The first six paragraphs of this article could well be a sound and sensible legal analysis, Everything else is solely the political opinion of the author. Writing articles like this makes it sound that the whole article rests on the law, and the author's legal expertise,. This is simply not true. The  arguments that Canada, and the Federal government, should: (i) see the Courts as a minimum floor, (ii) move to "true" reconciliation, (iii) move to full legal implementation of UNDRIP (i.e. particularly the principle of "free, prior, and informed consent"), and (iv) engage in nation-to-nation consultations are simply opinions, not evidence or legal based policy recommendations. One could also interpret the Supreme Court as saying that: (i) UNDRIP, in its pure form, is not legal in this country, (ii) the issue is not the NEB, but the exact details and quality of the consultation process, and (iii) the Clyde River example showed poor consultation, and nothing more than that.