Abstract

Between 1992 and 2000, Canada systematically ranked first on the United Nations Human Development Index. In 2001, a study by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada found that Aboriginal Peoples would rank 78 th in the world if their well-being was measured according to the same indicators. The question asked in this thesis paper is: what explains the well-being gap between Aboriginals and other Canadians? More specifically, what explains the persistence of this gap in light of an apparent agreement over a solution: self-government? The answer to this question can partly be located in the solution itself. Indeed, an analysis of an academic and public debate over an existing self-government model and model to-be reveals that "self-government" has as many understandings as there are degrees of separation between municipal governance and sovereignty proper. Thus, far from inspiring consensus, self-government is an extremely contentious concept. Further, it has not been a debate over increasing Aboriginal Peoples' well-being, but a debate over which understanding of Aboriginal governance should govern the debate. As a result, only a handful of self-government agreements have been enacted over the past 40 years. This "stall" at the policy level is, of course, the ultimate cause of Aboriginal Peoples' poor socio-economic standing.