Ottawa Gives Stelco’s US Owner 5 Business Days to Present Jobs Plan

Minister of Industry Melanie Joly speaks as Minister of Finance and National Revenue Francois-Philippe Champagne looks on, during a news conference on Canada's response to U.S. tariffs, at a roofing company in Ottawa, on Aug. 25, 2026. The Canadian Press/Justin Tang

Ottawa is giving Cleveland-Cliffs, Stelco’s U.S. parent company, five business days to explain how it will meet its Canadian employment commitments after Stelco announced cuts affecting up to 500 workers, warning that it could take legal action.

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly wrote to Stelco president Paul Simon on Oct. 5, expressing her “extreme disappointment” over the planned layoffs associated with the indefinite idling of finishing operations at the company’s Hamilton, Ont., plant.

Joly said the proposed layoffs would violate binding employment commitments that Ohio-based Cleveland-Cliffs made when Ottawa approved its $3.4 billion acquisition of Stelco in 2024 under the Investment Canada Act.

She said five-year commitments include maintaining “at least the same number of unionized employees and the vast majority of non-unionized employees” as were employed when the transaction was announced.

Stelco said on Sept. 28 that it would indefinitely idle its cold-rolled and coated operations in Hamilton and concentrate production at Lake Erie Works in Nanticoke, Ont.

The company cited market uncertainty, pressure from steel imports and weaker demand, including a nearly 25 percent decline in demand for its products in markets it traditionally serves, and said it expected to offer a significant number of affected Hamilton employees positions at Lake Erie Works.

Joly said the acquisition commitments remained binding despite changes in business strategy or market conditions.

Joly also said Stelco had declined to seek support through federal programs intended to preserve jobs and maintain operations.

She warned that Ottawa could seek court orders to enforce the commitments.

“The Government of Canada takes compliance with undertakings seriously,” Joly wrote.

“Where an investor fails to comply with an undertaking, the Act provides remedies for breaches, including an application to the superior court for orders that may include directing compliance, divestiture, or monetary penalties.

Joly asked Cleveland-Cliffs to provide her officials with a plan within five business days explaining how it would comply with its commitments.

The Epoch Times reached out to Stelco for comment but did not receive a response by the deadline.

Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Goncalves previously told CBC that he had the right to idle operations and lay off workers at Stelco’s Hamilton plant, after Prime Minister Mark Carney said his government would use “all powers that we have” to hold the company to its commitments.

Goncalves said in the Sept. 30 interview that Cleveland-Cliffs’ purchase of Stelco in 2024—when the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) was in place—was predicated on being able to freely sell steel produced in Hamilton to buyers in the United States.

He said the deal included maintaining “significant employment levels in Canada” and “significant operations in Hamilton,” but the Canada-U.S. trade dispute had changed his ability to sell south of the border, making it difficult to maintain operations.

“I would not have acquired the Stelco if I knew that Canada and the United States would become what they became: enemies in trade,” Goncalves said.

Washington has imposed 50 percent tariffs on steel imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, while Ottawa responded with its own duties on many U.S.-made steel products.

Goncalves said he believed he was acting within the “boundaries of what I can do as a responsible business owner,” and that he would respond to Carney in court if the federal government filed a lawsuit.

Carney had said the federal government could offer money to companies like Stelco to help blunt the effect of the trade dispute with the United States. Goncalves argued the issue was not a “lack of money,” but Canada-U.S. trade uncertainty.