Having it both ways

In replying to Kelvin Parsons clever, clever question holding Loyola Hearn to account in the provincial House of Assembly yesterday, Backuppable says:

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer that question, but let me attempt an answer by saying this. The people who were adjacent to that resource - we had historic presence and usage in it then there had been an assignment to Newfoundland and Labrador. The people who were adjacent to that resource, the inhabitants of Nunavut, were not consulted. They had no knowledge that this was happening.

Nunavut: adjacent to the (turbot) resource in question. Very good. Nice to see someone in Newfoundland acknowledging that.

But "we had historic presence and usage"?

Mkay.

If Newfoundland can make that argument in respect of NAFO division 0B, which is at least 1000 miles, and up to 1300 miles, as the crow flies, not as the boat sails, from Burgeo... then what's to stop the other four Atlantic coastal provinces, American states as far south as the Carolinas, or even Bermuda or the Azores, all of which are just as close or closer to Newfoundland waters as Burgeo is to 0B, and all of which have some historical connection to Newfoundland waters, from making the exact same argument?

Either adjacency is sacrosanct, or historical attachment is, but not both.