comment: >
  
  I agree that it's a complicated situation, but I'd say setting the resource sharing at $4 per person and not increasing the amount since 1874 is more than "weaselly"...
context: I know reading the article isn’t cool around these parts but Ontario is stating that the First Nations should be going after the Canadian federal government, not them. 
  If you’re in the states, this would be like Texas telling someone that’s suing the state to sue the country instead. >
  
  Agree! Treaties were negotiated with the federal government/ crown. The royal proclamation of 1763 states that this must be the case quite clearly.  It’s also in the nature of the meaning of “treaty;” treaties are nation to nation contracts.  I’m not sure why they are trying to sue Ontario… anyone? >
  
  The answer is in the first few paragraphs of the article. Essentially, the FN groups involved want the courts to determine who is legally responsible for breaking the treaties. >
  
  We will never move on unfortunately. Our future is the past resurfacing and never moving on. >
  
  Not responsible, because it was expensive to steal the land from the indigenous people?  Bullshit. >
  
  Thief attempts to deduct cost of lockpicking tools from fine. >
  
  I know that sounds more amusing, but it's more complicated than that.
  The treaty set up the first nations as more equal partners in a relationship and they're alleging the government has not lived up to that. The government is saying that the cost to deliver all the resources which the first nations are owed a cut of, was itself expensive, which would be reflected in the balance of profitability of the extraction. The government's position does sound awfully weasely, but the situation certainly isn't as simple as things being stolen if there was a treaty.