I'll turn this over to Kevin shortly, but I think those papers were based on a couple of assumptions. First off, when you have a species at risk, there is a requirement under the Species at Risk Act to protect critical habitat. That has not changed with the changes to the Fisheries Act. That level of protection is expected and is an obligation that government has under the Species at Risk Act.
The other assumption that I think was made in the underpinning of that paper was that if there were no fishery in an area, there would be no protection. Now, that would assume that this is how we would be administering the new act, and that's not necessarily the case. If there is a licence that covers that area, then that is a possible fishery. Therefore, I think the basic premise of the paper was perhaps not based on where we're going.
I'll turn it over to Kevin.