Debates of Feb. 26th, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his service. I would like to mention that, in my riding of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, Base Borden is very close to me, and I have been getting the same calls that he is getting.

Knowing that my colleague has served and been there, why does he feel that the Liberals have been so negligible in their attitude toward veterans, and what can we do as the opposition to try to help them out through this cause when they need it the most?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have visited the base in my colleague's riding, and I know there are a lot of veterans who are retiring in his area. I thank them for their service.

It is true that Conservatives are getting phone calls. Even the Liberals are getting phone calls about veterans and the way they have been treated. It is being ignored and can no longer be ignored. As the Conservative Party, we need to be raising the standard for veterans and letting them know that we are here to support them and that they deserve the basic rights they are entitled to.

They should be allowed to have that money. It should be flowing into their accounts. They should not be getting letters in their mailboxes telling them that they owe $42,000 and that their homes are on the line. That is not the way a country repays its veterans for the freedoms we have in this nation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member was wrong when he made the assertion that veterans offices were not closed. There were nine veterans offices that were in fact closed.

The government has worked and will continue to work closely with veterans to ensure we are there for them, not only for the short term but also for the long term.

Can the member confirm and will he admit that there were nine offices that were actually closed?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his service.

In the four years that I have been here, we have had five ministers of this department, and there have been nine ministers over the last 10 years. The government clearly does not care about veterans.

It is time to stop. It is time to thank the veterans, repay them and let them know that we care.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to be talking about two themes: the first is property rights and the second is the economics of the Alto project. My comments on both are in the context of the part of the budget implementation act that deals with the proposed high-speed rail network and the Alto train, which would run 1,000 kilometres from Quebec City to Toronto at a cost estimate of $60 billion to $90 billion.

I am going to start with property rights because the proposed corridor of 1,000 kilometres would run through my constituency. There are two proposed routes that would go through my constituency: a northern route and a southern route. Whichever one is chosen, people who live on that route would be negatively affected, and I thought I would talk a bit about how they would be affected.

Let me start by telling members my own position on property rights. This is an issue that is near and dear to me. It is an issue on which I proposed a constitutional amendment, an amendment to the Charter of Rights, to include property rights. The formula which I suggested, because one speaks in general language in bills of rights and charters of rights, is to say that, when property is taken or its use infringed upon for a government purpose, the owners ought to have a right to full, just and timely compensation. All three of those principles are violated by the expropriation and land use restriction regime proposed under the budget implementation act for Alto.

Alto has published a plan of rough estimates for where the corridors would be. These rough estimates show corridors roughly 10 kilometres wide. It varies along the route. I assume Alto is in the process of doing some geological work to determine where it wants to go. The process that has been outlined for us says that, at the end of this year either the northern or the southern route will be chosen, and additionally, the corridor for the potential rail line will be narrowed to about a kilometre wide. I am not sure if that is actually what will happen, but that is what it has planned to happen.

Within that one kilometre-wide corridor, a thousand kilometres long, and therefore a thousand square kilometres, Alto would have the power to expropriate. This expropriation would occur with a Crown corporation, which includes private investors, and it would do this using expropriation powers normally only exercised by government. That is an extraordinary shift. Additionally, a series of protections for property owners would be stripped away.

The first thing that would happen is that Alto would look and then say it might run along a certain part within that kilometre-wide corridor. It might not, but it is not sure, so it is going to put a property development freeze on all properties that it might go through. Will that be every property within the kilometre-wide corridor? We do not know yet, but a freeze on property, that is to say that someone cannot develop or improve their property, has a real financial impact.

Under the Expropriation Act, this kind of freeze is permitted, and it can be for up to 120 days. Under the new legislation, it would be for up to two years. During those two years, someone would not be able to do anything to their property. If they tried to, they could be fined through what are called administrative monetary penalties, and they can be ruinous penalties.

It is a bit difficult, from the legislation, to determine exactly what those penalties would be. It appears to me that they could be as high as $20,000 per offence, and individual offences that continue over a period of time could result in multiple fines. That, I think, is enough to ensure that anyone would, indeed, not develop their property.

After Alto has built its rail and decided which properties it actually wants, someone's property might be released, at which point they have the right to seek compensation for the loss in value. However, that is a long, slow process, and this would affect thousands of properties, maybe tens of thousands of properties. I actually do not know how many there will be in the as yet undefined corridor.

All these properties would be involved, with people trying to seek compensation, and each one would have to be a negotiated settlement. I think it is safe to say that, for many people, the payback would be less than it was worth or they would simply give up and never actually seek the money that was taken from them. That is for the people who would have a property freeze placed on them.

Will there be any compensation for people whose property value is diminished because the Alto line runs through, cutting the community in half? No, there will be no compensation for those folks. It will significantly affect property values, landlocked properties, properties that can no longer be accessed with ease, properties where formerly people could get to them by simply crossing and driving down the road, where now the road is bisected. Presumably hundreds of roads will be bisected.

Alto will have a strong incentive to try and make it as minimal as possible, the number of roads on which overpasses are built. There is a reason for that: Overpasses cost money. I have heard estimates that a single overpass is as high as $50 million, but I have found some evidence that it may be as low as $20 million. Whatever the case is, multiply that by a few hundred, and we can see that Alto, which is trying to be a profit-making company, is going to finance this money through floating a bond. It is going to have a very strong incentive to be as ruthless as possible and have as few overpasses as possible.

I was wondering: How many overpasses might there be? It is hard to estimate exactly, but I did take some highway construction for property near places where I live or have lived. I used to live on Phelan Road in what is now part of the extended city of Ottawa. Highway 416 was built south of the city. That road was cut off, and so where people could have crossed and talked to their neighbour within a five-minute walk, they now have to drive seven kilometres in one direction, cross over the highway and go seven kilometres back, 14 kilometres in total.

Similarly, east of Ottawa, there is a spot where I go camping. My mother-in-law owns a campground there. To get across Highway 417, people have to drive seven kilometres in one direction, cross over and drive six kilometres back. I have several other examples I could give, but I think the point is made. This is going to divide communities, slow down emergency response times and so on.

Now, in the three remaining minutes I have, I want to talk about the costs of Alto. I do not think we grasp just how badly costed-out this really is. A cost range was given. These were stabs in the dark, frankly. Let us say it is $90 billion. There are 40 million people in Canada, 10 million families of four, and $90 billion divided by 10 million is $9,000 for every single Canadian family of four across the country. It does not matter if they live in Nunavut and will never even see this rail, because every Canadian family is paying $9,000. Every Canadian family across the country is paying for something that is going to service people only in that narrow corridor. The people whose properties will be sliced up are paying $9,000 too. Is that number to be taken seriously? That, in itself, is mind-blowingly high. It is higher than our entire national deficit this year.

As it turns out, there is a fascinating paper written by Prof. Bent Flyvbjerg, who is the professor and founding chair of program management at the Saïd Business School at Oxford University. He writes this, in a recent paper about megaprojects in general:

Performance data for megaprojects speak their own language. Nine out of ten such projects have cost overruns; overruns of up to 50% in real terms are common, over 50% are not uncommon.

Then he provides a list. I will just read some of the rail projects:

The Shinkansen Joetsu high-speed rail line in Japan is somewhat comparable, at a 100% cost overrun; the Boston–New York–Washington Railway, U.S.A., a 130% cost overrun, the Copenhagen Metro, Denmark, a 150% overrun; the Montreal Metro Laval extension, Canada, a 160% overrun; the Minneapolis Hiawatha light rail line, U.S.A., a 190% overrun; and the Troy and Greenfield Railroad, U.S.A., 900%. That, perhaps, is an outlier, but it makes the point.

He says shortfalls of 50% are also not uncommon:

Combine the large cost overruns and benefit shortfalls with the fact that business cases, cost–benefit analyses, and social and environmental impact assessments are typically at the core of planning and decision making for megaprojects and we see that such analyses can generally not be trusted. For example, for rail projects, an average cost overrun of 44.7% combines with an average demand shortfall of 51.4%.

I will stop there and go to questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, you know, as the government moves to build Canada strong, there are members of the Conservative Party who have made it very clear that they oppose the Canada Infrastructure Bank in every way and that they oppose the fast-train project, which is a very important project for Ontario and the province of Quebec. Based on what the member has said in regard to that particular project, I am interested in knowing whether he actually supports pipelines in the province of Alberta being expanded. In particular, does he support in full the MOU that was signed off by the Premier of Alberta and the Prime Minister of Canada?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I lack the expertise to give an intelligent response to that question, which is clearly designed just to divert me from the issue of this mind-blowingly expensive project that would destroy lives, ruin property rights and ruin communities that I represent. It would destroy people's lives. That is what is at stake here. The costs of this would be just insane for every single Canadian, including the member. He gets a nice big salary for his $9,000.

However, for people who are never going to be around this, how would this be beneficial to them? Why on earth should people in British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland pay for this, so that people who live in downtown Toronto or Montreal can get back and forth and shave 90 minutes off their travel time?

If I lived beside the train station and I could get that benefit tomorrow, not 10 years out, and it is $9,000 for my family, I would not go for it. It is a terrible cost proposition for someone in that situation, and it is an insane cost proposition for someone who happens to live somewhere else. Worst of all is being a property owner and seeing one's property destroyed and one's life destroyed and then being told, “Now here is the tax bill for this thing we have done to screw you over.”

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about the problems with the budgeting for the train, and that is the capital budget alone. I wonder if he could educate us a bit as well about the subsidy the government would have to give, on an ongoing annual basis, in order to run that train, and how much it would cost per Canadian or per rider in order to have a high-speed train with no passengers on it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the end, the cost is going to be zero, because there is no way that this insane project is actually going to make its way through. We do not have the money to spend $90 billion, which is the estimate. We do not have the money for that. We will spend $3 billion or $4 billion, do a series of expropriations and destroy lives, and then, like the Pickering airport, it will be shut down, unfinished, with no benefit except to the consultants. That is what is going to happen.

However, in the event it actually went through, there is a fascinating estimate. Alto projects 24 million riders per year, which turns out to be significantly higher than the number of people travelling between Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto right now by rail, air and road combined, so somehow, people who are not travelling at all would start travelling because of this amazing transportation hub.

We have a pretty good idea that, in practice, if the costs are not very low and the speed is not high, people do not tend to shift to rail unless the travel time is under two hours. Therefore, it is not likely to generate the expected ridership. That means that revenues would be very low and the subsidies would be in the multiple billions of dollars every year. Again, we cannot afford this.

I suspect that if anything does get built, it will be the Ottawa to Montreal part, at which point the low ridership would show that the whole thing was a catastrophe and we would stop halfway through, much like we did with the Mirabel airport. It was going to be a giant airport, but once we saw the insane costs and the low usage, the whole thing was shut down.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's excellent analysis on the ROI of the high-speed rail, and particularly the passenger levels, which are unrealistic, and of the fact that there is a lack of a business case here.

Obviously, this is one of the major projects that have been designated. When we were at committee, and we supported Bill C-5 with strong Conservative amendments to improve the bill and pass it through, we heard from a witness who said that if we actually want to increase our GDP, the fastest and best way to do that is to build pipelines to tidewater and get our energy resources to tidewater. In contrast to this investment that is proposed, which would benefit very few people, what are the member's thoughts on that?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is that those are projects that would actually generate expansion to the GDP, because we would be exporting product, whereas this is not going to achieve that goal.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there no way that there could be a recorded vote on an issue as important as this?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Calling for a vote would have to be done by a member of a recognized party.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request that it be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Criminal Code

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures.

Before I begin remarks, I want to recognize one of the most important aspects of this bill: how it was developed. This is survivor-centred, indigenous-led legislation. This legislation exists because survivors had the courage to speak when silence might have been easier. I want to recognize and thank those who came forward, shared their truths and stood not only for themselves but for so many others.

As I read the names, I ask for leniency if I mispronounce any: Jackie Kistabish, Algonquin, from Val-d'Or, Quebec; Kahsenniyo Kick, Mohawk, from Six Nations, Ontario; Sylvia Nepinak, Anishnawbek, from Minegoziibe first nation, Manitoba; Sylvia McKay, Cree, from Peepeekisis, Saskatchewan; Heather Bear, Cree, Saskatchewan; Germaine Henry, Cree, from Chacachas, Saskatchewan; Chasity Kyplain, Cree, from Yellow Quill, Saskatchewan; Nicole Rabbit, Kainai Blood Tribe and Blackfoot, from Treaty 7, Alberta; Lois Cardinal, Cree, from Saddle Lake, Alberta; Nilak Ironhawk-Tommy, Inuit, from Cowichan, British Columbia; Susan Anderson, Métis, from Region 6; and so many more. Their strength, leadership and willingness to relive painful experiences have made this moment possible, and because of them, Parliament will hopefully act.

I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Harmony Redsky, executive director of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, and to the staff, volunteers and supporters whose tireless advocacy has ensured that survivors' voices are heard and respected and that their calls for justice could no longer be ignored.

They are not alone. People First of Canada and Inclusion Canada, formerly the Canadian Association for Community Living, are two other organizations that are standing up for persons with intellectual disabilities, like Roy Skoreyko, a People First self-advocate and member of the Inclusion Canada board, who was also sterilized at an institution at the age of 16 and who now continues to advocate for other survivors.

This legislation addresses a profound injustice, one that Canadians assume belongs to a distant past, but it does not. Forced and coerced sterilization is not historical. It is not theoretical. It is happening in Canada today, and that is why Parliament must act.

Bill S-228 builds on earlier legislation first introduced by Yvonne Boyer in the Senate as Bill S-250. Its purpose is clear: to strengthen the Criminal Code so that forced or coerced sterilization is explicitly recognized within the law as a serious form of aggravated assault. The bill would create a legislative framework that acknowledges this practice as part of Canada's broader legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism, which has disproportionately affected indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities.

This issue has also been recognized at the national level. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls documented the history of forced sterilization as a tool used to control and diminish indigenous populations with lasting and intergenerational impacts.

For decades, Canada has carried the painful legacies of eugenics and reproductive control. Beginning in the 1920s, sterilization policies emerged across the country, targeting those deemed unfit. These practices were formalized in provincial law in Alberta and British Columbia until their repeal in 1970. However, the repeal of those laws did not end the mindset that made them possible.

The practice persisted after formal eugenics policies ended and continues to be reported today. Media reports in 2015 prompted an external review in Saskatoon, which confirmed that indigenous women had been subjected to coerced sterilization and called for reparations, cultural safety measures and legal reform. That review helped bring national and international attention to the issue and contributed to multiple ongoing class action lawsuits.

Survivors continue to report being pressured, misled, threatened and sterilized without full and informed consent, often during the most vulnerable moments of their lives: during labour, immediately after childbirth or while under medication and distress. Some were told their babies might be taken away if they refused. Others were told the procedure was reversible, but it was clearly not. Some did not understand the forms they were asked to sign, and some of them were never told at all. This is not informed consent. Consent obtained through pressure, fear, misinformation or exhaustion is not consent. It is coercion.

The consequences of forced sterilization extend beyond physical harm. Survivors describe lifelong grief, trauma, the loss of identity and a profound sense of violation. For indigenous women, the harm is even deeper. In many indigenous world views the ability to bring children into the world is not only personal but also cultural, spiritual and connected to the survival and continuity of community.

This issue does not affect indigenous women alone. The committee has heard evidence that other groups were also at heightened risk levels, such as women with disabilities, women living with HIV and institutionalized persons, among so many others. In each case, multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination increase vulnerability to reproductive rights violations. Preventing a woman from having children without her consent is not simply a medical violation. It is an assault on dignity, autonomy and self-determination. It disrupts families. It fractures the trust in the health care system, and its effects echo across generations.

Forced and coerced sterilization does not occur in isolation. It is rooted in systemic racism, colonial assumptions and harmful stereotypes such as the belief that some women are unfit to be mothers, that some lives are less valued or that some communities should be controlled rather than supported.

While much of the testimony and evidence we have heard focuses on the experiences of women, particularly indigenous women, it is important to recognize that this issue is not confined to one gender. Sterilization procedures affect people of all sexes, and the principle at stake is universal. Every person has the right to bodily autonomy and to make free and informed decisions about their reproductive future. Historically, men and boys were also subjected to sterilization under eugenic policies, and today individuals across diverse communities, including intersex persons and others facing medical vulnerability, may be at risk when power imbalances and inadequate consent policies exist.

At its core, this is not just a women's-only issue. It is a human rights issue. It is about the fundamental right of every person in Canada to control their own body, free from pressure, coercion or discrimination. When survivors speak of being judged, dismissed or pressured by authority figures, they are describing not individual failures but systemic ones, and when people lose trust in the health care system, the consequences extend far beyond reproductive health. Care is delayed, services are avoided and health care outcomes worsen.

The bill is therefore not only about criminal law but about rebuilding trust. Some have asked why new legislation is necessary. Do existing criminal code provisions not already cover assault? Technically, they might, but in practice, they have not. Despite years of reports and testimony, the Standing Committee on Human Resources found that forced and coerced sterilization is continuing today and is both under-reported and underestimated. The committee also found that these practices disproportionately affect indigenous women, women with disabilities and racialized women, and the list goes on, including institutionalized persons. The problem is not simply the absence of law; it is the absence of clarity.

When the Criminal Code does not explicitly name a harm, enforcement becomes uncertain and investigations unfortunately stall. Prosecutors hesitate and survivors lose confidence that the system will take their experiences seriously. This bill, Bill S-228, would make it explicit, for greater certainty, that performing a sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault under section 268. It would not create a new offence, but would strengthen the application of the existing law. It would send a clear message that the conduct is criminal, serious and unacceptable.

The legislation would also clarify the legal consequences. Anyone who performs or participates in coercive actions to cause a sterilization without consent would be guilty of an indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. At the same time, the bill would establish clear safeguards to protect patient autonomy and ensure ethical medical practices.

Let me also address a concern that has been raised. Bill S-228 would not restrict access to voluntary sterilization. It would not interfere with reproductive choice. It would not criminalize legitimate medical practice or emergency care performed in good faith.

Where sterilization is requested, medical practitioners must ensure that consent is truly informed, truly voluntary and free from external pressure. Patients must be informed of alternative contraception options, must understand that consent can be withdrawn at any time and must be given a final opportunity to withdraw immediately before the procedure. Consent would also be deemed invalid if the individual is under 18, incapable of consenting or has not initiated a voluntary request. The bill targets only one thing, sterilization without consent, nothing more and nothing less.

Survivors asked for criminalization. They testified before Senate committees. They shared their stories, often at great personal cost, so that this practice could be recognized and stopped. The Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights studied the issue. Its first recommendation was clear that legislation should be introduced to prohibit forced and coerced sterilization. Bill S-228 is Parliament's response to that recommendation.

When survivors tell us what justice requires, it is our responsibility to listen and to act. Some have suggested that education and policy reform alone would be sufficient. Yes, education, cultural safety and health system reform are essential, but education without accountability does not prevent abuse.

Clear legal consequences matter for three reasons. The first is deterrence. Providers and institutions know there are serious consequences for violating consent. The second is accountability. When harm occurs, there is a clear legal pathway to investigate and prosecute. The third is recognition. Survivors see that the law acknowledges what happened to them as a serious violation of their rights, and for many survivors that recognition matters deeply. It tells them that their voices were heard, that what happened to them was wrong and that they will not be ignored.

Passing Bill S-228 will not undo the harms of the past, but it is a concrete step forward to ensuring that such harm does not continue. Reconciliation requires accountability and action. This bill I feel is both.

The urgency of this legislation could not be overstated. Cases have been reported as recently as this year. Every day that passes without clear legal protection is another day when someone could face pressure, coercion or violation at one of the most vulnerable times of their life. This is not an abstract policy debate or about whether a woman leaving a hospital will still have the reproductive future she chooses for herself, but about whether our health care system can protect someone's autonomy or override it.

I understand my time is coming to an end, so I ask members to understand that Bill S-228 would affirm that no one's reproductive future can be taken from them without consent. Forced and coerced sterilization is one of the most serious violations of bodily autonomy and human dignity. It is time to act, and we should do it now.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing this very important issue to the House and making sure that he acknowledged those victims. I share with the member opposite the sense of urgency in getting this legislation through as quickly as possible. I have talked to Mi'kmaq people who have been impacted by this. They have asked that we move speedily to ensure we get this through.

The member and I have had good conversations at the INAN committee. He is a respected member of that committee. I am wondering if the member sees any value in potentially seeking unanimous consent so that we can move this to the indigenous and northern affairs committee to ensure that we get this done within the next few weeks, potentially months, for these survivors, so this never happens again.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I are good friends on the INAN committee. To those survivors who may be in Ottawa today, I think this is welcome news. I do not think the member could see because he was looking this way, but by the looks on their faces, it meant a lot. I think that is a fantastic idea.

I want to thank every party in the Parliament. Every party has jumped on board to support the legislation. I welcome the member's offer.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for tabling this bill before the House. Does he agree that the full and active participation of organizations representing first nations is an essential condition and a fundamental prerequisite for any reform?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank the Bloc side for, from what I hear, its support on the bill. Like I said, all parties have been deeply involved in this and have given it a lot of thought. The back and forth between all parties has been very respectful. I think we all agree that harm has been done in the past.

I agree with the member. There was intense consultation done across the country by the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, among others who reached out. It seems there is widespread agreement that the legislation is a good thing and needs to happen as quickly as possible.