I think we only have a restricted period of time. I'm not using that as a way of excusing not answering the question. I will try to answer it, but it is part of a longer discussion.
The first thing I would say is that within its own jurisdiction the federal government can of course implement UNDRIP. It's entirely within its jurisdiction to do so, but the reality is that the phrase “Canadian law” also includes the provinces as well as first nations, and so far no province has come forward to say that they are going to implement UNDRIP in whole.
My own personal view is that the UN declaration has to be seen as part of a whole range of approaches to first nations issues, in which, frankly, Canada has been very much a participant for the last 50 years. We've seen extraordinary developments in our own country with respect to first nations participation, involvement, consent, and so on. We obviously have to look at our own particular approaches that we've taken under Canadian law, and under the Supreme Court of Canada's quite complex journey that they have taken the country on with respect to the meaning of section 35, and how section 35 implies self-government and implies other inherent rights that are in place.
I don't believe you can have successful development in the traditional territories of the first nations without their consent. I don't believe it's practical to do it, I don't think many companies would want to do it, and I don't think any government would want to impose something on a people who simply don't want that development to take place. My experience has been that in most circumstances people want development to take place as long as it's development that's responsible and sustainable and they can be fully involved and engaged in it.
I think there has to be a real engagement by the federal government and the provinces with the first nations to take the country on a journey to greater clarity with respect to what is involved in this engagement and in the principle of free, prior, and informed consent. I think we will get there. I'm confident we'll get there, but it will take much greater engagement than we've seen so far.
The Federal Court decision in the Northern Gateway case, I think, is a clear indication from the courts that you have to get this engagement right. There are many instances—and that's probably the most high-profile one we can think of—where the courts have said “you just didn't meet the standard”, and that's the standard we have to meet.
I know the phrase “veto” gives everyone a lot of concern, but, practically speaking, even the smallest companies I've dealt with in the far north of Ontario say that if people don't want them there, they're not going there, because they can't physically function there if there's ongoing opposition from people. Look at the dispute around Muskrat Falls in the last two weeks. Given the level of confrontation and the difference of opinion, the fact of the matter was that there had to be a resolution. You need to find practical solutions to these things without seeing it as a decision that's always going to be decided by the courts.
I think we're moving to the point where it's governments that are going to have to take more of these decisions and be further engaged in that.