We applaud Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development Minister Stephen Kakfwi for going that extra mile today.

Kakfwi, who recently was given verbal support from Vancouver-based Aber Resources that a portion of rough diamonds produced at the Diavik mine should be kept in the North for Northern producers, now must convince Aber's co-investor in the mine and majority shareholder, Rio Tinto, to do the same.

Kakfwi put the socio-economic deal with Diavik on hold until he met these officials. Today's mission, that will take him to Rio Tinto's London office, is an easy one. He's got to make them understand that a secondary industry is part of the deal. If there's no secondary industry there's no deal. It's that simple.

The recent moratorium on development brought down by the Akaitcho Treaty 8 may seem like an extreme step, but it is not a hard one to understand.

The sense of frustration evident in not only the Akaitcho negotiation but many others as well. It is becoming clear that things are not going to be settled and the necessary questions of who will be responsible for what are not going to be answered without a dedicated push from all parties involved.

But even that leads to another question: just who are the parties involved?

One of the points the Akaitcho has brought up is whether or not the Government of the Northwest Territories should be sitting at the table at all.

While the federal government says the GNWT must be present at both the bargaining table and the signing of the finalized agreement -- if and when that ever happens -- the Akaitcho say it's unnecessary and pointless.

It's entirely possible they have a point.

The original treaty was between the Akaitcho and the federal government. The terms to be worked out are to be worked out between the Akaitcho and the federal government. What does the GNWT have to add to this discussion? It has been made abundantly clear in a number of ways that the GNWT is at the mercy of the feds because the feds refuse to turn over control of resources and incomes to the territory. Therefore, the territorial government has no bargaining chips to bring to the table.

Before these talks can get back on track, and it would be a shame to flush 28 years of negotiations down the tubes, the feds have got to bend a little and give up some of the power it seems to be hoarding to itself.

Either give the GNWT enough authority to actually make a difference at the table, or sit down with the Akaitcho by themselves and hammer it out. Either way, let's take a little responsibility here.

Anyone banking on Nunavut benefitting from the current review of the federal policy used to determine fishing quotas for the regions had better think again.

Though the bureaucrats are no doubt proceeding with the best of intentions, the review will not deal with the main obstacle to a fair and equitable distribution of fishing rights -- politics. The Maritime Provinces together account for 32 seats in the House of Commons. Nunavut has one.

What political party or government would jeopardize 32 seats to get one? How likely is it that a politician will sacrifice the interests of his or her constituents for the sake of fairness?

What is needed even more than a review of policy is an independent organization to oversee distribution of fishing rights.

Question: What difference does it make if a polar bear killed by the federal government or the Nunavut government? Answer: About $3,500.

At least that's the difference if the bear is counted against your quota.

If such a bear is killed by Environment Canada (the feds), the community is reimbursed $5,000.

If the same bear is killed under GN authority, it's only worth $1,500. Since there's no difference between the bears, you have to wonder where the difference lies.

In all fairness to the Nunavut government, the territorial deal was signed before separation when the government was still dominated by the west: one more reason to be happy about separation.

Still, that kind of a discrepancy should be addressed when you consider the difference it makes to the communities in question.

It is a significant coincidence that the International Year of the Older Person is being celebrated during the first year of Nunavut's actual existence and one which bodes well for the future if one believes in omens.

The three Nunavut regions have already established Elder Councils and the top issues identified so far by these councils are the preservation of Inuit culture and tradition, the passing on of knowledge to younger generations and working to improve the standard of living for Nunavut youth.

It has also been encouraging to hear many of our education leaders speak publicly about the valuable contribution our elders are making in our classrooms, referring to them more as faculty members than figureheads or honourary speakers.

In fact, more and more cultural immersion programs have been popping up in schools and colleges across Nunavut, combining elder knowledge and tradition with modern teaching methods and all have met with rave reviews.

It has long been the platform of our new legislative assembly that the voice of the Nunavut elder is not only one which will be heard, but is regarded as a valuable tool for our new government to use in helping to form new policies and map our ultimate direction.

Filmmakers have come forward to talk about the importance of interviewing our elders to accurately chronicle Inuit legends, culture and tradition while the opportunity to have them passed on by first-person accounts still exists.

Our elders are as valuable a resource in learning from our past history as our youth are in building towards a new future. Together, the wisdom of age and the exuberance of youth form a powerful alliance from which our territory can build.