--- author: TVO Today date: '2026-10-08' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuNFD8o9C2Y speaker: TVO Today tags: - steel-industry - tariff-war - foreign-investment - procurement-policy - industrial-strategy title: 加拿大能拯救钢铁工人吗？Stelco大裁员背后的关税战与“买加拿大货”采购争议 summary: 本期《The Rundown》深入探讨了汉密尔顿老牌钢企Stelco因美加关税战拟裁员500人的风波。工会与学者质疑外资收购承诺违约及加拿大产业过度依赖美国的结构性隐患，探讨了国有化等应对路径；节目随后披露了《多伦多星报》关于联邦政府口喊“买加拿大货”却将数百亿采购合同授予美资控股企业的深度调查。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: macro-economy area: geopolitics project: [] people: [] companies_orgs: - Stelco - Cleveland-Cliffs products_models: [] media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### 汉密尔顿钢企大裁员风波 **简·杰加纳森**: 你可能已经看到了相关新闻头条。总部位于**汉密尔顿**的钢铁制造商**Stelco**正计划进行裁员，可能波及多达500名工人。现在，该公司声称裁员是由于**美国关税**导致的，但联邦政府要求其提出一份保住这些工作岗位的方案，否则该公司可能因违反其在2024年签署的协议而面临法律诉讼。我们深入探讨接下来可能发生的事情，以及这一切对汉密尔顿社区和安大略省经济意味着什么。 随后，如果保护加拿大就业和“**购买加拿大货**”如此重要，为什么联邦政府显然向**美资控股公司**发放了近80亿美元的合同？我们知道政府很擅长口头承诺。我们将看看卡尼政府是否也在付诸实际行动。 我是简·杰加纳森，这里是《The Rundown》。昨天，联邦政府宣布，鉴于裁员事件，他们愿意对Stelco提起诉讼。他们还与安大略省合作，投资超过20万美元用于再培训和技能提升，用他们的话说，是为了“帮助保护汉密尔顿地区的钢铁和制造业工人”。但政府做得足够吗？目前对于这些工人和整个行业来说，未来前景究竟如何？ 罗恩·威尔斯、韦恩·勒丘克，非常高兴两位来到《The Rundown》。罗恩，我想先从你开始。Stelco的裁员是上周宣布的，预计将在10月9日，也就是两天后正式开始。你是代表当地工人的工会主席。请帮我理解一下，你能描述一下现在你的会员们在厂区里的情绪氛围吗？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: You have probably seen the headlines. Hamilton based steel manufacturer Stelco is planning layoffs that could affect up to 500 workers. Now, the company says it's because of U.S. tariffs, but the feds are demanding a plan to keep those jobs. Or the company could face legal action for violating an agreement it signed in 2024. We dig into what could happen next and what it would all mean for the Hamilton community and the Ontario economy. Then, if it's so important to protect Canadian jobs and buy Canadian, why has the federal government apparently given almost $8 billion in contracts to American controlled companies? We know the government can talk the talk. We look at whether the Carney government is also walking the walk. I'm Jan Jeganathan, and this is The Rundown. Yesterday, the federal government announced they're willing to bring a lawsuit against Stelco because of the layoffs. They're also partnering with Ontario to invest more than $200,000 in retraining and upskilling to, quote, help protect steel and manufacturing workers in the Hamilton area. But is government doing enough? And how's the future looking right now for those workers and the industry? Ron Wells, Wayne Lewchuk, great to have you on The Rundown. Ron, I want to start with you. Layoffs at Stelco were announced last week and are set to begin on October 9th, two days. You are the president of the union representing the workers there. Help me understand. Can you characterise the mood in the room right now with your members right now?
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 哎，大家情绪非常复杂。你知道，有焦虑，没有人对未来感到确定。一些会员确实、显然非常担忧，因为你知道，他们是家庭的主要经济支柱。但最压倒一切的情绪是人们感到非常沮丧，他们很愤怒。我们觉得这次裁员是完全没有必要的。我们在贸易战的一场政治博弈中被当作了**棋子**。因此我们认为Stelco完全可以在销售盖尔夫产品中维持运转，愤怒是目前工厂里最主要的情绪。
Original English **Ron Wells**: Well, there's many emotions. There's you know, there's anxiety. No one's sure of the future. Some members are actually they're obviously concerned because, you know, they're the main breadwinners in the household. But the overriding feeling is people are upset. They're angry. We feel that this layoff is unnecessary. It's we're being used as pawns in a political game in a trade war. So we think Stelco could make a go of it in the glove selling Guelph products and anger is the overriding mood in the plant.
**简·杰加纳森**: 自该声明发布以来，工会与Stelco之间是否有过任何对话？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Has there been any conversations between the union and Stelco since this announcement?
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 我们刚刚进行了会谈，主要是梳理裁员名单以及具体将如何实施。听起来这将在一个为期三周的时间段内发生。我们正努力确保尽可能尊重**工龄资历（Seniority）**。显而易见，公司对此有所推脱，他们声称需要特定的技能组合来维持工厂运营。我们始终希望看到工龄成为首要考虑的原则，但我们也理解工厂仍需维持运转。这就是我们之间仅有的实质性沟通。
Original English **Ron Wells**: Well, we just had talks going through the layoff list and how it's going to occur. It sounds like it's going to be over a three week period. We're trying to make sure seniority is honoured as much as possible. Obviously, the company pushes back and they claim they need certain skills to run the place. We always like to see seniority be the number one priority, but we understand the place is still run. So that's the only real conversations we've had.
**简·杰加纳森**: 我想这一定非常艰难，罗恩。去过一遍那份名单，看到一些你代表的人，你可能个人就认识他们，但也深知这一切背后连着一个个家庭。这个社区素有“**钢城（Steel Town）**”之称，目睹这样巨大的冲击。
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: I imagine that must be tough, Ron, to go through a list and seeing some of the people that you represent, who you know, you may personally know, but also know that, you know, there's families at the end of this. This is a community that is known as Steel Town to see sort of this big impact.
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 不，确实如此，绝对是这样。有些工龄长达25年的老员工在第一轮就要被裁掉，而且情况可能会进一步恶化。不幸的是，它很可能会恶化，因为他们正在整个裁撤两个完整的部门，接近350人，这将是毁灭性的打击。
Original English **Ron Wells**: No, absolutely. There's people with 25 years service that are getting laid off in the first round, and it could go deeper than that. It probably will, unfortunately, because they're laying off two complete departments so close to 350 people, it's going to be devastating.
### 外资收购承诺与违约争议 **简·杰加纳森**: 韦恩，当政府在2024年批准**克利夫兰-克利夫斯（Cleveland-Cliffs）**收购Stelco时，该公司曾承诺，引用他们的话说，“继续雇用至少与宣布交易时相同数量的工会雇员，以及绝大多数非工会雇员”。请帮我理解一下，他们为什么会打破这样的承诺？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Wayne, when the government approved the Cleveland-cliffs takeover of Stelco in 2024, the company promised to, quote, continue to employ at least the same number of unionised employees and the vast majority of non-unionized employees as were employed when the transaction was announced. Help me understand here why would they break such a promise?
**韦恩·勒丘克**: 哎，因为他们是一家大企业，他们觉得他们根本不需要按规矩办事。不按规矩办事似乎成了如今的一种风气。这正是他们现在的所作所为。他们根本没有兑现他们的承诺。讽刺的是，如果你去克利夫兰-克利夫斯的官方网站，他们声称他们的指导原则之一是**合乎道德的行为（ethical behaviour）**。而我认为，撕毁这样的一份协议绝非符合道德的做法。
Original English **Wayne Lewchuk**: Well, because they're a big company and they feel they don't have to play by the rules. That seems to be a bit of a fashion these days. Not playing by the rules. And this is exactly what they're doing. They're not honouring their commitments. And the irony is, if you go to Cleveland-cliffs website, they claim that one of their guiding principles is ethical behaviour. And I would suggest breaking this kind of a contract is hardly ethical.
**简·杰加纳森**: 我应该补充说明一下，在本次节目录制前我们确实联系了Stelco，但没有收到他们的回复。韦恩，请帮我从宏观层面分析一下，如此规模的裁员会对汉密尔顿地区产生什么影响？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: I should mention that we did reach out to Stelco in time for this taping, but we did not hear from them. Wayne, help me understand on a macro level, what effects do layoffs of this size have on the Hamilton area?
**韦恩·勒丘克**: 是的。我的意思是，这涉及500人。对于这500名即将失去工作的人和他们的家庭来说，这是极其糟糕的坏消息。那可是汉密尔顿及周边地区的500个家庭。这些都是薪酬优厚的工作。你知道，这些工作提供良好的福利待遇和医疗保险保障。所以这确实是一个重大问题。 我想我们或许需要将汉密尔顿与Stelco的历史放在更宏观的背景下来看待。需要记住的是，在80年代初我刚来汉密尔顿的时候，Stelco曾经雇用了**2.6万人**。自那之后，我们看到工作岗位出现非常稳定的流失，有时甚至出现断崖式的暴跌，直到现在汉密尔顿及周边地区为Stelco工作的只剩下两千来人。但是，500个岗位绝对不是一件可以掉以轻心、不予以关注的事情。
Original English **Wayne Lewchuk**: Yeah. I mean, this is 500 people. I mean, it's very bad news for the 500 people who are going to lose their jobs for their families. That's, you know, 500 families in and around Hamilton. These are good paying jobs. You know, these were jobs that provided benefits and health care benefits. So it is it is a big issue. I guess you you sort of need to keep a bit in perspective in terms of Hamilton's history with Stelco and keeping in mind that in the early 80s, when I when I first came to Hamilton, Stelco used to employ 26,000 people. And so we've seen a very, very steady drip and sometimes quite a sudden drop in jobs to the point now where we have a couple thousand people in Hamilton and area working for Stelco. But, you know, 500 jobs is not is not something to not be concerned about for sure.
**简·杰加纳森**: 韦恩，Stelco确实表示，他们做出这些削减是为了保护公司的生存能力。我很好奇，如果这些大公司日后随时可以背弃诺言，那么当初签署这些投资协议还有意义吗？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Now, Wayne, you know, Stelco did say that they are making these cuts to protect the viability of the company. And I'm curious, are these agreements worth it if these companies are just going to renege on them later?
**韦恩·勒丘克**: 是的，这正是当前悬而未决的问题。因为克利夫兰-克利夫斯和Stelco并不是唯一违背协议的企业。坦白跟你说，我并不反对政府在某些情况下介入援助企业。我们确实看到了很多案例，这种支持促成了工作岗位的保留和就业规模的扩张。 但确实也存在另一种情况，比如我们在这里看到的Stelco，以及现在我们在布兰普顿看到的**斯特兰蒂斯（Stellantis）**，他们关闭了那家工厂。你看，他们得到了承诺，但他们没有遵守这些承诺。因此我认为，我们需要严肃审视如何处理这类事情。我认为完全切断援助资金水龙头的做法是错误的，那绝不是我们应该做的。我们要做的是弄清楚如何更聪明地发放补贴，并在这些企业食言违约时采取更明智的应对手段；必须让他们确信这些承诺是具有硬性约束力的真实契约，而不能只是他们为了拿补贴随口编造的说辞。
Original English **Wayne Lewchuk**: Yeah, that's that's that's a question that's in the air at the present moment because Cleveland-cliffs and Stelco are not the only ones who are reneging on a deal. You know, I'll be frank with you. I am not against the government stepping in to help firms in certain situations. And we've seen a number of cases where that has led to the preservation of preservation of jobs and expansions of employment, and you do get cases, you know, we're seeing here in Stelco and now we're seeing in Stellantis up in Brampton, where they've closed that plant where, you know, they got promises and they're not abiding those promises. And so I think, you know, we need to look seriously at how we how we deal with these things. I think the wrong approach would be to say we're shutting off the taps completely. That's just not what we want to do. What we want to figure out is how to be smarter with the subsidies that we hand out and be smarter when these firms renege on their promises, they need to be convinced that these promises are real, not something that they make up just to get the money.
### 工会的抗争与政府的问责 **简·杰加纳森**: 罗恩，我想听听你的看法。你知道，你身处谈判桌前，听到来自各方的许诺。但请帮我理解一下，当这些协议提前几年达成，声称“我们绝不会这样做，我们会保障人员就业”，但两年后他们就直接拔掉插头单方面撕毁协议，这种感觉如何？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Ron, I want to get your take on here. You know, you're on the table of negotiating tables. You hear promises left, right and centre. But help me understand, when these agreements are made years ahead saying, you know, we're not we're not going to do this. We will keep people employed. But then two years later, they pull the plug on it. How does that feel?
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 哎，用失望这个词来形容其实远远不够分量。两年前当克利夫斯考虑收购我们与我们会面时，我们就向他们讲述了我们当年与**美国钢铁公司（U.S. Steel）**打交道的惨痛经历。在2008年，他们闲置停工了加拿大的两座工厂，并将业务全部合并回他们在北美的美国本土工厂。 当时我们就表达了深切的担忧。克利夫兰-克利夫斯的首席执行官洛伦索对我们说：“相信我们，我们和美国钢铁公司完全不一样，我们会证明给你们看。”后来，他们在《加拿大投资法》框架下签署了协议，这些协议内容就公开放在他们的官网上。正如韦恩指出的那样，他们大谈特谈他们的承诺，白纸黑字写着“五年内不削减工会员工岗位”。这不仅在他们的网站上，也在加拿大政府的官方网站上。 就此而言，我其实对总理卡尼和外交部长乔美兰迅速采取行动感到相当欣慰。他们向Stelco致信，要求作出解释，说明导致此次裁员和当前局面的缘由。我们希望政府能对他们严肃追责，动用一切可用的法定权力。如果**强制剥离资产（Divestment）**是手段之一，那就坚决执行！我认为加拿大必须树立一个典型先例：你不能允许外国跨国公司进入我们的国家后，却完全不遵守他们签署的协议。过去大家总说“加拿大欢迎商业投资”，但前提是规则必须造福加拿大人，因此这些规则必须得到强制执行。
Original English **Ron Wells**: Well, I mean, disappointment isn't really a strong enough adjective. When we met cliffs back two years ago, when they were looking to purchase us, we told them our experience with U.S. steel how in zero eight, they idled both operations and they consolidated operations at their US plants. So we we described our concerns and Lorenzo and the CEO of Cleveland-cliffs says, trust us, we're nothing like U.S. steel will prove it to you. That and the what they signed with the Can Investment Act, and it's on their website. As you know, Wayne pointed out that they talked about their commitment. They said five years, no reduction of unionised workers. I mean, it was on their website. It's on the the Government of Canada website. And like, I'm actually pretty happy that Prime Minister Carney and Minister Joly have acted swiftly. They sent a letter to Stelco demanding an explanation and telling them to explain the reason for this layoff, for this situation. And we hope they keep them accountable and they use all the powers that are available. And if divestment is one of them, so be it. I think Canada's got to make an example that you can't let foreign corporations come into our country, not abide by their agreements. You know, they used to say can is open for business. But, you know, there's rules that's going to benefit Canadians. So those rules should be enforced.
**简·杰加纳森**: 韦恩，罗恩刚刚提到，联邦政府本周致信Stelco，要求他们在五天内提交一份如何在加拿大维持就业岗位的计划。他们还威胁要对拥有Stelco的克利夫兰-克利夫斯公司采取法律诉讼，指控其涉嫌违反此次收购协议的条款。看起来，罗恩对联邦政府目前的做法是满意的。韦恩，请帮我分析一下，你如何看待总理马克·卡尼迄今为止的举措？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Wayne. Ron just mentioned, you know, the federal government wrote Stelco this week, demanding that they provide a plan within five days of how it will maintain jobs in Canada. They are also threatening legal action against Cleveland Cliffs, the company that owns Stelco, for allegedly violating the terms of this sale agreement. It seems like, Ron, you're happy with what the federal government is doing. Wayne, help me understand. What do you make of Prime Minister Mark Carney's actions so far?
**韦恩·勒丘克**: 是的，我认为他们目前表态的大方向是对的。关键问题在于他们是否有勇气贯彻到底。我认为切实贯彻下去是非常关键的。桌面上确实有若干选项，强制撤资剥离无疑是选项之一。 但与此同时，我认为也许我们现在已经到了加拿大历史上的一个关键节点，需要回过头来反思我们究竟是如何陷入这般困境的。我们在某种程度上陷入困局，是因为20世纪80年代中期的皇家委员会——**麦克唐纳委员会（Macdonald Commission）**，它指引我们走上了自由贸易的道路。我想也许现在是时候开始质疑那究竟是不是一个明智的举措了，也许应该再成立一个皇家委员会来弄清楚我们未来的道路在哪里。我们到底要走向何方？因为目前看来，那套自由贸易协议模式基本上已经走进了死胡同。
Original English **Wayne Lewchuk**: Yeah, I think I think they're saying the right things. You know, the question is whether they have, you know, the the, the courage to to follow through on this. And I think it's really quite critical that they that they actually do follow through. And I think there are a number of options that are that are on the table. And divestment is certainly one option. But I think also, you know, maybe we're now we're at a point of time in, in our in Canadian history when we need to look back on how we got into this mess. And partly we got into this mess because of a royal commission back in the mid 1980s, the McDonald Commission, which pointed us down to the free trade path. And I think maybe now it's time to start asking questions about whether that was a wise move and maybe strike another royal commission to figure out what is our next path. Where are we going? Because it seems to be that deal is is dead in the water.
### 再培训援助与产业自主权 **简·杰加纳森**: 罗恩，我想多谈谈省政府及其所采取的行动。安大略省政府宣布，他们将投资略高于**20.3万美元**的资金，以支持受汉密尔顿钢铁制造业动荡影响的75名工人和求职者。这笔资金也包含了联邦政府的出资。对于你的工会会员来说，这真的足够吗？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Ron, I want to talk a little bit more about the provincial government and what they're doing as well. The Ontario government announced that they're investing just over $203,000 to support 75 workers and job seekers affected by disruptions in Hamilton's steel manufacturing sectors. It also includes money from the federal government as well. Is that actually enough for your members?
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 不，这简直就是亡羊补牢，马跑了才想起关马厩的门。我们根本不希望看到裁员发生！我们希望我们的会员能够重返原职。我们很多会员很热爱他们的工作，那能提供一份体面的收入。他们喜欢生活在汉密尔顿这个社区，不希望不得不举家搬迁。 我的意思是，也许有些会员能从这种再培训中受益，他们会学到一项新技能，这对他们个人来说可能不错。但绝大多数人只想要重返工作岗位，他们希望一年12个月都有稳定全职工作。我们不想变成仅仅为了承接外部溢出产能而设立的卫星工厂，我们的工人们要的是稳定的全职工作岗位。
Original English **Ron Wells**: No, I mean, that's like closing the barn doors after the horses have gotten out. We don't want these layoffs to take place. We want our members to go back to their jobs. A lot of our members, they're happy at their jobs that provide a good income. They like living in this community. They don't want to have to relocate. I mean, if some members, they might benefit from this retraining. They'll get a skill and that'd be great for them. But the vast majority, they want to return to work, they want to work 12 months a year, and they we don't want to be a satellite plant just for over full capabilities. Our members want full time jobs.
**简·杰加纳森**: 韦恩，我认为眼前这个案件凸显了关于外资拥有加拿大战略资产的一个根本性重大问题。这是关乎公共利益的议题吗？我们是否应该对此展开更广泛的社会大讨论？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Wayne, this current case, I think, highlights a big question about foreign ownership of Canadian assets. Is this a public interest? Is this something that we should be having a broader conversation of?
**韦恩·勒丘克**: 我认为绝对是的。我们必须放眼四周看清楚，世界已经彻底改变了。诚然，卡尼总理一直鼓励吸引更多外国投资。不可否认，加拿大极度渴求资本，我们正打算开展大量的重大基础设施建设项目，其中一部分资本势必来自外部。 但同时也必须牢记，作为一个国家，加拿大其实是**资本净输出国**。实际上我们对世界其他地区的投资额，超过了外部世界对我们的投资额。与20世纪80年代相比，这是一个巨大的变化。我们自己本身也是海外其他国家的重要大投资方。 因此，我认为我们必须开始质疑这种国家间互相依赖外部资本与跨国投资来驱动本国国内经济的整体运作机制。因为当前显而易见的事实是，由于这种经济运行模式所带来的连锁后果，大量本土产业工人正被残酷挤压淘汰。
Original English **Wayne Lewchuk**: I think absolutely. I you know, I think we have to, you know, look around and see, you know, the world, the world has changed. And certainly, you know, Prime Minister Carney has encouraged a lot more foreign investment. Look, we, we, we Canada desperately needs capital. We're we're looking to do a number of big infrastructure projects. And some of that capital will come externally. But also one has to keep in mind that Canada, as a as a country, is a net exporter of capital. We actually invest more in the rest of the world than the rest of the world invests in us. I mean, that's a big change since the 1980s. And so we are ourselves are also big investors in in other countries. And so I think we need to start asking questions about this whole arrangement by which countries rely on other countries for capital and investment in their domestic economies, because it certainly seems at the present moment, a lot of workers are getting squeezed as a result of some of the implications of this approach to running an economy.
**简·杰加纳森**: 罗恩，你的看法呢？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Ron, your thoughts.
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 当谈到钢铁时，我认为任何一个发达国家都必须拥有自己的**炼钢能力**，以满足基础设施建设、国防军工和铁路建设的需要。在这些战略供应上，我们绝不能受制于人、依赖他国。 我认为加拿大拥有坚实的制造业基础，我们必须竭尽所能去守护它。我不认为我们应该沦为一个单纯依赖矿产、石油和木材等初级原材料的资源输出国。我们有大约4000万人口，加拿大人需要汽车、需要钢铁、需要各类家用电器。我们完全有能力在加拿大本土制造生产它们，并且我们具备强大的竞争力。我不知道这是否回答了你的问题，但我深信加拿大必须实现**自给自足**，绝不能依赖别国施舍。
Original English **Ron Wells**: When it comes to steel? I think every country developed country needs its own steel making capability for infrastructure projects, for defence, for rail. We can't be dependent on other countries for those supplies. I think Canada, we have a strong manufacturing base. We have to do everything to protect it. I don't think we want to become a country of resources like mines, oil and lumber. We have 40 million people approximately, you know, our citizens are Canadians need cars, we need steel. We need appliances. We can build them and make them in Canada and we can compete. So I don't know if that answers your question, but I think Canada has to be self-sufficient. We can't rely on other countries.
### 地缘政治博弈与国有化构想 **简·杰加纳森**: 罗恩，你之前提到感觉自己被夹在中间。你和你代表的工人们正被困在这场美加贸易战的夹缝中。美国总统唐纳德·特朗普宣布在爱荷华州投资150亿美元建设一座全新的钢铁厂。我想那感觉肯定不太好受吧？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Ron, earlier you had mentioned, you know, feeling like you were caught in the middle. You and the workers you represent are caught in the middle of this trade war here. US President Donald Trump announced an investment of $15 billion of new steel plant in Iowa. I imagine that doesn't feel too great.
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 确实不好受。而且我们认为这绝不仅仅是一个巧合。就在上周一，特朗普在白宫大谈在爱荷华州投资150亿美元建设钢铁厂。随后他话锋一转，开始声称“我们很快会与加拿大达成贸易协议，他们会回来求和并道歉”。 与此同时，他在关税政策上最坚定的支持者之一——克利夫兰-克利夫斯的首席执行官**洛伦索·冈卡尔维斯（Lorenzo Goncalves）**，正是他做出了让500名加拿大钢铁工人下岗的决定。要知道，Stelco是一家标志性的百年企业，北美钢铁工人联合会（USW）1005分会也已存在了80年，这立刻登上了各大媒体头条。 因此，我们认为这绝非偶然。一方面，这是为了在**中期选举**中给特朗普助选造势，炫耀他的关税大棒正在奏效；另一方面，我认为这纯粹是为了引诱或施压我们政府重返谈判桌，去签署一份很可能对加拿大全体民众极为不利的割地求和式的贸易协定。这就是为什么我们深感自己在这场博弈中被彻底当成了政治棋子。
Original English **Ron Wells**: No. And we think it's more than a coincidence. So on Monday, Trump's in the last Monday, Trump's in the white House. And you know, talking about the $15 billion investment in the steel plant in Iowa. And then he pivots. And he starts talking about we're going to get a trade deal with Canada soon. They're going to come back and they're going to apologise. And at the same time one of his biggest supporters, especially about the tariffs cliffs, Cleveland-cliffs CEO Lorenzo Goncalves is you know, he is basically his decision that 500 Canadian steelworkers are getting laid off, which, you know, Stelco is an iconic company, US w local 1005 has been around for 80 years. So it was front page news. So we think it's a bit more than a coincidence. You know, it's, you know, part of it's to help Trump in his midterms to show that his tariffs are working. The other part is I think is to entice or to pressure our government to go back and get a trade deal that will probably be not beneficial for the rest of the Canadians. So that's why we feel we're being you used as pawns in this situation.
**简·杰加纳森**: 韦恩，你的看法呢？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Wayne, your take.
**韦恩·勒丘克**: 不，我认为他说得完全正确。这是盘大棋局中的一部分。特朗普毫不掩饰他在觊觎加拿大的就业机会，无论是汽车制造业、钢铁业还是其他领域。这看起来正是朝那个方向迈出的又一步。 关于爱荷华州的新钢厂，让我们拭目以待看它究竟能不能建成落地。它目前还处在规划阶段。但这本身就极具问题，因为**全球钢铁产能已经严重过剩**。在产能过剩的大背景下盲目新增一家大型钢铁厂，只会让该行业面临的危机进一步雪上加霜。
Original English **Wayne Lewchuk**: No, I think George I think he's absolutely right. This is, you know, part of a much bigger play. And you know, Trump has made no has not disguised at all that he's after Canadian jobs. Whether they're in the auto or steel or other sectors. And this looks to be, you know, one of another move in that in that direction, you know, this new plant in Iowa, let's see if it comes to play or not. I mean, it's it's in the planning stages, but, you know, it's problematic because there's already a global glut of steel. And so adding another big plant is can only compound the problems that this sector is facing.
**简·杰加纳森**: 罗恩，我想快速引用一下女王大学法学院副教授尼古拉斯·兰普（Nicholas Lamp）本周在《环球邮报》上发表的一段评论。文章写道：“如果政府认定钢铁工业具有战略重要性，工人遭到了支持特朗普的首席执行官的背叛，且在富有同理心的管理层领导下会过得更好，政府可以将其**国有化（nationalise）**并由加拿大管理层接管，正如英国政府最近对英国钢铁公司所做的那样。”话说到这里，罗恩，现在是一个契机吗？渥太华是否应该考虑将Stelco收归国有？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Ron, I want to read a quick comment from Nicholas Lamp, an associate professor at the Faculty of Law at Queen's University in the Globe and Mail. This week. It reads, if the government decides that the steel industry is of strategic importance, that the workers are being betrayed by their Trump supporting CEO and would fare better under more sympathetic management, it could nationalise the company and put Canadian management in charge. As the UK government has recently done with British Steel. With that being said, is this an opportunity right now? Ron? Should Ottawa consider nationalising Stelco?
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 我们自己其实一直在呼吁这一点，他表述得比我精彩得多。但我100%赞同。这一招在英国目前就收到了成效。而且回顾2017年至2024年克利夫斯收购之前，当Stelco作为一家独立公司运营时，它盈利数十亿美元！我们拥有自己的利基市场，我们挺过来了，连特朗普第一任期的关税打击我们都挺过来了。 所以，我认为这是一个完全可行的方案。加拿大有其他的**国有皇家企业（Crown corporations）**先例，比如过去的加拿大太平洋铁路（CP Rail），还有加拿大邮政（Canada Post）等等。因此国有化绝对是行得通的。
Original English **Ron Wells**: We've been saying that ourselves, he said a lot better than I could. But yeah, I agree 100%. It's working in the UK right now. And when Stelco was a standalone company between 2017 and before Cliffs bodice and in 24 they made billions of dollars. We had a niche market. We survived. We survived Trump's tariffs in his first term. So I think it's a doable idea. There's other crown corporations, you know, CP rail. What else is there? There's other Crown Corp mail. You know Canada Post. So it's definitely doable.
**简·杰加纳森**: 韦恩，你的意见呢？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Wayne.
**韦恩·勒丘克**: 是的，我认为这确实是我们应当认真考量的事情。这又回到了我之前的观点，即我们需要开始探索其他的替代方案。我们在80年代末采取的全面拥抱与美国自由贸易的战略，目前看来已经失效了，我不认为它还能恢复如初。 将Stelco国有化当然是一种选择，但绝不是唯一的方案。鉴于我们今天所处的世界格局，关于未来我们究竟应当如何组织我们的国民经济，存在一个更大维度的宏观问题。坦白讲，这需要极其深刻严肃的反思、广泛的讨论与全方位的探索。
Original English **Wayne Lewchuk**: Yeah, I think it's actually something we need to be thinking about seriously. And this really comes back to my comments about we need to start exploring what are our alternative options. You know, the, the, the option, the strategy we adopted in the, in the, in the late 1980s to engage in free trade with the US, it does not seem to be working. I'm not sure it's coming back. Certainly nationalising Stelco is one option, but it's not the only one. And so I think there's a much bigger picture, a much bigger question here about how do we Organize our economy going forward, given the world that we live in right now? And I think, to be frank, that's going to require some serious thought and discussion and exploration.
**简·杰加纳森**: 罗恩，如果美加之间达成新的贸易协定，你对Stelco召回下岗工人抱有希望吗？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Ron, do you have any hope that Stelco could recall its workers back if a trade agreement is reached between the US and Canada?
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 我坚信这只是一次临时裁员。虽然我不确定具体会持续多久，当然是时间越短越好。我认为他们的全盘计划就是借此推动达成一项限制外国钢铁涌入加拿大的贸易协议。 但讽刺的是，现在每个人都在担忧来自土耳其、中国或韩国的钢铁流入加拿大，而实际上迄今为止**最大的钢铁出口国正是美国**！目前针对美国钢铁的关税还享有豁免减免政策，这使得他们能够直接抢占我们Stelco原本完全可以供应的加拿大本土市场订单。因此我们觉得这非常可疑，而且这显然完全不符合加拿大的国家利益。
Original English **Ron Wells**: I actually I believe this is a temporary layoff. I don't know the duration. Obviously, the shorter the better. I think the whole plan is for them to get a trade deal. That's going to put some blocks on foreign steel coming into Canada. But you know, it's funny that, you know, everyone's worried about steel from TURKIYE China. Korea coming into Canada, the largest exporter by far is the US. And right now there's remission on those tariffs. So they're able to sell fill Canadian orders that we could fill from Stelco into our markets. So you know we find that kind of, you know, a little suspicious. And it's obviously not in Canada's best interest.
**简·杰加纳森**: 两位先生，非常感谢你们加入《The Rundown》。罗恩·威尔斯、韦恩·勒丘克，非常感谢你们的真知灼见。
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Gentlemen, I want to thank you so much for joining us on The Rundown. Ron Wells Wayne Lewchuk, thank you so much for your insights.
**罗恩·威尔斯**: 我的荣幸，感谢邀请。
Original English **Ron Wells**: My pleasure. For having.
**韦恩·勒丘克**: 谢谢。
Original English **Wayne Lewchuk**: Me.
### “买加拿大货”采购政策的数据真相 **简·杰加纳森**: 渥太华声称其保护就业和建设经济的另一项抓手，是其推行的“**购买加拿大货（Buy Canadian）**”政策，旨在确保联邦公共采购资金在加拿大本土得到有效利用。但《多伦多星报》的最新调查报道提出了一些严重质疑，揭露了这些巨额资金究竟流向了何处。 弗雷德里克·普兰特（Frederique Plante），很高兴邀请你来到《The Rundown》。今天过得怎么样？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Another way, Ottawa says it's working to protect jobs and build the economy. Its Buy Canadian policy, which is intended to make sure federal procurement spending is spent well here in Canada. But new reporting from the Toronto Star is raising some big questions about just where some of those big dollars are going. Frederique plant, a great to have you on The Rundown. How are you doing today?
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 早上好，我很好，你怎么样？
Original English **Frederique Plante**: Good morning. I'm good. How are you?
**简·杰加纳森**: 我很好，谢谢。为什么《多伦多星报》决定去深入调查政府的公共采购合同资金究竟流向了哪里？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: I'm doing well, thank you. Why did the Toronto Star decide to look at where the government's contract dollars were going?
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 哎，因为在过去一年半多的时间里，宣传加拿大本地企业、承诺“**建设加拿大、购买加拿大货**”，一直是总理马克·卡尼竞选及其政府的核心标志性特色。因此我们想核实一下，政府不仅在口头上说了什么，更要看他们究竟用纳税人的钱做了什么。
Original English **Frederique Plante**: Well, it's been a feature, a prominent feature of. Of a Prime Minister Mark Carney's campaign and his government to tout Canadian businesses to this promise to build Canadian to and to buy Canadian. For the past year and a half and a little bit more. And so we wanted to. We wanted to check what what the government, not only what the government was saying, but but what what the government was doing with with tax money.
**简·杰加纳森**: 弗雷德里克，我猜你们在审查合同名单时一定看到了某些项目，心里会想“等等，这里有情况需要深入深挖”。请帮我们理解一下，你和你的团队具体调查了哪些数据？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Now, Frederick, I imagine there were a couple of contracts that you had looked at that were like, okay, wait, there's something that we need to dig into here, but help me understand, where did your team and where did you look?
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 我们主要比对了两个数据集。首先是联邦**政府采购公开数据**。联邦政府会将每一笔金额在1万美元及以上的合同详细信息发布到网上，其中包括供应商所在国家的信息，即提供商品或服务的公司注册地。但根据你观察维度的不同，这个定义其实大有文章。 在官方采购数据库中，像科技巨头亚马逊（Amazon）、国防承包商洛克希德·马丁（Lockheed Martin）或通用动力（General Dynamics）这类耳熟能详的美国大公司，有时会赫然以“加拿大公司”的身份出现，仅仅是因为它们在加拿大设有经营场所，设立了本地注册的子公司。然而显而易见，这些公司的总部和控制权都在美国。 所以我查阅了另一个独立数据集，即所谓的**企业间所有权审查指数（Inter-corporate Ownership Review index）**。这是由加拿大统计局的研究人员维护的联邦官方数据库，追踪了超过5万家企业的实际控制国归属。所谓控制国，是指对企业拥有实际控制权的人员所在国，通常也就是总部所在地。 这就让我们能够以截然不同的视角来审视采购数据中的公司。当我们把两个数据库进行交叉比对时，真相大白：数据中真正的加拿大本土企业数量远少于表面数字，而美资控股公司的实际占比则大幅增加。
Original English **Frederique Plante**: So we looked at two things, mainly the first is the procurement data. So every contract that is $10,000 or more, there's a lot of information about it that is posted online by the federal government. And this includes the country of vendor. So the country where the company supplying the service or the goods is, is located. But this is it has a different definition depending on, on, on where you look. And so when what you see in procurement data is well known, American companies like Amazon, the tech giant or Lockheed Martin, the, the defence contractor or General Dynamics, another another defence contractor, they appear sometimes in procurement data as Canadian companies because they have a place of business in the country. They have a locally incorporated subsidiary in Canada. But of course, those companies are headquartered in the US. And so what I did was look at separate set, a separate data set that is called the Intergovernment Inter-corporate, the sorry, the inter corporate Ownership Review index. It's also a federal federal data set done by researchers. I think at Statistics Canada, looking at the country of control of more than 50,000 businesses, and the country of control is where the people who effectively control the company live. So often it's where the headquarters is. And so that gives us a very different look at than at at the companies in the procurement data. When you cross-reference them, it turns out that there's a lot fewer Canadian companies than a lot more American companies in the data.
### 数据反差：美资公司合同份额激增 **简·杰加纳森**: 让我们来看一组具体数据。我想调出这张图表。《多伦多星报》从联邦政府公开数据中获取的这些统计表明，在马克·卡尼出任总理前后，联邦采购合同的流向发生了显著变化。 在屏幕左侧，卡尼上任前的16个月内，加拿大本土企业获得了54%的合同，美国企业占20%，来自其他国家的承包商占26%。而在卡尼上任后的16个月内，加拿大企业的份额上升到了60%，但**美国企业的份额也从20%暴增到了31%**，与此同时，世界其他国家的份额则从26%暴跌至区区9%。 这看起来似乎非常反常直觉。从数据来看，当前完全不像是处于一个“买加拿大货”的政策框架中；尤其是当卡尼在各种场合大谈减少对美国的依赖时，为什么如此多的联邦采购大单反而流向了美国公司？请帮我们深入解读一下这些数据，因为我相信观众和听众看到这里都会困惑：“这完全不是政府宣称要做的事情啊。”
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Well, let's look at some of that data. I want to pull up this chart. These numbers obtained by the Toronto Star from federal government data, show where federal contracts went before and after Mark Carney became prime minister. So on the left hand of your screen, in the 16 months before Carney took office, Canadian companies received 54% of contracts. U.S. firms got 20%, while contractors from other countries accounted for 26% in the 16 months after Carney took office, Canada shares grew to 60%, but the U.S. share also climbed from 20% to 31%, while the rest of the world dropped from 26% to just nine. That may seem counterintuitive, like looking at that data, it doesn't seem like Canada is in a buy now, buy Canadian sort of framework right now, at a time when Carney is talking about reducing, you know, the country's reliance on the United States, why are so many of these federal contracts going to American companies? Help us understand a little bit about this data, because I'm sure viewers and listeners are looking at this and be like, well, that's not what we're being told to do.
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 是的，这正是我们为什么要核查联邦政府实际做了什么，而不仅仅是听信他们宣称了什么的原因。说实话，我自己看到这个结果时也感到相当惊讶。 但数据清晰显示，大量金额极其庞大的巨额合同都集中在**国防承包商**和**科技承包商**手中。我们谈论的是飞机零部件、弹药采购、工程技术服务，以及海量的商业软件授权许可。正是这些领域构成了流向美资控股公司的最丰厚联邦大单。 在马克·卡尼总理上任前的时期，曾经有一些大型采购合同流向了由美加以外其他国家拥有或控股的企业，因此其他国家在当时占比较大。我记得有几笔涉及英国公司的造船合同，这些公司实际控制着魁北克以及东西海岸的造船基地。
Original English **Frederique Plante**: Yeah, that's why we took a look at what the federal government was doing, and not only what it was saying. Indeed, I also I was also a little bit surprised by this, but what what the data shows is, is that a lot of these very high numbers contracts are for defence contractors and tech contractors. So we're talking we're talking like aircraft parts, ammunitions, engineering services, a lot of a lot of Licence for software. So that's, that's the kind of things that, that dominate the most, the most lucrative federal contracts going to, to US companies. And in the previous in the period just before Prime Minister Mark Carney entered office, there were large contracts for companies that are owned or controlled by other countries than the US and Canada. Hence the bigger part. I think there were a couple of contracts for UK based companies for that actually control the the. Workplace where they build the ships in Quebec. And the other one, I think on the West Coast and on the East Coast.
**简·杰加纳森**: 我应该补充指出，在卡尼执政期间金额最高的前四笔联邦合同，无一例外全都是由**美资实际控制**的公司：L3哈里斯技术（L3Harris Technologies）、微软（Microsoft）、IBM加拿大（IBM Canada）以及通用动力公司（General Dynamics Corporation）。正如你所提到的，IBM加拿大虽然在加拿大设有办事处并雇佣本地员工，但总部和母公司显然位于美国。这是否意味着政府的“购买加拿大货”政策在制度设计上存在结构性缺陷？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: I should mention the four highest grossing federal contracts under Carney are all American controlled L3 Harris Technologies, Microsoft, IBM Canada and General Dynamics Corporation, IBM Canada. Of course, as you mentioned, headquartered. Yes, in the States, but, you know, has offices here. Does the government's Buy Canada policy have a structural flaw?
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 这取决于你问的是谁。联邦自由党政府辩解称，该政策完全在按预期目标运转。因为现行的“购买加拿大货”政策在界定时**根本不考察企业的实际控制国归属**，它只看该公司是否在加拿大设有工作场所、是否在境内开展业务。 这就是为什么你会看到像通用动力这样的企业能够顺理成章地承接大单。例如过去在弹药采购上的巨额合同，以及宣布在安大略省伦敦市制造装甲车的重大项目。通用动力是一家总部位于弗吉尼亚州的美资控制企业，但因为它在加拿大本土有雇员和生产线，在联邦政府看来，这就证明该政策是行之有效的。 但批评人士指出：如果我们把宝贵的公共采购资金拱手送给美资实际控制的公司，首先，我们根本没有扶持本国自主的民族工业；其次，这在多个层面将加拿大人置于风险之中，特别是国防和高科技领域。加拿大政策替代中心（Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives）的研究人员向我特别强调，尤其是在涉及加拿大国民数据安全方面，面对有时已被证明对待本国公民数据都极其鲁莽轻率的美国政府，这种依赖构成了巨大的**国家数据主权风险**。
Original English **Frederique Plante**: Well, it depends on who you ask. The the federal government, the Liberal government says that it is working as intended because the Buy Canadian policy. Again, it doesn't look at the country of control. It looks at whether the company has. Canadian workplace, whether it has with, you know, where it conducts activities. And so that's how you see a company like General Dynamics, for example, which receive large federal contracts for ammunition in the past and also was announced for these armoured vehicles to be built in London, Ontario. Now, General Dynamics, it's a company that is headquartered in in Virginia. It's a US controlled company, but it has workers in the country. And so to the federal government, they're saying that the policy works. But others critics say, well, actually, if we send our contract dollars to companies that are controlled in the US, we put. Well, first of all, we're not supporting our home-grown industries. And also we are putting Canadians at risk at at a couple of levels with defence contractors and with tech contractors, notably with Canadians. Data in the face of US administration. That's proven to be. Sometimes reckless with with their own citizens data. That's what. That's what people that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have told me.
### 本土产业替代与政府问责反思 **简·杰加纳森**: 弗雷德里克，肯定有人会提出这样的抗辩理由：根本没有本土企业能够与这些美国巨头竞争；加拿大在这些高规格招标与合同采购中所需要的尖端产品和服务，在边界以北根本就不存在。这是一个合理的假设吗？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Now, Frederick, one has to. I'm sure there is an argument being made that. Well, there are no companies that could compete with these American companies that you know, what Canada is looking for in terms of these tenders and contracts and vendors just simply doesn't exist north of the border. Is that a fair assumption?
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 这是各界提出的另一个普遍担忧。我无法逐一评估每一笔采购合同是否存在具备独特优势的美国不可替代性。但专家向我明确指出，而且我们在近期的军工采购项目中也看到了替代方案的可能性，比如德国潜艇与韩国竞标方案的竞争。 在科技领域，你刚才提到的最大承包商之一微软，只要我们下定决心、有意识地去推动技术自主，市场上完全存在成熟的**开源替代方案（Open Source Alternatives）**。
Original English **Frederique Plante**: That's another concern that that people have raised. And now I don't know about, you know, contract by contract, every possible alternatives and whether there's a unique US advantage. But experts have told me and we have also seen in recent procurement contracts, I think with the the German submarines, with the competing with the South Koreans. There's also when we talk about tech, Microsoft, you mentioned, was one of the biggest federal contractors. There are open source alternatives that are available. If we if we care to to be intentional about it.
**简·杰加纳森**: 我想了解一下你收到的各方反应。当你要求联邦政府解释为何仍将大量合同授予美资控股企业时，他们给出了什么答复？
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: I want to learn a little bit more about what you got in terms of reaction. So from the government themselves, the federal government, when you asked them to explain the reasons for why they are still awarding contracts to U.S. controlled corporations, what did they tell you?
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 他们最初并没有正面回答核心问题。他们只是反复吹捧我们之前谈到的“购买加拿大货”政策，并强调他们非常严肃地对待加拿大人数据的保护，并采取了充分措施来确保数据安全。 在我们的调查报道见报之后，官方反对党领袖**皮埃尔·波利耶夫尔（Pierre Poilievre）**在国会质询中多次就我们的报道向卡尼总理发难。卡尼总理则再次拿出此前宣布的大型采购项目作为挡箭牌，包括通用动力的装甲车合同。因此看起来联邦政府认为这里面不存在任何问题，政策正在按既定方针运转。
Original English **Frederique Plante**: They did not really address the questions initially. They touted by Canadian policy, which we've talked about. And and they said that they take Canadians data protection seriously and take measures to protect it. Now, after the piece was published, the opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, repeatedly asked Prime Minister Carney about about our reporting. Prime Minister Carney again touted projects that were announced, some of these large contracts included with General Dynamics. So it's it seems that the federal government thinks that there's no there's no issue there. And the policy is working as intended.
**简·杰加纳森**: 弗雷德里克。
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Frederick.
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 这当然留给加拿大公众自己去做出评判。
Original English **Frederique Plante**: For Canadians to decide. Of course.
**简·杰加纳森**: 我应该向我们的观众和听众补充说明，安大略省也受到“购买加拿大货”规则的约束，这反过来意味着安省公共电视台TVO本身也是该政策适用体系的一部分。 弗雷德里克，非常感谢你来到我们节目，非常感谢你的调查报道和深刻见解。
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: I should mention to our viewers and listeners that Ontario is also subject to the Buy Canada rules, which in turn means that TVO is also part of that. Frederick, I want to thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for your reporting and your insights on this.
**弗雷德里克·普兰特**: 感谢邀请。
Original English **Frederique Plante**: Thank you for having.
**简·杰加纳森**: 谢谢你。 你认为政府在保护安大略省的就业方面做得足够吗？在什么样的情况下你会支持将联邦资金拨给美国控股公司？欢迎在评论区留言告诉我们，或者发送电子邮件至 rundown@TVO.org。我们明天见。 接下来是我们正在跟进的预告内容：
Original English **Jan Jeganathan**: Me. Do you think governments are doing enough to protect jobs in here in Ontario, and are there any circumstances in which you'd support sending federal money to U.S. companies? Let us know in the comments, or send us an email rundown@TVO.org Until then, I will see you tomorrow. Here's something we're working on.
**旁白预告**: 他描述了一个在一处绝密安全设施内发生的长达数小时的推演场景，他们制定了一份针对**公投后的阿尔伯塔省（post referendum Alberta）**的应对方案。
Original English **Narrator**: He described a scenario which took place in a secure facility and over multiple hours, they laid out a plan for a post referendum Alberta.