統計至2012年9月為止，加拿大政府已與原住民族簽訂26個區域協定，其中24個為土地權回復協定，2個為自治協定，而24個土地權回復協定當中，又有18個協定內容包含與原住民族之自治權限相關者。同樣統計至2012年9月，還有93個協定正進行協商中，顯示加拿大政府廣泛運用與原住民族簽訂區域協定方式，以解決土地權回復與自治爭議。反觀我國行政院原住民族委員會於草擬「原住民族自治法草案」之法制化過程中，在缺乏嚴謹討論與協商程序之情況下，未及充分探詢原住民族自治意願，也未與原住民族充分協商自治權限內涵，此一過程是否符合國內各原住民族為保有「多樣性之生活方式的價值」而實施自治之原初真意，實值得我國各界深思。本文以加拿大政府與原住民族簽訂土地權回復協定與自治協定之實踐經驗為研究標的，研究結果顯示：加拿大在維持國家對外主權統一，保障國家內部政治制度安排之多樣性，由原住民族自組協商代表與形成集體意願，以及區域協定是涵蓋一定範圍區域，並全面考量與原住民族相關之所有議題之核心概念，此等實踐經驗，對於有意採取區域協定取徑之國家而言，應具有重要參考價值。至於協商耗時冗長、締約能力不對等、加拿大政府未充分履行區域協定承諾、區域協定疑義之解釋與爭議處理，以及相關當事人欠缺肯認文化差異與尊重多元文化發展之價值思維等問題，則是欲採取區域協定取徑之國家應參酌並避免發生者。本文同時建議，我國應進一步研究將原住民族自治法設定為程序法之可行性，亦即僅處理政府與各原住民族進行政治協商之程序規範，至於各原住民族自治權限之實體部份，則開放交由雙方經由協商後再具體形成。

As of September 2012, Canada government has signed 26 regional agreements with indigenous peoples. Among these agreements, there are 24 comprehensive land claim agreements and two stand-alone self-government agreements. Of the 24 comprehensive land claims agreements, 18 included provisions related to self-government. The same as of September 2012, there are 93 active self-government and comprehensive land claim negotiation tables across the country of Canada. Obviously, entering into regional agreements with indigenous peoples has been extensively utilized by the Canada government to resolve disputes of land property rights and self-governance. By contrast, the process that Taiwan government drafted ＂the Indigenous Peoples Autonomy Act＂ neither probing indigenous collective wills of self-governance, nor negotiating the contents of self-government with indigenous peoples, may not be consistent with the original intention of maintaining the values of diversity of indigenous lifestyles. This article focuses on the practices of Canada government on the aforesaid roadmap of entering into regional agreements with the indigenous peoples. It reveals that Canada's experiences, including maintaining her sovereignty externally, ensuring the diversities of political arrangements internally, managing these agreements to cover a specific region and negotiate all comprehensive issues, and holding indigenous groups to be responsible for organizing negotiation representatives, should be valuable for those nations which intend to take the similar roadmap as Canada's. However, the difficulties confronted by the Canada, including extremely prolonged negotiation, indigenous peoples' asymmetrical capability to negotiate, incomplete implementation of government's obligations, the issue of dispute resolution mechanism, and government's negotiators lack of recognition and respect of multicultural values, need to be aware of concurrently. The article also suggests that Taiwan government should work on the feasibility of setting ＂the Indigenous Peoples Autonomy Act＂ as a procedural law, and let the substantial contents of indigenous self-government be concluded by negotiating in accordance with the procedures of the Act.