Evaluation of the Impacts of Self-Government Agreements

1.1 Overview

The Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Branch (EPMRB) of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) undertook an Evaluation of the Impacts of Self-Government Agreements. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the extent to which expected outcomes of self-government agreements are being achieved. It will provide reliable evidence that will be used to support policy and program improvement and, where required, expenditure management, decision making, and public reporting related to the Strategic Outcome The Government.

1.2 Profile

1.2.1 Background and Description

Under the Inherent Right Policy, the Government of Canada's recognition of the inherent right of self-government is based on the view that the Indigenous people of Canada have a right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources.^{Footnote 1} Self-government agreements set out arrangements for Indigenous groups to govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision making that affects their communities. Indigenous self-government is exercised within the framework of the Canadian Constitution, including the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The other significant feature of self-government agreements is the change in relationship between the parties. A new relationship is created wherein Indigenous signatories constitute governments in their own right. As a result, the parties to the agreements form government-to-government relationships that transform how they relate to and collaborate with one another.

There are currently 22 self-government agreements in place.

• Eighteen comprehensive land claim agreements with self-government – defined as both a comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement; and
• Four stand-alone self-government agreements – defined as self-government agreement with no land claim component.
• There is also one sectoral self-government agreement – defined as self-governing jurisdiction over specific subject matter such as education, governance, child and family services.

In addition, a form of self-government arrangement with the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act gives effect to nine Cree communities and one Naskapi community on local government commitments contained in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

The map below illustrates where self-government agreements are currently in effect in Canada. Appendix A provides a detailed list of all agreements, including the Yale Final Agreement, the Tla'amin Final Agreement and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement which have all been signed, but are not yet in effect.

Text alternative for Self-government Agreements in Canada Map

The map illustrates where Self-Government Agreements are currently in effect in Canada.

In the Yukon, the following First Nations that signed Self-Government Agreements are identified: Vuntut Gwich'in First Nation Final Agreements (1995), T'rondek Hewch'in First Nation Final Agreements (1998), First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreements (1995), Selkirk First Nation Final Agreements (1997), Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation Final Agreements (1997), Kluane First Nation Final Agreements (2004), Champagne & Aishihik First Nation Final Agreements (1995), Ta'an Kwach'an First Nation Final Agreements (2002), Kwanlin Dun First Nation Final Agreements (2005), Carcross/Tagish First Nation Final Agreements (2006), and Teslin Tlingit Council Final Agreements (1995).

In the Northwest Territories, the First Nation that signed a Self-Government Agreement is identified: Tlicho Agreement (2005).

In British Columbia, the following First Nations that signed Self-Government Agreements are identified: Nsga'a Final Agreement (2000), Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement (2011), Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Agreement (1986), Tsawwassen Fist Nation Final Agreement (2009) and Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement (2005).

In Manitoba, the following First Nation that signed a Self-Government Agreement is identified: Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Self-Government Agreement (2014).

In Nova Scotia, the following First Nation that signed a Self-Government Agreement is identified: Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey Education Agreement (1999-2011).

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the following First Nation that signed a Self-Government Agreement is identified: Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement (2005).

 

There are also 16 self-government negotiation tables in the final agreement stage: seven comprehensive land claim and self-government table negotiations; seven sectoral self-government table negotiations; and two stand-alone self-government table negotiations.

2.1 Evaluation Scope and Timing

Terms of Reference for the evaluation were approved at the April 2014 EPMRC. The evaluation was conducted internally within EPMRB, with component analyses contracted externally to specialists. These include a statistical analysis by Dr. Ravi Pendakur, University of Ottawa and Dr. Krishna Pendakur, Simon Fraser University; a literature review by Dr. David Newhouse, Trent University, Dr. Kevin Fitzmaurice, University of Sudbury, and Dr. Yale Belanger, Lethbridge University; and assistance with conducting key informant interviews by Alderson-Gill and Associates.

The scope of the evaluation includes stand-alone self-government agreements, comprehensive land claims with related self-government agreements, and sectoral self-government arrangements. Stand-alone land claim agreements were not included in this evaluation.

As per the logic model (see Appendix B), the evaluation focused on the impacts of governance and programs and services. The impacts of lands and resources and economic development were undertaken as part of the Evaluation of the Impacts of Comprehensive Land Claim and Self-Government Agreements completed in November 2013.

The evaluation issue of performance (effectiveness) is the focus of this evaluation. The evaluation issue of performance (efficiency and economy) was included in the Evaluation for the Process for Negotiating Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements, completed in November 2013 and the evaluation issue of relevance was included in the Evaluation of the Impacts of Comprehensive Land Claim and Self-Government Agreements completed in November 2013.

2.2 Evaluation Approach

A joint approach to evaluation work between Canada and Indigenous signatory groups when assessing the impacts of land claims and self-government agreements was undertaken as part of this evaluation. Tsawwassen First Nation and Carcross/Tagish First Nation both participated through engaging in a key informant interview process.

See Appendix C for more details regarding INAC approach to evaluating land claims and self-government agreements.

2.3 Evaluation Issue

Performance - Effectiveness^{Footnote 4}

Achievement of Expected Outcomes – Assessment of progress towards expected outcomes.

• Long-term results: Strong and self-reliant Indigenous individuals, communities, groups and governments.
• Immediate and intermediate results: Governance: Current relationships supported and new relationships established, which will result in stable and sustainable Indigenous governments. Programs and Services: Program and service responsibilities established which will result in control and jurisdiction over programs and services.

2.4 Evaluation Methodology

2.5 Quality Assurance

The evaluation was directed and managed by EPMRB in line with the EPMRB's Engagement Policy and Quality Control Process. Quality assurance was provided through the activities of the working group and an advisory group comprised of representatives from the Treaties and Aboriginal Government Sector, Implementation Branch and Policy Development and Coordination Branch.

3.1 International

The negotiation and implementation of self-government agreements support 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 2010. As stated in Article 4 of the Declaration,

3.2 Legal

Canadian courts have recognized that Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 ("Section 35") can include the right to self-government. However, to date they have set a high standard for proving the existence and extent of such a right.^{Footnote 8} At the same time, the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly highlighted the importance of Section 35 in achieving reconciliation between Indigenous groups and the Crown. The Court has also repeatedly emphasized that the Crown and Indigenous peoples should negotiate arrangements that address their historic grievances and Section 35 issues.

The Inherent Right Policy is based "on the premise "that the inherent right of self-government is an existing Indigenous right within the meaning of Section 35. As of the launch of the Inherent Right Policy in 1995, Canada has taken both the legal and policy position that Indigenous rights of self-government are included in the rights protected by Section 35. In that regard, Canada has moved ahead of the courts, who have not yet definitively pronounced on the existence and scope of Indigenous rights of self-government.

The powers which are likely to fall within an inherent right of self-government would be those that are integral to a distinctive Indigenous group's culture, are related to matters internal to that Indigenous community, and are not inconsistent with the overall sovereignty of the Canadian government. That legal view is not inconsistent with the possibility that an Indigenous government could be considered to be the primary law making authority within the limited exercise of certain powers that are integral to that group's culture and purely internal to that collectivity. It is therefore possible, in relation to certain areas, for Indigenous laws to have paramountcy over conflicting federal or provincial laws. Consistent with Canada's understanding of the existing jurisprudence, the precise powers that comprise an inherent right of self-government would vary depending upon the history of the Indigenous group in question.

At the same time, the Inherent Right Policy goes considerably beyond the confines of the underlying legal theory. It provides for the negotiation of practical self-government arrangements that are not predicated upon the establishment or recognition of legally enforceable Indigenous rights, but are tailored to meet the practical circumstances of the Indigenous groups in question. Consistent with this approach, the Inherent Right Policy contemplates a wide range of self-government arrangements with various Indigenous groups across the country, including both constitutionally protected and non-constitutionally protected self-government agreements. The policy also contemplates the exercise by Indigenous governments of authorities in areas that do not necessarily fall within the scope of an inherent right of self-government as a strict matter of law.

Another significant aspect of the Inherent Right Policy relates to the legal protection that is available for negotiated self-government agreements. The policy contemplates the use of different instruments, the highest degree of legal protection being conferred by the negotiation of a self-government arrangement as part of a Treaty (Land Claims Agreement) since those rights will be constitutionally protected. However, it is the federal position that the treaty route for self-government arrangements is available only where the relevant province agrees. This reflects the legal view that, without a constitutional amendment explicitly recognizing the inherent right of self-government, the conferral of constitutional protection on such arrangements requires trilateral involvement of all three governments – federal, provincial and Indigenous – whose law-making powers are at issue. The Inherent Right Policy also provides for the conclusion of self-government agreements that do not receive constitutional protection as part of comprehensive treaties, but which are nevertheless confirmed by federal legislation and constitute binding contracts between Indigenous parties and the federal Crown.

On February 5, 2013, the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued a decision unanimously upholding the constitutional validity of the Nisga'a Nation's treaty right of self-government.^{Footnote 9} In doing so, it determined it need not, and should not, decide the source of the Nisga'a treaty right of self-government, agreeing with Canada's position that it is unnecessary to decide whether some or all of the self-government powers derive from an inherent Indigenous right of self-government or were delegated powers. In either case, the rights were validly included in the Nisga'a Final Agreement by the agreement of the three parties (Canada, British Columbia and the Nisga'a Nation) and the passage of Settlement legislation by Parliament and the British Columbia Legislature. This decision is fully supportive of Canada's Inherent Right Policy and the legal theory that supports it.^{Footnote 10}

3.3 Literature

First Nations leaders have long argued that self-government is not a new concept but rather one preceding the arrival of newcomers to North America, inherent, and based upon local sovereignty, resulting, therefore, in a right to govern local affairs.^{Footnote 11}

A review of the literature suggests that prior to the 1960s, Indigenous self-government as a concept did not exist in the minds of Canadian politicians. Following the White Paper, Indigenous leaders throughout Canada took it upon themselves to lead their organizations into developing position papers calling for increased decision-making powers at the reserve and community level. Beginning with an examination of the Indian Association of Alberta's Red Paper of 1970 and the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood's release of Whabung in 1971, Indigenous groups during the 1970s began to lay the foundation for what would become the political ideal of Indigenous self-government.

Following this flurry of activity, the early part of the 1980s was dominated by the Government's desire to patriate Canada's Constitution from Britain. The newly revised Constitution Act of 1982 recognizing Indigenous rights led to four First Minister's Conferences to discuss the issue of Indigenous self-government and how it should proceed.

The 1990s was a period of negotiations and academic involvement in further refining the exigencies of Indigenous self-government. With the effective establishment of a state regime over the definition of Indigenous self-government in place, academics began to involve themselves in exploring what self-government was and how the Canadian state could more effectively incorporate this ideal into its political and legal regimes. The Government also began to assert that self-government was an inherent right, exhibiting an outwardly liberal approach. Unfortunately, what was missing from this discourse was the grassroots and political voices that were so prevalent just two decades ago in the formation of the self-government ideal.

Through a detailed examination of the literature of the period, one can see this progression of the development of Indigenous self-government as a local concern to the Government and Indigenous political elite appropriating the ideal and controlling its evolution. The threads of the initial discourse regarding Indigenous self-government are woven into contemporary notions of what Indigenous self-government represents, although the initial philosophy was Indigenous controlled whereas the scope of what self-government is and the direction this concept will take now rests primarily with the Canadian government.

The Sechelt Agreement of 1986 introduced the concept of Indigenous self-government to the larger Canadian public. An obscure and ill-defined concept at the time of the Constitution's repatriation from England in 1982, the Sechelt Indian Self-Government Act provided an early operational definition. Since then, the concept of Indigenous self-government has been expanded through a series of land claims agreements and self-government agreements and given a solid foundation in the models proposed by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which set out, in some sense, the political ideals to be pursued.

Self-government is growing in complexity and context. There are various elements to self-government that go beyond negotiating inter-jurisdictional agreements or fostering corporate-First Nations relations. There are incremental treaty arrangements, for example, one of many models available to First Nations lacking a treaty, or that do not want to negotiate a treaty that can provide protective authority as negotiations proceed toward more crisply define powers of local governance. This provides a level of political certainty that can for example limit territorial access as the negotiations unfold. Many First Nations have also chosen to opt into legislation such the First Nations Land Management Act as opposed to negotiating self-government. These approaches do not fit the traditional Canadian understanding of what Indigenous self-government could become but rather offer insights into the myriad of ways that First Nations are conceptualizing self-government and how and why they choose various approaches.

No national, comprehensive literature review has been produced since 2004 examining the exigencies of Indigenous self-government in Canada. Academic writing on Indigenous self-government in Canada post 2004 can be characterized as moving from a hopeful 'literature of possibility' towards notions of a more independent Indigenous political and cultural resurgence. The conceptualization of Indigenous self-government has shifted from a view that saw it as a potential contributor to community wellness and healing and an inherent right, recognized within the Canadian constitution, to the critical view that it is a neo-liberal/colonial mechanism for greater hegemonic inclusion and control over Indigenous people in Canada.

The academic literature examining the impact of self-government agreements is sparse, limited and spotty. The academic community has not turned its attention in any systematic fashion to assessing the impact of these new agreements upon Indigenous communities. There is a significant gap in literature exploring the many dimensions and complex developments of Indigenous self-government in Canada. There is pressing need to bring academic focus back to the agreements themselves so as to assess their socioeconomic impacts.

See Appendix D for the reference list.

4.1 Total Income

Looking first at Table 2 Regression Set 1, we see results for the average effect of the four distinct agreement types on the individual total income for women and men as compared to those living in a Census subdivision without an agreement. These agreement types are exclusive except that some Census subdivisions have both FNLMAs and FNFMAs. For women, we see a very striking pattern. The individual total incomes of women are unaffected by SGAs, FNLMAs and FNFMAs. But, the individual total incomes of women are 38 percent higher if their community attains a CLCA. For men, living in a Census subdivision with an agreement is correlated with higher incomes. Men living in a Census subdivision with a SGA see earnings 11 percent higher than those living in a Census subdivision with no agreement or arrangement. As was the case for women, for men we see that CLCAs are associated with a 26 percent increase in individual total income, and that living in a Census subdivision with an FNFMA or FNLMA is associated with an increase of 10 percent and seven percent respectively.

However, the effects are uneven across groups (Regression sets 2 and 3). Looking at the results for FNLMAs and FNFMAs, neither opt-in legislation has any statistically significant effects for any Indigenous group, but benefit the non-Indigenous population. We see that the effect of living in a Census subdivision with an SGA does differ by Indigenous status (see Regression Set 3) with unregistered Indigenous males benefiting the most from SGA with an increase of 41 percent.

Turning to the effect of CLCAs on total incomes, we find substantial benefits across all groups. We find however, the effect is larger for non-Indigenous persons as compared to Indigenous persons. Non-Indigenous women who live in an Indigenous community that attains a CLCA, see an income increase of 49 percent, compared to 36 percent for Indigenous identity women, and non-Indigenous males see increase of 42 percent compared to Indigenous identity males who see an income increase of 23 percent.

Text alternative for Figure 1 Total Income- Regression Set 2- Non-Indigenous Population and Indigenous Identity Population

This figure displays the findings from Table 2, Regression Set 2 for the total income of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males in comparison with the type of agreement.

The image is in the form of a horizontal bar graph. For each type of agreement, the graph compares the results of the total income for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males by using two different coloured bar graphs.

The y axis separates the bar graph into 2 categories of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal identities, and each identity includes the categories in the order of: SGA, CLCA, FNFMA and FNLMA. The x axis demonstrates the percent changes and ranges from -0.10 to 0.60.

SGAs raise the total income of Aboriginal males by 13 percent. Males and females of non-Aboriginal identity, as well as females of Aboriginal identity did not have significant effects.

There were substantial benefits for CLCAs across all groups for Regression Set 2. Females of non-Aboriginal identity saw the largest increase of 49 percent, followed by a 42 percent increase for non-Aboriginal males. Aboriginal females and males also benefited greatly from CLCAs, with 36 percent and 23 percent increases, respectively.

FNFMAs increase the total income of non-Aboriginal females by 8 percent and the total income of non-Aboriginal males by 22 percent. Aboriginal females and males did not have significant effects.

All females and males of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal identity did not have significant effects for FNLMAs.

4.2 Income from Wages and Salaries

Earnings are defined as wages and salaries and are primarily concerned with money earned from working for someone else. Results from Table 3 Regression Set 1 suggest that living in a Census subdivision with an SGA neither increases nor decreases earnings from wages and salaries for women, but there is a six percent increase overall for men. Living in a Census subdivision with a CLCA increases wages by 23 percent for women and nine percent for men. FNFMAs lower wages for men by 11 percent.

Regression sets 2 and 3 assess heterogeneous treatment effects across Indigenous groups for these different agreement types. Considering first SGAs, the estimates for women and men are very noisy, so that it is difficult to distinguish any statistically significant pattern. CLCAs raise incomes from wages and salaries for all people, but more for non-Indigenous persons than for Indigenous persons. Women benefit more than men in each group.

FNFMAs and FNLMAs are associated with lower earnings from wages and salaries. We see in Regression Set 2 that both FNFMAs and FNLMAs reduce non-Indigenous men's earnings from wages and salaries by 10 percent and 15 percent respectively. Indigenous identity male income from wages and salaries in reduced 11 percent under FNFMA.

Text alternative for Figure 2: Income from Wages and Salaries- Regression Set 2- Non-Indigenous Population and Indigenous Identity Population

This figure displays the findings from Table 3, Regression Set 2 for the total income from wages and salaries of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males in comparison with the type of agreement.

The image is in the form of a horizontal bar graph. For each type of agreement, the graph compares the results of income from wages and salaries for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males by using two different coloured bar graphs.

The y axis separates the bar graph into 2 categories of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal identities, and each identity includes the categories in the order of: SGA, CLCA, FNFMA and FNLMA. The x axis demonstrates the percent changes and ranges from -0.20 to 0.40.

SGAs did not have significant effects on both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males.

CLCAs raise income from wages and salaries for all people, but more for non-Aboriginal people than Aboriginal people. Non-Aboriginal females' income from wages and salaries increase by 37 percent, and males increase by 22 percent, in comparison with 21 percent and 6 percent increases for Aboriginal females and males, respectively.

FNFMAs decrease the income from wages and salaries of both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal males by 10 percent and 11 percent, respectively, while females of both categories saw no significant effects.

FNLMAs decrease the income from wages and salaries for non-Aboriginal males by 15 percent,while all other categories saw no significant effects.

4.3 Labour Force Attachment

In our analysis, labour force attachment is being measured by looking at if an individual worked more than 25 weeks per year as well as worked full time full year. Results from Table 4, Regression Set 1 show that none of the agreement types have substantial effects, when we ignore the possibility of heterogeneous treatment effects. These agreement types reduce the fraction of people working more than 25 weeks by one to three percentage points, and reduce the fraction of people working full-time full-year by one to three percentage points.

However, big differences emerge when we consider heterogeneous treatment effects. Because coefficients from Regression Set 3 have large standard errors relative to the coefficient estimates, and therefore many insignificant parameter estimates, it is more instructive to consider Regression Set 2. Here, we allow treatment effects to vary between non-Indigenous persons and Indigenous persons (and ignore possible variation between registered and unregistered Indigenous persons). We see that SGAs reduce the labour force attachment of non-Indigenous persons and increase (slightly) the labour force attachment of Indigenous persons. For example, the proportion of non-Indigenous men working more than 25 weeks drops by six percentage points, but that of Indigenous men rises by three percentage points (this increase is marginally statistically significant). We see a similar pattern for women. We also observe that the negative impacts of FNFMAs and FNLMAs on labour force attachment are driven in large measure by reductions in the labour force attachment of non-Indigenous workers, not of Indigenous workers. (This is seen in the positive and significant coefficients on Indigenous interactions with these arrangements.)

CLCAs show a different pattern. Here, we see that non-Indigenous workers gain substantially in labour force attachment, but Indigenous workers do not. For example, the proportion of non-Indigenous women and men in full-time full-year work increases by six and seven percentage points, respectively, when their community attains a CLCA. But, the full-time full-year probabilities of Indigenous people don't change in response to the attainment of a CLCA.

Text alternative for Figure 3: Worked More Than 25 Weeks- Regression Set 2- Non-Indigenous Population and Indigenous Identity Population

This figure displays the findings from Table 4, Regression Set 2 for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal females and males who worked more than 25 weeks per year in comparison with the type of agreement.

The image is in the form of a horizontal bar graph. For each type of agreement, the graph compares the results of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males who worked more than 25 weeks per year by using two different coloured bar graphs.

The y axis separates the bar graph into 2 categories of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal identities, and each identity includes the categories in the order of: SGA, CLCA, FNFMA and FNLMA. The x axis demonstrates the percent changes and ranges from -0.08 to 0.06.

For SGAs, males of non-Aboriginal identity saw a decrease of 6 percent and males of Aboriginal identity saw an increase of 3 percent, while females saw no significant effects.

The only group that saw a significant effect for CLCAs was non-Aboriginal males with an increase of 4 percent.

For FNFMAs, only females of non-Aboriginal identity saw a 7 percent decrease, while all other groups saw no significant effects.

For FNLMAs, only non-Aboriginal males saw a decrease of 4 percent and all other groups saw no significant effects.

Text alternative for Figure 4: Working Full Time Full Year- Regression Set 2- Non-Indigenous Population and Indigenous Identity Population

This figure displays the findings from Table 5, Regression Set 2 for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal females and males who worked full time full year in comparison with the type of agreement.

The image is in the form of a horizontal bar graph. For each type of agreement, the graph compares the results of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males who worked full time full year by using two different coloured bar graphs.

The y axis separates the bar graph into 2 categories of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal identities, and each identity includes the categories in the order of: SGA, CLCA, FNFMA and FNLMA. The x axis demonstrates the percent changes and ranges from -0.12 to 0.08.

SGAs decrease labour force attachment for non-Aboriginal females and males by 6 percent and 10 percent, respectively, while Aboriginal females and males saw no significant effects.

CLCAs increase labour force attachment for non-Aboriginal females and males by 6 percent and 7 percent, respectively, while Aboriginal females and males saw no significant effects.

Only non-Aboriginal males saw a decrease of 5 percent for FNFMAs, while all other groups saw no significant effects.

For FNLMAs, non-Aboriginal males saw a decrease of 4 percent and Aboriginal males saw an increase of 3 percent, and females of both identities saw no significant effects.

4.4 Household Income

Turning now to household income effects, Table 6, Regression Set 1, we see that living in a Census subdivision with a CLCA has substantial effect on household incomes. The household incomes of women and men rise on average by 28 percent and 30 percent, respectively. In contrast, household incomes do not increase at all for the other agreement types, and decrease in the case of FNLMAs.

Household income effects are estimated precisely enough that we can consider heterogeneous effects across non-Indigenous persons and Indigenous persons, and across registered and unregistered Indigenous persons. Although the average effect of SGAs on incomes is about zero, we see negative effects for non-Indigenous persons and positive effects for Indigenous persons. Looking at Regression sets 2 and 3, living in a Census subdivision with an SGA decreases household incomes for non-Indigenous women by 15 percent, and eight percent for non-Indigenous men. In contrast, SGAs have no statistically significant effect on the household incomes of registered Indigenous women and men, and increase household incomes of unregistered Indigenous women and men by 27 percent.

For non-Indigenous persons, CLCAs raise household incomes by 36 percent and 42 percent, respectively, for women and men and by a similar magnitude for registered Indigenous women and men. However, for Indigenous identity women and men, CLCAs raise incomes by 27 percent and 28 percent. Thus, both non-Indigenous persons and Indigenous persons benefit in terms of household incomes, but non-Indigenous persons benefit more.

Text alternative for Figure 5: Household Income- Regression Set 2- Non-Indigenous Population and Indigenous Identity Population

This figure displays the findings from Table 6, Regression Set 2 for the household income of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal females and males, in comparison with the type of agreement.

The image is in the form of a horizontal bar graph. For each type of agreement, the graph compares the results of household income for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males by using two different coloured bar graphs.

The y axis separates the bar graph into 2 categories of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal identities, and each identity includes the categories in the order of: SGA, CLCA, FNFMA and FNLMA. The x axis demonstrates the percent changes and ranges from -0.20 to 0.50.

SGAs decrease household income for non-Aboriginal females and males by 15 percent and 8 percent, respectively and have no significant effects on Aboriginal females and males.

CLCAs have a substantial effect on household income for both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males. The household income of non-Aboriginal females and males increase by 36 percent and 42 percent, respectively. For females and males of Aboriginal identity, we saw a rise of 27 percent and 28 percent, respectively.

FNFMAs increase household income for non-Aboriginal females and males by 10 percent and 8 percent, respectively and have no significant effects on Aboriginal females and males.

FNLMAs decrease household income for non-Aboriginal males by 9 percent and have no significant effects on non-Aboriginal females or Aboriginal females or males.

4.5 Household Income from Government Transfers:

Results from Table 7 consider household income from government transfer income. Government transfers refer to total income from all transfer payments received from federal, provincial, territorial or municipal governments.

SGAs appear to reduce government transfer income by nine percent for Indigenous identity women, but do not affect transfers for non-Indigenous men and women. Government transfers for unregistered Indigenous men increase by 28 percent after attaining an SGA.

CLCAs, in contrast, increase government transfer income by a very large magnitude. For non-Indigenous women and men, CLCAs raise household government transfer income by about 47 percent and 49 percent respectively. For registered Indigenous women and men, this effect is even larger, with increases of about 63 percent and 62 percent respectively.

Opt-in arrangements do not appear to have an impact on government transfers for Indigenous persons, but increase transfers for non-Indigenous men.

Text alternative for Figure 6: Household Income from Government Transfers- Regression Set 2- Non-Indigenous Population and Indigenous Identity Population

This figure displays the findings from Table 7, Regression Set 2 for the household income from government transfers of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal females and males.

The image is in the form of a horizontal bar graph. For each type of agreement, the figure compares the results of household income from government transfers for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males by using two different coloured bar graphs.

The y axis separates the bar graph into 2 categories of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal identities, and each identity includes the categories in the order of: SGA, CLCA, FNFMA and FNLMA. The x axis demonstrates the percent changes and ranges from -0.20 to 0.70.

SGAs decrease the household income from government transfers by 9 percent for Aboriginal females and do not affect Aboriginal males or non-Aboriginal females or males.

CLCAs substantially increase the household income from government transfers for all categories. The household income for non-Aboriginal females and males increased by 47 percent and 49 percent, respectively and increased for Aboriginal females and males by 57 percent and 60 percent, respectively.

FNFMAs increase the household income from government transfers for non-Aboriginal males by 15 percent, and have no significant effects on non-Aboriginal females or Aboriginal females or males.

FNLMAs increase the household income from government transfers for non-Aboriginal males by 21 percent, and have no significant effects on non-Aboriginal females or Aboriginal females or males.

4.6 Crowding

Results from Table 8 consider crowding. Crowding occurs when there is more than one person per room in a private dwelling. Results showing a decrease indicate reduced household crowding.

The effects on crowding are small, but statistically significant. Here, we see that attainment of an SGA reduces crowding by three percent for Indigenous men and five percent for Indigenous women, but does not affect crowding for the non-Indigenous population. CLCAs, on the other hand reduce crowding for Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups. The impact of opt-in arrangements varies by type with FNFMAs being associated with a small reduction in crowding for Indigenous person and increased crowding for non-Indigenous population. FNLMAs do not have a significant impact on crowding for Indigenous persons, but increase crowding a little for the non-Indigenous population.

Text alternative for Figure 7: Crowding- Regression Set 2- Non-Indigenous Population and Indigenous Identity Population

This figure displays the findings from Table 8, Regression Set 2 for the income from crowding of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal females and males.

The image is in the form of a horizontal bar graph. For each type of agreement, the figure compares the results of income from crowding for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal females and males by using two different coloured bar graphs.

The y axis separates the bar graph into 2 categories of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal identities, and each identity includes the categories in the order of: SGA, CLCA, FNFMA and FNLMA. The x axis demonstrates the percent changes and ranges from -0.06 to 0.05.

SGAs decrease the income from crowding for Aboriginal females and males by 5 percent and 3 percent, respectively and do not have significant effects on non-Aboriginal females and males.

CLCAs decrease the income from crowding for non-Aboriginal females and males by 3 percent and 5 percent, respectively and by 2 percent for Aboriginal males. CLCAs do not have a significant effect on Aboriginal females.

FNFMAs increase the income from crowding for non-Aboriginal females and males by 2 percent and 4 percent, respectively. In contrast, FNFMAs decrease income from crowding for both Aboriginal females and males by 2 percent.

FNLMAs increase the income from crowding for non-Aboriginal males by 2 percent and do not have significant effects on non-Aboriginal females or Aboriginal males or females.

4.7 Community level Impacts

4.7.1 Results from regressions on Community Well-being scores

A community analysis at the level of the Census subdivision was also undertaken. This involved aggregating the characteristics of individuals living in Indigenous Census subdivisions and running a series of regressions controlling for Census subdivision as well as the type of agreement or opt-in legislation.

In these analyses, the Community Well-being methodology is used to define outcomes. According to INAC,

The Community Well-Being Index is a means of examining the well-being of individual Canadian communities. Various indicators of socio-economic well-being, including education, labour force activity, income and housing, were derived from Statistics Canada's Census of Population and combined to give each community a well-being "score". These scores are used to compare well-being across First Nations and Inuit communities with well-being in other Canadian communities over time.^{Footnote 22}

Having an SGA
Increases the Community Well-being total score by about 4 points for Indigenous residents and five points for all residents
Increases Community Well-being scores for housing, income and labour force activity
Having a CLCA
Increases the Community Well-being total score by about 3 points for Indigenous residents
Improves Community Well-being scores for income
Having a FNLMA
Decreases the Community Well-being score by about 2 points for Indigenous residents – decreases labour force activity

Looking at Table 9 and the regression with only Indigenous residents, we see that having a SGA has a statistically significant impact of about 0.05 for the Community Well-being total, as well as increases the housing component, the income component and the labour force components, as compared to Census subdivisions without any agreement or opt-in legislation. Keeping in mind that these differences are present after controlling for year and Census subdivision effects, it appears that there is a real benefit to having an SGA. Having a CLCA increases the income score by 0.07 points but does not have a substantive impact on the other measures. Having an FNLMA or FNFMA generally does not have a statistically significant impact on Community Well-being scores. However, communities with a FNLMA have lower labour force component scores as compared to communities without any agreement (-0.04) and lower Community Well-being scores for Indigenous residents.

Looking at the results for all residents, we can see that attaining a SGA has a positive impact on the total Community Well-being score as well as on the housing, income and labour force subcomponents of between .04 and .05 points. Attaining a CLCA has a substantial impact on the income subcomponent of .06 points, however, the impacts on other components are quite small. For other agreement types (FNLMA and FNFMA), the impact is not statistically significant on any of the Community Well-being measures.

Table 9: Summary of Findings for Regressions Assessing Community Well-Being Scores

Population Group	SGA	CLCA	FNFMA	FNLMA
Community Well-being - Total
All Residents	.04	-	-	-
Indigenous Residents	.05	.03	-	-.02
Community Well-being - Education
All Residents	-	-	-	-
Indigenous Residents	-	-	-	-
Community Well-being - Housing
All Residents	.04	-	-	-
Indigenous Residents	.05	-	-	-
Community Well-being - Income
All Residents	.04	.06	-	-
Indigenous Residents	.05	.07	-	-
Community Well-being – Labour Force Activity
All Residents	.05	-	-	-
Indigenous Residents	.06	-	-	-.04
- equals no significant effects

 

Text alternative for Figure 8: Community Well-Being Index- Total- Indigenous Identity Population

This figure displays the findings from Table 9 for regressions assessing Community Well-Being (CWB) total scores. The image is in the form of a horizontal bar graph. The bar graph demonstrates the total CWB scores for the Aboriginal identity population based on the type of agreement (SGA, CLCA, FNFMA and FNLMA).

The y axis displays the 4 different types of agreements and the x axis demonstrates the total CWB scores and ranges from -0.03 to 0.05.

SGAs have a statistically significant impact of about 0.05 for the CWB total for Aboriginal residents.

CLCAs have an impact of 0.03 for the CWB total for Aboriginal residents.

FNFMAs do not have a substantive impact for the CWB total for Aboriginal residents.

FNLMAs have an impact of -0.02 for the CWB total for Aboriginal residents.

 

4.8 Summary of Socio-Economic Impacts

Overall, there are positive effects on incomes from SGAs and CLCAs, and smaller effects on incomes from FNLMAs and FNFMAs. The individual total incomes of women are unaffected by SGAs, FNLMAs and FNFMAs. But, the individual total incomes of women are 38 percent higher if their community attains a CLCA. The individual incomes of men are 11 percent higher if their community attains a SGA, and 26 percent higher if their community attains a CLCA. The individual incomes of men are 10 percent and seven percent higher, respectively, if their community attains an FNLMA or FNFMA.

Results find that SGAs raise incomes more for Indigenous people than for non-Indigenous people but CLCAs raise incomes more for non-Indigenous people as compared to Indigenous people.

For household income, a similar story emerges. CLCAs raise household incomes the most, but more for non-Indigenous and registered Indigenous people as compared to unregistered Indigenous residents. SGAs lower incomes for non-Indigenous people and raise them for Indigenous people. FNFMAs and FNLMAs are a mixed bag, and their coefficients are estimated less precisely.

Although total individual and household incomes go up, not all sources of income rise. SGAs do not have a large effect on earnings from wages and salaries, but CLCAs increase earnings from wages and salaries by 23 percent for women and nine percent for men. In contrast, FNFMAs and FMLMAs may decrease earnings from wages and salaries. Labour force attachment (from which earnings are generated) follows similar patterns.

Government transfer income also responds. CLCAs, increase government transfer income by a very large magnitude. For non-Indigenous women and men, CLCAs raise household government transfer income by about 47 percent and 49 percent, respectively. For Indigenous women and men, this effect is even larger, with increases in the neighbourhood of 60 percent. SGAs do not have a significant impact on government transfers.

There are some responses in our crowding measures. SGAs do not affect the crowding of non-Indigenous persons, but reduce crowding for Indigenous people. In contrast, CLCAs reduce crowding for non-Indigenous people more than for Indigenous people. FNLMAs and FNFMAs increase crowding for non-Indigenous persons and reduce crowding for Indigenous persons.

The Community Well-being and all of its component indices rise when a community attains an SGA or a CLCA. But we find little or no response in these measures as a result of attaining an FNLMA or FNFMA. Overall, we find that community-level outcomes increase similarly for Indigenous members of Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous members of Indigenous communities in response to the attainment of SGAs and CLCAs.

In summary, of the four agreement types, attainment of SGAs and CLCAs are most strongly correlated with improved outcomes for Indigenous people. Attainment of SGAs increases Indigenous household total incomes by increasing individual labour force activity and earnings of both women and men; in contrast, attainment of CLCAs increases household total incomes in large measure by increasing household government transfer income.

5.1 Governance

Self-governing Indigenous communities view self-government agreements positively. They express a renewed sense of pride in their governments, particularly in relation to the right to elect their own governments, independent decision-making capacity, and being accountable to their own citizens.

Under the terms of self-government agreements, there is evidence that structures are in place to support relationship and accountability requirements. These include financial accountability mechanisms (e.g., financial administration acts, annual reporting through audited financial statements) and transparency mechanisms (e.g., internal constitutions, registry of laws). In addition, there is evidence that structures are in place to support inter-jurisdictional partnerships and arrangements, which include a wide variety of program and service arrangements.

By giving greater clarity to an Indigenous group's rights to self-government powers, the Indigenous group is more empowered to govern itself and respond to and improve its own socio-economic conditions and interests through more accountable government. When looked at from this broader perspective, many communities are fully engaged in determining the nature and shape of their governing institutions, including the quality of their relationships with surrounding community and fostering the improvement in the quality of life for their members. This is supported through evidence that self-government agreements have enabled the emergence of a set of institutions that are creating an increased sense of control and stewardship and are fostering an increased sense of empowerment. Moreover, many Indigenous governments are being created that embody traditional political practices. As in the context of the Yukon,

There are, however, challenges associated with establishing governance. Two key challenges identified in the evaluation include:

• Capacity and Support - Self-government has resulted in an increased number of community members employed by the Indigenous governments, however, a lack of administrative capacity and support to effectively manage all of the new responsibilities under the agreement remains a critical issue for many communities.^{Footnote 27}
• Intergovernmental Relationships - Self-government agreements establish a framework for intergovernmental relationships between the Indigenous, federal and provincial/territorial governments. There is a perception among Indigenous governments that other levels of government have not lived up to the spirit of the self-government agreement and that more collaboration to strengthen the approach to implementation of the agreements is required among agreement partners.

The following illustrates both the achievements and concerns related to governance under a self-government agreement.

5.2 Programs and Services

There is evidence that self-government agreements support the transfer of jurisdiction of program structures that allow for law making authority over program and services responsibilities. These include law making authority for social assistance, child and family services, and education. Agreements and side agreements also include structures for the funding and standards of program and services.

There is however some reluctance to assume jurisdiction over program and services due to a perceived lack of local capacity and inadequate financial resources, and a reluctance to assume responsibility for program and services areas that are viewed as being historically underfunded.

The agreements have structures in place that allow the federal and or provincial/territorial governments to continue to deliver programs and services, which Indigenous governments have not assumed responsibility. Education is the area noted most frequently where an Indigenous signatory group has been able to bring about improvements in curriculum, hiring of teachers with greater understanding of local culture, and financial support for tailored programming. Although many areas of jurisdiction have not been drawn down to date, having the ability to do so has improved working relations with provincial/territorial governments.

The following highlight key of challenges associated with the delivery of programs and services under self-government arrangements.

• Funding levels are based on existing program levels for status Indians. Often Indigenous governments pay for programs and services to their all their citizens, not just those with status.
• Fiscal issues, such as found in the Yukon as a result of Section 18, have disrupted the transition of programs and services from the Yukon Territorial Government to the self-governing Yukon First Nations.^{Footnote 30}
• Capacity to develop and implement relevant programs and services to address the needs of community members.
• Comparability of basic public services for Indigenous peoples to those available to other Canadians in the vicinity.^{Footnote 31}
• Economies of scale to be able to delivery program and services in an effective and efficient manner.

The following illustrates both the achievements and concerns related to programs and services under a self-government agreement.

As well as improving social conditions, economic development may well be the only source of new dollars needed to fund the program transfer that will make the promise of the inherent right a reality. It is becoming increasingly clear that the fiscal capacity of First Nation governments, which is directly related to their tax base, will become a very important determinate of the level of self-determination they enjoy.^{Footnote 34}

6.1 Conclusions

Implementation of self-government agreements support 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. As of the launch of the Inherent Right Policy in 1995, Canada has taken both the legal and policy position that Indigenous rights of self-government are included in the rights protected by Section 35. In that regard, Canada has moved ahead of the courts, who have not yet definitively pronounced on the existence and scope of Indigenous rights of self-government.

A statistical analysis of socio-economic impacts found positive effects for Indigenous persons living in a census subdivision that has attained a self-government agreement. This includes positive effects on total income, labour force attachment, household incomes, and household crowding. Moreover, the Community Well-Being Index and all its component indices rise when a self-government agreement is in place.

Self-government agreements have enabled the emergence of a set of institutions that are creating an increased sense of control and stewardship and are fostering an increased sense of empowerment. There is however challenges associated with establishing governance, which include the administrative capacity to effectively manage all of the new responsibilities under self-government and the perception that other levels of government have not lived up to the spirit of the self-government agreement and that more collaboration to strengthen the approach to implementation of the agreements is required among agreement partners.

There is reluctance to assume jurisdiction over program and services due to a perceived lack of local capacity and inadequate financial resources, as well as a reluctance to assume responsibility for program and services areas that are viewed as being historically underfunded. Although many areas of jurisdiction have not been drawn down to date, having the ability to do so has improved working relations with provincial/territorial governments.

From a performance measurement perspective, there is limited ongoing performance data related to the impacts of self-government agreements, including limited baseline data to use to compare with current measures of progress. This includes performance data within Indigenous, federal, and provincial/territorial governments. In addition, literature on the impact of self-government agreements is sparse, limited and spotty. The academic community has not turned its attention in any systematic fashion to assessing the impacts of these new agreements upon Indigenous communities resulting in limited quantitative and qualitative evidence available to determine self-government community-based impacts.

6.2 Recommendations

It is recommended that INAC:

1. Continue to support research that assesses the socioeconomic impacts of self-government agreements.
2. Work with Indigenous governments in the development of performance measurement strategies that measure progress related to their self-government agreements.
3. Work with other federal government departments and agreement partners to strengthen the implementation of the agreements in order to work towards the achievement of their anticipated outcomes.