I realize the #cancelcanadaday and its related criticisms of the holiday largely revolve around the longstanding and systemic mistreatment of First Nations and other Indigenous peoples in Canada, but I was confused today when I saw the reappearance of the allegation of stolen land. To my knowledge, one of the key differences between Canadian and American westward expansion was that Canada's westward expansion was relatively bloodless (save for major events like the Red River Resistance and Northwest Rebellion) and was mostly covered by the Numbered Treaties. Furthermore, southern Ontario is a major part of eastern Canada that too was covered by a series of treaties that purchased the land. To my knowledge, most of Canada's present territory was not forcibly conquered like what happened in the New Zealand Wars or the American Indian Wars. So does the allegation of stolen land have any salt in a Canadian context? Or does the stolen land argument take more issue with the circumstances under which the treaties were signed / enforced?
You can read more about the history of indigenous relations and treaty rights with colonial and post-Confederation Canada here.
It should be noted that many recent legal judgments in Canada re: treaty rights and obligations have sided with the first nations. A major reason for this is that the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which set out the Crown's duty and obligations to indigenous peoples, continues to be part of Canada's own constitution.
In many ways, the Proclamation is regarded as the Magna Carta of Crown-indigenous relations in Canada.