Congratulations to the author and representative for the people at Clyde River on his successful argument in that case before the SCC.  But your reach has over-extended your grasp in suggesting that, where the letter of the law does not provide a veto, then the spirit of "reconciliation" must grant it.   I call BS.   The SCC's decision favouring the Line 9 pipeline proposal confirms there are limits to the consultation process which negate any assumed veto rights.

UN declarations are not law.  UNDRIP is not binding.  Neither was the Kyoto Protocol (and the Paris agreement will ultimately fail too).  They are "aspirational" at best.

The SCC's decisions struck a measured compromise on the issue of FN consultations.  The clarity it provided was constructive and helpful.  Let's not start muddying the waters the very next day with exaggerated interpretations about  SCC decisions being "floors, not ceilings" and assumptions that veto power actually exists when it doesn't.