Canada, although not without various forms of racism and oppression of Aboriginal peoples, had a history of much less violence and warfare between settlers and aboriginals than the US.
The basis for relations in Canada between settlers and First Nation people was set out in a Royal Proclamation by King George III in 1763 after Britain conquered Canada from France. The basics of this proclamation were that Indian collective ownership of lands in their possession was recognized; unceeded land was reserved for use as First Nations hunting grounds; only the crown could purchase Indian lands; only the crown could make treaties with Indian nations.
This recognized some rights for First Nations people, and protected them from private predation, but took away their rights to do whatever they wanted with their lands without involving the crown and established them as Nations living under crown protection and began a trend to make them wards of state.
Thereafter, there was various corruption, dubious acquisition of First Nations lands, much state interference and control of the life styles and cultural practices of First Nation peoples, and (perhaps most notoriously), the system of Residential Schools, where many Aboriginal Children were removed from their parents in an attempt at ‘civilizing and Christianizing’ through education.
Although Canadian treatment of Aboriginal peoples was often racist and oppressive to some extent, oppression very rarely was as violent or blatant as in the US, and rarely degenerated into warfare.
http://www.tolerance.cz/courses/papers/hutchin.htm
Nevertheless, the demographic pattern of First Nation populations in Canada was very similar to that in the USA. There was a catastrophic decrease in Aboriginal population numbers in both countries over several hundred years, leading to a population low point around 1900, since when there has been a considerable population recovery.
The similarity of demographic patterns, despite a considerable difference in the violence of relations, indicates that the main cause of Aboriginal demographic catastrophe in both countries was the impact of recurring epidemic diseases on Aboriginal populations, more than the impact of cross cultural violence.
The First Nations populations of Canada were severely reduced, to a low point around 1900. In 1900 the First Nation population of Canada was 127,000, or about 2% of a total population of 5,300,000 (of which 5.1m European, 23,000 Asian, 17,000 African, and 127,000 Indigenous).
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/getBriefed/1900/population.asp
Since 1900, with the arrival of modern medicine, the Aboriginal population of Canada has grown to 1.4 million, and now makes up 4.3% of the population of Canada.
The demographics of American Indian populations in the USA are similar.
http://www.ewi-ssl.pitt.edu/econ/files/courses/110103_misc_nativeamericanpopulationgraphs.pdf
By the time of the first US census (in 1800) the Native American population (in a smaller area than today’s USA, and of dubious accuracy) was enumerated as 600,000. The low point in American Indian population was 1890 at 228,000 (0.4% of the total population of 63m at the time) (Alaskan Natives were included in the “American Indian” category in the 1890 census).
The similar demographic catastrophes for aboriginals in both the US and Canada seem to have been driven primarily by the impact of recurring epidemic diseases.
The low point of the American Indian population in the USA was 1890. Although American Indian populations began to recover after 1890, the American Indian percentage of the population did not start to grow until after 1950, as the non-Indian population (largely through immigration) grew as fast, or faster, than the Indian population. Since 1950, the American Indian share of the population has grown. By 2010, in the USA, the American Indian and Alaska Native population only identified as such, was 2.9m (0.9% of the population), while those identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with one or more other groups in the USA was 2.3 million (0.7% of the population). Those identifying as totally or partially American Indian or Alaska Native made up about 1.7% of the population. Between 2000 and 2010, the population of American Indians and Alaska Natives was growing twice as fast as the growth rate of the overall US population, so their percentage of the population is gradually increasing.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf
So, in both the USA and Canada, Native American populations were devastated by recurring epidemic diseases to which they had little immunity. In both countries populations reached a low point about 1900. In both countries, populations have been recovering strongly since then. (In both countries, Native American populations have increased more than tenfold since the demographic low point.)
At the population low point, there were still almost twice as many Native Americans in the USA as in Canada. In 2010 (about 110 years after the low point) there are slightly more than twice as many Native Americans in the USA as in Canada. (The population of Native Americans has been growing faster in the USA than in Canada).
The reason that Native Americans are a lower % of the population in the USA than in Canada is due to the demographics (especially immigration) of the non-Native American populations in those two countries, rather than the demographics of Native Americans.
Perhaps someone else will contribute on the history of Aboriginal relationships in Mexico. I don’t know much about that. I do know that the demographic pattern of aboriginal populations in Mexico was very different.
In Mexico, Indigenous populations also got hammered in a demographic catastrophe by diseases arriving in the Columbian exchange. Estimates vary a lot, but it seems that the bottom of the demographic decline was in the mid 1600s, when the indigenous population in Mexico reached a low point of between 1.2m and 3.4m (down from pre-contact estimates between 5 and 25 m). Denser Indigenous populations in Mexico may have enabled diseases to become endemic (by about 100 years after the Columbian exchange) instead of remaining epidemic (as they did in much less dense populations in Canada and the USA). Endemic diseases are still deadly, but do not cause such drastic population declines, as they tend to kill off children (the adults being largely survivors who have acquired immunity), and children are more rapidly replaced than adults.
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm
As well as the demographic crash from diseases bottoming much earlier in Mexico (250 years earlier), the numbers of the non-indigenous population, at the time of the low point of the demographic catastrophe in the aboriginal population, were much smaller. In 1650, it is estimated that there were 10,000 Mexicans of European descent, and 35,000 Mexicans of African descent. In addition, there were circa 600,000 Mexicans who were classified as “mestizo” (meaning of mixed Indigenous, European and or African descent) as well as the 1.2m to 3.4m (est.) remaining indigenous population.
With the Indigenous population of Mexico being a much higher proportion of the population at the trough of the demographic crisis, it is not surprising that Mexico should have a much higher percentage of Native Americans in the population today.
It is important to note that the biggest difference between the native peoples in Mexico versus those in North America (including Canada) at the time of conquest/colonization was their mode of living. In North America, there were hundreds to possibly thousands of various native groups that all intertwined and interacted but did not necessarily consider themselves as from the same group. Those groups were relatively nomadic, and subsisted on hunting, gathering, and light farming depending on where they lived.^^a In contrast, Mexico's pre-conquest native groups could be largely categorized by their stationery societal structure. That is not to say that they were 100% homogenous culturally, but there were larger groups which most historians agree can be considered empires. Those larger groups controlled vast parts of Mexico from a single point, with a ruler at the top and social classes descending down. The two major native groups in Mexico at the time of conquest were the Maya and the Aztecs.
So that background is necessary in understanding the difference between how the native groups in both North America and Mexico were treated. Generally speaking, the Spanish conquistadores did not jump off their boats and horses and immediately start killing all the natives they saw. Neither did the settlers in North America necessarily, but the relations are different. Hernán Cortés came to form a sort of alliance with the Aztecs (ruler: Moctezuma II) and initially traded and worked with the Aztec rulers. The story of the death of Moctezuma II is disputed because both Spanish and Native accounts say exactly opposite things. While Spanish accounts claim that the ruler peacefully gave over his throne, and that his death was an accident, Native accounts claim that Moctezuma surrendered his throne out of cowardice, and that the Spaniards held him and killed him.
According to Octavio Paz, the main goal of the Spanish after they realized how uncivilized the people in the new land were, was to convert as many indios as possible to Catholicism. Some of the men sent to New Spain to convert the people were less strict than others on the practices. Some believed that as long as a baptism was performed, the soul was saved. However others believed that once the baptism was performed, it was sinful to return to the old religious practices. This caused strife among the religious leaders between each other and also towards the indios.
When talking about the conquest of Mexico, there is this concept that was introduced called the Black Legend. This was the idea that although the other major empires in Europe were also colonizing the Western hemisphere, there was a feeling that the Spanish were being particularly cruel to the native people, and that the Spanish were systematically writing their accounts to not seem as brutal.
a. There is much evidence to suggest that many Native North American groups did in fact settle for longer periods of time, however they were not nearly as stable or lasting as the Aztecs or Maya.
Sources:
Octavio Paz, "The Conquest and Colonialism," Labyrinth of Solitude, 89-116.
Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, Florentine Codex
Fray Toribio de Motolinía, History of the Indians of New Spain
I took a class in my history undergrad on Crime and Punishment in Latin America. Related to this topic, in most of Latin America, including Mexico, the native population was treated very differently from the Europeans and then those of mixed European descent. In many regions, the laws were different for native groups and what I'll refer to as Euro-Latins for ease. Punishments for certain conduct laws (public drunkenness, gambling, etc.) was much more harsh for natives than Euro-Latins. It was also much easier to convict natives than Euro-Latins. There rules about where and how much land natives could own. In urban areas they were mostly segregated to barrios, which were basically ghettos.
At the time of my class, my professor had just returned from doing years of research in Guatemala mostly, but other parts of South America. The impact of laws against natives were still evident today, as most of them live in poverty and lacked educational opportunities to advance in life. Euro-Latins, especially in countries like Chile and Argentina, consider themselves closer to Europeans than Latin America.
One great source on this is Crime and Punishment in Latin America, edited by Ricardo D. Salvatore, Carlos Aguirre, and Gilbert M. Joseph. There are really interesting primary sources out there too, criminal records and the like, if you want to dig.