I suspect the natives want a share of profits but government ( need I also say public like me) who are unwilling to grant it.

Au contraire, I would suspect that the Wynne government, and especially Wynne herself, might also be in support of that. If anything, it's just difficult to determine what might be an appropriate amount.

Many of the old Treaties seem to specifically exclude the concept of resource sharing. But does that mean the agreements are appropriate? You can argue that the agreements are legal contracts. You can agree that although First Nations signed them under duress, or in a position of misunderstanding what they were giving up, or due to negotiations between parties of vastly unequal power, the contracts are still valid because they're a signed contract.

However, there is more to a contract than the strict legal interpretation. There is also the issue of equity between parties to the contract, and how it impacts long-term cooperation.

If I'm in a contract whereby I'm agreeing to perform work for a long term client, and the external environment has changed significantly since the signing of the contract, I may approach the client and say, "I'm willing to talk about potential changes to the way that we do business, which may have a positive benefit for one of us and a negative impact for the other, but I believe it is a good discussion to have to strengthen our business relationship going forward." In the short term, one loses, but in the long term, both benefit.

i think that some people look at the First Nations as being nothing but headaches, and even worse, a small number have a terrible attitude where they wish that the First Nations didn't exist. Well, if you want the "problem" to go away, be fair to them and make them one of us. Give them the resources and tools (note that I didn't say "cash") to improve their communities and their lives, and they will strengthen Canada as a whole.