Ned Kuruc

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tells Canadians to buy Canadian, but government contracts to American companies have increased by 50% since he took office. Now, LNG Canada plans to use foreign steel for its expansion, while Canadian steel companies say they can do the work. Canadian steelworkers need jobs. The Liberals give slogans, all talk and no results. Conservatives are fighting for lumber workers. Conservatives are fighting for auto workers. Conservatives will continue to fight for the steelworkers of Canada. When will this Prime Minister?

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the rare occasions where I stand up in the House to debate a bill where I am not totally at odds with it. I am here with the intention to work with the Liberal government on this. I have outlined what is important to me, but on what the member has outlined, we could definitely get behind that. Hiring workers is not a bad thing, but the things I have outlined here are specifically on what determines national interest. That is concerning to me, because without mentioning it, in the recent past, things have been called on, which have been found in court, that the Liberals in the former government were not allowed to do, but could be viewed as a national interest. So, we have seen abuse of this. I just want to protect—