The Colonial Problem: An Indigenous Perspective on Crime and Injustice in Canada

by Lisa Monchalin

Indigenous peoples are vastly overrepresented in the Canadian criminal justice system. The Canadian government has framed this disproportionate victimization and criminalization as being an "Indian problem."

In The Colonial Problem , Lisa Monchalin challenges the myth of the "Indian problem" and encourages readers to view the crimes and injustices affecting Indigenous peoples from a more culturally aware position. She analyzes the consequences of assimilation policies, dishonoured treaty agreements, manipulative legislation, and systematic racism, arguing that the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the Canadian criminal justice system is not an Indian problem but a colonial one.

Genres: Indigenous, Nonfiction, Canada, Sociology, History, Economics, Ecology

412 pages, Hardcover

Published March 8, 2016

Reviews

[Sheldon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend this book to everyone who is serious about contending with and understanding Canada's shameful and ongoing legacy of its relationship to the First Peoples of Turtle Island.

While it is technically a textbook, it is so well-written and very readable. It checks all the boxes of a great book, but to me what makes it so spectacular is Monchalin's cultural translation; never before have I so clearly understand how differences between settler culture (Euro-Christian, capitalist, hierarchical, competitive, linear) and Indigenous cultures (not all same but common themes of non-contradiction, collectivism, equality, circularity, harmony) have led to misunderstanding. As Monchalin rightly points out, most settlers are blind to the substance of their own culture because it is the dominant (dominating) ideology in Canadian society.

However, it would be a gross mischaracterization of this book to say it's about misunderstandings. Monchalin does not pull any punches as she so clearly lays out Canada's consistent, willful, and racist attempts to eradicate Indigenous peoples. Yes, this book is about crime and injustice, but it's so much more than that. Monchalin goes really big picture and connects SO many dots between the suffering of Indigenous peoples and the racist ideas, policies, and programs which led to that suffering. However, as Monchalin writes, Indigenous peoples are strong and resilient; the last chapter is devoted to stories of Indigenous resilience and resurgence.

The discussion questions after each chapter are also great for personal reflection. Highly recommend.

discl. I have been a classmate of Lisa, and she is wonderful. The opinions are my own.

[Diana · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book. I wish it had been required reading in high school. Canada needs a true in depth look at the history of colonization and its long lasting effects.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

After having read so many incredible (and often beautiful) books, it is difficult to find the right adjectives, without lapsing to unjustified superlatives. However, with this book I believe that Lisa Monchalin has achieved something incredible and unrivalled (at least in the admittedly insufficient selection of books that I have been exposed to related to this topic): The Colonial Problem is a masterful history and dissection of Injustice and of Crime as it pertains (and rightfully describes) the relationship between the indigenous peoples of Turtle Island, and the Euro-Canadian state and peoples. Though this claim is made of many books, this text should undoubtedly be part of the curriculum for every student in the Canadian educational system.

I saw another reviewer on this page mention that this was an essential resource for someone who did not grow up in Canada: I can add that this is even more important for people who have grown up here, and having been educated within a public school board within the traditional territories of several indigenous groups, I learned so little of not only those peoples but also of the legal history leading to the status quo, that with nearly every page in this text I learned something which was simultaneously revelatory, anger-inducing, and necessary to have been told as part of that education. And yet it wasn't, not whatsoever. As Monchalin is quick to acknowledge, there is probably not much benefit in blaming specific individuals for that lapse of education or acknowledgement, as this is an institutional and systemic problem with an entrenched history of Injustice. What there is a dire need for is for people like me—beneficiaries and privileged heirs of this Injust state of affairs—to not only acknowledge these truths, but to fight for these truths to be made aware to all such beneficiaries, and to (at least begin to) reconcile these Injustices and Crimes.

I capitalize the words Injustice and Crime because, unlike the commonplace and legal understandings of "crime" and "injustice" which are embedded in the colonial Euro-Canadian project, the notions truly alluded to by those terms are better captured by indigenous understandings, and more rightfully applied to the wrongs which have been enacted by the Euro-Canadian state, primarily toward the indigenous peoples of Turtle Island.

While I was not entirely impressed with the first three chapters (see my points below), chapter 4 and onward are incredibly well-cited, well-argued, and well-written accounts of the events and systemic patterns which have taken place on these lands for the last few hundred years, and they have given me an immense foundation upon which I feel as though I can finally begin to understand the original (and rightful) inhabitants of the lands upon which I reside and subsist, which I have felt ill-equipped to do for as long as these issues have been latent in my mind. Any words I can write here would not be sufficient to describe what I have learned from this book, and I can only urge anyone that is in the same boat as myself, i.e. ignorant and wanting to know more about the history of these lands and the many atrocities committed, to read this at once. Do it as a favour to yourself.

Besides that, here are just a handful of the things which I found useful in this book:

- Chapter 4: though Hobbes & Locke are familiar names to anyone who has studied philosophy in a Western context, I was taken aback to find that their ideas directly influenced the colonial project in its early days in the Americas. In particular, despite Locke's conception of humans as innately joyful and egalitarian, he saw governed society (itself driven by agricultural livelihood) as being a necessary constraint on freedom and a prerequisite for a notion of property rights. This understanding, and the adjacent framing of indigenous peoples as being in a state prior to such a lawful organization, was used as justification for the taking of indigenous lands without their consent. Thus when Europeans came to the Americas, they did not seek to enter into partnerships with the indigenous peoples through treaties, but rather chose to enforce a hierarchical and oppressive regime which discarded indigenous concerns in favour of their own hegemony. (One point in this chapter which confused me is that Monchalin takes the very existence of the Indian Act, i.e. of special laws and rights for the indigenous peoples of Canada, as an indication of the racism and Injustice inherent in the Canadian legal system; and yet with the widespread rejection of the White Paper of 1969, it is clear that abolishing those special rights is also an act of racism and oppression. While it may be that these special considerations are preferable to abolition only insofar as the damage has already been done, i.e. with indigenous lands having been colonized, that point is not entirely clear and leaves some ambiguity in the overall argument.) I was also intrigued to learn about the 'doctrine of discovery' and the constituent laws in European nations, as it makes explicit the fact that the Canadian colonial project was at its origin Injust, and that any modern land claims were from the outset based on a highly problematic notion.

- Chapter 5: incredibly, this is the first time I had ever even heard of The Royalty Proclamation of 1763, or the Treaty of Niagara of 1764. Monchalin does an excellent job of taking multiple sides into consideration, and makes a compelling case that these agreements were entered into mutually, i.e. that the indigenous parties were not simply unwilling subjects but rather active interlocutors. Where things get interested is (based on my limited understanding), the agreements as written do not really coincide with the agreements as spoken, nor as exemplified in the wampum belts; and that it was only with the ensuing legislation primarily from the 1860s onwards, particularly in the numbered treaties of 1871-1921, where the original intent of the agreement between indigenous peoples and the Crown had been so dishonoured and broken that indigenous peoples were de-facto forced into agreements in order to protect what little remained of their people and of their lands resulting from the on-going genocide.

- Chapter 6-9: here we learn in detail about what the state of affairs for indigenous peoples was really like as a result of the numbered treaties and of the other genocidal actions enacted, and promises broken, by the Canadian state, particularly through looking at the Indian Act, residential schools, and the various acts of cultural genocide which have resulted in ensuing intergenerational trauma; and finally an in-depth analysis of the ways in which this trauma manifests to this day, acting out across several levels of existence (i.e. societal, community, relationship, and individual), with the last chapter in this list focusing specifically on how indigenous women have been especially neglected and oppressed as a result of these various levels of trauma re-enforcing each other, and with the imposed systems of governance and misogyny of the colonial state and culture.

Chapter 10 & 11: these chapters describe in detail the various broken promises of the original treaties, and the systems of duplicity inherent in the modern treaties which are intended purely to impose sovereignty of the Canadian state over indigenous lands. What is particularly painful to read about are the many unceded territories which have not been respected by the Canadian state, and the insidious design of the claims governance which is based on the incorrect implication that indigenous peoples of Turtle Island who never ceded their lands to Canada nor entered into any treaties are subject to the laws of Canada, and that it is incumbent upon them to argue their case for ownership of those lands, all the while Canadian governments and corporations infringe and bring devastation upon those lands, often ignoring the bona fide state of affairs. Though there is much to be learned from this chapter, I think much of it is exemplified by the "politics of distraction," which are explained as mechanisms and intentions to distract indigenous groups into seeking justice through legislative and treaty-based means, when in reality these systems only serve to further the colonial project by relying on faulty assumptions of the sovereignty of the Crown, and ultimately only do disservice to those groups. Though all of the stories of the various groups are highly upsetting, perhaps the peoples of the lands known as British Columbia have seen the most Injustice: despite many of those lands never having been ceded to the state of Canada, the government recognizes only 0.2% of the lands as being sovereign nations, and their process for land claims seems almost designed to trap claimants into such severe debt that the final treaty is accepted almost in defeat, as a consequence of the debt and of the hopelessness that the process and bureaucracy instills in the rightful claimants. One of the particularly upsetting Injustices concerns the Tsawwassen people, whose lands were developed upon without consent (and it is only with this reading that I understood that the Tsawwassen Ferry which I took from the mainland to the island of Vancouver was one such development).

- Chapter 12: After reviewing the so-called 'Starlight Tours' (which is important for anyone unfamiliar with them to read), Monchalin outlines some attempts to 'indigenize' police forces, which seems to have mostly consisted of undercompensated and undertrained forces who, given the already fraught relationship between indigenous peoples and police forces, are not a sufficient incentive. In the MacBride Museum in Whitehorse they claim that First Nations peoples were hired as Special Constables and later incorporated into the regular police force (i.e. historically the NWMP), but more nuanced details such as this should be highlighted in such exhibits. The R. vs Gladue case is described, along with the ensuing Gladue reports, which ostensibly compel judges to seek restorative justice particularly when indigenous peoples are the offenders, but apparently the particulars of conditional sentencing prevent this ambition from becoming reality. Similarly to arguments made in Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada from Slavery to the Present, increased surveillance and discrimination of indigenous (and black) problematizes this approach. The attempts by Correctional Services Canada to afford indigenous healing lodges seems, on the whole, to have failed - not only as a result of underfunding and uninformed practices, but as well with the larger (and more challenging) notion of indigenizing a Western justice system, rather than really embracing the wisdom that indigenous Justice has to offer. In Dancing with a Ghost: Exploring Indian Reality, Rupert Ross describes some intriguing examples where Indigenous ethics are directly inconsistent with Western justice processes, in a very practical manner: for example, in some groups it is common to not talk about a deceased person for up to a year after their death, with obvious implications for criminal investigations and court processes. Other misunderstandings are related to Indigenous parenting and other ethics, such as that of non-interference and non-burdening, which can directly impact how officers of Western justice (and juries) may perceive their actions. A comparison is drawn between 'Restorative Justice' and the various manifestations of 'Aboriginal Justice', with their commonality being an incorporation of values such as 'healing, reconciliation, harmony, and forgiveness. On the other hand, Emma LaRocque argues that many of these notions of Aboriginal Justice are in fact (at least in part) colonial reinventions, and that many Aboriginal practices of Justice may have been severe in their own right, and that 'Restorative Justice' is not necessarily closely aligned. Finally, one thought which is not addressed directly in this chapter, but which I think undergirds the discussion, in questioning the very idea of punitive justice, is to consider what it means to be equitable in punishment once we acknowledge the risk factors that have driven an individual to do something bad: if we have Gladue reports for Aboriginal peoples, why not for Black Canadians or for other oppressed minorities? Ultimately, I find that Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst contains the most poignant analysis of this issue, and that if we really wish to continue with this project of retributive 'justice', we need to question what retribution even means in light of the absence of free will...

- Chapter 13: ...

Some arguments from the first three chapters that gave me pause (noting that these are my personal thoughts and that I generally hold Lisa Monchalin's arguments in higher regard than my own):
- Monchalin makes a clear argument (p. 2) that words like 'aboriginal' and 'native' have been used in problematic contexts, but goes on to conclude that 'all of these terms connote a political identity and define us in relation to the colonizers.' I cannot say that I follow this line of reasoning. Besides that, I am just not clear what it would mean for a people to be defined without relation to other peoples. It seems to me a simple fact of semantics that, to refer to any aspect of the universe, it is necessary to do so in contrast or relation to some other aspect. So while we could (and perhaps should) adopt (for example) the term "Innu" to refer to all humans, as befits its (original) meaning, it would become impossible to refer specifically to the very people who (currently) use the word "Innu" without some special referent. I do not claim to have any "solution" to this conundrum, except perhaps to not shy away from using names which refer to others, except insofar as they are disparaging or rooted in ignorance. Besides, to use a word like "settler" is to likewise define a people in contrast to others, which I see as pragmatic and not necessarily problematic. If it is necessary to refer to humans who inhabited this continent prior to 1500s, it is not feasible to enumerate every single name which those peoples would have used for themselves.
- On p. 12, Monchalin claims that [biological] race is a European construct, foreign to Indigenous peoples. I am a bit confused, then, by the the quotation on p. 35 of Georges Sioui (Huron-Wendat), who recognizes the "four races of humans" as one representation of the medicine wheel. I do not have access to the source ("For an Amerindian Autohistory"), except on Google Books, where I cannot find any such mention of the word "race," so I am a bit confused as to what this means.
- "When the Europeans who form the dominant culture follow their ancestral teachings, they are not referred to as 'traditional' or as 'traditionalist.' The word 'traditional' is a colonial term stemming from the British; it came to be used by institutional and academic scholars as a way to frame Indigenous cultures under one all-encompassing term. [...] Stó:lō scholar Wenona Victor explains that she follows her Stó:lō culture, traditions, and ways of knowing. She would not refer to doing so as following 'traditional' teachings nor would she identify herself as being a 'traditionalist'; doing either would incorrectly assume that Stó:lō teachings and culture are stagnant, which is incorrect." (p 25) — I agree that the use of the word 'traditional' has been over-extended to homogeneously reduce Indigenous cultures. However, I think 'traditional' is an apt word to describe following ones' cultural traditions, and the word 'traditional' is indeed often used to describe aspects of European culture with historical precedent (you can see this for yourself by reading any website about French culture, for example).
- I cannot help but feel that, as a whole, the first 3 chapters perpetuate (to some extent) the myth of the 'noble savage.' I wish to be very careful with this interpretation, as I believe that there is a tremendously important dimension of Indigenous spirituality, and of accompanying laws and ways of life and of knowing, which exemplify harmony and peace and egalitarianism; and moreover that we (i.e. settlers together with Indigenous peoples) should strive to revive and regenerate many of these ways. While p. 45 quotes Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred's caution not to 'romanticize the past,' and while I would struggle to dismiss any particular claim that Monchalin makes in the first three chapters, I must admit I am skeptical of the picture that is painted and cannot help but feel that there are facts which, had they been included, would paint a very different picture. Simply put, I cannot believe that any group of humans could be as beneficent and inclusive as the impression that I get from the first 3 chapters. I found that the text was particularly uncritical of issues such as women's rights and slavery within precolonial Indigenous society, as I feel that part of reconciliation is recognizing the less equitable aspects of Indigenous cultures, and conversely the progressive equalities which have emerged out of Western traditions. (Note: the 4th and subsequent chapters go some way to soften these claims, and to clarify that the indigenous groups of Turtle Island indeed had their own imperfections and inequities, however I still perceive an element of indigenous glorification which, though I lack the expertise or even familiarity to challenge, would maybe benefit from being challenged or criticized by someone with the expertise and integrity to do so.)

If that perfunctory skepticism can be regarded as a criticism, it amounts to nothing relative to the rest of this book, which as I mentioned is masterfully written, cited, and argued, and which I can only anticipate would lead to a much more equitable, just, and beautiful Canada were this book to be made part of the mandatory curriculum for everyone growing up on these lands.

[Anojah Nithiyanathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is book is eye opening! I teared up reading this book because it is so sad to see the way Indigenous people in Canada and around the world were treated. They are resilient like no one and really hope that those who are reading this book or choose to read it, are educating themselves because our education system clearly failed us on our colonial history. As a law student, this book really shows how the criminal system in Canada and other legal systems and institutions need drastic change in order to make inequalities lower.

[W Deisman · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Colonial Problem is an unflinching examination of settler colonialism as the foundational context of crime and justice in Canada. It is not an entry into criminology—it is a *challenge to criminology*. Drawing on Indigenous knowledges, lived experience, and a deep empirical commitment, Monchalin rewrites the terms of engagement, refusing to naturalize the status quo or validate the structures that shape it.

Monchalin shows that the crisis of Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is not an aberration but the predictable outcome of a system working *exactly as designed*. Colonialism, in her analysis, is not a historic wrong to be reconciled after the fact; it is a living, organizing logic—expressed in laws, carceral policies, resource extractions, and everyday institutional practices that reinforce structural violence. She does not call for incremental reform; she calls for a fundamental reimagining of justice itself.

The strength of the book lies not only in its moral clarity but in its methodological precision. Monchalin’s analysis is built on historical records, contemporary data, critical theory, and community-based insight. She draws together disparate sources to illuminate how systemic racism and colonial control manifest across multiple dimensions. But unlike many scholarly texts that end in ambivalence or equivocation, this work is politically committed. It does not posture neutrality—it names the violence.

Rather than adapting Indigenous knowledges to fit into Western academic frameworks, Monchalin centres them as equally valid and epistemologically distinct ways of understanding the world. This refusal to subordinate Indigenous worldviews results in a body of work that is both academically rigorous and deeply accountable. She presents Indigenous law, kinship, and storytelling not as cultural ornament, but as justice paradigms with their own authority, coherence, and depth.

This is not a book that seeks to make readers comfortable—it seeks to make them, and us, accountable. It asks those of us who work within educational, legal, or policy institutions to examine the ways we are complicit in systems that produce harm, and to consider what it would mean to do otherwise. For criminologists in particular, it is a call to *unlearn the field’s colonial inheritances* and to move toward approaches grounded in Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination.

The Colonial Problem is not simply a contribution to Canadian criminology—it is a challenge to its foundations. It has had a tremendously transformative impact across the field, with over 400 citations since its release and a plethora of course adoptions of the book across Canada and around the world. As a professor who has taught about criminal and social justice for over 25 years, this book has been a godsend and remains an ongoing source of inspiration and enlightenment for me and many of my students.

Dr. Wade Deisman
Associate Professor of Criminology
Associate Dean of Social Science
University of the Fraser Valley

[Muneeza · Rating 5 out of 5]

By far the best 'textbook' I've had to buy for a class! I ABSOLUTELY CANT EXPRESS HOW informative this was especially for someone who grew up in the states and in canada without knowing the other side of what really happened when Columbus sailed. I love love love this book and even reference it for my essays every now and then for other classes.

[Julia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this Lisa has a great way of filling the book with information without making it feel too heavy. Highly recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about North Americas "relationship" with Indigenous people.
I've also been lucky enough to have Lisa as a professor at university.