World News

The article on the same site you shared here (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/royal-canadian-mounted-police) about the RCMP goes over their history as the NWCP, who were created to control "unrest" among indigenous people and settlers (I.e. the people that were stealing their land). You can read about the Indian Act, which exists to this day. That book goes over the laws I mentioned about the police enforcing the potluck bans and how they punished indigenous people who went off reserve (similarly to how Israeli forces keep Palestinians within their own areas and don't allow them travel outside without a pass). There's a shorter version of the 21 things you may not know about the Indian act Here, and Bob Joseph is one the most renowned indigenous scholars in Canada. Police officers were also the ones who would "arrest" children and take them to the residential schools. orangeshirtday.org

As for the sixties scoop, there are a few things at play. One, the reservations were kept under-served (meaning in terms of electricity, etc) by the very systems the government had created. Two, as you mentioned, they did not own the land (and legally weren't allowed to) so they were all "poor" in the eyes of the government. But most importantly, its the basis that the white government workers who were deciding what is or isn't a good "fit" for the child were doing so based on their own cultural values

The ideal home would instil the values and lifestyles with which the child welfare workers themselves were familiar: white, middle-class homes in white, middle-class neighbourhoods. Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal parents and families were deemed to be “unfit.” (http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter14.html#6)

As a consequence, indigenous children were greatly over-represented in the child welfare system: by your own source, its a low estimate to say that 20,000 children were taken from their homes.

You mentioned that school age mortality was around 1 in 250. In residential schools, that same mortality was 1 in 25 (conservatively). The medical inspector of these schools himself even called out the conditions of these schools in his book A National Crime.

As for the savage comment, I barely even want to respond to that but White Canadians most certainly also had slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries, and I promise you that is not why he was calling then "savages".

The definition of genocide:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The government itself recognized the actions as genocide, and what is disingenuous is to downplay the genocide of one group of peoples over another just because one was "less effective" at destroying a culture and murdering people.

I know I'm not going to change your mind so I'm going to stop replying after this. I want you to know that I don't think Canada, or Canadians, are "bad" people, just like how I don't think Israelis are necessarily "bad" people. The government does fucked up shit. All governments do fucked up shit. None of it is okay, and none of it is "better" just because it is less successful at its goal of erasing entire cultures. Yes, even those slave trading indigenous groups were doing fucked up shit, and no, that also was not okay. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill them all and replace them with your own fucked up shit.