I guess this message is better delivered to Parks Canada, then, given what happened with both of the examples I used.
I'm a strong supporter of the notion of fish sanctuaries. In Australia about 6% of the marine area has been designated for them. Do you see the creation of fish sanctuaries, where very important breeding, spawning, and nursery habitats are completely off-limits to everybody, with a resultant core of a very high-producing area—I'm not saying it well, but you know what I mean—and then the surrounding area benefiting from these fish sanctuaries?