Understanding the Structural and Legal Foundations of Canadian Settler Colonialism in Canada

Persisting Mythologies of Canadian History and the Reality of Colonialism

Canada is often characterized as one of the most stable regimes in history, maintaining the same political system for nearly 150 years without significant social breakdown, political upheaval, or foreign invasion. However, this perception is frequently coupled with the claim that Canada has no history of colonialism. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper famously suggested that Canada's history of colonization was essentially benign or benevolent, characterized by peaceful settlers making agreements with indigenous peoples, providing education through religious institutions, and teaching agricultural techniques. This narrative frames colonization as a charitable act rather than a violent or systemic intrusion. Critics argue that such a perspective demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the history between First Nations and the Canadian government.

Settler Colonialism as an Ongoing Structure

The concept of colonization is not merely a historical event that concluded in the past; rather, as theorist Patrick Wolf asserts, settler colonialism is a structure and not an event. It is an ongoing process that is reproduced every day through social actions and institutional frameworks. This is illustrated through the psychological and cultural impacts of colonization, such as the metaphor of "real estate" on a grocery store conveyor belt or the cultural assimilation seen in indigenous individuals adopting settler archetypes, such as Cree men in rodeo culture wearing tight Levi's and big turquoise belt buckles. These instances serve as reminders that the system of colonization remains deeply entrenched in the social fabric of the country, often going unrecognized by the dominant population.

The Geography and Infrastructure of Colonization Roads

In Northwestern Ontario and across Manitoba, physical evidence of the colonial process exists in the form of "colonization roads." One such road begins at the base of the traditional ceremonial grounds of the Couchiching First Nation. For many residents, these roads were simply part of the landscape of daily life—places to play, swim, or drive—without any awareness of their historical purpose. These roads were instrumental in the displacement of indigenous communities. For instance, in 1914, the father’s family of one narrator was forcibly relocated from one of seven Anishinaabe communities along the Rainy River to form Manitou Rapids First Nation. This was an illegal amalgamation executed by the province of Ontario to secure land for European settlers, which was subsequently given away for free.

The Public Lands Act and the Mechanics of Settlement

The settlement of Canada was facilitated by parliamentary orders and the Public Lands Act of 1853. Land grants were issued for the purpose of settlement in areas like Somerville Township. These programs were heavily marketed through printed materials disseminated in towns, cities, and rural areas. However, these advertisements presented an idealized version of the land, promising irrigated fields, abundant lumber, and proximity to trade markets and roads. Prospective immigrants were intentionally left unaware of the harsh realities of Canadian winters or the fact that water sources would be frozen for eight months of the year. The 1853 policy was particularly effective because it granted land on documented survey roads, making the settlement process immeasurably easier compared to earlier decades when settlers were often dropped into the wilderness with no infrastructure.

Native Land vs. The Concept of Wilderness

From an indigenous perspective, the infrastructure of the settler state—roads, railways, and survey lines—functions like an infection. They represent a way of invading territories without legal authority or the consent of the inhabitants. While early settlers viewed the land as a "wilderness" to be tamed, for the indigenous populations, the land was already a home. Conflict arose as land grants systematically gave away indigenous camps, shorelines, islands, and river mouths. This history began with violent conflict, where original inhabitants were sometimes shot at and forced to move. Despite this reality, Canadian history often honors the names of the settlers and the act of settlement while ignoring the displacement of the people who originally lived there. Settler colonialism is distinctive because the settlers come to stay, establishing a permanent home on land that is fundamentally indigenous.

Legal Foundations: The Doctrine of Discovery and the Dominion of Canada

The legal and ideological roots of Canadian sovereignty are tied to the Doctrine of Discovery, formalized in 15th-century Papal decrees. This doctrine granted the first European nation to reach lands "uninhabited by civilized peoples" (meaning Christians or those using land in European-defined efficient ways) sovereign ownership and "first dibs." This religious framing is also evident in the naming of the country. The title "Dominion of Canada," established in 1867, is derived from Psalm 72:8 in the Bible: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." This scriptural reference served as the source for the full legal title of Canada after Confederation, reflecting the overwhelmingly Christian character of the state at that time.

The Role of Treaties and the Royal Proclamation of 1763

The relationship between the British Crown and indigenous peoples was formalized through the treaty-making process and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 issued by King George III. The Proclamation established the rules for governing the newly acquired colony of Quebec after the Seven Years' War and recognized inherent indigenous rights. This recognition was not a gift of rights, but an acknowledgment that those rights existed before European arrival. The British recognized these rights because they understood that their colonies could only be secure or just if they protected indigenous interests, as the indigenous nations were not prepared to give them up. Treaties are legally binding contracts that form the basis of the Canadian legal system. If the government were to walk away from these legal obligations, it would undermine the legitimacy of all contracts within Canada.

Sovereignty and the Basis of Contemporary State Legitimacy

The recognition of indigenous sovereignty and nationhood is the foundational basis for the legal legitimacy of the Canadian state. If this recognition were removed, Canada would lose its claim to sovereignty under international law, potentially opening the territory to claims by other global powers like Russia or the United States. Treaties represent a sacred agreement between parties to live together "as long as the waters run." Interestingly, many of the protocols used in these agreements, such as wampum belts, were not European customs but were adapted from indigenous practices. Acknowledging this shared history and the continued relevance of treaties is essential for understanding the modern Canadian state.

Questions & Discussion

Question: Who said this country has no history of colonialism? Response: It was Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Some people might mistakenly guess George W. Bush, Donald Trump, or Brian Mulroney, but Harper is the one associated with that specific quote during his time in office.

Question: Why doesn't the government just walk away from the treaties? Response: Treaties are contracts based in law. If the government unilaterally walks away from its legal obligations under these specific contracts, it would validate the idea that the government could walk away from any contract, thereby undermining the entire legal and economic system of the country. Furthermore, these treaties are now constitutionally protected.

Question: What does "land back" mean in the context of nation-to-nation relations? Response: The concept of "land back" is part of a larger discussion about indigenous sovereignty. While the specifics of what it looks like are still being debated—whether it means a return to ancestral lands or a redistribution of power—it centers on the idea of indigenous nations regaining control over their territories and the resources that were taken during the process of settlement.