When Pope Francis visited Canada last year to apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church for its role in the residential school system, he was greeted by protesters demanding that he rescind the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’. The protesters echoed the calls made by other Indigenous activists and thinkers who’ve been calling for years for the Doctrine to be rescinded. Most non-Indigenous Canadians don’t understand what the Doctrine is.
Page 46 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s summary report notes that the Doctrine of Discovery is based on a series of declarations the Catholic papacy made in the 15th century. The declarations said that lands inhabited by non-Christian peoples were ‘terra nullius’. Europe’s Christian kingdoms gained legal title to ‘terra nullius’ if they converted the locals to Christianity. The European kingdoms, in turn, justified their settlement of these other lands by saying they were bringing ‘civilization’ to the locals, who were deemed ‘savages’.
As Kwakwaka’wakw writer Bob Joseph notes, in Canada the Doctrine led to Indigenous peoples’ land rights being denied. It also led to the reserve and residential school systems that were meant to ‘civilize' Indigenous people, and to responsible for a lot of the alcoholism, violence and dysfunction plaguing Indigenous communities today. Joseph also notes that the Doctrine has never been renounced. It’s still the basis for Canadian law and the Crown’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.
It's no wonder, then, that the Commission’s 45th call to action calls on the federal government to formally renounce the Doctrine as a basis for Canadian law and non-Indigenous settlement. The Commission’s 49th call also asks religious organizations to formally renounce the Doctrine. Pages 192-194 of the Commission’s summary report note how churches like the Anglican and United Churches of Canada and the World Council of Churches all repudiated the Doctrine, and how the Catholic Church noted the Doctrine no longer has any relevance for it.
Non-Indigenous Canadians might wonder what repudiating the Doctrine would mean for us, particularly if it’s the basis for Canadian law. Right now, Canadian law is somewhat contradictory on the Doctrine, as more and more court cases recognize Indigenous land title and rights. That suggests that renouncing the Doctrine wouldn’t wreck our legal system. The late Secwepemc thinker Arthur Manuel thought it’d have the opposite effect, solidly establishing the Canadian legal system on a clear basis of human rights law. Non-Indigenous Canadians could still call these lands home, and Canada itself would still be Canada. Other Indigenous activists like Pamela Palmater have consistently said the same thing.
Rescinding the Doctrine would go a long way towards what supporting what I call the ‘Four Indigenous Rs’-reconciliation, restoration, rights and restitution. Many Indigenous activists have called for the restoration of Indigenous land bases, languages and governance rights, which would go a long way towards addressing their communities’ social problems.
Getting rid of the Doctrine would help make such things possible.
In turn, getting rid of the Doctrine would help make a stronger Canada.
