This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Development of the Nahanni National Park Reserve

Petition

Jan 23, 2008

Petitions
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6 Canada

Nahanni Park

We are writing to express our concern with the consultation process surrounding the development of the Nahanni National Park.

For many months we have expressed this concern to the Prime Minister and the federal ministers responsible for the development of this park. We believe that the consultation process practised by Parks Canada is a sham and lacks transparency and objectivity. We believe that the communities of the Dehcho region of the Northwest Territories and the citizens of Canada are being denied the opportunity to fully understand and comment on the full impact of decisions regarding the development of the park.

Yesterday, representatives of the northern mining industry and some government geologists had their first opportunity to view a presentation by a representative of the Geological Survey of Canada on the Nahanni Park’s Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment (MERA) in Yellowknife. To our knowledge, this is the first presentation of the MERA to anyone with geological credentials. Apparently, this presentation was delivered to some communities in the Dehcho region previously and it is reported that the interpreter indicated that the only words available in the Slavey language, the local aboriginal language, to interpret rock types are “rocks” and “rich rocks”. It seems that Parks has made no attempt to translate the presentation into the aboriginal language of the region. Even if it did, it it difficult to imagine that the average citizen, whether Slavey or English-speaking, could grasp the presentation of complex geological concepts and mineral potential at one sitting.

Understanding of the mineral potential is critical in a region that has high or very high mineral potential and few other economic opportunities other than the resource sector. The MERA presentation indicates that the park would alienate forever about 78% of the area’s highest mineral potential. From the discussion, and our knowledge of mineral occurrences, there is a very high risk factor in predicting the occurrence of economic mineral deposits with so little data. We believe that extreme caution is needed when applying the MERA process to this area and we question the low level of information available to the MERA team when making their assessment of the potential of the area. We understand that we can never know everything before a park is declared but fail to understand why a boundary must be proclaimed about three months after the MERA is released to the public when the land withdrawal for the park study has been enacted for a minimum of five years.

We are also very concerned that Parks has not published a socio-economic report about the park. This is a normal part of the MERA process as spelled out in Parks Canada policy. This would be useful for all concerned when weighing the cost/benefit of alienating 39,800 km² from exploration and development forever. (Nova Scotia’s total area is 55,280 km²). It would communicate more easily understood concepts such as jobs and business and training opportunities to the people of the region. We believe that this would allow the people of the Dehcho and Canada to discuss the conservation and economic development issues in light of better information. In short, the people of the region need time and more balanced and complete information to inform their decision making. This is critical in a region that experiences a 20% unemployment rate. (source: Dehcho Land Use Plan).

We have written previously to the responsible ministers and the Prime Minister in this regard. Copies of correspondence is attached.

We believe that the Government of Canada’s Minerals and Metals Policy as well as the principle of sustainable development are being contravened in the pursuit of this park. We ask that you look into this matter and advise the responsible ministers of their duty to provide for an impartial consultation process to ensure a balance between conservation and economic development objectives. Time is of the essence as we understand that a decision about the final park boundary will be made in the next few weeks.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Lou Covello]

Lou Covello
President

Attachments:

Jan 24, 2008

Petitions
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6 Canada

Nahanni Park – Follow Up Questions

To clarify our letter of Jan 23, 2008 we would pose the following questions:

1. Has the consultation process concerning the Nahanni National Park been conducted in such a manner to ensure that it is:

1. Fair?
2. Transparent?
3. Balanced between conservation and economic development objectives of the government departments involved?

2. Has the Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment (MERA) been conducted with sufficient resources and time to give a true representation of the mineral and energy potential of the area proposed for inclusion in the park?

1. Was sufficient data available to make a reasonable and accurate assessment of the mineral potential?
2. Did the MERA team have sufficient funding necessary to conduct mapping, geophysics and geochemical surveys necessary to ensure that potential significant mineral occurrences were not overlooked?
3. Was the MERA carried out to pre-defined “best practice” minimum standards of data density and integrity over the entire proposed park area?

3. Has there been sufficient independent peer review of the MERA?

4. Option one of the MERA indicates that approximately 78% of the area of high mineral potential will end up off limits forever to exploration and development inside the park boundary. Is this reasonable in terms of the forgone economic opportunities that may accrue to Canada, the NWT and the people of the Dehcho?

5. Is three months a reasonable time for the exploration and mining industry, which has considerable technical ability, to review the documents and initiate meaningful discussion? Particularly when it is considered that the first presentation on Jan. 23 was organized at about four day’s notice. Three industry representatives, only one with geological credentials, were able to participate.

6. Has the MERA been communicated to the people of the communities of the region, the Northwest Territories and Canada in such a way as to be understandable to the average citizen who may be unfamiliar with geological terms and concepts?

7. Was there adequate translation of the MERA to ensure that unilingual Slavey speakers (the region’s aboriginal language) would be able to grasp the concepts and conclusions? Was sufficient time allowed to ensure that a reasonable number of residents of the Dehcho communities understood the MERA?

8. Has a risk assessment been carried out to give decision-makers adequate knowledge of the risks inherent in arriving at the conclusions of the MERA, especially when consideration is given to the high overall mineral potential of the region?

9. Why has a Socio-economic report, normally a part of the MERA process, not been published and discussed with the communities of the region, the Government of the Northwest Territories and generally, the people of Canada?

10. Considering that the proposal would withdraw 39,800 km² of land from exploration and development forever, has Parks Canada justified its rush to conclude the boundary discussions with such a short timeframe?

11. Has the Minister of DIAND fulfilled his role as the land manager of the Northwest Territories to ensure that the principles of sustainable development are applied to this proposed permanent withdrawal of Crown Lands from exploration?

12. Have the people of the region been fully informed of the potential of the proposed park to impede and possibly block future development even outside of the proposed park boundaries?

13. Has the Government of Canada generally paid proper heed the Mineral and Metal Policy?

14. Has the Minister of DIAND taken proper notice of the Northern Mineral Policy?

15. Has the Government of the Northwest Territories carried out its mandate to promote and support meaningful economic development opportunities on behalf of all resident of the NWT?

16. Has the effect of this large land withdrawal, about 70% the size of Nova Scotia) on a region with a high unemployment rate (estimated at 20% according to the draft Dehcho Land Use Plan) been fully considered when weighing the cost/ benefit scenarios?

17. Is it reasonable to consider such a large land withdrawal in this region at a time when the most recent draft of the Dehcho Land Use plan has been sent back to the Planning Committee for further work by the Minister of DIAND?

18. Has the duty of the Crown to consult with and accommodate, where possible, the Aboriginal people of the region been discharged?

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Lou Covello]

Lou Covello
President

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

20 June 2008

Mr. Lou Covello
President
NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines
Box 2818
Yellowknive, Northwest Territories 
X1A 2R1

Dear Mr. Covello:

This is in response to your Environmental Petition sent February 6, 2008, to the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development concerning the Nahanni Park.

As one of the federal government departments identified in your request for information, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is providing you with the attached comprehensive response to your questions. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition, and trust that you will find the information useful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Chuck Strahl

Encl.

c.c.: Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, FCA
The Honourable John Baird, PC, MP
The Honourable Gary Lunn, PC, MP

Environmental Petition No. 239—Nahanni Park
Questions Assigned to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and their Responses

Question 8 

Has a risk assessment been carried out to give decision makers adequate knowledge of the risks inherent in arriving at the conclusions of the MERA, especially when consideration is given to the high overall mineral potential of the region?

Response:

A risk assessment is part of the process that will lead to a recommendation by the Senior Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment (MERA) Committee on a boundary for an expanded Nahanni National Park Reserve. This assessment examines the areas of high mineral and energy potential for the major deposit types identified in the MERA analysis, economic development potential and a range of park establishment criteria for several boundary scenarios. For each boundary option, the risk of not meeting any of these components is assessed and presented to the Senior MERA Committee to aid them in their recommendation to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Question 9 

Why has a socio-economic report, normally a part of the MERA process, not been published and discussed with the communities of the region, the Government of the Northwest Territories and generally, the people of Canada?

Response:

As part of the MERA process, the Senior MERA Committee is provided with an analysis of the economic and strategic values of the park study area to the territory and Canada. To assist in this analysis, a socio-economic impact study was completed as per terms of reference developed by MERA departments. The completed study was provided to the MERA partners, including the Government of the Northwest Territories. A summary of the results pertaining to benefits from potential mineral and energy development scenarios in the Nahanni watershed, along with the actual MERA assessment and other park feasibility studies was presented for input during community consultations and stakeholder meetings on park expansion from October 2007 to March 2008.This is consistent with the process followed in other recent MERAs.

Question 11 

Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development fulfilled his role as the land manager of the Northwest Territories to ensure that the principles of sustainable development are applied to this proposed permanent withdrawal of Crown Lands from exploration?

Response:

Order-in-Council P.C. 2007-1202 dated July 31, 2007, withdrew lands from disposal on an interim basis, as requested by Parks Canada to: “… allow the parties to continue feasibility studies on the proposal to expand the Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Dehcho.” The Order expires October 31, 2008.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will ensure that before these lands are permanently withdrawn from disposal, INAC’s principles of sustainable development are applied. The applicant may obtain additional information on INAC’s principles at http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/sd/princ_e.html.

Question 14 

Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development taken proper notice of the Northern Mineral Policy?

Response:

The Northern Mineral policy was drafted and approved in 1986. Although the policy has not been updated, the principles identified in the policy, which drive northern development, are still relevant. Since the policy was developed, the negotiation and settlement of Land Claims, the establishment of new conservation initiatives and the land use planning processes have provided certainty as to where development can occur. This is consistent with the principles identified in the 1986 Northern Mineral Policy.

Question 17

Is it reasonable to consider such a large land withdrawal in this region at a time when the most recent draft of the Dehcho Land Use Plan has been sent back to the Planning Committee for further work by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?

Response:

The size of the interim land withdrawal for the proposed expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve is intended to allow for the process of deciding what the most appropriate permanent boundary should be for the proposed expanded Nahanni National Park Reserve. The position taken by Canada's Chief Federal Negotiator on the balance between conservation and development in the Dehcho Region included the proposed expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve boundaries. The Interim Dehcho Land Use Plan currently being negotiated between the Dehcho First Nation, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada has, as its goal, the balance between conservation and development as identified by Canada's Chief Federal Negotiator. The Interim Dehcho Land Use Plan also recognizes that the boundaries of the proposed expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve have not been finalized. The Interim Plan states that the zone will be revised to address the outcome of the boundary process and that any area not contained within the proposed Park boundary will be zoned for some type of development.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Natural Resources Canada

5 June 2008

Mr. Lou Covello
President
NWT & Nunavut and Chamber of Mines
P.O. Box 2818
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories
X1A 2R1

Dear Mr. Covello:

I am pleased to provide Natural Resources Canada’s response to your Environmental Petition no. 239 relating to the proposed Nahanni Park expansion - Follow-up questions, submitted to the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on January 29, 2008. The petition was received in the Department of Natural Resources on February 6, 2008.

Enclosed are responses to questions that are covered under the purview of Natural Resources Canada. I understand that my colleagues the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, will be responding separately to questions that fall under their mandates.

I trust that you will find the information provided by these responses useful.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources]

The Honourable Gary Lunn, P.C., M.P.

c.c.: Distribution

- Mr. Scott Vaughan,
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

- The Honourable Chuck Strahl, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

- The Honourable John Baird, P.C., M.P.
Minister of the Environment

Environmental Petition 239

NRCan Response to Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 13

Question 2

Has the Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment (MERA) been conducted with sufficient resources and time to give a true representation of the mineral and energy potential of the area proposed for inclusion in the park?

1. Was sufficient data available to make a reasonable and accurate assessment of the mineral potential?
2. Did the MERA team have sufficient funding necessary to conduct mapping, geophysics and geochemical surveys necessary to ensure that potential significant mineral occurrences were not overlooked?
3. Was the MERA carried out to pre-defined “best practice” minimum standards of data density and integrity over the entire proposed park area?

NRCan Response

Consistent with the terms of reference of the MERA process, the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) developed the science work plan and budget to conduct the field work and analyses necessary to produce a sound and extensive assessment of the mineral and energy resource potential of the proposed Nahanni expansion area of interest. This work plan and budget were approved by the interdepartmental and intergovernmental Senior MERA committee.

a) Details of the extensive field work, data collection and analyses supporting the Nahanni MERA are publicly available in the GSC Open Files 1686 and 5344, published in 2003 and 2007 respectively. The assessment was based on four key data sets:

1. geochemistry from 2462 stream sediment and 2068 stream water samples collected at a density of 1/12 km2 over the entire GNE (excluding the existing Nahanni National Park Reserve).
2. 16000 line kilometers of helicopter-borne geophysical data (Gama-Ray spectrometry and magnetic surveys) for three key areas (Prairie Creek, Caribou River-Selena Creek, Cantung).
3. Geochemistry from 155 spring water samples.
4. Updated digital bedrock geology compilation and mineral deposit database substantiated with field studies.

These data were statistically and spatially analyzed using combined knowledge- and data-driven techniques and were integrated in a GIS database to produce mineral potential maps. The data were sufficient to have a reasonable level of confidence in the mineral potential assessment for this area. It should be noted that the approach used is consistent with that followed for reconnaissance level surveys undertaken to identify areas with resource potential warranting further detailed exploration. It should also be noted the purpose of the MERA was not to determine decisively the presence or absence of a mineral occurrence or deposit but to determine geologic domains with high potential for mineral and energy resources.

b) The operations and materials portion of the budget for the MERA studies carried out between 2004 and 2007 was $2.28 million, the largest budget for a MERA conducted to date. This was in addition to the costs, estimated at approximately $1.5 million, associated with earlier MERA studies carried out in the 1980s. This allowed the collection and analysis of the data as outlined in part a) above.

c) The MERA study was carried out using data collection methods, practices and standards established in past MERA studies and following recognized published industry standards. The Nahanni Open Files document the density and methods used for data collection.

Question 3

Has there been sufficient independent peer review of the MERA?

NRCan Response

The MERA results, published as GSC Open File 5344 on November 19, 2007, have had rigorous peer review. Prior to publication, each of the 10 scientific papers in the report went through a peer review using independent government and external geoscience experts and an overall peer review was completed on the compiled report.

Question 4

Option one of the MERA indicates that approximately 78% of the area of high mineral potential will end up off limits forever to exploration and development inside the park boundary. Is this reasonable in terms of the forgone economic opportunities that may accrue to Canada, the NWT and the people of the Dehcho?          

NRCan Response

The consequences of including areas possessing high mineral potential within an expanded Nahanni National Park Reserve is fully considered through the MERA process in terms of the potential loss of future economic opportunities balanced with ecological and other objectives of reserve expansion that would be compromised by future mineral development activities in the areas of high mineral potential.

Question 5

Is three months a reasonable time for the exploration and mining industry, which has considerable technical ability, to review the documents and initiate meaningful discussion? Particularly when it is considered that the first presentation on January 23 was organized at about four day’s notice. Three industry representatives, only one with geological credentials, were able to participate.

NRCan Response

Key technical results of the MERA were presented by NRCan as part of public community consultations organized by Parks Canada on the Nahanni Park Reserve expansion process. These sessions took place in late October of 2007, in Fort Simpson, Fort. Liard, Nahanni Butte, Yellowknife and Ottawa, and were open to all interested parties and stakeholders. The participants were informed that the detailed findings of the MERA study would be released in a publicly available technical report by November 2007.

In mid-November, individual stakeholder meetings were organized by Parks Canada and held in Whitehorse and Vancouver. At these meetings, NRCan presented the MERA results to the mining and exploration companies with interests in the Nahanni region and to senior representatives of the Yukon Territorial Government. The Nahnni MERA report was released publicly on November 19, 2007 as Geological Survey of Canada Open File 5344.

Further stakeholder meetings, organized by Parks Canada, were held in Yellowknife and Norman Wells, between January and March 2008. These included a technical presentation by NRCan of the MERA results to the Northwest Territories Geoscience Office and Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, a plain language presentation to the representatives of the Tulita District National Park Negotiating Committee, and a presentation to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories. In addition, NRCan presented a public poster and met separately with mining and exploration stakeholders at the annual Cordilleran Roundup mining conference in Vancouver (January 28 - February 1, 2008). NRCan also spoke with stakeholders at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference in Toronto (March 1-5, 2008).

At these public and individual stakeholder meetings, participants were encouraged to ask questions, review the technical report and submit comments in writing to NRCan. The technical information (GSC Open File 5344) has now been available for public review for over five months and for over three months since the presentation to the NTGO and NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines on January 23. This is consistent with the MERA Terms of Reference.

Question 13

Has the Government of Canada generally paid proper heed the Mineral and Metal Policy?

NRCan Response

The 1996 Minerals and Metals Policy of the Government of Canada, in reference to proposed protected areas, states that the Government will:

• use the best available scientific, traditional and local knowledge pertaining to the natural environment, the geographic setting, as well as the mineral development potential of the areas, in developing policies and decisions respecting the identification, selection and establishment of protected areas;

• fully take into account the mineral potential of the area in question before taking decisions to create protected areas on federal lands; and,

• take decisions only after stakeholders, especially local and aboriginal communities, industry and non-government organizations, have been consulted.

The federal government has conducted, as part of the park feasibility study process for the park reserve expansion, a number of ecological, traditional use and other studies. The MERA, based on both existing and newly generated geological data, was an essential component of this process providing information for the purpose of identifying areas with mineral development potential. Both the park feasibility study process, incorporating the results of the MERA, and the consideration of mineral development potential by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development through the MERA process fully satisfy the first two commitments stated above.

The third protected areas commitment was addressed through information sessions that have communicated the key results of the MERA in Yellowknife and communities in the Dehcho Region, and direct consultations with representatives of the mining industry, the Government of the Northwest Territories, Yukon Territorial Government and non-government organizations.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Parks Canada Agency

5 June 2008

Mr. Lou Covello
President
NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines
P.O. Box 2818
Yellowknife, Territoires du Nord-Ouest
X1A 2R1

Dear Mr. Covello,

As Minister of the Environment and Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency, I am pleased to provide Parks Canada’s response to your Environmental Petition No. 239, to the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, regarding the consultation process surrounding the development of the Nahanni National Park Reserve. Your petition was received by Environment Canada on February 6.

Enclosed is Parks Canada’s detailed response to questions that were addressed to the Agency and to those questions that fall within the Agency’s mandate.  I understand that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Natural Resources will be responding separately to questions that fall under their mandates.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your petition, and trust that you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by John Baird, Minister of the Environment]

John Baird, P.C. M.P.

Enclosure

c.c.: The Honourable Chuck Strahl, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Gary Lunn, P.C., M.P.
Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Parks Canada’s Response to Environmental Petition No. 239,
regarding the consultation process surrounding the development of the Nahanni National Park Reserve

Question 1:  Has the consultation process concerning the Nahanni National Park been conducted in such a manner to ensure that it is:
a) Fair?
b) Transparent?
c) Balanced between conservation and economic development objectives of the government departments involved?

Response:  While discussion of the expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve began decades ago, the most recent program to expand it began with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between Parks Canada and the Dehcho First Nations in 2003. Since that time, the Nahanni Expansion Working Group has conducted research and consultation on the proposal. There have been many meetings, mail outs, news reports, information available on the internet and much public discussion on this issue. This has been the most active, publicly engaging national park establishment project in northern Canada.

Public consultation regarding the expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve began with meetings in the summer of 2006. Public open houses were held in Fort Liard, Nahanni Butte, Fort Simpson and Yellowknife. A second round of public meetings was held in the same communities, plus Ottawa, in fall 2007. In this second round, which began in October 2007, the full MERA results and three expanded park boundary options were shown and explained.

In addition to the public meetings, officials from Parks Canada and the Geological Survey of Canada met with companies with interests in the area, including War Eagle Mining Co. / Eagle Hill Exploration Corp., North American Tungsten Corp., Archer, Cathro & Associates / ATAC Resources Ltd., Playfair Mining Ltd., and Selwyn Resources Ltd. These officials also met with Yukon Government officials. Parks Canada has met to discuss the park expansion with Canadian Zinc Corporation many times.

Consultation has been in many forms, and in several venues, including meetings on the Dehcho Land Use Plan, meetings with the public, stakeholders and First Nations, information placed on the Parks Canada Web site, and reports and media interviews.

Question 6: Has the MERA been communicated to the people of the communities of the region, the Northwest Territories and Canada in such a way as to be understandable to the average citizen who may be unfamiliar with geological terms and concepts?

Response: The Geological Survey of Canada presented the MERA findings at each of the public meetings. The findings were explained in layman's terms. A poster explaining the results was displayed at each open-house meeting and the geologist discussed it informally with anyone interested. In addition, at each open-house meeting, the MERA results were presented formally as a PowerPoint presentation followed by a question and answer period.

Question 7:  Was there adequate translation of the MERA to ensure that unilingual Slavey speakers (the region's aboriginal language) would be able to grasp the concepts and conclusions? Was sufficient time allowed to ensure that a reasonable number of residents of the Dehcho communities understood the MERA?

Response: One of the members of the Nahanni Expansion Working Group spoke Slavey and translated when required. The presentations were all translated in Nahanni Butte, and some translation was offered in other communities.

Question 10: Considering that the proposal would withdraw 39,800 km2 of land from exploration and development forever, has Parks Canada justified its rush to conclude the boundary discussions with such a short time frame?

Response: The park expansion program began in 2003. It has been five years of research and consultation. The MERA results were first presented to the public in October 2007, along with boundary options. The public has had sufficient time to respond and there has been a good response.

Question 12: Have the people of the region been fully informed of the potential of the proposed park to impede and possibly block future development even outside of the proposed park boundaries?

Response: The proposal to expand Nahanni National Park Reserve has been well communicated and has been the subject of numerous media stories and much public debate. The people of the Dehcho Region and the Northwest Territories have been able to learn about this proposal from many sources and from several points of view.

Question 16: Has the effect of this large land withdrawal, about 70% the size of Nova Scotia on a region with a high unemployment rate (estimated at 20% according to the draft Dehcho Land Use Plan) been fully considered when weighing the cost/benefit scenarios?

Response: It is difficult or impossible to calculate how much, if any, development would accrue from the possibility of mineral deposits. It is more appropriate to examine those areas where industry has made investments, and where development of deposits has begun. The final park boundary decision will take all factors into account.

Question 18:  Has the duty of the Crown to consult with and accommodate, where possible, the Aboriginal people of the region been discharged?

Response: Consultation with the Aboriginal people of the region continues. The program to expand Nahanni National Park Reserve has been managed in close coordination with the Dehcho First Nations. Parks Canada continues to build a relationship with the Kaska Dena First Nations.