This is a question worth asking.
In my opinion, when we talk about a veto, it is because we want to defuse this issue politically. I don't think aboriginal people are looking to veto. What they're looking for is a relationship. Obviously, the right to say no is part of the relationship and the discussion, but the veto is used in situations where people say yes or no.
I think that prior consent, given freely and with full knowledge of the facts, is a relationship. In this relationship, it is up to the two players to find solutions to achieve the project. In some cases, the project will not be feasible. The case of Matoush, which involved a uranium mine on the territory of the Cree community of Mistissini, was documented.
In short, it is not really a veto. If it is perceived in this way, it is because it is seen as a power relationship, which is often the case at present, since this is how it happens. By having legislation, we get out of this veto logic. It is a matter of seeing whether the parties can agree. At the end of the process, which aims to obtain this consent, we can no longer speak of a veto, even if we have the right to say no, because a veto is a refusal that has been expressed from the outset on a question.
So that's the way to look at it. Everyone has something to gain from this. Often one of the very simple ways of getting aboriginal consent is to make them partners in the projects. We're seeing that more and more, and that's one way to deal with the veto issue.