Nothing kills a thread faster than a long rambling post that no one can bother reading, so here goes...
The impression I get from reading over this thread again is that some folks view Canada’s native population as having received nothing but free land and free money from the government. With that in mind, I should point out that aboriginal “reserves” are not parcels of land that Canada gave to natives. It's not like Canada won a war, claimed the territory, and then was nice enough to give a little back. The term “reserve” likely stems from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, in which the British Crown “reserved” all lands not ceded to the Brits to the aboriginal population, as follows:
And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds…
The Proclamation essentially recognized aboriginal entitlement to their historic lands. So it’s not as though Britain gave land to the aboriginals: it recognized that it was theirs and that they had rights to it unless
they gave them up to the Crown. In a very real sense, the colonies were as much “reserves” as the land “reserved” for aboriginals.
So, land used by natives which had not been acquired by Britain as of 1763, and which was not later ceded by treaty, remained native land. This should give some idea of the importance of treaties.
Of course, the treaty system wasn’t perfect, and one of the big problems with it was that most aboriginal cultures had a different conception of “property” than did white settlers. In British culture, land became yours if you “enclosed” it – essentially meaning if you built your house on it, tended crops on it, or fenced it off and used it, it was yours. Similarly, British property rights focused on private property – my gun, my horse, my house, my food. Aboriginal cultures emphasized communal property: other than things you personally made, property belonged to the tribe, or to nature, not to the individual. These two ideas of property lead to misunderstandings in both the treaty process and every day life. And as far as real property was concerned, this problem was compounded by the fact that some tribes were nomadic. So a tribe might travel over traditional hunting grounds over the course of time, only to return to find that white folks had “enclosed” their vacated land. This wasn’t viewed by the Brits as problematic because, it seemed to them, this was not Indian Hunting Grounds, since the aforesaid Indians clearly weren’t there. Fortunately for Canada’s native population, aboriginal title over land can still be (and is regularly being) established over this type of land. If a band can establish that they had exclusive occupation of land prior to Britain asserting sovereignty over it, and that occupation was substantially continuous up until the present day, then aboriginal title can be claimed over that land. I believe roughly 80% of BC's land, for example, is subject to aboriginal title claims (either established or claimed).
Aboriginal rights and, specifically treaty rights, are now enshrined in section 35 of the Charter, and are therefore Constitutional rights. So even if you don't like it, you can therefore expect that Parliament won’t be in a position to change it any time soon.
Other things which emerge from this thread are the misconception that Canada’s aboriginal population has it easy (free money!), as well as a paternalistic attitude towards natives generally: we need to fix them, and tell them what to do. Interestingly, the UN sent a Special Rapporteur to Canada in 2007, who came to these
conclusions:
Throughout his mission, the Special Rapporteur was disturbed to see the devastating impact of the paternalism that marks federal and provincial government, legislations, policies and budgetary allocation for Aboriginal people on and off reserve. These policies have seriously compromised the right to self determination that Aboriginal people enjoy under the original treaties and the International human rights instruments and deeply affected their housing and living conditions.
Overcrowded and inadequate housing conditions, as well as difficulties to access basic services, including water and sanitation, are major problems for Aboriginal peoples. For instance, during his visit to the Lubicon Lake Nation, the Special Rapporteur could witness how families still live without access to potable water and sanitation and appalling living conditions. He also noted the destructive impact of oil extraction activities that continues to lead to the loss of lands and the asphyxiation of livelihoods and traditional practices.
Some food for thought.