Well, the good news is that, yes, most of the north is covered by modern land claim settlements, and most of them--in fact, all of them--do contain provisions that anticipate the need to consult with aboriginal groups in decision-making, particularly around environmental assessment processes.
The less ideal news is that those provisions were negotiated before the Supreme Court of Canada had articulated this new common law duty to consult. There was in fact litigation. There was a decision last year from the Supreme Court of Canada--it was called Little Salmon--that addressed the question of what is the interplay between the common law duty and these established settlements.
In fact, the Yukon government--because it was in the Yukon--took the position that the treaty, the modern agreement, completely trumped the common law duty, so that you just looked at the foursquare of the agreement and had no other concerns. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed. They did say that governments should be able to rely on the terms of the agreement to the extent that it overlaps with what the common law duty to consult involved. In many cases, that will be in fact sufficient, but it isn't completely a guarantee that you would never have to turn your mind to the duty to consult.
I'm fairly confident that the sophistication of the environmental assessment regimes under most of the modern treaties will be sufficient to address duty to consult as a common law duty, but it's a step that decision-makers have to think through.