I do believe that's one of the benefits that MPAs will provide into the future. It wouldn't be an immediate effect, because, as Mr. Turris was saying, some species do take a long time to build up that level of biomass in the number of fish.
In terms of the history of fishing, what we see now, as my colleagues are saying, is that the management of the current fisheries is quite good in British Columbia. However, that doesn't consider some of the fisheries that are no longer commercially viable, and that we, hence, don't talk about; some of the species that are considered as concerns by COSEWIC; and some of the ones we don't know anything about. It does mean that there is still some concern about some of the stocks, such as eulachon. The reduction fishery in the forties and fifties caught a lot of the small pelagic fish, including some that haven't recovered since. It even goes back to whaling. We used to have a lot more species of whales and fur seals and so on. Some are recovering, and some have not recovered. The ecosystem now is quite different from what it used to be.
MPAs can provide potential recovery for some of those species, and they do provide some added certainty and less variability into the future, including, potentially, under climate change. It has been shown that MPAs tend to be more resilient to additional stressors, such as changing temperatures. They don't prevent climate change, of course, but they can be another safety mechanism, like putting your money into a bank where you get a bit of the interest every year. This is the kind of spillover you might get from MPAs.