Ned Kuruc

“The owner of Stelco bought the company to protect his American business and stopped it from selling steel to the United States. Now 350 steelworkers in Hamilton are losing their jobs. I want the government to take Stelco to court, stop illegal steel dumping, and get a deal with no tariffs on steel.”

“Mr. Speaker, Cleveland-Cliffs’s CEO admitted that he bought Stelco because Canadian steel was hurting his American business. He admitted to blocking Stelco from selling steel to the United States, and now 350 Hamilton steelworkers are losing their jobs. Conservatives demand that the Liberals take Stelco to court, stop illegal steel dumping and secure a tariff-free steel deal. Instead, the Liberals keep sending love letters and extending deadlines. Stelco’s CEO is protecting American profits and his American workers. What are the Liberals doing to protect ours?”

“Given the member's background in economics, does he think the Prime Minister can get the budget under control?”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague this: In his expertise, as he has a background in economics, does he believe that the Prime Minister could actually get this budget under control? What are some of his points about that?”

“Stelco is cutting 350 steel jobs in Hamilton. Conservatives have a five-point plan to save steel jobs: get a trade deal with the U.S., stop illegal steel dumping, end the industrial carbon tax, approve gas projects, and sue Cleveland-Cliffs. Which of these five things has the government done?”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been a month since Stelco announced that 350 Hamilton steelworkers would lose their jobs. Here is the Conservative five-point plan to protect the steel industry and its workers: get a steel deal with the U.S., which the Prime Minister promised a year and a half ago; end illegal foreign steel dumping; get rid of the industrial carbon tax; pre-approve multiple LNG projects; and sue Cleveland-Cliffs for breaking its contract to the Prime Minister. Which of these have you completed?”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “We would get rid of the industrial carbon tax.”

  Said 5 times by 5 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“Stelco laid off 350 steelworkers, but the government is only sending letters and giving more time. They did the same thing with Stellantis, and workers got nothing. I want to know if the Prime Minister will take Cleveland-Cliffs to court, or if this is just an empty threat.”

“Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, Stelco laid off 350 Hamilton steelworkers. Two weeks ago, the Liberal minister sent a letter threatening legal action, and today she is giving them another 15 days. The Liberals wrote a similar letter to Stellantis. Eight months later, those workers are still waiting for results. The minister stated today that “no act of God” can change the commitments made to Canadian workers, so will the Prime Minister finally take Cleveland-Cliffs to court, or is this just another empty Liberal threat?”

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“The government needs to share the Charter statement for this bill right away. Workers and people in Hamilton want to see it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his expertise on this and for bringing something very important to the House, which may have been looked over. Of course, that should be tabled right away. The people in the riding I represent, Hamilton as a whole, and workers all across this country want to see exactly what this brilliant member has just mentioned.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Aslam Rana

“The government makes a lot of promises about major projects, but nothing gets done. They passed a similar bill a year and a half ago that promised the exact same results. I want to work with the member to fix the labour parts of this bill so it truly protects workers' rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will take the question and criticisms from the member for Hamilton Centre with respect. I have been talking about section 107 of the Labour Code in my speech today. We all, in principle, want this country to move forward. Most of the examples the member gave were MOUs. With respect to the $500 billion, the projects are all announcements. Currently, the Prime Minister has the problem of all talk and no action. As my colleagues have already explained in the House, we signed Bill C-5 during the first couple of months in. It said it would give unprecedented powers and that we could move at lightning speed. There was all this rhetoric and talk. Here we are, a year and a half later, debating a bill the Liberals claim would do the exact same thing. Therefore, in order to move this bill forward, again with respect to my colleague, whom I know very well, I say that I am here to work with him. I am here to protect workers’ rights, which he understands very well in Hamilton Centre. This is also a very big concern to him. Hopefully we can work together on that and craft that part of the bill so it would achieve the goals of both of us.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 96 of 100

  Of this reply, 95% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill passed quickly. It combines major building projects with big changes to labour laws. It lets the government end legal strikes too easily. I want to build these projects, but not by taking away workers' rights to strike and negotiate. We need to slow down and study the labour changes separately.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and what it means for the workers, families and businesses in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. In my community, building Canada is something people do every day. They make the steel that supports our buildings, as we see in the House. They manufacture the parts that keep our industries running. They work in the trades, move goods and operate businesses that employ their neighbours. They know what it takes to get the job done. They also know the difference between announcing something and actually building it. A business cannot hire workers based on a press conference. A manufacturer cannot order new equipment based on a slogan. A family cannot pay its mortgage with a list of projects the government hopes to build. At some point, announcements have to turn into construction and paycheques. For Hamilton, that is very urgent. Steelworkers are facing layoffs at Stelco and families are wondering what comes next. Local businesses are dealing with tariffs, rising costs and uncertainty about their future. When a worker loses a job, the impact follows that person home. It affects the mortgage payment, the grocery budget and the plans they made for their children. It also affects the restaurant where they buy lunch, the mechanic who services their vehicle and the local shop their family supports. These are the real people behind the economic numbers. Building more in Canada would create demand for the products our workers make. New infrastructure, energy projects and industrial facilities need steel, equipment and skilled trades. That means opportunities for Hamilton. I want those projects built. I want Canadian businesses competing for that work and Canadian workers earning a good living doing it, but a good living also depends on having a voice at work. It means being able to raise concerns about safety, negotiating fair wages and standing together when something needs to change. In Hamilton, we understand what unions mean to working families. They give workers a way to negotiate together over decisions that shape their lives. A parent trying to arrange child care around a changing shift schedule understands why that matters. So does someone worried about getting injured on the job or a young worker trying to turn a first paycheque into a stable future. Those concerns belong in this debate because Bill C-39 would do more than change how projects are approved. It would also change the Canada Labour Code, including section 107. That section concerns the federal labour minister’s powers to intervene in labour disputes. The federal code applies to workplaces such as airlines, railways and ports. Steelworkers in Hamilton generally bargain under provincial labour law, but the principle matters to every worker. People should have a meaningful say in their work conditions. Unions must be able to represent their members. Workers must be able to bargain collectively, protest peacefully and exercise their lawful right to strike. Those rights help make negotiations meaningful. When an employer knows workers can lawfully withdraw their labour, there is a reason to work toward an agreement both sides can accept. We need to understand what happens to that balance when the government intervenes. Under the proposed changes to section 107, the minister would have to consider a special mediator’s report before directing certain measures to end a lawful strike or lockout. The minister would also have to believe that the dispute harms the national interest. That is very important. Those measures could include ordering work to resume or requiring a binding process to settle a dispute. In simple terms, if the minister believes the strike harms national interest, they can order workers to resume working. I see an issue with this proposed change because what would count as harm to the national interest? The phrase “national interest” is far too vague to be used as a reason to block workers’ rights. The government’s national interest changes every couple of months. Last year it was climate change, and now it is pipelines. A couple of months ago, it was trade with America, and now it is deals with China. We cannot let workers’ rights be affected by the fleeting priorities of the government. Would the rules encourage a negotiated agreement or leave an employer expecting the government to step in? These are practical questions about whether workers have a fair chance to negotiate. A strike is a serious decision. Workers give up wages, families stretch their budgets and people face uncertainty about when they will return to work. No one should assume they take that decision lightly. Disruption also affects other Canadians, and those consequences deserve consideration, but the fact that a strike creates pressure cannot on its own settle the question of whether government should end it. Pressure is part of what brings parties to the bargaining table. We should support mediation and every reasonable effort to reach an agreement. We should also ensure that government intervention has clear limits and respects workers’ rights. That requires careful study, hundreds of pages bringing together project approvals, transportation measures and substantial changes to labour law. A worker concerned about the right to strike should not have to search through legislation covering ports, pipelines and environmental approvals to understand what the government is proposing. I stand in the House representing many workers who would be affected by the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code. It is my responsibility to examine the bill and evaluate how the proposed changes could affect them. Supporting construction does not answer the question of whether a labour provision is fair. Wanting a stronger economy does not remove our obligation here to the people affected. Conservatives are not going to let the Liberals ram through a bill that would stomp on workers’ rights. Union representatives need the opportunity to explain what the proposals would mean to their members. Employers should explain how they expect the rules to operate. Labour experts should help us assess the consequences. Members need time to question witnesses, consider their evidence and propose amendments. If separate consideration of the labour measures is needed to give them proper scrutiny, the government should be prepared to allow it. Workers should not lose their opportunity to be heard because the government wants a faster parliamentary timeline. Businesses need clear requirements, coordinated reviews and decisions they can plan around. Communities need investment, and workers need opportunities close to home. We should measure success through investment, jobs and the opportunities available to the next generation. For Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, that future matters deeply. Our community has helped build this country for generations. Our workers have the skills. Our businesses have the experience. They deserve the opportunity to keep doing it. They also deserve to know that the rights they rely on will receive serious attention in the House. I want young people in Hamilton to see a future in the trades or in manufacturing. I want a family facing a layoff to have reason to believe that another opportunity is coming. I want the people doing the work to be able to speak up, negotiate fairly and return home safely. That is the standard I will bring to Bill C-39: help get worthwhile projects built and protect collective bargaining and lawful strike rights. The people who built Canada deserve a voice in its future. We owe them care and respect to get this legislation right. I will say this, and I hope the members on the other side will hear me very clearly: We cannot have a building Canada strong act without protecting the workers who build Canada.”

“The Prime Minister failed to get a deal to stop steel tariffs, and now 350 steelworkers in Hamilton have lost their jobs. I want to know when he will take real action to protect Canadian workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, there was devastating news last week. Chris, a Stelco employee, called me to say that he and 350 of his fellow union Local 1005 steelworkers are out of a job. This is the human cost of the Prime Minister’s failed attempts to get a tariff deal, the same deal he promised Canadians over a year and a half ago. Now the tariffs are still here, bigger than before, and Hamilton steelworkers are paying the price. When will the Prime Minister turn rhetoric into reality to protect Canadian jobs and Hamilton workers?”

In response to a question from Jacob Mantle

“We need to get rid of the fuel tax completely so Canadians feel relief right away. We also need to cut $150 billion in wasteful spending to protect our economy from unfair American tariffs. I want other parties to look at our economic plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He also fights very hard for his community. What should we be doing? There is a lot, but we need to start with getting rid of the fuel tax. It is the one thing that Canadians can feel right away. I would propose, although this is not the forum for it, our Conservative economic plan. We have identified $150 billion in savings that Canadians can benefit from. We are starting here, but we have proposed a plan that I hope my colleagues on the other side will at least take a look at. We are in a trade war; make no mistake about that. The President has put unjustified tariffs on us, and we have to fight against that. In order to do that, we have to look at Canadians first. We need to keep money in Canada. We need to look at wasteful spending, of which we have identified 150 billion dollars’ worth, come together and work on that for the sake of Canadians and for the sake of moving forward.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I agree with the member. The Liberals break their promises, and Canadian money should stay in Canada. But the Prime Minister invests most of his own money in American companies, so he will not change this.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member raises some very good points. The Liberals did break their election promise, but they have also broken a lot of other promises. We were supposed to get a deal in July. Going back to her question, I agree with her. I agree that Canadian money should stay in Canada, but what can I say? The Prime Minister holds about 93% of his stock assets in U.S. companies, so why do we think he would do anything different?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 82 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “so why do we think he would do anything different?”.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“People in my riding want me to fight to lower taxes and hold the government accountable. I am supporting this bill to cut the fuel tax and save Canadians money.”

“Mr. Speaker, the stories I hear from my riding are these: “Keep fighting for me. Keep trying to lower taxes. Keep the Liberal government accountable. We trust in you, and we know that you are going to go to Parliament to fight for us”, just as I am fighting today to cut all the fuel tax for Canadians to put money back in their pocket.”