Archived - Evaluation of the Federal Government's Implementation of Self-Government and Self-Government Agreements

* Table figures for On-Reserve Population retrieved from INAC website. First Nations Profiles: Registered Population (current to July, 2010). On-Reserve figures include males and females living on other reserves.

* Table figures for student enrolment were retrieved from Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey nominal roll submitted to INAC for the 2009-2010 school year.

In addition, the Agreement supports both on and off reserve Mi'kmaq Nova Scotians enrolled in post secondary studies. In 2008-2009, there were 496 post-secondary students supported under the Agreement.

History of Negotiations

In recognition of the vital importance of education to the future of the Mi'kmaq Nation, in 1991 the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs approached INAC and proposed that a Mi'kmaq Education Authority be established for the devolution of federal education programming to the thirteen Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia. In June 1993, the chiefs changed their request from the transfer of the responsibility to administer education on reserve from INAC to a complete transfer of Canada's jurisdiction over education on reserve. This jurisdiction includes the power to make and administer laws and regulations with respect to primary and secondary education, and law-making powers with the respect to the administration and expenditure of community funds in support of post-secondary education, enabling the thirteen Mi'kmaq communities to assume full legal responsibility and control over First Nations education in Nova Scotia. Their request was met with an agreement from Canada to commence negotiations, which formally began in 1994 when a political accord was struck between the parties. In December of 1996, A Tripartite Agreement between First Nations, the Province of Nova Scotia and Canada was signed, affirming Nova Scotia's acknowledgement of Mi'kmaq jurisdiction. Federal and Provincial legislation (Bill C-30 and Bill no.4 respectively) were enshrined in federal and Nova Scotia Law in 1999, giving force to the Agreement with Respect to Mi'kmaq Education in Nova Scotia (the Agreement) between nine of the thirteen Mi'kmaw bands and Canada.

The Agreement with Respect to Mi'kmaq Education in Nova Scotia

Jurisdiction with respect to Mi'kmaw education is exercised by individual First Nations in accordance with the Agreement. In addition to the transfer of law-making and administrative authority for primary and secondary education on reserve, and law-making power with respect to the administration and expenditure of community funds in support of post-secondary education, the Agreement removes participating communities from s. 114-122 of the Indian Act and provides for the harmonization of Mi'kmaw, federal and provincial laws over education. In addition, the Agreement provides for the establishment of education boards and outlines the standard of education to be provided for by participating communities. The Agreement states "the participating communities shall provide primary, elementary and secondary education programs and services comparable to those provided by other education systems in Canada, so as to permit the transfer of students between education systems without academic penalty, to the same extent as the transfer of students is effected between education systems in Canada" (s. 5.4).

The Agreement is supported by a separate five year funding agreement that is renegotiated and renewed normally during a five year cycle. Through the Funding Agreement, INAC transfers an annual grant to participating communities through a single administrative body (Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey – MK) for capital repairs and replacement, second level services as well as governance. The amount of the annual grant is adjusted annually for price and volume and is distributed on a quarterly basis. The current agreement took effect in 2005/06 and established an annual transfer of $29,063,977 (base amount). A one year extension to the current agreement was established in March 2010. It is anticipated that the renewal of a successor (3rd) funding agreement will be complete by March 31, 2011.

MK also receives addition funding for INAC-targeted education programs through contribution agreements which are separate from the grant. There are currently nine targeted programs that MK applies to, on behalf of communities:

• Elementary/Secondary Instructional Services – Band Operated Schools;
• Teacher Recruitment and Retention;
• Parental and Community Engagement Strategy;
• New Paths for Education;
• First Nations SchoolNet;
• First Nation Student Success Programs;
• Partnership Initiative – Education;
• Special Education/High Cost; and
• Youth Employment Strategy Program.

Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey (MK)

The objectives of the Agreement are to:

1. Specify the procedures and instruments through which education jurisdiction of participating communities will be realized; and
2. Determine the specific governance and administrative structures through which the participating communities will exercise jurisdiction with respect to education.

In fulfillment of these objectives, the Agreement provides for the creation of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, a legally recognized corporate authority whose Board of Directors consists of the elected Chiefs from each participating community.

MK administers the Final Agreement with Respect to Mi'kmaq Education in Nova Scotia and allocates funding to participant communities as provided for by the Funding Agreement (Schedule "A" of the main Agreement). The organization is led by and Executive Director who manages the education programming, finance and administration staff. MK does not have the authority to enact education laws as jurisdiction lies solely with the communities themselves. Only individual band councils may enact laws applicable to primary, elementary and secondary education programs and services in their respective communities.

MK serves as the collective voice in education for the ten participating communities. The primary purpose of MK is to identify the needs of the communities and to assist them in meeting common objectives in the delivery of education programs and services. The corporation takes its direction from the elected chiefs of the ten member communities who each occupy a seat on MK's Board of Directors. The Board, in turn, makes decisions on budgets and programming on the advice of several working groups comprised of the Directors of Education, principals and educators, community members as well as provincial and federal officials. The Agreement requires that MK establish a constitution, setting out the powers of the organization, the powers of the Board as well as general procedures for establishing budgets and funding allocation, voting, and a process for dispute resolution which includes the use of a traditional Mi'kmaq process called Nuji Koqajatekewinu'k.

As stated in their constitution, the objectives of MK are:

• To assist and provide services to individual bands in the exercise of their jurisdiction over education;
• To assist individual Bands in the administration and management of education for the Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia;
• To provide the Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia a facility to research, develop and implement initiatives and new directions in the education of Mi'kmaq people; and
• To coordinate and facilitate the development of short and long-term education policies and objectives for each Mi'kmaq community in Nova Scotia, in consultation with the Mi'kmaq communities. [Note 30]

In addition to supporting communities in the delivery of education programs and services, MK has established a number of key program areas in which they initiate and manage a range of small and large scale projects including the establishment of a web based Mi'kmaw language dictionary and the introduction of the student data gathering and monitoring system. Through an agreement with INAC, MK has also assumed responsibility as the Regional Management Organization for the Atlantic Canada's First Nation Help Desk, to deliver the First Nations SchoolNet Program (FNS). FNS provides First Nation schools in Nova Scotia with support and resources to manage information and integrate technology into education. The program also assists schools with Internet connectivity and in troubleshooting local area networks and connectivity problems through the Help Desk.

Through the Agreement, MK has the authority to negotiate tuition agreements and financial arrangements with the Province of Nova Scotia. In 2008, MK and the Province established the Master Education Agreement. The Master Agreement sets out the rate that MK contributes for students to attend public schools. The Master Agreement also includes provisions for enhanced services such as professional development, and provides for assessments of students both on and off reserve.

MK has also established partnerships with other organizations and institutions that support the enhancement of education services and programming in participant communities. For example, MK participates as a representative on the Education Working Committee of the Mi'kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Tripartite Forum. The purpose of the Forum is to discuss, investigate, negotiate and implement solutions to substantive issues of mutual concern and jurisdictional conflict. As a member of the Committee, MK assists in identifying issues through research and community engagement and brings them back to the forum for consideration. Other partnerships established by MK include research activities through St. Francis Xavier University, as well as culture and language activities with the University of Cape Breton program for Mi'kmaq Studies.

To set priorities and determine the direction of the organization from year to year, MK hosts an annual education symposium in which participating communities are invited to present their achievements from the past year, and communicate their specific education needs and priorities to MK and the Board of Directors. MK also reports on its own priorities, activities and expenditures through an annual report, a requirement set out in the terms of the Funding Agreement. [Note 31]

Community Initiatives

In addition to education programs and service support provided by MK, since the establishment of the Agreement, individual communities have taken up a number of initiatives to enhance education programming, particularly in the area of culture and language. For example, the communities of Membertou and Eskasoni have established Mi'kmaq Emersion programming. In Membertou, the program is offered to students beginning in Kindergarten through to Grade 2. In Eskasoni, this program is offered to students beginning in Kindergarten through to Grade 3. Other community initiatives include the development of Mi'kmaw language tools such as children's books, day care programs with Mi'kmaw language instruction, adult learning programs and attendance initiatives, among others. Through the Agreement, communities have also formed partnerships to plan, develop and implement community-specific programming. Information on these initiatives and other education activities are outlined in MK's Annual Reports and community websites.

5. Evaluation Findings: Relevance

The evaluation examined the relevance of the federal government's implementation of self-government by providing an assessment of the alignment of the goal of the IRP with government priorities, its consistency with federal roles and responsibilities as well as demonstration of continuing need.

Findings from the evaluation conclude that the goal of the IRP, to implement a process that will allow practical progress to be made and empower Aboriginal people to become self-reliant, remains highly relevant as the Policy provides a viable alternative to the Indian Act for Aboriginal communities wishing to negotiate self-government. The Policy supports federal government priorities as well as international norms towards greater recognition of the rights of Indigenous people to self-government. Moreover, the negotiation and implementation of self-government under the IRP is fully consistent with federal roles and responsibilities.

Self-government remains relevant to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Through the IRP, the Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing Aboriginal right under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Policy provides the framework for negotiation for those Aboriginal communities wanting to exercise their inherent right.

Canadian courts recognize that Section 35 can include the right to self-government. However, the courts have set a high standard for proving the existence and extent of such a right. Findings from the evaluation suggest that the IRP has removed pressure from the courts to decide on this issue.

National Aboriginal organizations have been highly critical of the IRP. As well, Aboriginal governments have expressed difficulty in establishing a government to government relationship with the Crown. A review of the literature and discussions with First Nation community members point to an overall frustration with what has been accomplished under the IRP. Outstanding issues also include self-government as it applies to Métis off a land base and the link between self-government and historic treaties.

5.1 Alignment with Government Priorities

INAC negotiates and implements self-government agreements on behalf of the Government of Canada, with other federal departments being involved where self-government agreements involve their areas of responsibility or jurisdiction. The negotiations and implementation of treaties and self-government agreements are important contributors to INAC's overarching mandate and currently one of the department's priority areas. Self-government negotiations are linked to the Cooperative Relationships program activity within the Government strategic outcome as outlined in the 2011-12 departmental Program Activity Architecture. Self-government implementation is linked to the Treaty Management program activity.

These activities support INAC's priorities by fulfilling is obligations to Aboriginal people and building strengthened relationships through progress on governance and self-government. [Note 32] Self-government activities also support INAC priority of improving economic development and sustainability, as the IRP supports Aboriginal governments and institutions developing their own sources of revenue in order to reduce reliance on transfers from other governments.

The desire of Aboriginal peoples to be self-governing political entities can be fully realized only with a transformation in their capacity to provide for themselves. A nation does not have to be wealthy to be self-determining. But it needs to be able to provide for most of its needs, however these are defined, from its own sources of income and wealth. [Note 33]

Moreover, the negotiation and implementation of self-government supports international norms towards greater recognition of the rights of Indigenous people to self-government as expressed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada became a signatory in November of 2010. As stated in Article 4 of the Declaration,

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions. [Note 34]

5.2 Consistency with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

The negotiation and implementation of self-government is fully consistent with federal roles and responsibilities. The IRP represents Canada's responsibility towards Aboriginal people under Section 91(24) and Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As stated in the IRP,

The Crown has a unique, historic and fiduciary relationship with Aboriginal peoples of Canada. While the Government's recognition of an inherent right of self-government does not imply the end of this historic relationship, Aboriginal self-government may change the nature of this relationship. [Note 35]

5.3 Continuing Need

The IRP provides the framework for negotiation for those Aboriginal communities wanting to exercise their inherent right and provides a viable alternative to the Indian Act. The large number of tables negotiating self-government, currently there are 91 tables with 70 active tables and 21 inactive tables, reflect this demand.

The IRP serves as a tool to foster reconciliation of Crown and Aboriginal interests through negotiations rather then litigation. Canadian courts recognize that Section 35 can include the right to self-government. However, the Courts have set a high standard for proving the existence and extent of such a right. For example, in a leading decision on the issue (R. v. Pamajewon [1996]), the Supreme Court of Canada found that, even if Section 35 could include self-government rights, the particular Aboriginal community in that case was unable to prove the right to control gaming initiatives on its land. Findings from the evaluation suggest that the IRP has removed pressure from the courts to decide on this issue.

5.4 Aboriginal Perspectives

Self-government remains relevant to First Nations, Inuit and Métis. As noted by Aboriginal key informants, self-government supports:

...creating space in Canada's federal state for First Nation, Métis, and Inuit people to govern their own affairs. It is about creating room in post colonial Canada for the continuation of indigenous people.

...bringing Aboriginal people into the confederation in a distinct and meaningful way. Self-government means that Aboriginal Government becomes part of the governing structures of the country. [Note 36]

National Aboriginal organizations have however expressed strong concerns with the Inherent Right Policy and its implementation. The IRP is perceived as a federal government policy that did not include Aboriginal input into its development and that negotiations with Métis groups without a land base has been limited.

The existing inherent right policy was developed unilaterally by thefederal government contrary to what the Supreme Court of Canada has been declaring with respect to consultation, the fiduciary relationship and reconciliation. The policy has been rejected by First Nations and has not produced the desired results, therefore, needs to be revisited in its entirety. [Note 37]

Although the policy clearly indicates that Métis are to have access to the policy and that resulting rights in agreements (with provincial support) can be protected as constitutionally-protected Section 35 rights, federal negotiators have refused to enter into substantive discussions on implementing self-government off a land base. [Note 38]

The link between self-government and historic treaties is also an outstanding issue. For example, in Saskatchewan, governance arrangements for the province's Treaty First Nations led to an Agreement-in-Principle and Tripartite-Agreement-in-Principle in 2003 though an impasse on negotiations was reached and these agreements were not ratified. The reasons are documented in the Office of the Treaty Commissioner report on treaty implementation and include:

What is missing, both in the federal government's 1995 "Inherent Right Policy" and the Agreement-in-Principle, is a commitment to define the relationship between the treaties and the overlapping sovereignties of the parties and explicitly recognize that contemporary governance agreements where treaties have been made will necessarily build upon a pre-existing foundation of reconciliation. [Note 39]

Moreover, as self-government agreements are between an Aboriginal signatory and the Crown, Aboriginal governments expressed difficulty in establishing a government to government relationship with the Crown. As stated by the Land Claims Agreement Coalition in 2006,

Recognition that the Crown in Right of Canada, not the Department of Indian and Affairs and Northern Development, is party to our land claims agreements and self-government agreements. [Note 40]

A Review of the Literature

The following section highlights key findings from a literature review that explores self-government over the past two decades from a First Nations, Métis, and Inuit perspectives as well as Aboriginal women's perspectives. The focus of the literature review focused primarily on Aboriginal authors, most of whom are renowned scholars, lawyers, and/or politicians and generally recognized experts, both in their own communities and across Canada. Appendix A provides a bibliography of all documents reviewed for this section.

First Nation Perspective

The literature review reveals a number of First Nations perspectives on self-government and all begin with a general frustration that despite recent dialogue, negotiations, and policies, very little has actually been accomplished. The relationship continues to be unequal, with Canada possessing more power in negotiations while attitudes remain adversarial and inflexible instead of working towards mutually beneficial and community-specific partnerships. Canada continues to set the rules for engagement and expresses Canadian vision and self-interest, an approach that simply reinforces a colonial relationship maintained by INAC. Most authors express a need to decolonize political institutions (including the Indian Act, the reserve system, and the Assembly of First Nations) and some criticise the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoplesfor not doing enough to promote an entrenchment of self-government along similar lines as the Charlottetown Accord.

These mostly First Nations authors use history to confirm, from their point of view, the inherent Aboriginal right to self-government, which has been recognized in the past by the Royal Proclamation (1763) and various treaties (although some argue against an over-reliance on treaties since they exclude provincial governments today and are not internationally binding as Aboriginal nations are not states). Of course, different understandings of the Proclamation and treaties existed, understandings that evolve over time and shape our comprehension of the relationship today, as do diverse notions of concepts like sovereignty and ownership. Even the idea of self-government is contentious, as it implies recognition by a superior political power, while some authors prefer terms like nationhood and self-determination to better express the idea of 'right relationships' with people and the land. Additionally, from their point of view, the right to self-determination is guaranteed by international law and provinces cannot assume the Crown's fiduciary and constitutional obligations without Aboriginal consent.

All authors suggest big-picture ways in which to move forward, although they do not necessarily speak with one voice. While some argue that Aboriginal rights to self-determination are already entrenched in the Constitution thanks to various treaties (that express multiple pluralisms instead of a single Canadian sovereignty), others insist on a constitutional amendment to clearly outline the scope and protection of these rights (somewhat similar to the 'domestic dependent nation' status in the United States). Indeed, a better definition of what exactly self-government would entail and how it would be implemented is of major focus. Suggested reforms include:

• development of First Nations constitutions, legal codes, and procedural codes to develop the rule of law in communities;
• creation of Aboriginal Charters of Rights to be included in First Nations constitutions that would consider Aboriginal values and dispute-solving mechanisms, would protect legal and individual rights, and would preserve social, economic, and collective rights and responsibilities. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms need not be replaced, but these community-based charters would help contextualize Aboriginal values and responsibilities;
• abolition of INAC and the creation of a 'Ministry of First Nation—Crown Relations,' establishment of auditor and attorney generals, an ombudsman, a treaty commissioner, an Aboriginal and Treaty Rights tribunal and a national treaty policy (that the AFN has been promoting for years);
• respect for the spirit and intent of treaties and formation of various structures and mechanisms for treaty implementation in both the short and long-term (26 recommendations to achieve these steps in Saskatchewan listed in Arnot's work);
• development of a centralized education body, either on a national scale or based on specific language groups and/or cultures, to devise curricula, accredit teachers, and provide resources to fully realise the promise of Aboriginal-controlled education.

Emphatically, self-government should not simply reflect what many authors viewed as insubstantial municipal powers, but must include real powers, such as:

• personal and territorial jurisdiction, that stems from the Creator, to be applied to all residents on First Nation territories; Crown responsibility to demonstrate that Aboriginal jurisdiction in a particular area has been diminished (the 'full box' model);
• concurrent and exclusive powers for the expression of law on the territory;
• intergovernmental cooperation in the area of Aboriginal law (so that First Nations governments could 'rent' services out to another government as they develop their own capacity to deliver);
• administration of justice that may be carried out in collaboration with other orders of government; and
• financial support of self-government by levying taxes, borrowing money, and accessing transfer monies from other levels of government.

Finally, in order to realise self-government aspirations, First Nations need capacity building, a strong leadership, and good governance (that includes accountability and transparency, a constitution and rule of law, and a system of conflict resolution). Economic integration is key for self-sufficiency and a stable government and transparent business approaches will make communities attractive to investors. Democratic reform is also needed for success (which includes an improved band council structure and better election processes) in order to decolonize the mindset of dependency on the federal government and to empower Aboriginal communities to solve problems themselves. Finally, education is also closely linked to self-government and both the leadership and the communities must be trained in ways of governing and building businesses.

Métis Perspective

The Métis perspectives surveyed through the literature review highlight several key governance goals, including land security, local autonomy, and self-sufficiency. All authors stress the idea of evolution over time: contemporary governance is not meant to be rigid or final, but should be an evolving relationship between the Métis Nation and the Crown. Historical, cultural, and political issues of the Métis provide a context for self-government discussions, as does the examination of some current examples of successful Métis governance. Several themes appeared quite frequently: lack of a Métis land base and defined Métis membership; a constitutional obligation for the Crown to negotiate and actively protect and promote Métis rights instead of ignoring the issue; and a need to stop jurisdictional quarrels between the federal and provincial governments on who is responsible for the Métis.

The lack of a Métis land base remains of major concern for all authors. One article explores the Métis Settlements of Alberta, Canada's only legislated, land-based Métis Government, which might provide a model for other Métis or Aboriginal governments. Most other Métis governance structures to date have evolved off a land base and a significant urban population exists with their own developed organisations. Of course, the question of whom these organisations represent is also central and the Crown, several authors claim, has used this perceived lack of unity to deny constitutional rights on the basis of not knowing who or where the Métis actually are. The Supreme Court Decision Powley set out self-identification, ancestral connection, and community acceptance as criteria for determining membership, but one author criticises the centrality of race as a factor (ancestral connection) and protests the use of the Court—instead of the Métis themselves—to define a people.

The Powley decision also found that the Métis had constitutional rights similar to other Aboriginal peoples and the Crown has a duty to take positive action to negotiate and define them. While most authors view Section 35 of the Constitution as a guarantor of Métis and other Aboriginal rights, one author rejects what he considers a colonial framework and describes his offence at the apparent equivalence of the right to weave baskets to the right to good governance under s.35. Instead, international human rights doctrine is a better protector of Métis rights, he maintains.

Regardless of how exactly these rights are protected, all authors agree they must be negotiated, which the federal government has avoided doing until recently. Political participation of the Métis and other Aboriginal peoples in these negotiations is crucial for Canada to have a legitimate governing order. Of course, recognition of Métis rights can also be achieved in the courts—one author suggests simply exercising a right, like hunting, and then taking it to court when the province challenges it—but litigation is a costly and time-consuming process.

The authors suggest fewer concrete recommendations than other perspectives, likely due to the relatively new way of conceptualizing Métis rights and the recent reversal of the federal refusal to negotiate. Nevertheless, the recommendations touch on several issues:

• Métis membership: establish a Métis National Registry based on their own national definition of citizenship to define the scope of the Métis Nation and its homeland; establish a National Métis Citizenship and Elections Commission; have an independent Métis Nation Auditor General audit the registration system.
• Métis participation: establish a wide and transparent consultation process for the Métis Nation to discuss constitutional development and the following issues: roles and responsibilities of different levels of Métis governments; leadership selection issues and accountability; the Métis Nation's vision within Canadian federation.
• Métis governance: develop the Métis Nation's capabilities: look to successful past practices to expand longer-term capacity building and Métis-specific training initiatives; explore how to generate revenue for Métis governments.
• Intergovernmental relationships: address the jurisdictional impasse where both the federal and provincial governments refuse to take responsibility for the Métis, a policy that results in the denial of much needed programs and services (the Métis National Council has long claimed that the federal government has primary responsibility although one author argues the provincial and federal Crowns cannot be separated); expand effective relationships and review other intergovernmental models.
• Build upon the Canada-Métis Nation Framework Agreement to recognize the Métis Nation, their contributions to the Canadian federation, and to commit to a new nation-to-nation negotiation approach that includes the Métis in federal policies and in the development and implementation of future initiatives.
• Develop and pass a Canada-Métis Nation Relations Act to focus on a nation-to-nation relationship and the recognition of existing Métis Nation self-government institutions. Maintain transparent and accountable democratic governance, a Métis Nation citizenship registry, and the delivery of social and economic government services and programs paid for by the federal government, as occurs in other Aboriginal communities. Establish a Métis Nation Commission, similar to the Indian Claims Commission, to look at scrip, treaty, and compensation claims. Negotiate self-government based on Métis jurisdiction and law-making authority on a Métis land base, control over cultural and socio-economic activities, establishment of effective intergovernmental relations, and the Crown's legal duty to consult and accommodate.

Inuit Perspective

Since a number of self-government agreements for Inuit have already been—or are in the process of being—ratified, Inuit perspectives in this section concentrate less on the actual right to self-determination and focus instead on existing challenges, implementation, and policy priorities. Key areas of engagement include implementation and governance, sovereignty, global warming, economic development, funding, and education. Little focus is placed upon difficult social conditions in communities (the three biographies do recount past injustices), although issues of housing shortages and problems with drinking and violence are mentioned peripherally; a number of authors also insist that Inuit standards of living must be brought in line with the rest of the country. Similarly, the unique concerns of women do not feature prominently in these summaries (perhaps as only two authors are women), except for two biographies, which briefly mention the idea of creating a gender parity rule for Nunavut's legislature, a proposal that failed when put to the people. A number of authors concentrate on the past negotiation of various agreements and two contentious issues that continue to divide Inuit and Canadian authorities frequently appear: offshore jurisdiction and the extinguishment clause.

Moving on to the key areas of engagement, implementation continues to frustrate some authors as they feel the Canadian Government has not done enough to negotiate in the context of a renewed relationship and instead simply fulfil the bare minimum of obligations. That said, three new areas of Inuit self-government now exist or are close to being realised, with public governments in Nunavut and under negotiation in Nunavik, while Nunatsiavut is a regional government for Inuit only in Labrador. Of course, regardless of having a public government, the large Inuit majority in Nunavut allows—and will allow in Nunavik—them to shape policy and services in culturally and linguistically appropriate manners and integrate Inuit customs into laws. All systems are interesting hybrid, distinctly northern models; the newer regions of Nunavik and Nunatsiavut envision devolving jurisdictions, and, like Nunavut, high levels of community involvement. Most authors agree that Government should be decentralised so it can best respond to local concerns, but others fears this will create too large of a bureaucracy with redundant jobs. Education, housing, and health care remain of primary importance and several authors dislike having federal policy imposed upon them, like a new hunting license requirement or same-sex marriage legislation.

Sovereignty also played a major role in the literature, but it should be mentioned that all authors viewed Inuit sovereignty as being exercised within the Canadian state. That said, one author described sovereignty as beginning at home and stressed that Canada must ensure Inuit have the same standard of education, health care, infrastructure, and economic involvement as other Canadians. Inuit connections also extend beyond Canadian borders to Indigenous peoples in Greenland, Alaska, and Russia, all of whom possess the right to self-determination under international law and remain united under the Inuit Circumpolar Council. Regional institutions provide useful mechanisms for international cooperation and security and several initiatives should be explored, including Arctic-orientated military initiatives, a marine authority for transportation purposes and jurisdictional issues, responsible environmental management, sound civil administration, as well as common education and language priorities.

The authors highlighted that global warming is also opening up the Arctic to outside involvement; Inuit want to ensure they stay at the forefront of negotiations and that Canada and the international community value their consent, perspectives, and expertise as we create international partnerships in areas such as sustainable development, global environmental security, and other economic, military, health, and social initiatives. Similarly, discussion by the authors around the economy focused on renewable resources, the heritage of all Inuit, and a need for environmental monitoring (perhaps by the Arctic Rangers). Sustainability is also important, especially in light of climate change, and a permanent economy must focus on industries like fishing, windmills, and sun power instead of natural resource extraction with negative boom and bust cycles. Inuit must be onside for major development projects and, in the years since the creation of Nunavut, relations between Inuit and investors have improved, creating greater confidence in the Nunavut market and success in industries such as share holding in ships, the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation and an Inuit-owned airline. In terms of funding these new self-government entities, a number of authors call for a reduction in unnecessary costs and for the end of an unwieldy and costly system of applying for funding that is neither efficient, nor stable and hinders the development of long-term policy. Authors lament the large disparity in funding exists compared to First Nations communities, but Inuit governments are slowly establishing their own revenue streams through taxes, rent, royalties, etc.

Finally, protecting, preserving, and actively promoting language and culture remains of critical importance and multiple authors discuss the importance of teaching Inuktitut in schools and making it the primary language for Government. Just as the federal government supports English and French minorities in the rest of the country, Inuktitut must be supported in the North. Authors also call for a greater Inuit control of education: one author calls for establishment of an Inuit northern university while another desires an Inuit Knowledge Centre focused on research. Inuktitut-speaking teachers must be trained, Inuit curricula developed, and elders should be honoured for their knowledge and contributions.

Aboriginal Women Perspective

The literature revealed that Aboriginal women place much emphasis on the barriers to realising self-government, including the poor socio-economic conditions and extreme violence lived by many women, as well as discriminatory policies of the Indian Act, patriarchal values adopted by Aboriginal men that muzzle women, and the loss of language and culture in residential schools. Fundamental human rights must be addressed for self-government to be achieved, including the protection of the family, mother, and child, as well as the right to an adequate standard of living and to health. Unfortunately, mainstream remedies do little in poor, remote communities and authors instead call for gender-based, culturally appropriate approaches to health, social services, and governance structures. Historic origins of female involvement in governance also help guide the way and many women look to a resurgence of traditional values where women chose chiefs, helped govern by consensus, and passed down the language and culture.

Some authors see the Canadian Government as restricting Aboriginal self-government to fit under their own jurisdiction and law, and instead propose their own understanding of the term: the concept of "our way of life" or "our way of being," preferred by women at one forum, reflect indigenous languages, cultures, beliefs, ceremonies, and responsibilities, all of which are implied in the term self-government. A distinction between self-government and self-determination is also important for some with the former being a mid-point between assimilation and self-determination and reflected by agreements such as the Indian Act, which ultimately restricts indigenous independence.

Multiple authors use domestic and international laws, statutes, and covenants to insist upon an end to discrimination against indigenous women. The Canadian Constitutionprotects the inherent Aboriginal right to self-government and by consequence could affirm matriarchal governments and women's rights to political and cultural participation in Aboriginal societies. That said, some remain frustrated that litigation focuses on Aboriginal and Treaty rights, which often concentrate on traditionally male domains, such as hunting and fishing, usually ignoring female economies, such as gathering, agriculture, tanning skins, and sewing clothing. Furthermore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should protect the individual equality rights of women, which need not conflict with the collective rights of Aboriginal communities as both coexist in international law. Some authors argue for a hierarchy of rights where individual (political and civil) rights of women prevail over rights of Aboriginal collectivities, while others assert all rights exist within both the individual and the collective. Indeed, an Aboriginal woman cannot be removed from her culture and therefore her idea of rights differs dramatically from mainstream feminism: instead of demanding equality, for instance, indigenous women might desire a return to their traditional roles. One author emphasises that the entire concept of rights is wrong; the dialogue should instead focus on responsibilities in an Aboriginal context.

Much discussion revolved around Bill C-31, which continues to discriminate against women and their children with its second-generation cut-off rule, and the now-defunct Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, which some authors saw as perpetuating discriminatory practices in violation of Canada's domestic and international promises. Similarly, some sexist Indian Act provisions include: continued status restriction even after the 1985 amendments; required identification of child's father and his status; denial of band membership to some women; prevention of non-members from living on reserves; and registration of homes and property in the male spouse's name. On the last note, the literature was also concerned with the issue of matrimonial real property and one article outlined the different concept of ownership found in Aboriginal customary law—opposed by the Indian Act—whereby, a custodial relationship exists between the land and the people who hold it in trust for future generations (for westerners, the emphasis is placed on land value, individual rights, and exclusive ownership).

Each author presented several recommendations to end discrimination against indigenous women and to move self-government forward. Key recommendations include:

• reform the Indian Act to eliminate all discriminatory provisions and policies; create a mechanism for dispute resolution and to remove leaders;
• fill legal gaps concerning matrimonial real property by consulting with elders and families; ensure equality in the division of assets after a divorce; prioritize solutions that serve the best interests of children;
• cut funding to band councils who refuse to provide services to re-instated women and children; re-evaluate membership laws and status declaration;
• fund a culturally relative gender-based analysis framework to be adopted by all levels of government involved in negotiations; focus on capacity-building for First Nation's women's groups;
• promote equal representation and participation for women in leadership roles at the negotiation and policy tables;
• guarantee equality rights set out in the Charterand the Constitution; possible establishment of an Aboriginal-specific charter or a national or regional human rights panel and a First Nations ombudsperson;
• adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• apply the recommendations of the RCAP, especially those related to family law;
• apply Aboriginal customary law but stress the principles of equality, fairness, and rights that may have been removed due to colonial and sexist practices;
• encourage good governance with accountable, transparent structures of decision-making, an inclusion of gender equality principles, an understanding of the past to better envision the future, a focus on the rule of law, the centrality of the land, and consensus-based decision making;
• define the roles and responsibilities of women, men, elders, youth, the family, and the clan; educate community members to their roles, responsibilities, and traditions to help them heal from a legacy of cultural genocide and abuse; and
• create a code of conduct for leaders, men, and women to help communities unite and stop fighting and discriminating against themselves; return power to the people; create independence and self-sufficiency with a land and resource base.

6. Evaluation Findings - Performance

The evaluation examined the achievement of results as indicated by the status of current self-government agreements and negotiations; a quantitative assessment of results based on an analysis of CWB Index for communities currently under self-government arrangements; and, qualitative assessment of results based on the case studies undertaken for this evaluation.

There are currently 18 self-government agreements in place as well as 91 tables negotiating self-government, 70 active tables and 21 inactive tables. Of the active tables, 50 tables are comprehensive land claims related with 20 tables as stand-alone/sectoral self-government negotiations. It is worthy of note that 51 percent (36 of the 70) of the active negotiating tables are within British Columbia as part of the BC Treaty Process. Data from the 2009-2010 Table Review process indicate that tables in negotiations, both active and inactive, represent approximately 350,000 Aboriginal people.

Empirical research shows that taking control of selected powers of self-government and capable governance institutions are indispensable tools to successful long-term community development in Aboriginal communities. The CWB analysis conducted indicates that Aboriginal communities currently with a self-government arrangement in place score higher on the CWB Index than First Nation communities (9 points higher) and Inuit communities (4 points higher), though remain lower than all Canadian communities (11 points lower).

Qualitatively, self-governing communities report that a major perceived benefit of self-government is a renewed sense of pride that they now have their own government as well as the right to elect their own governments and to make important decisions affecting their lives. Issues of scope and complexity of operating a new government, unrealistic expectations for what would be achieved under self-government, as well as access to financial resources were however identified as barriers to success.

6.1 Current Status of Self-Government Agreements and Negotiations

The following section provides information on the current status of self-government arrangements in place as well as the status of self-government negotiations underway. Claims related self-government agreements are defined as those negotiated in context with land claim agreements; stand-alone self-government agreements cover a wide range of subject areas but are not negotiated as part of a land claim; and sectoral self-government agreements include governance arrangements and may include additional jurisdiction such as education or child welfare.

Self-Government Agreements in Place

There are currently 18 self-government agreements in place. Eighty-three percent (15 of the 18 agreements) are associated with a comprehensive land claim. Also of note is that 61 percent (11 of the 18 agreements) are self-government agreements in the Yukon negotiated under the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA). There are currently two stand alone agreements, both located in British Columbia – Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Agreement and Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement. In addition, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act gives effect to nine Cree communities and one Naskapi community on local government commitments contained in the JBNQA and the NEQA.

Table 2: Self-Government Agreements in place by Province/Territory

Self-Government Negotiations

As of February 2011, INAC reports 91 negotiation tables with 70 active and 21 inactive. These tables represent 331 Aboriginal communities, including 302 First Nations, 20 Inuit communities and 9 James Bay Cree communities, and some Métis locals. Of the active tables, 50 tables are comprehensive land claims related with 20 tables as stand-alone/sectoral self-government negotiations. It is worthy of note that 51 percent (36 of the 70) of the active negotiating tables are within British Columbia as part of the BC Treaty Process. Data from the 2009-2010 Table Review process indicate that tables in negotiations, both active and inactive, represent approximately 350,000 Aboriginal people.

Table 3: Active Self-Government Negotiations by Province/Territory

6.2 Quantitative Assessment

Though no comparable study has been conducted in Canada, the emphasis on governance capacity is grounded in a growing body of evidence on the impact of good governance on the development of strong, healthy, and prosperous communities. The fundamental impact of good governance on socio-economic development objectives is supported by more than fifteen years of empirical research at Harvard University's Project on American Indian Economic Development. Their research consistently confirms that taking control of selected powers of self-government and capable governance intuitions are indispensable tools to successful long-term community development. [Note 43]

For the evaluation, an analysis of the CWB Index was conducted. CWB measures the quality of life of First Nations and Inuit communities in Canada relative to other communities. It uses Statistic Canada's Census and Population data to produce well-being scores for individual communities based on four indicators: Education, Labour Force, Income and Housing. It is important to note that the CWB Index data does not assess if the improvements of well-being in the self-governing communities are associated with the agreement themselves. This does not say that such association does not exist, but rather that these CWB measures do not demonstrate a direct relationship and that other factors may be more influential. In addition, communities are defined in terms of census subdivisions and these subdivisions at times do not accurately reflect the population under the self-government agreement. For example, non-Aboriginal people may be included with the census subdivision, as in the case for Tsawwassen First Nation. Moreover, CWB scores do not include members who do not reside in the community,

The CWB Analysis conducted indicates that overall Aboriginal communities currently with a self-government arrangement in place score higher on the CWB Index then First Nation, and Inuit communities though lower than all Canadian communities.

Table 4: CWB 2006 Average Scores

The following section provides details of the CWB data including scores by individual self-governing communities. [Note 45]

Table 5: CWB Index Data from 1981 to 2006 [Note 46]

The following provides details of the CWB analysis by self-governing community.

Nisga'a : Average CWB Scores for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for Nisga'a as compared to all BC First Nations, all First Nations in Canada, all other BC communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Nisga'a: 65/100
• All BC First Nations: 62/100
• All First Nations in Canada: 57/100
• All Other BC Communities: 80/100
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77/100

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Nisga'a scored

• 3 points higher than all BC First Nations;
• 8 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 15 points lower than all other BC communities; and
• 12 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

Tsawwassen: Average CWB Scores for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for Tsawwassen as compared to all BC First Nations, all First Nations in Canada, all other BC communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Tsawwassen: 89/100
• All BC First Nations: 62/100
• All First Nations in Canada: 57/100
• All Other BC Communities: 80/100
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77/100

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Tsawwassen scored:

• 27 points higher than all BC First Nations;
• 32 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 8 points higher than all other BC communities; and
• 12 points higher than all other Canadian communities.

Labrador Inuit Agreement: Average CWB Scores for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for Labrador Inuit Agreement as compared to all Atlantic Inuit communities, all Inuit communities in Canada, all other Atlantic communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Labrador Inuit Agreement: 66/100
• All Atlantic Communities in Canada: 62/100
• All Inuit Communities in Canada: 62/100
• All Other Atlantic Communities: 73/100
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77/100

The table demonstrates that in 2006 the Labrador Inuit Agreement scored:

• 4 points higher than all Atlantic Inuit Communities;
• 4 points higher than all Inuit communities in Canada;
• 7 points lower than all other Atlantic communities; and
• 11 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

Tlicho: Average CWB Scores for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for Tlicho as compared to all Territorial (YK and NT) communities, all First Nations in Canada, all Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Tlicho: 60/100
• All Territorial (YK and NT) Communities in Canada: 82/100
• All First Nations in Canada: 57/100
• All Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation Communities: 66/100
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77/100

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Tlicho scored:

• 20 points lower than all Territorial (YK and NT) Communities;
• 3 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 6 points lower than all other Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities; and
• 17 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

Yukon First Nations: Average CWB Scores for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for seven self-governing First Nations in the Yukon (for which a CWB score was available) as compared to all Territorial (YK and NT) communities, all First Nations in Canada, all Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Carcross/Tagish: 74
• Kluane: 78
• Selkirk: 71
• Champagne and Aishihik: 80
• Teslin Tlingit Council: 72
• Nacho Nyak Dun: 79
• Vuntut Gwichin: 71
• All Territorial (YK and NT) Communities in Canada: 82
• All First Nations in Canada: 57
• All Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation Communities: 66
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Carcross/Tagish scored:

• 8 points lower than all Territorial (YK and NT) Communities;
• 17 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 8 points higher than all other Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities; and
• 3 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Kluane scored:

• 4 points lower than all Territorial (YK and NT) Communities;
• 21 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 12 points higher than all other Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities; and
• 1 point higher than all other Canadian communities.

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Selkirk scored:

• 11 points lower than all Territorial (YK and NT) Communities;
• 14 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 5 points higher than all other Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities; and
• 6 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Champagne and Aishihik scored:

• 2 points lower than all Territorial (YK and NT) Communities;
• 23 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 14 points higher than all other Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities; and
• 3 points higher than all other Canadian communities.

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Teslin Tlingit Council scored:

• 10 points lower than all Territorial (YK and NT) Communities;
• 15 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 6 points higher than all other Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities; and
• The same as all other Canadian communities.

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Nacho Nyak Dun scored:

• 3 points lower than all Territorial (YK and NT) Communities;
• 22 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 13 points higher than all other Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities; and
• 2 points higher than all other Canadian communities.

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Vuntut Gwitchin scored:

• 11 points lower than all Territorial (YK and NT) Communities;
• 14 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 5 points higher than all other Territorial (YK and NT) First Nation communities; and
• 6 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

Sechelt: Average CWB Score for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for Sechelt as compared to all BC First Nations, all First Nations in Canada, all other BC communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Sechelt: 70/100
• All BC First Nations: 62/100
• All First Nations in Canada: 57/100
• All Other BC Communities: 80/100
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77/100

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Sechelt scored:

• 8 points higher than all BC First Nations;
• 13 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 10 points lower than all other BC communities; and
• 7 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

Westbank: Average CWB Score for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for Westbank as compared to all BC First Nations, all First Nations in Canada, all other BC communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Westbank: 78/100
• All BC First Nations: 62/100
• All First Nations in Canada: 57/100
• All Other BC Communities: 80/100
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77/100

The table demonstrates that in 2006 Westbank scored:

• 16 points higher than all BC First Nations;
• 21 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 2 points lower than all other BC communities; and
• 1 point higher than all other Canadian communities.

Mi'kmaq Education Act: Average Score for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for the Mi'kmaq Education Act as compared to all Atlantic First Nation communities, all First Nations in Canada, all other Atlantic communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Mi'kmaq Education Act: 63/100
• All Atlantic First Nation Communities: 64/100
• All First Nations in Canada: 57/100
• All Other Atlantic Communities: 73/100
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77/100

The table demonstrates that in 2006 the Mi'kmaq Education Act scored:

• 1 point lower than all Atlantic First Nation communities;
• 6 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 10 points lower than all other Atlantic communities; and
• 14 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act: Average Score for 2006

The table above illustrates the CWB Scores for the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act as compared to all other Quebec First Nation communities, all First Nations in Canada, all other Quebec communities and all other Canadian communities for census year 2006.

• Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act: 64/100
• All Other Quebec First Nation Communities: 60/100
• All First Nations in Canada: 57/100
• All Other Quebec Communities: 76/100
• All Other Canadian Communities: 77/100

The table demonstrates that in 2006 the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act scored:

• 4 points higher than all other Quebec First Nation communities;
• 7 points higher than all First Nations in Canada;
• 12 points lower than all other Quebec communities; and
• 13 points lower than all other Canadian communities.

6.3 Qualitative Assessment

Key qualitative findings were derived from the case studies with three participating Aboriginal communities. The following highlights their overall perspectives regarding the achievements and challenges of self-government in their communities. [Note 47]

• A major perceived benefit of self-government is a renewed sense of pride that self-governing Aboriginal groups now have their own government, the right to elect their own governments, and to make important decisions affecting their lives.
• Self-government agreements, both comprehensive and sectoral, are viewed as being sufficiently broad in terms of what is covered in the agreements to allow them to manage their own affairs. However, while the structure of the agreements is sufficient, the human and financial resources required to fully realize the potential of the agreements are not currently available.
• The manner in which federal government funding is calculated under the self-government agreements is viewed as prejudicial to successful implementation of self-government. Amounts allocated for functions taken over by the new Aboriginal governments are seen as inadequate partly because they were inadequate under the Indian Act already, and partly because they don't adequately factor in the costs of transition. Transfers for government operations are similarly viewed as inadequate because the costs of establishing a new government are higher than the funding anticipates, and because substantial funding targeted for government operations are used to cover the costs of programs and services for basic community and individual needs that are themselves not adequately funded.
• While access to financial resources was widely viewed as a barrier to success, some respondents pointed to the benefits of greater flexibility under the agreements, that allows funds to be moved more freely among programs and between fiscal years than was the case under the Indian Act. This flexibility is said to have fostered better long-term planning and more scope for innovation in service delivery. In one case this flexibility was said to have even helped attract and retain local residents who had been educated (and in some cases employed) outside the community.
• Aboriginal governments are realizing the scope and complexity of operating a new government, and the need for educated and experienced people to lead the process and fill government positions. The plan in all cases is to focus on education and training to help fill public service positions with community members. However, Aboriginal governments reportedly face difficult challenges in recruiting and retaining educated community members to take public service positions, against higher-paying positions in other levels of government and the private sector.
• Expectations for what would be achieved under self-government were described as unrealistic for both community leaders and members. In many cases, community members thought that the agreements would bring an early influx of money, jobs and improved services. Aboriginal governments recognize that change resulting from self-government will take place incrementally, over several generations. They also recognize that this change is dependent on improvements in education outcomes as well as labour and economic development opportunities.

Governance and Intergovernmental Relationships

Governance

• Interviews with Aboriginal Government officials highlight the fact that that success to date has been largely in establishing governance structures, procedures and associated legislation, and in setting priorities and preparing to take on new authorities and jurisdictions. This work surprised most respondents in its complexity and in the time it has taken to set the foundation for governance under the self-government agreements.
• Interview participants recognized that there is a degree of frustration and disappointment among community members at the slow pace of change in the communities. There was an expectation, reportedly widely shared by residents and shared to a lesser degree by community leaders, that land claim agreements and self-government (which are often viewed together by community members) would transform the lives of community members through the creation of employment, the influx of money from land claim agreement settlements, and the new ability of their own governments to make decisions in key areas. However, respondents remain cautiously optimistic that these expectations will be realized over time.
• To date, the work of Aboriginal governments has focused primarily on developing the structures, procedures and legislation that the new governments require to operate. Government respondents noted that citizens have expressed concern that their governments are "working behind closed doors". While government respondents recognized this concern, they described the extent of openness and public consultation their government has undertaken in an effort to be as transparent as possible and to engage residents in governance. The respondents believed that the concerns are largely borne out of the limited direct benefits being experienced to date in areas such as education, employment and housing.
• Public participation in governance was described as very positive compared to before self-government was in effect. More community members are running for government positions, and voter turnout has reportedly increased (up to about 75 percent in Nunatsiavut, for example, as compared to well under 50 percent before self-government). In Labrador women are reportedly more politically active as well. Respondents there noted that before self-government, women were active in community gatherings but less active in formal governance. Since self-government, many women are running for office and assuming public service positions.

Intergovernmental Relationships

Self-government establishes government-to-government relationships where they did not exist previously. Previous studies have suggested that Aboriginal groups had greater expectations of a new partnership with the federal government than what they have realized to date. [Note 48] The self-government interviews addressed this issue, and found the following:

• In program areas in which communities are not equipped or do not have sufficient resources to assume control as provided for in the agreements, the nature of the relationship with the federal government is perceived as being the same as prior to the agreements (i.e. "Band Council to federal bureaucracy" rather than government-to- government).
• Interview participants expressed concern that there is no clear location in the federal government with which to establish a government-to-government relationship. Points of contact are primarily INAC representatives on implementation committees and officials responsible for federal programs for which the communities continue to apply to for funding as they did prior to self-government.
• Interview participants in Yukon and Labrador noted the barriers to implementing self-government that result from INAC's perceived limited influence over line departments and government agencies. In particular, Yukon respondents pointed to a recent example in which INAC and local government representatives spent considerable time and effort working together to identify changes that were needed, but little change resulted due to a lack of support from other departments/agencies.
• Relationships with implementation committee representatives are described as cordial and professional, but focused on technical aspects of fulfilling the agreements, as opposed to developing a new government-to-government relationship.
• There is a perception among Aboriginal Government leaders that there is little concerted effort among line departments within the federal system to educate staff about the agreements. They said that Aboriginal governments therefore consistently have to "re-educate" their federal counterparts about the agreements and about community concerns related to implementation.
• The relationship with the federal government is limited because the majority of federal contacts reside almost exclusively in Ottawa. Where exceptions to this exist, such as with Parks Canada in the Torngat Mountains National Park in Nunatsiavut, a strong and collaborative working relationship is developing that benefits both parties. [Note 49]
• Participants in Yukon and Labrador reported that the agreements have resulted in significant positive change in the relationship between the Aboriginal governments and the provincial/territorial governments. Provincial and territorial government leaders are said to be making concerted efforts to support successful implementation of self-government, and officials in most relevant provincial/territorial departments are coming to understand and follow this direction. This means that when the province/territory takes action in a given area of responsibility, whether or not the function has been drawn down by the new Aboriginal Government, discussion (and sometimes negotiation) takes place to ensure that the interests of the Aboriginal Government and communities are taken into account. Participants noted that this deeper level of consultation results in policies or program terms and conditions that are tailored to meet specific needs and preferences of the Aboriginal governments and communities. Prior to the agreement this kind of consultation and adaptation reportedly rarely took place. This is not to say that respondents did not note any challenges in the relationship with provincial/territorial governments. In Labrador they noted some initial pressure to take over authority in areas such as education, before they felt ready to do so and in their view without sufficient resources. They also referred to instances in which provincial bureaucrats would decline to discuss provincial programs with them because "they had their own government now". In Yukon there were reported instances of initial reluctance to tailor programs to meet VG needs. However, these problems were reported as having been largely overcome at this point.

Economic Development

• Most interview participants acknowledged that economic development fostered by self-government is still in the early stages for several reasons. First, Aboriginal communities own little in the way of capital equipment or financial assets required to take on sizeable business ventures. Second, the kind of entrepreneurial spirit needed to bring about local business development is not traditional to residents, and will have to be developed over time with increased training and education. Third, the lower standard of living in most communities, especially in regard to housing and other community infrastructure, is not conducive to attracting educated citizens to return to their communities permanently. As a result, a large proportion of the populations have little education and training as a basis for taking advantage of economic development.
• There are, however, a number of direct economic development benefits deriving from self-government that gave interview participants a sense of optimism. One such benefit is that the communities now have decision-making authority and control over funds for capital projects such as housing, roads, water and sewage projects. Participants reported that before self-government came into effect these decisions were made by the province/territory, often without consultation. As a result of the agreements, Aboriginal governments can negotiate the types of projects and how the work will be undertaken. Similar negotiations are taking place between Aboriginal governments and private businesses. In most cases there is no local contracting firm with the equipment and experience to undertake large infrastructure projects so outside contractors are engaged. Those contractors meet with community leaders to agree on local training and hiring wherever possible. Aboriginal governments are identifying business opportunities through these kinds of processes, and making investments to help equip local people to take on this kind of work.
• Another area of benefit resulting from the land claim and self-government agreements is that Aboriginal governments now have more control over resource development projects in their settlement areas, and the right to be consulted as part of any environmental assessment. They also negotiate Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) which help to maximise the local benefits of development projects by ensuring that developers train and employ community members. The land claim agreements set out the authorities and rights in this area. Governments established under self-government are viewed as providing a better position from which to manage the Aboriginal role in the development process.
• Aboriginal governments have created economic development positions with responsibility to ensure that the benefits which flow from settlement of the land and resource issues, such as IBA's and similar agreements, are honoured and that opportunities for employment and business development for community members are maximized. While Aboriginal officials described the economic development process as slow for the reasons described above, they noted that there have been successes in developing partnerships with outside enterprises that have an interest in doing business in Aboriginal-owned lands and in the broader settlement areas.

Education

• Education is universally viewed among government and community respondents as the cornerstone of the future under self-government. It is recognized that education of individuals acts as a building block not only to enable the individual to gain socio-economic advantage through improved employment choices and income, but also in building the foundation for community development and prosperity.
• One of the most serious limits to progress in self-government, according to respondents, is the lack of indigenous community members with the education and training to hold political and bureaucratic positions of authority. Those who do obtain the necessary education and training are often attracted to employment outside the communities. Aboriginal governments administering schools and health and social service centres, for example, cannot compete with provincial/territorial pay scales. Although community leaders celebrate the success of community members in obtaining gainful employment outside the community and recognize the significant benefit of this for those individuals, the result is that Aboriginal governments continue to experience capacity shortfalls.
• For the Vuntut Gwitchin and Nunatsiavut governments, education continues to be primarily the responsibility of the province/territory. Interview participants reported that their governments are hesitant to assume jurisdiction over education due to a lack of local capacity and inadequate financial resources, and a reluctance to assume responsibility for a function that they view as historically underfunded.
• The experiences of interview participants in working with provincial and territorial governments to deliver education programs and services vary considerably depending on the extent to which the education authority is prepared to accommodate local preferences and culture. Where a collaborative approach is taken, participants noted a significant change in the delivery of education, such as the integration of student instruction "on the land" while at the same time maintaining jurisdiction-wide academic standards. Where such collaboration has not developed to date, participants expressed frustration with the lack of progress in education.
• A common concern among Directors of Education is the difficulty of attracting and keeping highly-qualified and experienced teachers. In the ten Nova Scotia communities where education is under Aboriginal authority, communities cannot offer the same rate of pay as the provincial schools. In all three cases studies here, teachers not from the communities often experience challenges living in remote communities with relatively low standards of living including poor quality housing. As a result, respondents said that it is common for schools to be without teachers qualified to teach core subjects such as math and sciences. This situation, according to participants, contributes to the pre-existing gap in Aboriginal education and creates barriers for young citizens to equip themselves for success in the modern world.
• Whether or not education has been taken over as a responsibility under the Aboriginal Government, a lack of resources for education is viewed unanimously as a major roadblock to progress. Even where communities have succeeded in establishing culturally-appropriate education programs or adult education programs of their own, respondents said that resources typically come from the overall budgets of the Aboriginal Government because regular INAC or provincial/territorial allocations are inadequate. This means that resources are drawn away from other basic community priorities and needs.

Health and Social Services

• The Nunatsiavut Government is undertaking initiatives in some areas of public health and social services including home care, counselling for mental health and addictions (but no clinical interventions), licensed daycare, Head Start programs, suicide prevention, Aboriginal healing, and the administration of NIHB. The Vuntut Gwich'in Government is also undertaking some modest services with a focus on home care and Elder care.
• In Nunatsiavut there was notable enthusiasm for the progress that has been made under self-government, including the development of flexible, innovative programs that respond to community needs and cultural preferences. Community members who are trained as nurses and administrators are reportedly returning to the community because the NG is able to design and run programs that meet the specific needs of the community.
• The Nunatsiavut Government has established an Integrated Nursing Access Program in partnership with the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the College of the North Atlantic, Memorial University/Grenfell College, the province's three schools of nursing and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The purpose is to design Inuit-appropriate health curricula in keeping with provincial standards. They have also integrated elders and other community members in program delivery models. In addition, the Nunatsiavut Government institutes "return service" agreements with students trained in nursing and administration to ensure the investment they make in post-secondary student support is returned to the community. Participants view these all these initiatives together as integral to enhancing health and social services.
• Participants reported that the Nunatsiavut Government is achieving significant efficiencies in the delivery of the Non Insured Health Benefits program which was previously delivered by Health Canada. Due to the remoteness of the five Northern Labrador communities, the program was costly for Health Canada to manage and deliver. As a result, equipment and supplies were not routinely tracked and shared between communities. Under the administration of the Nunatsiavut Government, equipment and supplies provided for by the NIHB program are redistributed through NG homecare programs which move medical instruments and supplies to where they are needed.
• Before self-government, community members were required to fly out of the community to obtain professional health and dental services. Interview participants reported that the Nunatsiavut Government has since changed this practice by bringing medical and dental professionals to the communities on a monthly basis. As a result, the Government is able to maximize dollars for health and social services. As well, because they have community members as nurses and other service providers in the communities they can do a better job of assessing medical needs and ensuring that the appropriate services are provided.
• These successes point to the benefits of locally-designed and operated services. As in most areas, however, funding has been a challenge. The NIHB is the highest cost item administered by the Nunatsiavut Government. A few years ago, the transfer payments provided for by Health Canada reportedly greatly underestimated the number of members covered under the agreement living outside the settlement area. When the discrepancy was recognized, they said, only a proportion of it was reimbursed to the Nunatsiavut Government. As is the case with other program areas, this discrepancy reportedly forces the Government to draw from other budgets to administer the NIHB program.

Language and Culture

• Self-government agreements do not provide for specific language and culture programs for which Aboriginal governments assume control. However language and culture are viewed as important elements of all aspects of self-government, and integration of appropriate language and culture is one way that Aboriginal governments can deliver more effective programs than the federal or provincial/territorial governments.
• Immersion programs in two Mi'kmaw communities were highlighted by interview participants as a major achievement of self-government. According to participants, the benefits of these programs go beyond language preservation to include improvements in student's academic achievement, behaviour and pride. According to Directors of Education, the children enrolled in immersion programs are successful not only in Mi'kmaw classes but in all academic areas, including English. Parents who were reluctant at first to enrol their children from fear that they might fall behind in mainstream academic areas are reportedly seeing positive results, and demand for the program is high.
• For the Nunatsiavut Government, the challenge to revive the Inuktitut language is significant. The Inuk represent a minority in some of the communities under the jurisdiction of the Nunatsiavut Government. With the move from traditional villages to provincial municipalities in the 1950s and 1960s, the role of the elders has diminished, and with it the use of Inuktitut as the majority language. To address the decline, the Nunatsiavut Government has instituted several projects such as the Rosetta Stone project, (a CD and on-line language learning program), the publication of an Inuktitut story telling book, and a recent language conference in Nain. However, with only one staff member to promote these and other potential programs progress has been slow. While the Nunatsiavut Government has been successful in applying for some project funding, there is no core funding for staff to manage projects and develop a coordinated, regional approach for language and cultural development. In Nunatsiavut schools, language programs are in place, including adult education programs, but uptake has been limited to date.

7. Evaluation Findings - Efficiency and Economy

An assessment of efficiency and economy is difficult as there is currently no agreed upon benchmark or framework for measuring efficiency and economy in the context of self-government negotiations and implementation. Further detailed examination of these issues will be take place in the context the upcoming Evaluation of Negotiations and Implementation of Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements and Self-Government Agreements, scheduled for 2011/12. This will allow for efficiency and economy issues to be brought forward in the broader context of the negotiation and implementation of modern treaties.

Findings from this evaluation however point to number issues related to efficiency and economy of self-government negotiations and implementation. The evaluators note that considerable work towards improving the processes both for negotiations and implementation of self-government agreements is underway at INAC.

Key issues identified though this evaluation process include:

Self-government negotiations taking longer than anticipated: Though there are many negotiations taking place, the number of self-government agreements that have been concluded is fewer than anticipated when the IRP was introduced. Negotiations are taking longer than expected with the average length of time of 14 years (average of 16 years when negotiating as part of the CLCA and 10 years for stand alone or sectoral). [Note 50]

Self-government negotiations are costing more than anticipated: With longer than anticipated negotiating time, contribution and loan funding to Aboriginal communities is also higher than anticipated. Contribution and loan funding to Aboriginal communities negotiating self-government is estimated at over 1 billion dollars (approximately half in loans and half in contribution funding). Approximately half of all funding, $488 million, is being spent in BC as part of the BC Treaty Process. It should be noted that when self-government is being negotiated in the context of a CLCA, these figures reflect the cost of both self-government and CLCA negotiations. It should also be noted that all loan funding is for self-government being negotiated within the context of a CLCA as sectoral and stand-alone self-government negotiations are not eligible for loans.

Self-government negotiations are taking place with small communities: This is particularly notable in the context of the BC Treaty Process where approximately 40 percent of negotiation tables are taking place with communities of 500 or less individuals. Outside of BC, approximately 60 percent of negotiation tables are occurring with communities of 5,000 or less people.

Lack of capacity to support self-government: Community capacity to implement a self-government agreement was among the most pressing issue cited by key informants with respect to the successful implement self-government agreements.

Possible disincentives to enter into self-government negotiations: Legislative models, such as First Nations Land Management Act, First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, and First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, increase jurisdictional authorities for First Nations. As Own Source Revenue (OSR) is not being applied to these legislative models, but is being applied to self-government agreements under the IRP, findings from the evaluation suggest that an inconsistent approach to the application of OSR may be occurring.

Fiscal agreement renewals are cumbersome: Renewal negotiations are taking longer than expected with a majority of agreements requiring one or more extensions before new financial agreements can be established.

There are a number of initiatives in progress at INAC to address these issues including capacity building support and negotiation and implementation process improvements. As an example, a new national approach to fiscal harmonization has been launched which determines the financial support the federal government provides to self-governing Aboriginal groups. The intent of the new approach is to manage fiscal relations between the federal government and Aboriginal governments in a manner more consistent with the formula-based approaches employed in fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces, and Canada and the territories. The new approach will include a published federal policy statement, a formula-based funding methodology, an ongoing advisory process, measures to address the differing circumstances of Aboriginal groups, and appropriate accountability provisions. As well as the recent sustainability of self-government initiative, which provides a source of funds for incremental increases to governance and other self-government requirements.

Evaluative work scheduled for FY 2011/12 will examine these key issues and further explore the direction the federal government is taking with regards to:

• Streamlining the negotiation process including the possible use of opt-in legislation, exploratory processes, and guidance on how to disengage with non-productive tables, and
• Streamlining the implementation process including new approaches to managing renewals and ensuring shared responsibilities for self-government among federal, provincial and territorial governments and Aboriginal governments and institutions.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

When the IRP was introduced in 1995, there was a lack of clarity on how self-government might unfold. Fifteen years later, we have the opportunity to now reflect on what has been accomplished.

• The IRP has provided a flexible framework from which self-government has been, and continues to be, negotiated. Self-government under the IRP has remained relevant and positive impacts have been demonstrated within self-governing communities.
• The transition to self-government has proven to be a complex, incremental process and the delivery of effective programs and services remains a major challenge for all levels of government in Canada. A number of inefficiencies in both the negotiation and implementation processes have been identified, many of which are currently being addressed by INAC.
• A lack of shared vision exists among federal, provincial and Aboriginal communities regarding self-government and how it is be operationalized within the framework of the IRP. This may be contributing to significant misunderstandings and miscommunications regarding the interpretation of the Policy and contributing to the high level of frustration that exists among Aboriginal organizations and Aboriginal communities about what has been accomplished under the IRP.

It is recommended that INAC:

1. Continue to work on initiatives that are currently underway to improve processes related to the negotiations and implementation of self-government agreements.
2. Consider putting in place a mechanism to ensure that policies and legislation that affect the negotiation and implementation of self-government agreements support, not work against, one other.
3. Consider establishing a framework for dialogue with Aboriginal organizations and Aboriginal communities regarding how a common vision of self-government can be achieved and operationalized under the IRP.

Appendix A -Documents Reviewed for Literature Review

1. First Nation Perspective

Alfred, Gerald. Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors: Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native Nationalism. (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Grand Council of the Crees. A Sovereign Injustice: Forcible Inclusion of the James Bay Crees and Cree Territory into a Sovereign Quebec. (Nemaska, October 1995).

Hogg, Peter and Mary Ellen Turpel. Implementing Aboriginal Self-Government: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Issues. The Canadian Bar Review. 74.2 (1995): 187-224.

Borrows, John. "Wampum at Niagara: The Royal Proclamation, Canadian Legal History, and Self-Government." Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada. Edited by Michael Asch. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997).

Monture-Angus, Patricia. Journeying Forward: Dreaming First Nations Independence. (Halifax: Fernwood, 1999).

Russell, Dan. A Peoples Dream: Aboriginal Self Government in Canada. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000).

Allen, Edward. "Our Treaty, Our Inherent Right to Self-Government: An Overview of the Nisga'a Final Agreement." International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 11 (2004):233-249.

Canadian-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable. Assembly of First Nations Background Paper. 2004-2005.

Joint Committee of Chiefs and Advisors on the Recognition and Implementation of First Nation Governments. "Our Nations, Our Governments: Choosing Our Own Paths." Assembly of First Nations (2005).

Helin, Calvin. Dances With Dependency: Indigenous Success Through Self-Reliance. (Vancouver: Orca Spirit Publishing, 2006).

Arnot, David M. Treaty Implementation: Fulfilling the Covenant. (Office of the Treaty Commission in Saskatchewan, 2007).

McNeil, Kent. "The Jurisdiction of Inherent Right Aboriginal Governments." Research Paper for the National Centre for First Nations Governance, October 11, 2007.

Belanger, Yale D. and David R. Newhouse, "Reconciling Solitudes: A Critical Analysis of the Self-Government Ideal," Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada: Current Trends and Issues, 3rd Edition. Edited by Yale D. Belanger. (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2008).

Calliou, Brian. "The Significance of Building Leadership and Community Capacity." Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada: Current Trends and Issues, 3rd Edition. Edited by Yale D. Belanger. (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2008).

Henderson, James (Sa'ke'j) Youngblood. "Treaty Governance." AboriginalSelf-Government in Canada: Current Trends and Issues, 3rd Edition. Edited by Yale D. Belanger. (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2008).

Restoule, Jean Paul. "Aboriginal Education and Self-Government: Assessing Success and Identifying the Challenges to Restoring Aboriginal Jurisdiction for Education." Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada: Current Trends and Issues, 3rd Edition. Edited by Yale D. Belanger. (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2008).

Irlbacher-Fox, Stephanie. Finding Dahshaa: Self-Government, Social Suffering, and Aboriginal Policy in Canada. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009)

2. Métis Perspective

Chartier, Clem. "Aboriginal Self-Government and the Metis Nation." Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada: Current Trends and Issues. Edited by J. Hylton. (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 1994).

Canadian-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable. Métis National Council Background Paper on Negotiations. 2004-2005.

Madden, Jason, John Graham, and Jake Wilson. Exploring Options for Métis Governance in the 21 Century. Institute on Governance and JTM Consulting Inc. 2005.

Bell, Catherine and Harold Robinson. "Government on the Métis Settlements: Foundations and Future Directions," Métis-Crown Relations: Rights, Identity, Jurisdiction, and Governance. Edited by Frederica Wilson and Melanie Mallet. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2008).

Chartrand, Paul. "Defining the Métis of Canada: A Principled Approach to Crown–Aboriginal Relations." Métis-Crown Relations: Rights, Identity, Jurisdiction, and Governance. Edited by Frederica Wilson and Melanie Mallet. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2008).

Chartrand, Larry. "'We Rise Again': Métis Traditional Governance and the Claim to Métis Self-Government." Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada: Current Trends and Issues, 3rd Edition. Edited by Yale D. Belanger. (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2008).

Teillet, Jean. "Federal and Provincial Crown Obligations to the Métis." Métis-Crown Relations: Rights, Identity, Jurisdiction, and Governance. Edited by Frederica Wilson and Melanie Mallet. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2008).

3. Inuit Perspective

Round Table: Nunavut: Vision or Illusion? With Titus Allooloo; Michael Ballantyne; Peter Ernerek; Ipeelee Kilabuk; Bruce McLaughlin; John Ningark; Dennis Patterson; John Pollard; Ludy Pudluk; Tony Whitford. Parliamentary Review. 13.1 (1990).

Kusugak, Jose. "The Tide Has Shifted: Nunavut Works For Us, and It Offers a Lesson to the Broader Global Community." Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control of their Lands and their Lives. Edited by Jens Dahl, Jack Hicks and Peter Jull. (Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 2000).

Tulugak, Harry, André Binette, Commission du Nunavik, Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones au Québec, Let Us Share: Mapping the Road Toward a Government for Nunavik: Report of the Nunavik Commission. (Québec: Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones, 2001).

Canadian-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami Background Paper on Negotiations. 2004-2005.

Amagoalik, John. John Amagoalik Changing the Face of Canada. Series: Life Stories of Northern Leaders, V. 2. Edited by Louis McComber. (Iqaluit: Nunavut Arctic College, 2007).

Arvaluk, James. That's My Vision: The Life Story of James Arvaluk. Series: Life Stories of Northern Leaders, V. 5. Edited by Noel McDermott. (Iqaluit: Nunavut Arctic College, 2008).

Inuit Tapirisat. An Integrated Arctic Strategy. 2008.

Quassa, Paul. We Need to Know Who We Are: The Life Story of Paul Quassa. Series: Life Stories of Northern Leaders, V. 3. Edited by Louis McComber. (Iqaluit: Nunavut Arctic College, 2008).

Rodon, Thierry and Minnie Grey. "The Long and Winding Road to Self-Government: The Nunavik and Nunatsiavut Experiences." Northern Exposure: Peoples, Powers and Prospects in Canada's North. Edited by Frances Abele et al. (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2009).

Inuit Circumpolar Council. A Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic. 2009.

Simon, Mary. "Inuit and the Canadian Arctic: Sovereignty Begins at Home." Journal of Canadian Studies. Nunavut Issue. 43.2 (Spring 2009).

4. Aboriginal Women Perspective

Jeffries, Theresa M. "Sechelt Women and Self-Government." British Columbia Reconsidered: Essays on Women. Edited by Gillian Creese and Veronica Strong-Boag. (Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers, 1992).

Flaherty, Martha. "Inuit Women: Equality and Leadership." Canadian Woman Studies. 14.4 (1994).

Pauktuutit. "Inuit Women and Self-Government." Canadian Woman Studies. 14.4 (1994).

Monture-Angus, Patricia. "Organizing Against Oppression: Aboriginal Women and the Canadian State for First Nations Women." Thunder in My Soul: A Mohawk Woman Speaks. (Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 1995).

McIvor, Sharon Donna. "Self-Government and Aboriginal Women." Scratching the Surface: Canadian Anti-Racist Feminist Thought. Edited by Enakshi Dua and Angela Roberts. (Toronto: Women's Press. 1999).

Sayers, Judith F. and Kelly A. MacDonald. "A Strong and Meaningful Role for First Nations Women in Governance" in First Nations Women, Governance and the Indian Act: A Collection of Policy Research Reports. (Ottawa: Status of Women Canada 2001).

Native Women's Association of Canada. "Quebec Native Women and Bill C-7." n.d. (~2002)

Native Women's Association of Canada. "Our Way of Being: Gathering of Indigenous Women on Self-Government." 2003

Quebec Native Women. "The Division of Matrimonial Real Property On Reserve Lands." Discussion Paper. 2004.

Quebec Native Women. "Supplement to the Memoir On Equality: Aboriginal Women's Perspectives." 2004.

Canadian-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable. NWAC Background Paper on Negotiations. 2004-2005

Native Women's Association of Canada. Report in response to Canada's Fourth and Fifth Reports on the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights covering the period of September 1999—December 2004. 2006.

Native Women's Association of Canada. "Aboriginal Women and Self-Determination." National Aboriginal Women's Summit 2007

Footnotes:

1. Based on Annual Review of Tables data 2009/2010: Includes both active and inactive tables and those that begun negotiations under a CLCA. Length of time in negotiations was calculated for tables outside of BC, by the date accepted into the process; and for BC Tables, the date British Columbia Treaty Commission declared the party ready to negotiate. (return to source paragraph)
2. Canada. (1995). Aboriginal Self-Government: The Government of Canada's Approach to the Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government. Department of Indian and Northern Development. (p.2). (return to source paragraph)
3. Includes funding under Gathering Strength and Self-Government Negotiation Support Funding. (return to source paragraph)
4. This figure does not include grant funding under the Mi'Kmaq Education Agreement which totals $35,431,000 in 2009/10. (return to source paragraph)
5. Since the November EPMRC, the strategy has evolved to include comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements together when self-government was negotiated in the context of a CLCA. (return to source paragraph)
6. Belanger, Yale D. (2008). Future Prospects for Aboriginal Self-Government in Aboriginal Self-Government - Current Trends and Issues. edited by Yale D. Belanger. (p.395). (return to source paragraph)
7. Ibid. (p. vii). (return to source paragraph)
8. Newhouse, David and Yale Belanger. (2001). Aboriginal self-government in Canada: a review of literature since 1960. Native Studies, Trent University. (p.7). (return to source paragraph)
9. House of Commons Canada. (1983). Indian Self-Government in Canada, Report of the Special Committee. (Issue No. 40, October 1983). (return to source paragraph)
10. Canada. (1984). Response of the Government to the Report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. (p.1). (return to source paragraph)
11. The Constitution Act, 1982 and the subsequent Accord of 1983 required that four Aboriginal constitutional conferences be convened in the five-year period 1982 to 1987. (return to source paragraph)
12. Consensus Report on the Constitution: Final Text, Charlottetown, August 28, 1992 [Charlottetown Accord]. (return to source paragraph)
13. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (1996). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (Volume2, Part 1, Section 2.3). (return to source paragraph)
14. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (1996). (Volume2, Part 1, Section 2.3). (return to source paragraph)
15. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (1997). Gathering Strength, Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan. (return to source paragraph)
16. Belanger, Yale D. and David R. Newhouse. (2004). Emerging from the Shadows: The pursuit of Aboriginal Self-Government to Promote Aboriginal Well-Being. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies. (p. 188). (return to source paragraph)
17. Canada. (1995). Aboriginal Self-Government: The Government of Canada's Approach to the Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government. (p.17). (return to source paragraph)
18. INAC Website (return to source paragraph)
19. INAC Website (return to source paragraph)
20. Nunatsiavut Government Website (return to source paragraph)
21. Nunatsiavut Government. The Labrador Inuit Constitution, 2002. p.38. (return to source paragraph)
22. Anderson, Robert Brent, Economic Development Among the Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: The Hope for the Future (Concord: Captus Press Inc.), p. 151. (return to source paragraph)
23. Further information on Nunatsiavut Government activities and initiatives. (return to source paragraph)
24. In the Yukon, although the Land Claim and Self-Government Agreements were negotiated separately, they came into effect at the same time. (return to source paragraph)
25. Specific duties and powers of the four branches of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Government are outlined in the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Government section of the Vuntut Gwitichin First Nation Constitution (return to source paragraph)
26. Yukon Land Claim Agreement Annual Review 1995-1996. (return to source paragraph)
27. Yukon Territorial Government Website. May 2010 Enrolment Report (return to source paragraph)
28. In December 1993, the ministers responsible for education in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories signed the Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education, Kindergarten to Grade 12. The protocol supports the development of common curriculum frameworks for Western and Northern Canada. (return to source paragraph)
29. Further information on the Government of the Vuntut Gwich'in activities and initiatives. (return to source paragraph)
30. Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey Constitution, November 4, 1998. (return to source paragraph)
31. Annual reports and other information about MK and participating communities(return to source paragraph)
32. Priorities as stated in Indian and Northern Affairs and Canada Polar Commission 2010-2011 Estimates. Report on Plans and Priorities. (return to source paragraph)
33. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (Volume 2, Part Two, Chapter 5). (return to source paragraph)
34. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007 (return to source paragraph)
35. The Government of Canada's Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government. (1995). (p.12). (return to source paragraph)
36. Quotes from Aboriginal key informants as part of the evaluation process. (return to source paragraph)
37. Assembly of First Nations. Negotiation Background Paper. Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable 2005. (return to source paragraph)
38. Métis National Council. Negotiation Policy Paper. Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable 2005. (return to source paragraph)
39. Office of the Treaty Commissioner. (2007) Treaty Implementation: Fulfilling the Covenant. (Saskatoon: Office of the Treaty Commissioner. (p. 108). (return to source paragraph)
40. Land Claims Agreements Coalition Four-Ten Declaration of Dedication and Commitment. ( December 2006, p1.) (return to source paragraph)
41. Beneficiary population (return to source paragraph)
42. K-12 population (return to source paragraph)
43. For details regarding the Harvard Project (return to source paragraph)
44. This figure is calculated using the CWB scores for communities who currently having a self-government agreement in place. As previously noted, the CWB analysis does not assess if the improvements of well-being in the self-governing communities are associated with the agreement themselves. (return to source paragraph)
45. For 1981, 1991 and 1996, few First Nations and Inuit communities were part of a self-government agreement. The aggregations above reflect those communities that eventually implemented a self-government agreement. Additionally, many of the communities did not have a CWB score and caution should therefore be exercised when interpreting the average CWB score for self-governing communities during these years. Although more First Nations and Inuit communities were part of a self government agreements by the 2001 and 2006 census year, some did not have a CWB score and caution should be exercised when interpreting the average CWB score for these years as well. CWB scores are derived from only those communities that have CWB scores available. These include communities with populations of at least 65, that participated in the census, and for which there was no data quality issues. Component scores (income, education, housing and labour force activity) are derived from only those communities that have CWB scores available. These including communities with populations of at least 250, that participated in the census, and for which there is no data quality issues. (return to source paragraph)
46. No summary comparisons of CWB results are listed when a First Nation or Inuit community did not possess a CWB score. (return to source paragraph)
47. This information will be further analysed by TAG as part of the Impact Assessment II currently underway. (return to source paragraph)
48. See for example, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Impact Evaluation of Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements, February, 2009. (return to source paragraph)
49. Itis worth noting that because the Inuit in Northern Labrador did not function under the Indian Act, prior to self-government, their relationship with the federal government was less developed than most First Nations, and this has likely had an impact on the current relationship. Also, prior to becoming self-governing in 1995, the VG operated in an environment in which the territorial government had responsibility for delivering many programmes that the federal government took responsibility for South of 60, and so the relationship with the federal government in these cases may not be the same as for self-governing Aboriginal groups elsewhere in the country. (return to source paragraph)
50. Based on Annual Review of Tables data 2009/2010: Includes both active and inactive tables and those that begun negotiations under a CLCA. Length of time in negotiations was calculated for tables outside of BC, by the date accepted into the process; and for BC Tables, the date British Columbia Treaty Commission declared the party ready to negotiate. (return to source paragraph)