Mr. Chairman, several years ago there was a private member's motion passed in the House of Commons on custodial management. There were approximately 200 members of the House of Commons who voted on that motion, a private member's motion. I'm assuming that every member who voted on that motion knew what they were voting on. At least I can assume that 200 members of the House of Commons had a definition explained to them by the individual who moved the motion to the extent that they felt comfortable either voting for or against the motion.
I was extremely surprised when the former minister, Minister Hearn, stated that the Government of Canada had achieved custodial management. We were all bewildered. Of course, that position has been repeated by his successor. Clearly, the definition of custodial management that David Vardy and I framed, along with Premier Wells at the time—I think it was in 1992 or thereabouts—was understood in the context of Canada asserting management on behalf of the international community.
Now people say that's a novel idea and it doesn't have any international precedence, but I think it was Professor Saunders who basically referenced Antarctica almost as being an area under custodial management, because at least four or five countries, probably more now, have taken it upon themselves to research and what have you to safeguard and understand the dynamics of the continent.
Custodial management and management by NAFO are two different animals. They're poles apart. That's why I was extremely surprised when Minister Hearn said we had basically achieved custodial management. Then, of course, he finished the phrase by saying, “through NAFO”. Well, it didn't meet the test.