“Settler” vs “Coloniser”

I feel like you could separate settler from coloniser like this:

Coloniser: person actively involved in the process of taking over an area (land grabbing, sleazy treaties, etc)

Settler: someone benefitting from the colonisers and taking over freshly-stolen resources but not actively involved in the stealing

Both of those things are still happening in Canada. The "settlers" of today are things like the oil companies benefitting from the government doing sleazy things to get resources.

There's a point at which the colonisers have "won" even if there's still "fighting" going on but the colonising is basically done. If you're immigrating to a place that is still being colonised, you're a settler. After the colonisers have won, immigrants aren't coming for freshly-stolen stuff (like homesteaders were), so they're not settlers. 

Arguably, the colonisers in Canada have won because "everyone" considers this to be Canada. 

Among native-born people in Canada, you have four groups 

1. People actively trying to maintain pre-colonisation things (arguably anyone who is FN/Metis/Inuit)
2. People who join in on the colonising/settling
3. Descendants of #2 who aren't actively colonising or settling
4. Post-colonisation-period immigrants and their descendants who aren't actively colonising or settling

Everything but #3 has a nice one-word label.

I think "non-culpable (pick one: immigrant or native-born) person operating within the colonised system" is my working label for the non-indigenous non-settler/coloniser people.