So, the luck of being born into the right family determines your rights? We don't think that is fair in the case of people born into a monarchy, so why should it be any different  in the case of aboriginality? What social or civic purpose is being advanced by giving someone special constitutional standing simply because some 250 years or so  ago one of their 5000 ancesters had some degree of aboriginal ancestry? This "ancestral reductionism" or allowing people to arbitrarily claim to be one of the many cultures their ancesters encompass, does nothing to advance the preservation of aboriginal  cultures and languages, if that is rhe viewed as a viable goal. The one exception to this objection to the  "entitlement by accident of birth" mentality  might be in respect descendants of Treaty Indians, but, even here, the civic or social benefits of continuing the Indian Act, Reserves, registration, etc. makes ever less sense.