Canada is a settler-colonial nation whose initial economy relied on farming and exporting natural resources like fur, fish, and lumber.[10] European Canadians initially hadpeaceful treaties with First Nations and Inuit, but these changed todispossession treaties,[11] and forced assimilation, emphasizing European values like Christianity, farming, and education.[1] The Canadian government implemented policies such as theIndian Act,[b] internal passports andresidential schools and asserted control over the land and its resources.[10] Despite current views that might define these actions as racist or genocidal,[13] they were seen as progressive at the time, a form of state intervention.[14] In response, a number of Indigenous communities mobilized to resist such policies.[15]
TheTruth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) in its final report in 2015 use the specific termcultural genocide, when it addressed the history of the Indigenous residential school system.[41][42][43] The TRC's final report stated "cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group".[41]
In 2019 theNational Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) concluded that the crisis constituted an ongoing "race, identity and gender-based genocide."[44] The MMIWG inquiry used the definition of genocide as outlined in the CanadianCrimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, instead of the Genocide Convention, that the inquiry saw as "narrow" and based on the Holocaust.[45]
In 2021, theCanadian Historical Association (CHA), which includes 650 professional historians, stated that the history of violence against Indigenous peoples in Canada warrants the use of the term genocide.[1] They asserted that there is broad agreement among historians about the negative effects of institutionalized genocide on Indigenous peoples over the past 150 years.[1]
An open letter by a group of 50 historians, initiated by Christopher Dummitt, criticized the CHA for advocating a specific historical interpretation, which they believe undermines the academic freedom necessary for historical debate.[35][46] Signatories of the open letter, which includesMargaret Macmillan,Terry Copp,Frédéric Bastien,J. L. Granatstein,Robert J. Young andSusan Mann, disagree with the CHA's claim of broad consensus, reiterating the government's documented goal was integration, not elimination. They criticized attempts to shut down debate or discredit dissent as well as portraying those who disagree or diverge from activist language as prejudiced or outdated.[35][46]
In response to the open letter,Sean Carleton andAndrew Woolford summarized the CHA position arguing that the existence of this dissenting group, many of whom they alleged are not part of the CHA and some they allege who deny residential schools, does not change what they characterize as broad academic agreement that genocide applies to Canada.[32] Carleton and Woolford argued that dissent and debate from what they name as "the fringe" are actually strategies used bygenocide denialists to create doubt and undermine consensus.[32]
Ian Gentles has expressed concern over what he referred to as academic "activists" stating that discussing and debating genocide is actually a "tool of genocide".[13] His position is that Indigenous peoples in Canada have faced significant mistreatment. However, using the term genocide inaccurately distorts history and creates a divide, labeling Indigenous peoples only as victims and non-Indigenous as criminals.[47]
TheNumbered Treaties signed between 1871 and 1921 transferred large tracts of land from theFirst Nations to Canada in return for different promises laid out in each treaty.
Attempts to assimilate Indigenous peoples were rooted inimperial colonialism centred around Europeanworldviews and cultural practices, and a concept of land ownership based on thediscovery doctrine.[48] Original assimilation efforts were religiously oriented beginning in the 17th century with the arrival of Frenchmissionaries inNew France.[49]
The great aim of our legislation (Indian Act) has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.
The impact of colonization on Canada can be seen in its culture, history, politics, laws, and legislatures.[59] This led to the systematic removal of Indigenous children from their families, the suppression of Indigenous languages and traditions, and the degradation of Indigenous communities. Other actions which have been highlighted as indicative of genocide include sporadic massacres, the spread of disease, the prohibition of cultural practices, and the ecological devastation of indigenous territories.[60]
Indigenous response to colonialism in Canada dates back before its founding.[76] Historically, Indigenous resistance in Canada has taken the form of some violent rebellions, protests, blockades, legal challenges, and cultural revitalization efforts, all aimed at challenging the policies and practices of the Canadian government and asserting Indigenous sovereignty over their traditional territories.[77] During the 20th century, various Indigenous groups emerged to address issues like land loss, unrecognized rights, harmful policies, and poor conditions on reserves.[77]
TheLachine massacre of 1689 during the Beaver Wars, saw 1,500 Haudenosaunee warriors invade the small settlement ofLachine in New France, which had 375 residents. This attack was due to Haudenosaunee anger over French expansion that resulted in the capture of many and the killing of about 24 French inhabitants.[78] In the 1800s,Louis Riel led theMétis in theRed River andNorth West Rebellions to fight for land and governance rights.[79]
The Beothuk tribe of Newfoundland is extinct as a cultural group. It is represented in museum, historical and archaeological records.
With the death ofShanawdithit in 1829,[85] theBeothuk people, and the Indigenous people ofNewfoundland were officially declared extinct after suffering epidemics, starvation, loss of access to food sources, and displacement by English and French fishermen and traders.[86] The Beothuks' main food sources were caribou, fish, and seals; their forced displacement deprived them of two of these. This led to the over-hunting of caribou, leading to a decrease in the caribou population in Newfoundland. The Beothuks emigrated from their traditional land and lifestyle, attempting to avoid contact with Europeans,[87] into ecosystems unable to support them, causing under-nourishment and, eventually, starvation.[88][89]
GovernorJohn Byron's proclamation that "I do strictly enjoin and require all His Majesty's subjects to live in amity and brotherly kindness with the native savages [Beothuk]of the said island of Newfoundland",[90] as well as the subsequent Proclamation issued by GovernorJohn Holloway on July 30, 1807, which prohibited mistreatment of the Beothuk and offered a reward for any information on such mistreatment.[91] Such proclamations seemed to have little effect, as writing in 1766, GovernorHugh Palliser reported to the British secretary of state that "the barbarous system of killing prevails amongst our people towards the Native Indians — whom our People always kill, when they can meet them".[85]
Scholars disagree in their definition of genocide in relation to the Beothuk.[92] While some scholars believe that the Beothuk died out as an unintended consequence of European colonization, others argue that Europeans conducted a sustained campaign of genocide against them.[93][94]
Pacific Northwest indigenous peoples experienced several earlier smallpox epidemics, about once per generation after European contact began in the late 18th century: in the late 1770s, 1801–03, 1836–38, and 1853. These epidemics are not as well documented in historical records as the1862 Pacific Northwest smallpox epidemic.[95]
While colonial authorities usedquarantine,smallpox vaccine, andinoculation to keep the disease from spreading among colonists and settlers, it was largely allowed to spread among indigenous peoples. TheColony of Vancouver Island made attempts to save some Indigenous inhabitants, but most were forced to leave the vicinity of Victoria and go back to their homelands, despite awareness that it would result in a major smallpox epidemic among the Indigenous population of the Pacific Northwest coast. Many colonists and newspapers were vocally in favor of expulsion.[97]
Some historians have described it as a deliberate genocide because the Colony of Vancouver Island and theColony of British Columbia could have prevented the epidemic but chose not to, and in some ways facilitated it.[98][99] According to historian Kiran van Rijn, "opportunistic self-interest, coupled with hollow pity, revulsion at the victims, and smug feelings of inevitability, shaped the colonial response to the epidemic among First Nations"; and that for some residents of Victoria the eviction of Indigenous peoples was a "long-sought opportunity" to be rid of them; and, for some, an opportunity to take over First Nation lands. At the time, and still today, some Indigenous leaders say that the colonial government deliberately spread smallpox for the purpose ofstealing their land.[100][101]
Beginning in 1874 and lasting until 1996,[102] the Canadian government, in partnership with the dominant Christian Churches,[103] ran 130 residential boarding schools across Canada for Indigenous children, who were forcibly taken from their homes.[104][105] Over the course of the system's existence, about 30% of Indigenous children, or roughly 150,000, were placed in residential schools nationally; at least 6,000 of these students died while in attendance.[106][107] While the schools provided some education, they were plagued by under-funding, disease, abuse, and sexual abuse.[108][109] The negative effects of the residential school system have long been accepted almost unanimously among scholars researching the residential school system, with debate focussing on the motives and intent.[110]
Part of this process during the 1960s through the 1980s, dubbed theSixties Scoop, was investigated and the child seizures deemed genocidal by Judge Edwin Kimelman, who wrote: "You took a child from his or her specific culture and you placed him into a foreign culture without any [counselling] assistance to the family which had the child. There is something dramatically and basically wrong with that."[111][4] Another aspect of the residential school system was its use of forced sterilization on Indigenous women who chose not to follow the schools advice of marrying non-Indigenous men.[112][113][114]
Indigenous people of Canada have long referred to the residential school system as genocide,[115][116][117] with scholars referring to the system as genocidal since the 1990s.[118] According to some scholars, the Canadian government's laws and policies, including the residential school system, that encouraged or required Indigenous peoples toassimilate into aEurocentric society, violated the United Nations Genocide Convention that Canada signed in 1949 and passed through Parliament in 1952.[119][120] Therefore, these scholars believe that Canada could be tried ininternational court for genocide.[121][122] Others also point to theUN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted into Canadian law in 2010, where article 7 discusses the rights of indigenous people to not be subjected to genocide or "any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group".[123]
The executive summary of the TRC concluded that the assimilation amounted to cultural genocide.[124][125] This conclusion has been supported by other scholars, includingDavid Bruce MacDonald and Graham Hudson, who also comment that the residential school system may also amount to more than just cultural genocide,[126] laying out specific arguments as to how the residential school system met thedolus specialis requirement of the Genocide Convention.[127] The ambiguity of the phrasing in the TRC report allowed for the interpretation that physical and biological genocide also occurred. The TRC was not authorized to conclude that physical and biological genocide occurred, as such a finding would imply a legal responsibility of the Canadian government that would be difficult to prove. As a result, the debate about whether the Canadian government also committed physical and biological genocide against Indigenous populations remains open.[128][129]
The experiments involved nutrient-poor isolated communities such as those inThe Pas andNorway House in northern Manitoba and residential schools[133] and were designed to learn about the relative importance and optimum levels of newly discoveredvitamins andnutritional supplements.[134][135][136] The experiments included deliberate, sustainedmalnourishment and in some cases, the withholding of dental services.[137]
In 2013 theAssembly of First Nations passed a resolution stating the experiments "reveal Crown conduct reflecting a pattern of genocide against aboriginal peoples."[138]
The practice of forciblysterilizing individuals deemed mentally unfit or "socially inadequate" was widespread in the early to mid-20th century.[139] The belief was that by preventing these individuals from reproducing, society would be protected from the perceived negative impact of their genes. This led tocompulsory sterilization of thousands of people, many of whom were Indigenous women, individuals with disabilities, and those deemed to have "undesirable" traits.[140]
The legal basis for compulsory sterilization in Canada can be traced back to the passage of theSexual Sterilization Act in Alberta in 1928.[141] This legislation allowed for the sterilization of individuals deemed mentally deficient or mentally ill without their consent.[141] Similar legislation existed in British Columbia, although records on sterilizations there are incomplete.[142] Additionally, sterilizations occurred in Saskatchewan, Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario and other regions without specific legal frameworks.[143][144][145] These practices remained in place until the 1970s, when public opinion began to shift and the practice was eventually deemed unethical and inhumane.[146] Despite legislation Indigenous women allege they were coerced into consenting to sterilization, often during vulnerable moments such as childbirth, from the mid 1970s onwards.[146][147] In June 2021, the Standing Committee onHuman Rights in Canada found that compulsory sterilization is ongoing in Canada and its extent has been underestimated.[148] A bill was introduced to Parliament in 2024 to end the practice.[149]
Although Canadianeugenics beliefs and practices operated via institutionalization and medical judgements, similar to other nations at the time, some modern scholars contend this was a form of genocide, aimed at limiting the rights and existence of a group of people.[150][140]
TheHigh Arctic relocation happened in the context of theCold War, the federal government forcibly relocated 87Inuit citizens to the HighArctic as human symbols of Canada's assertion of ownership of the region. The Inuit were told that they would be returned home toNorthern Quebec after two years if they wished, but this offer was later withdrawn as it would damage Canada's claims to the High Arctic; they were forced to stay.[151][152][153] In 1993, after extensive hearings, theRoyal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issuedThe High Arctic Relocation: A Report on the 1953–55 Relocation.[154]
An official government apology was given on 18 August 2010, to the relocated families for the inhumane treatment and suffering caused by the relocation.John Duncan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) stated:
The Government of Canada deeply regrets the mistakes and broken promises of this dark chapter of our history and apologizes for the High Arctic relocation having taken place. We would like to pay tribute to the relocatees for their perseverance and courage...The relocation of Inuit families to the High Arctic is a tragic chapter in Canada's history that we should not forget, but that we must acknowledge, learn from and teach our children. Acknowledging our shared history allows us to move forward in partnership and in a spirit of reconciliation.
TheNunavik dog slaughter was a practice that occurred between the 1950s and late 1960s whereRoyal Canadian Mounted Police fromOntario andQuebec were given orders to slaughtersled dogs fromIndigenous Nunavik communities.[157] These actions are widely believed to be taken in order toassimilate theInuit population into the Nunavik area and curb the localnomadism. An investigation led by theRCMP in 2006 came to the conclusion the killings were carried out to stop sickness, hunger or to keep the dog populations within a certain limit. This report has been disputed by local groups for being biased and a cover up.[158] Further reports uncovered theRCMPconstable in charge of the local area became alarmed about reports of wild dogs, killing 250 in 1966 while also encouraging local Indigenous populations to kill their dogs as well. Officials in the federal government felt this may be anoverreaction but further reports indicated decreasing numbers in the following year.[159] A follow up report in 2010 created byJean-Jacques Croteau, a retiredSuperior Court of Quebec judge found thatQuebec provincial police officers had killed over 1,000 sled dogs between the 1950s and 60s "without any consideration for their importance to Inuit families".[160]
I am here today to extend a formal apology on behalf of allCanadians and theGovernment of Canada forCanada's involvement in the Nunavik dog slaughter of the 1950s and 1960s. It is important for me to be here inKangiqsujuaq, Nunavik, for this apology, to be with you in one of the communities where it happened. The dog slaughter occurred across Nunavik, spreading grief and devastation from the brutality. For this, words are not enough to express the sorrow and regret we feel. The actions and inactions that led to the mass killing of the qimmiit (sled dogs) inflicted deep pain and hardship on Inuit families that none should have had to endure.
TheIndian hospitals wereracially segregatedhospitals, originally serving astuberculosis sanatoria but later operating asgeneral hospitals for Indigenous peoples in Canada which operated during the 20th century.[162][163] The hospitals were originally used to isolate Indigenoustuberculosis patients from the general population because of a fear among health officials that "Indian TB" posed a danger to the non-indigenous population.[164][165] Many of these hospitals were located onIndian reserves, and might also be calledreserve hospitals, while others were in nearby towns. Low salaries, poor working conditions, and the isolated locations of many hospitals made it difficult to maintain adequate numbers of qualified staff.[166] These hospitals also did not receive the same level of funding as facilities for non-Indigenous communities. Although treatment for tuberculosis in non-Indigenous patients improved during the 1940s and 1950s, these innovations were not propagated to the Indian hospitals.[164] From 1949 to 1953, 374 experimental surgeries were performed on TB patients, without the use ofgeneral anesthetic at the Charles Camsell Indian Hospital.[167]
Birth alerts (or hospital alerts) was a practice inCanada, in which asocial orhealth care worker notifies the staff of ahospital if they have concerns for the safety of an expected child based on their parents' history. This can include past instances ofpoverty,domestic violence, drug usage, and history with child welfare.[168] Birth alerts are typically issued without the parents' consent, and often result in apprehension and placement of the child intofoster care after birth.[169]
Birth alerts have been considered a controversial practice, as they have been disproportionately used forIndigenous children.[170] The Indigenous rights groupIdle No More considers birth alerts to be one of the major "hardships" faced by Canada's Indigenous community.[171] In June 2019, theFinal Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) recommended the abolishment of "the practice of targeting and apprehending infants (hospital alerts or birth alerts) from Indigenous mothers right after they give birth", as they were "racist and discriminatory and are a gross violation of the rights of the child, the mother, and the community."[172][173]
Following the release of the report, the practice of birth alerts was discontinued in multiple provinces in the years that followed. The last province to abolish this practice wasQuebec in 2023.[174]
From 2016 to 2019, the Canadian government conducted theNational Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. The final report of the inquiry concluded that the high level of violence directed at First Nations, Inuit, and Metis women and girls is "caused by state actions and inactions rooted incolonialism and colonial ideologies."[175] The National Inquiry commissioners said in the report and publicly that the MMIWG crisis is "a Canadian genocide."[176] It also concluded that the crisis constituted an ongoing "race, identity and gender-based genocide."[177][178][179]
The MMIWG inquiry used a broader definition of genocide from theCrimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act which encompasses "not only acts of commission, but 'omission' as well."[177] The inquiry described thetraditional legal definition of genocide as "narrow" and based on the Holocaust. According to the inquiry, "colonial genocide does not conform with popular notions of genocide as a determinate, quantifiable event" and concluded that "these [genocidal] policies fluctuated in time and space, and in different incarnations, are still ongoing."[180]
On June 3, 2019,Luis Almagro, secretary-general ofOrganization of American States (OAS), askedForeign Affairs MinisterChrystia Freeland to support the creation of an independent probe into the MMIWG allegation of Canadian 'genocide' since Canada had previously supported "probes of atrocities in other countries" such as Nicaragua in 2018.[181] On June 4, in Vancouver, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that, "Earlier this morning, the national inquiry formally presented their final report, in which they found that the tragic violence that Indigenous women and girls have experienced amounts to genocide."[177]
Canadian history has evolved significantly over the years, with early interpretations often downplaying or denying the extent of violence and harm inflicted on Indigenous peoples.[182][183] In more recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the systemic nature of the atrocities perpetrated against Indigenous peoples in Canada.[184] Indigenous leaders and scholars such asPhil Fontaine, Alice MacLachlan andDavid Bruce MacDonald have long argued that the Canadian government should"officially" recognize the totality of atrocities as "genocide".[185] A period of redress andapologies to Indigenous peoples began in 2008 with the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the Government of Canada,[19] resulting in recognition ofcultural genocide,[20]settlement agreements,[19] and betterment of racial discrimination issues, such as addressing the plight ofmissing and murdered Indigenous women.[21] The report also resulted in an apology by then Prime MinisterStephen Harper on behalf of the Canadian government and its citizens for the residential school system was issued.[186]
In 2015, Supreme Court Chief JusticeBeverly McLachlin said that Canada's historical treatment of Indigenous peoples was "cultural genocide".[187] In October 2022, theHouse of Commons unanimously passed a motion to have the Canadian government officially recognize the residential school system as genocide against Indigenous populations.[188][189] This acknowledgment was followed by avisit by Pope Francis who apologized for Church members' role in what he labeled the "oppression, mistreatment and cultural genocide of indigenous people".[190][191][192]Scouts Canada also issued an apology for "its role in the eradication of First Nation, Inuit and Metis people for more than a century".[193]
We acknowledge that archives can be sites of trauma for Indigenous peoples. Working with historical records that document experiences of genocide, assimilation, and oppression, as well as the inherent anti-Indigenous bias and offensive language in these records, can create feelings of distress, grief, and pain for researchers.[194]
Kimberly Murray from the Office of the Independent Special Interlocutor, released a report in 2023 starting;
Some still deny that children suffered physical, sexual, psychological, cultural, and spiritual abuses, despite the TRC’s indisputable evidence to the contrary. Others try to deny and minimize the destructive impacts of the Indian Residential Schools. They believe Canada’s historical myth that the nation has treated Indigenous Peoples with benevolence and generosity is true.[201]
The report prompted Leah Gazan, anNDP Member of Parliament, to introduce Bill C-413 in 2024, which would ban residential school denialism.[202][203] However, legal scholars have previously asserted that a bill of this nature probably would not pass a constitutional challenge under the Canadian Charter.[204]
^The termIndian has been used in keeping withpage name guidelines because of the historical nature of the page and the precision of the name.[12] The use of the name also provides relevant context about the era in which the system was established, specifically one in whichIndigenous peoples in Canada were homogeneously referred to as Indians rather than by language that distinguishesFirst Nations,Inuit andMétis peoples.[12] Use of Indian is limited throughout the page to proper nouns and references to government legislation.
^MacDonald, Noni E; Stanwick, Richard; Lynk, Andrew (2014). "Canada's shameful history of nutrition research on residential school children".Paediatrics & Child Health.19 (2). Oxford University Press (OUP):64–64.doi:10.1093/pch/19.2.64.ISSN1205-7088.
^abcRichardson, Benjamin (2020). Richardson, Benjamin J. (ed.).From student strikes to the extinction rebellion: new protest movements shaping our future. Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar. p. 41.ISBN978-1-80088-109-9.Canada is a settler colonial state, whose sovereignty and political economy is premised on the dispossession of Indigenous peoples and exploitation of their land base'.
^"Residential School History".NCTR - National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. December 21, 2020. Archived fromthe original on January 26, 2025. RetrievedNovember 20, 2024.
^"A Legal Analysis of Genocide"(PDF). National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on January 15, 2025. RetrievedDecember 17, 2024.
Williams, Kimberly (2021).Stampede: Misogyny, White Supremacy and Settler Colonialism.Fernwood Publishing.ISBN9781773632179.Canada is a settler colonial state, it is also what hooks (Jhally 1997) calls a white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy...
^Swanky, Tom (2019)."Commemorating Nits'il?in Ahan"(PDF). Tŝilhqot’in National Government.Archived(PDF) from the original on April 5, 2023. RetrievedApril 8, 2023.
^Charles, Grant; DeGane, Mike (2013). "Student-to-Student Abuse in the Indian Residential Schools in Canada: Setting the Stage for Further Understanding".Child & Youth Services.34 (4):343–359.doi:10.1080/0145935X.2013.859903.S2CID144148882.
^Pegoraro, L. (2015). "Second-rate victims: the forced sterilization of Indigenous peoples in the USA and Canada".Settler Colonial Studies.5 (2):161–173.doi:10.1080/2201473X.2014.955947.
^Mosby, Ian (2013). "Administering Colonial Science: Nutrition Research and Human Biomedical Experimentation in Aboriginal Communities and Residential Schools, 1942–1952".Histoire Sociale/Social History.46 (1):145–172.doi:10.1353/his.2013.0015.S2CID51823776.Project MUSE512043.
^National Film Board of Canada (June 19, 2017)."The High Arctic Relocation".National Film Board of Canada. Archived fromthe original on July 28, 2024. RetrievedSeptember 2, 2024.
MacLachlan, Alice (2013). "Government Apologies to Indigenous Peoples".Justice, Responsibility and Reconciliation in the Wake of Conflict. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. pp. 183–203.doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5201-6_11.ISBN978-94-007-5200-9.
Cormier, Paul Nicolas (2017). "British Colonialism and Indigenous Peoples: The Law of Resistance–Response–Change".Peace Research.49 (2):39–60.JSTOR44779906.
Dhamoon, Rita Kaur (2016). "Re-presenting Genocide: The Canadian Museum of Human Rights and Settler Colonial Power".The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics.1 (1):5–30.doi:10.1017/rep.2015.4.
Harring, Sidney L. (2021). "'Shooting a Black Duck': Genocidal Settler Violence against Indigenous Peoples and the Creation of Canada". InAdhikari, Mohamed (ed.).Civilian-Driven Violence and the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Settler Societies.Routledge. pp. 82–109.ISBN978-1-003-01555-0.
Lightfoot, Kent G.; Nelson, Peter A.; Grone, Michael A.; Apodaca, Alec (2021). "Pathways to Persistence: Divergent Native engagements with sustained colonial permutations in North America". In Panich, Lee M.; Gonzalez, Sara L. (eds.).The Routledge Handbook of the Archaeology of Indigenous-Colonial Interaction in the Americas.Routledge. pp. 129–146.ISBN978-0-429-27425-1.
Champion, C. P. (Christian Paul), Flanagan, Thomas, Malcolm, Candice (2025-11-27).Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong. True North and Dorchester Books.ISBN9798274120593.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
" Is it really genocide? In Canada?" (2019) –TVO (7:25 min)
.jpg)
.svg)