guidelines set out in the Proclamation. Colonial settlers did not share the same view as Indigenous peoples on the sacredness of the land, but rather as something that could be easily bought and sold. As the number of colonial settlers increased, the use of land for farming and mining increased, and Indigenous relations that were established in the Royal Proclamation began to deteriorate.^{[citation needed]}

Gradual Civilization Act of 1857[]

Assimilation was the goal for the Europeans for Indigenous individuals for much of history, this can be seen in the Gradual Civilization Act. This act was made in 1857 by CAct played on the idea of how Indigenous individuals were 'savages' that needed to be reformed by the 'civilized' Europeans, thus the act being called the Gradual Civilization Act. In some ways the Gradual Civilization Act was an extension of residential schools because it had the same goal but this Act was targeted towards Indigenous men instead of children. Thes Act made it so that Indigenous men, if they wanted to could become a part of the European-Canadian society, they were to give up many different aspects of their culture. The European-Canadian definition of being civilized entailed being able to speak and write in either English or French, and to be as similar to a white man as possible so that there were no discernible differences. There were commissioners that were tasked to make sure that these criteria were filled, and they examined Indigenous individuals to make sure that they were meeting the criteria. The outcome of this was that any individual that was deemed to meet the criteria could become enfranchised. The Act was a direct consequence of settler colonialism as the Indigenous individuals were forced to assimilate to the world views and customs of the settlers.^[8]

The Indian Act of 1876[]

In 1876 the Indian Act was passed by the Canadian government allowed the administration of Indian Status, reserve lands and local Indigenous governance.^[9] The Act gave the Canadian Government control over Indigenous identity, political practices, governance, cultural practices and education.^[10] One of the underlying motivations in the Act was to enforce a policy of assimilation and Cultural genocide, to prohibit Indigenous peoples from practicing their own cultural, political and spiritual beliefs.^[9][11] The Act defined Indian Status and the entitlement and legal conditions that accompanied it, established land management regimes on reserves, managed the sales of natural resources, and defined band council powers and electoral systems.

Gender discrimination within the Act enforced gender bias as another means of extinguishing Indian Status, thereby excluding women from their rights. Under this legislation, an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man would no longer be Indian. She would lose her Status, treaty benefits, health benefits, the right to live on reserve, the right to inherit property, and even the right to be buried with ancestors. However, when an Indian man married a woman without Status, he retained all his rights.

In 1951, after World War II, the Act was amended, to lift the various restrictions on Indigenous culture, religion and politics. This included the removing bans on Potlatch and Sun Dance ceremonies. Additionally, these amendments allowed women to vote in band council elections and Elsie Marie Knott was the first woman to be elected Chief in Canada. However, these actions didn't eliminate gender disparity in Status requirements. Instead of having "Indian blood", Status was assigned through the Indian Register, where male lines of descent were still privileged.^[9] In 1985, the Act was amended again, through Bill C-31, in order to reflect the newly enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The amendment allows women who "married out" of their band, to apply for their rights and Indian status to be restored.^[12]

Residential schools[]

The Canadian Indian residential school system was an extensive school system that was set up by the Government of Canada and organized and ran by Churches. Residential schools began operation in Canada in the 1880s and began to close during the end of the 20th century.^[13] Residential school's main objectives were to educate Indigenous children, by teaching Euro-Canadian and Christian values and ways of living to assimilate Indigenous children into standard Canadian cultures. The values that were taught in residential schools were brought to Canada from the colonial settlers who made up a majority of the Canadian population at this time.

Residential school in Middlechurch, Manitoba

In Canada over 150,000 children attended residential schools throughout the century that they were in operation. The Indigenous children that attended residential schools were forcibly removed from their homes and families. While at residential schools, students were no longer aloud to speak their own language or acknowledge their culture or heritage without the threat of punishment.^[14] If rules were broken the students were brutally punished. Residential schools were known for students experiencing physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse from the staff of the schools.^[13] Residential schools resulted in generations of Indigenous peoples who lost their language and culture. The removal of homes at such a young age also resulted in generations of peoples who did not have the knowledge or skills to have families of their own.

As settlers began to populate Canada, they brought their own Eurocentric views that believed that their civilization was the ultimate goal. Settlers saw Indigenous people as savage pagans that needed to be civilized, with the best means of doing so was through government mandated education. Residential schools did not as much result in the education of Indigenous peoples, as much as it did result in a 'cultural genocide' of Indigenous peoples.^[15] The establishment of residential schools is a direct link to colonial settlers and the values that they brought, when they began to populate what we know today as Canada.

Ongoing effects of colonialism in Canada[]

Colonialism in current times[]

Colonialism is defined by its practice of domination which includes the subjugation of one people, the colonizers over another, the colonized. The distinction of settler colonialism is its goal of replacing the people already living there. Through colonization Canada's Indigenous people have been subject to the destruction against their culture and traditions through assimilation and force. It can be argued that Colonialism and its effects are still ongoing when looking at current events.^[16]

Long-term effects of residential schools[]

With the last Residential School closing in 1996^[17] it is a recent event for many in the Indigenous community who were either directly or indirectly affected by it. The attendance of those at Residential schools proved to have a significant impact on the overall health of the Indigenous populations with long lasting effects including intergenerational trauma. For First Nations, as well as Métis and Inuit, there were direct links to physical outcomes being poorer, with increased rates of disease, effects on emotional and mental health. These effects leading to things such as depression, suicidal behaviors, addiction, and substance misuse.^[18]

The Canadian Indian residential school system was a historical traumatic event as defined by three distinguishing characteristics:^[19]

• The event was widespread among a specific group or population, with many group members being affected;
• The event was perpetrated by outgroup members with purposeful and often destructive intent;
• The event generated high levels of collective distress in the victimized group.

For Indigenous peoples, a significant health determinant was attendance at a Residential school. This direct effect remains significant even when considering the effects of other factors such as adversities in community, demographic characteristics, and socioeconomic status. Several generations of Indigenous peoples were subject to residential schools. When examining the effects if an individual had more than one generation in their family who had attended residential school the poorer the psychological health of the next generation.^[20]

Forced sterilization of Indigenous people[]

Forced sterilization is defined as the removal of a person's reproductive organs either through force or coercion, and is viewed as a human rights violation. Its effect against Indigenous women has also identified it as violence against women and a form of racial discrimination.^[21] Canada has had a history of sterilization which has disproportionately affected Indigenous women in the North. This has led to proposals on how healthcare can be better tailored to address the discrimination Indigenous women face when receiving healthcare.^[22]

Indigenous women have reported to having found out that their fallopian tubes had been tied without their consent or were coerced into agreeing to it by doctors who assured them it was reversible.^[23] The interference in Indigenous peoples reproductive lives were justified using the ideology of Eugenics. Although the Sexual Sterilization Act in Canada was repealed in 1972, the sterilizations of Indigenous people have continued. While the policies of coercive sterilization on Indigenous women have been recognized as sexist, racist and imperialist the extent to which it has systematically impacted Indigenous women is not an isolated instance of abuse. It can be looked at as a part of a larger context involving the colonization and racism Indigenous people face.^[24]

During the 1970s the sterilization of Indigenous women was considered a widespread practice was larger than it was originally believed. The allegations that the government was aware of this but did not interfere has been documented in a few studies examining the phenomenon. It is estimated that between 1971 and 1974 that there were approximately 1200 sterilization cases, 550 of those which were conducted at "Indian hospitals." There is no mention as to how many of these were done by force or coercion but with the consideration that the consent forms for sterilization were not translated into Indigenous languages it is unknown if a full explanation of the procedure was provided.^[25]

In 2017, Saskatchewan had a case in which 60 Indigenous women sued the provincial government reporting that they had been forced to agree to sterilization before being allowed to see their newborn babies.^[26] Reports are still incoming of other Indigenous women coming forward about forced sterilization leading to a proposed class-action lawsuit^[27] headed by Saskatchewan-based Lawyer Alisa Lombard, a partner of Semaganis Worme Lombard.

The effect of forced sterilization has been taken into account by the TRC. Sen. Murray Sinclair, who was instrumental in the creation of the 94 calls to action,^[28] listened to the concerns brought forward and stated that the responsibility of further investigation should fall upon the government.^[29]

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[]

In 2007 the United Nations passed a non-legally binding resolution of The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people (UNDRIP).^[30] Though originally Canada had voted against this they removed their status as objector in May 2016, nearly a decade after UNDRIP had been passed. In 2019, British Columbia was the first Province to implement UNDRIP into its legislation through its BC Declaration on Rights of Indigenous peoples act.^[31]

Missing and murdered indigenous women and girls[]

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) is an ongoing issue that gained awareness through the efforts of the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) when it called for a national inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in Canada.^[32] A 2014 report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, suggests that between 1980-2012, 1,017 Indigenous women were victims of homicide with 164 Indigenous women still considered missing.^[33] Statistics show that Indigenous women of at least 15 years of age or older are three times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be victims of a violent crime.^[34] The homicide rates of Indigenous women between 1997 and 2000 were seven times higher than non-Indigenous women.^[35]

Red Dress representing Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Mohawk Warrior Flag held at Toronto, Ontario march taken by Jason Hargrove

Indigenous women were first sexualized and racialized by the European settlers during their colonization of Canada, and these stereotypes have continued to affect Indigenous women today. Canadian author Janice Accose's book Iskwewak--kah' ki yaw ni wahkomakanak draws the connection of how racist and sexist depictions of Indigenous women in popular literature have contributed to violence against Indigenous women which has led to the issue of MMIWG.^[36] Notable to MMIWG is the Highway of Tears, a 725-kilometre stretch of highway 16 in British Columbia, that has been the location of many murders and disappearances beginning in 1970, disproportionately of which have been Indigenous women.^[37]

On December 8, 2015, the Liberal government announced a national independent inquiry on missing and murdered Indigenous women.^[38] The mandate of the inquiry was to examine and report on the systemic causes behind the violence that Indigenous women and girls experience. This would be done through an investigation of the social, economic, institutional, and cultural factors that contribute to the violence.^[39] The final report^[40] was released on June 3, 2019 and states that the high level of violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBGQQIA people is a result of human and Indigenous rights violations and abuses within Canada.^[39] The final report includes testimony from more than 2,380 family members, survivors of violence, experts and knowledge keepers.^[39] From these testimonies, the report has produced 231 individual calls for justices including calls to action related to social work, cultural reformation, children and youth, Canadian citizens and industries.^[39]

Mass incarceration[]

Mass incarceration is an ongoing issue between Indigenous peoples and Canada's legal system in which Indigenous people are overrepresented within the Canadian prison population. Mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples results from a variety of problems stemming from settler colonialism that Indigenous peoples face daily including, poverty, substance abuse, lack of education and lack of employment opportunities. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in R v Gladue that courts must consider the "circumstances of Aboriginal offenders."^[41] This decision lead to the creation of Gladue reports which allow Indigenous people to go through pre-sentencing and bail hearings that consider the way colonialism has harmed the Indigenous offender including considering cultural oppression, abuse suffered in residential schools and poverty.^[42] Thirteen years after the Gladue decision, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the decision in R v Ipeelee extending the decision to require courts to consider the impact of colonialism on every Indigenous person being sentenced.^[42] These decisions were made to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the prison population, however, the population has only been steadily increasing. Indigenous peoples in Canada only make up about 5% of the total population yet, in 2020 Indigenous people surpassed 30% of people behind bars.^[43] Further, in 2020 Indigenous women accounted for 42% of the female inmate population in Canada.^[43] Compared to non-Indigenous people, Indigenous peoples are less likely to be released on parole, are disproportionately placed in maximum security facilities, are more likely to be involved in use of force or self-injury incidents, and are more often placed in segregation.^[43]

Indigenous resistance[]

Indigenous mobilization against the 1969 White Paper[]

In 1969, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien proposed the White Paper, which recommended abolishing the Indian Act to extend full citizenship to Indigenous peoples after the Hawthorn report concluded Indigenous peoples were "citizens minus." If entered into force, Indigenous peoples would become an ethnic group 'equal' to others in Canada, therefore rendering Aboriginal title and rights 'unequal.' This policy espoused a liberal definition of equality in which legislated differences between Indigenous peoples and Canadians created inequities, rather than attributing inequities to the ongoing violence of settler colonialism. The White Paper indicated how colonial understandings of treaties as contracts differed from Indigenous understandings of covenants, as it would eliminate federal fiduciary responsibilities established by treaties and the Indian Act. Indigenous mobilization against the White Paper culminated in Harold Cardinal's Red Paper (also known as "Citizens Plus"). While the White Paper was not enacted, it was preceded and succeeded by further assimilation strategies.

Tk'emlupsemc, French-Canadian, and Ukrainian historian Sarah Nickel argued scholars marking the White Paper as a turning point in pan-Indigenous political mobilization obfuscates both local responses and longer histories of Indigenous struggles by unfairly centering one settler policy.^[44] Further, Indigenous women's organizations were marginalized despite claims of pan-Indigenous mobilization against the White Paper.^[44] This diminished the continuous presence of Indigenous women undertaking political struggles, especially on intersectional issues of Indigeneity and gender, such as marrying-out policies.^[44]

Idle No More[]

Throughout the history of colonialism, Indigenous peoples have continued to show resilience. One way is by the use of grassroots movements. The most well known being Idle No More which was founded in December 2012 in reaction to the Harper government's alleged Indigenous treaty right abuses with the addition of Bill C-45.^[45]

Walking with Our Sisters[]

Another ongoing movement in direct relation to MMIWG is Walking with Our Sisters. It is a commemorative art installation using vamps, the tops of Moccasins, as a way to represent the unfinished lives of the Indigenous women who are murdered or missing.

An art installation entitled Every One by Cannupa Hanska Luger, an enrolled member of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation who is of Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Lakota, Austrian, and Norwegian heritage^[46][47]shows the strength of Indigenous communities. This art installation, which was on display at the Gardiner Museum in Toronto, is a massive piece made from ceramic beads. These beads that make up the face of an Indigenous women are each meant to represent a Missing or Murdered Indigenous person. The making of these beads in part were by Indigenous individuals who wanted to raise awareness for this alarming situation. The crux of the installation is that it is meant to humanize those who are missing and murdered because reducing people to statistics can create a sense of detachment. There has also been a dehumanization of Indigenous peoples from the settler mindset as they were thought to be 'savages' because of their different way of life. This piece is in defiance of the dehumanization of Indigenous individuals and to put the MMIWG situation at the front of the observer's eye. Observers can not just look away they must face the reality of the situation.^[48]

Mi'kmaq fishing rights[]

As legal documents treaties outline the rights of the Indigenous groups that they apply to. Events such as the Mi'kmaq fisheries being under attack demonstrate that these rights are still contested. Regarding this event it had already been established that the Halifax treaty outlines that the right to fish is protected for the Mi'kmaq. The right was further established during the case of R v Marshall and its two resulting decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. The first decision came that the treaties covered the right to fish and sell without regulation being imposed. After backlash from non-Indigenous people however, the second decision elaborated that regulation could be enforced in certain circumstances. Due to the language of this ruling being open to interpretation it can be considered that this is a conflict that has been brewing since the signing of the treaty.^[49]

In October 2020, Mi'kmaq fishermen were attacked in Halifax. The Globe and Mail reported that a mob of 200 people were throwing lobsters and destroyed a van that belonged to the Mi'kmaq fishermen in a lobster storage pound. This forced Indigenous fishermen to retreat inside where thereafter the mob threw rocks at the building. In response to this situation many looked to the failures of RCMP and their inability to stop the violence. While many called for the resignation of the chief and other members of the RCMP, Justin Trudeau said that he wanted to work with the RCMP to better their response in situations like these.^[50]

Other Indigenous groups in Canada have spoken out against the racism that the Mi'kmaq are experiencing as echos of their own experiences.^[51] This is referring to British Columbia in 1992 with the drafting of new fisheries sale agreements which sparked a racist reaction from the commercial fishermen. These new agreements were due to the Sparrow Decision which outlined that rights such as fishing were protected under the Constitution of Canada.

Wet'suwet'en resistance to pipeline projects[]

The Wet'suwet'en First Nation, located in the northeast of colonial British Columbia's central interior region, has long been engaged in an ongoing struggle against the Canadian state to protect its rights and land. A crucial victory came in 1997, with the legal case Delgamuukw v British Columbia, which expanded on the earlier Calder v British Columbia (AG) and helped codify the ideas that Aboriginal title existed prior to, and could exist outside of Canadian sovereignty and that infringements against Aboriginal title by the Canadian state were possible.

"No Consent - No Pipeline" Banner seen in Victoria, B.C during Wet'suwet'en solidarity actions in Feb. 2020.

While several Indigenous groups negotiated terms of treaty with the Canadian state, the Wet’suwet’en reaffirmed their right to sovereignty, and in 2008 removed themselves from the treaty process with British Columbia altogether.^[52] In 2009, the first checkpoint established on the Wedzin Kwa entrance to the territory was built, and in subsequent years the Unist’ot’en camp was born as an Indigenous re-occupation of traditional Wet’suwet’en land.^[53] Buildings and cabins, along with a healing centre, were erected directly on proposed pipeline routes as a way to block both potential construction and to facilitate Indigenous connection with the land.^[54]

In September 2015, the Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en, in support of Unist’ot’en, unanimously voted against all pipeline projects.^[54] Although there have been previous attempts to construct pipelines, namely the Northern Gateway and Pacific Trails pipelines, most recent attention has been focused on TC Energy’s CGL pipeline.^[55] In January 2020, the situation came to a boiling point wherein the RCMP enforced an injunction placed on the camp, which sparked international attention.^[56][57] At the forefront of these actions was Freda Huson, a Wet'suwet'en Matriarch, appointed by the Hereditary Chiefs to be the public face of the movement.^[58] Youth for Wet'suwet'en, a collective of Indigenous youth engaged in occupying the steps of the BC Legislature.^[59] Marches and solidarity actions were seen across Canada, and internationally in support of Wet'suwet'en solidarity.

Ongoing violence against Indigenous people[]

In January 2017, 34-year-old Barbara Kenter, an Indigenous woman, was struck by a thrown trailer hitch resulting in her death five months after the incident. Brayden Bushby, aged 21, who has admitted to throwing the trailer hitch is currently on trial which began on November 2, 2020. Bushby was originally charged with second-degree murder but that was changed to manslaughter and aggravated assault. Outrage from the change in charges has sparked onto twitter under the hashtag of #justiceforbarbarakentner. Many view these events as an ongoing failure of the justice system towards Indigenous people after events such as the Shooting of Colten Boushie.^[60]

See also[]

• Acculturation
• Cultural assimilation of Native Americans
• European colonization of the Americas
• Indigenous peoples in Canada
• Language shift
• Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian Criminal Justice System

References[]

Further reading[]

• Cardinal, Tantoo (2004). Our story: Aboriginal voices on Canada's past. Doubleday Canada. ISBN 978-0-385-66075-4.
• Dickason, Olive Patricia (1992). Canada's first nations: a history of founding peoples from earliest times. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-2438-4.
• Daschuk, James W. (2013). Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Aboriginal Life. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada: University of Regina Press. ISBN 978-088977-296-0.
• Dupuis, Renée (2002). Justice for Canada's Aboriginal peoples. James Lorimer and Company. ISBN 978-1-55028-775-2.
• Leacock, Stephen (2009), The Dawn of Canadian History: A Chronicle of Aboriginal Canada, Dodo Press ISBN 1-4099-4930-3

External links[]

• Aboriginal Peoples and Communities – Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
• Aboriginal Heritage Resources and Services – Library and Archives Canada
• Battle for Aboriginal Treaty Rights – Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Digital Archives)
• History of Aboriginal Treaties and Relations in Canada – Department of Canadian Heritage