Indigenous Sovereignty vs. Self-Government: What is the Difference?

In Canadian politics, two terms are often used interchangeably: “Indigenous Sovereignty” and “Indigenous Self-Government.”

While they are related, they are not the same thing. Mixing them up creates confusion about rights, land, and the future of the country. For Indigenous nations, the distinction is between their inherent soul and their political body.

This is the definitive system map of how Indigenous authority works in Canada—tracing the journey from the “Empty Box” of the Indian Act to the “Full Box” of Modern Treaties.

Part 1: The Core Distinction

To understand the legal landscape, we must first separate the right from the mechanism.

1. Indigenous Sovereignty (The Inherent Right)

Sovereignty is not something the Canadian government “gives” to Indigenous peoples. It is inherent. It existed thousands of years before the Crown arrived, rooted in a relationship with the Creator and the land.

Indigenous legal scholars describe this as a “Full Box” of rights—the absolute authority to determine one’s own future. It is not derived from the Canadian Constitution; rather, Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 merely “recognizes and affirms” rights that never disappeared.

2. Self-Government (The Negotiated Structure)

Self-Government is the practical vehicle used to exercise sovereignty within Canada. It is the “Negotiated Structure.”

Because Canada is a federation, Indigenous sovereignty often has to interface with Federal and Provincial laws. Self-Government agreements define the specific “lanes” of jurisdiction: Who controls education? Who owns the minerals? Who polices the community?

Part 2: The Legal Evolution (Empty Box vs. Full Box)

The history of Indigenous law in Canada is the story of shifting from denial to recognition.

The “Empty Box” Theory (Pre-1982)

For over a century, the Crown operated under the assumption that Indigenous rights had been extinguished by the assertion of British sovereignty. Even when Section 35 was added to the Constitution in 1982, provincial governments argued the “box” was empty—that it offered no actual powers of government.

The “Full Box” Theory (The Modern Era)

The courts have dismantled the old colonial logic. The Supreme Court of Canada, particularly in the landmark Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) decision, confirmed three critical facts:

Title Exists: Indigenous Title is a real, exclusive right to the land itself.
It is Economic: It includes the right to benefit economically from the land (it’s not just for hunting and fishing).
Oral History is Evidence: Indigenous oral history (adaawk and kungax) is valid legal evidence.

This confirmed that the box is full. The government’s role is no longer to “grant” rights, but to negotiate how those inherent rights fit into the Canadian federation.

Part 3: The Governance Models (Indian Act vs. Treaty)

Currently, two very different systems of governance operate side-by-side in Canada. Understanding the difference is key to understanding the push for “Land Back” and sovereignty.

1. The Indian Act (Delegated Administration)

Enacted in 1876, the Indian Act is a colonial statute designed for control, not freedom.

Source of Power: Ottawa. The Minister of Indigenous Services holds the ultimate veto power over by-laws.
Land Tenure: The Band does not own the land. Reserve land is owned by the Crown and “set apart” for the use of the Band.
Governance: “Chief and Council” are largely administrators of federal programs, with limited power to pass laws.

2. The Modern Treaty (Inherent Government)

This is the sovereign model found in comprehensive land claims. Under a Modern Treaty:

Source of Power: The Nation’s own Constitution (protected by Section 35).
Land Tenure: Fee Simple. The Nation owns the land, the forests, and the subsurface minerals directly.
Governance: The Nation passes laws that can override federal or provincial legislation.

Part 4: Case Study — The Nisga’a Final Agreement

The Nisga’a Final Agreement (2000) was the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia and serves as the gold standard for how “Sovereignty” is translated into “Self-Government.”

The Treaty establishes the Nisga’a Lisims Government as a legitimate “Third Order of Government” alongside Canada and BC. It operates on a legal model known as “Concurrency with Paramountcy.”

How Paramountcy Works

This means that three governments (Federal, Provincial, Nisga’a) can pass laws on Nisga’a land, but the Treaty explicitly states who wins if there is a conflict:

Nisga’a Paramountcy: On matters integral to culture and identity—such as citizenship, language, land management, and education—Nisga’a law prevails. If BC tries to pass a conflicting law on Nisga’a land usage, Nisga’a law wins.
Federal Paramountcy: On matters of national interest, such as the Criminal Code, Currency, or National Defence, Canadian law prevails.

This model proves that Indigenous Sovereignty does not require separation from Canada; it requires a respectful division of jurisdiction.

Part 5: The Future (Bill C-92 & UNDRIP)

We are now entering a new era of “Sectoral Self-Government,” where nations assert sovereignty over specific areas without waiting for a decades-long treaty negotiation.

The “Paramountcy Revolution” (Bill C-92)

In 2019, the federal government passed Bill C-92 (An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families). This law affirms that Indigenous nations have the inherent right to care for their own children.

Crucially, if a Nation passes its own child welfare law, it now has the force of federal law and overrides provincial systems. This was recently upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, confirming that Indigenous laws are a valid part of the Canadian constitutional fabric.

The UNDRIP Standard

With Canada’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the legal standard is shifting further. The goal is no longer just “consultation,” but “Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.”

The transition from the “Empty Box” to the “Full Box” is the defining legal shift of our time. It moves Canada away from a relationship of administration (The Indian Act) toward a relationship of diplomacy (Nation-to-Nation).