Just as a little follow-up quickly, on the 99.9%, I didn't say “fisheries”. I said “commercial use”, and that can be seabed mining, that can be oil and gas exploration, that can be anything.
A low level of protection relates a bit to what I was saying earlier. The level of protection right now is a bit too specific for some species and some threats. What science told us is that things are interconnected. I wanted, actually, to bring something showing the food web, which species eats which species, with the example of cod and capelin in Newfoundland. It's extremely complex. If you're trying to protect only one piece of this puzzle, you may not actually capture the complexity of the system.
High levels of protection have been shown scientifically to work better. That's one of the basic statements in science. It does work. It does not mean that in every case you need a high level of protection. I'm not saying we have to enclose everything in no-take areas. I'm just saying that currently Canada is not doing well compared with most countries, and it's also not doing well compared with scientific advice, scientific advice being about 30% as no take.