To my knowledge, no country has passed an implementation act. However, some countries recognize the declaration in their constitutional legislation. Columbia, for example, has chosen to implement it procedurally. That means it's simply a process. Once the process has been followed, projects can move forward, whether the community is opposed or not.
I have written a number of articles about this with Martin Papillon, both in French and English. We advocate for a more substantive vision of the term. As Ms. Gunn has just explained, consent is a relationship. Take the Cree, for example. They don't say no to a project before having heard about it. Their mining policy says that they will meet with all the interested mining companies and have discussions with them, before deciding whether they are going to move forward or not.
That is the type of relationship we need, a relationship that benefits everyone. Investors will not waste time preparing projects that will never come to fruition, which we are seeing more and more in Canada. In my opinion, the risk is there. We must have a clear process for our expectations, for who must give consent, and for how it is achieved. Communities must be part of that. Free, prior and informed consent is not just for governments, it's also for the communities affected.