Revenue sharing is a claim under treaty.  Land allowed for the use of white people is considered to be conditionally ceded, certain conditions have to be met by the Canadian government in order to maintain title.  Title was conditionally ceded to the Canadian government (the Crown).  The conditions of treaty dictate that the Canadian government in order to maintain it's conditional title must abide by and enforce the conditions.

Bigger than another other claim is subsurface rights on conditionally ceded territory.  Even if the First Nations were nominally successful in the expansion and equity claims, expansion of (unceded) reservation land size would cloud title to mining, forestry, provincial parks etc. etc. for years to come.  Would international investors question the stability of investing in Manitoba with such issues clouding title to the lands and resources of the land?

When Jean Chretien was Minister of Indian Affairs in 1969, his White Paper on Indians stated, "the significance of the treaties in meeting the economic, educational, health and welfare needs of the Indian people has always been limited and will continue to decline. ....the anomaly of treaties between groups within society and the government of that society will require that these treaties be reviewed to see how they can be equitably ended".  Thirty years later, many of those same politicians still don't get it. 

It is impossible under Canadian and International law to unilaterally do away with people's fundamental right to property without due compensation and without the consent of the property owners.  The conditions of treaty are property.

Outstanding claims under treaty include, health, illegal surrenders, equity, expansion, jurisdiction, preoccupied lands, farm equipment, timber, hay lands, natural resources (subsurface rights), protection from taxation, peaceful co-existence, veterans land claims, hunting, fishing and gathering rights, education, plus many First Nations and individuals of First Nations have United States claims.

Delaying could cause Canada to become an economic wasteland for international investment.   The risk is greater for non-natives than natives. Threats and intimidation only work for so long. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in deciding Delgamuukw, "we are all here to stay". Delgamuukw denies First Nations the use of court injunctions because it could create "economic hardship" for non-native people. 

It is claims and court action on resources and subsurface minerals that would scare international investment in Canada.  It is by treaty our resources and subsurface minerals.  Some First Nations in Manitoba have millions sitting in their Treaty Land Entitlement trust accounts. They have the financial ability dollars out of their Treaty Land Entitlement trust account to finance Treaty Protection Offices.   TPOs where lawyers, legal secretaries, and coordinators etc would not only research but implement the terms and conditions of Treaty number 1 through court action.  

The crown controls criminal courts and decides whether to proceed or stay matters. In civil court lawsuits the question asked of the courts is formed by the First Nation and the process is controlled by the First Nation.  They can proceed or drop the case as they need to.  The big issue for First Nations is royalties, a legally recognized share of the resource wealth of Canada.

We never ever lived on the good graces of the Canadian taxpayer.  We never received land from the government, we were never given a share of our own resources.   In our understanding of the treaties we were supposed to share our lands and resources, with non-natives, not become dependant on government funded initiatives.