The 1992 Charlottetown Accord attempted to constitutionalize the inherent Aboriginal right of self-government. The Accord was the result of a long series of public consultations and intense political negotiations which resulted in a document that was rejected by a majority of Canadians. The Aboriginal government provisions of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord do not represent the majority of essential elements for Aboriginal peoples to recognize and implement the inherent right of self-government. However, the Accord represents a major change in thinking for the federal and provincial governments in Canada in that the inherent right was recognized. As well, many of the principles contained in the Accord provide a bench mark for future constitutional discussions regarding self- government. Aboriginal governments must be given a substantive legislative and fiscal base if self-government is to be realized. The Accord failed to meet these fundamental needs.

The 1992 Charlottetown Accord attempted to constitutionalize the inherent Aboriginal right of self-government. The Accord was the result of a long series of public consultations and intense political negotiations which resulted in a document that was rejected by a majority of Canadians. The Aboriginal government provisions of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord do not represent the majority of essential elements for Aboriginal peoples to recognize and implement the inherent right of self-government. However, the Accord represents a major change in thinking for the federal and provincial governments in Canada in that the inherent right was recognized. As well, many of the principles contained in the Accord provide a bench mark for future constitutional discussions regarding self- government. Aboriginal governments must be given a substantive legislative and fiscal base if self-government is to be realized. The Accord failed to meet these fundamental needs.

The 1992 Charlottetown Accord attempted to constitutionalize the inherent Aboriginal right of self-government. The Accord was the result of a long series of public consultations and intense political negotiations which resulted in a document that was rejected by a majority of Canadians. The Aboriginal government provisions of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord do not represent the majority of essential elements for Aboriginal peoples to recognize and implement the inherent right of self-government. However, the Accord represents a major change in thinking for the federal and provincial governments in Canada in that the inherent right was recognized. As well, many of the principles contained in the Accord provide a bench mark for future constitutional discussions regarding self- government. Aboriginal governments must be given a substantive legislative and fiscal base if self-government is to be realized. The Accord failed to meet these fundamental needs.

The Canada Round was a period of megaconstitutional politics where many of the perennial topics of Canadian politics were viewed through a constitutional lens. This research analyzes the Canada Round of negotiations for its potential to act as a project in historical justice to address the state’s mistreatment of Indigenous peoples. By viewing constitutional change as a means of engaging in political redress, this research offers a corrective to understanding the dynamics of the Canada Round and provides an expanded understanding of redress to compensate for its limited and non-transformative nature in settler-colonial contexts by introducing the idea of redress constitutionalism. Through an analysis of the primary documents from the Canada Round, this research demonstrates that national Indigenous organizations—the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, and the Native Council of Canada—sought to employ constitutional change for its reparative potential to address long-standing injustices against Indigenous peoples in Canada caused or worsened by the constitution. Therefore, the failure to significantly renew the constitution was also a failure to significantly engage in redress, remedy their historical exclusion from decision making, and respond to the suppression of their self-determination. / Graduate