Madam Chair, I'm not so sure that would accomplish anything really. The bottom line is that when you're talking about the sustainability of fish stocks or rebuilding the fish stocks, there are a lot of important decisions to be made.
Obviously we don't want to see the catastrophe of 1992 repeated with the northern cod stock in Newfoundland and Labrador. The whole intent of this amendment is to put into place something that requires the department and the minister to make good sound judgments and decisions around fish stocks, based on the science and what we save year over year.
As an example, in 2018, we had some decline in the northern cod stock that we didn't expect in Newfoundland and Labrador, so we expect that the minister will try to bring in some measures that allow that stock to continue to build, even though the biomass is much bigger than it was 20 years ago. It is much larger. Nevertheless, that is the whole intent of this amendment.
I don't see the reasoning behind putting in any kind of time limit here, or trying to suggest that we have a certified timeline for this kind of amendment. I don't support that, Madam Chair.