On the issue of consultation, I think the Canadian courts have said more than probably any other court system in the world, in many ways. There are particular decisions from other jurisdictions that may be inspiring in particular ways. There's an ongoing judicial conversation that takes place between jurisdictions, and so the Canadian courts have heard about New Zealand decisions recently and considered them in the context of some of their indigenous rights cases. The New Zealand courts have heard about Canadian cases. I don't think anything jumps out, though, as something Canada needs to start considering specifically out of foreign courts' case law.
There are some very different models elsewhere. I'll just highlight that Canada, in having a constitutional provision on indigenous rights, is also situated differently from some other countries. Australia does many similar things on indigenous rights in some ways, and not in others, but it does those in the context of title under a statute passed by the Commonwealth parliament in Australia rather than out of an accumulation of court decisions, as in Canada. That's the structure under which indigenous industry agreements arise: under provisions that they have shaped and reshaped within a statute rather than within court decisions, as has often occurred in Canada.