There’s something about the Stelco story that bothers me more than the layoffs themselves.
It’s the timing.
On October 19, Cleveland-Cliffs, the American company that bought Stelco in 2024, announced its quarterly financial results.
The company reported $5.6 billion US in revenue, $165 million in net income, and its strongest quarter in three years.
And its Canadian operation?
Stelco had just delivered its strongest quarter since the takeover.
Meanwhile, up to 500 Canadian steelworkers were facing layoffs.
I read those numbers twice.
Not because a profitable company can never lay off employees. Of course it can.
But because I remembered what Cleveland-Cliffs promised Canada when it bought Stelco.
And apparently, so does Ottawa.
Remember the promises?
In October 2024, the federal government approved Cleveland-Cliffs’ acquisition of Stelco under the Investment Canada Act.
That approval came with legally binding commitments lasting five years.
Among them was a commitment to maintain at least the same number of unionized employees and the vast majority of non-unionized employees who were working at Stelco when the deal was announced.
The company also committed to maintaining operations in Hamilton, honouring collective agreements, and making significant investments in Canadian operations.
These weren’t casual promises made over coffee.
They were part of the conditions attached to Ottawa’s approval of a multibillion-dollar foreign takeover.
Now, barely two years later, hundreds of Canadian workers are paying the price for decisions made by their American employer.
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly has warned that the government could pursue legal action, financial penalties, or even a forced sale of Canadian assets.
That’s a serious escalation.
And it raises a question I think every Canadian should be asking.
What good are legally binding employment commitments if we don’t enforce them when they’re tested?
The CEO has an explanation
Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves says the problem isn’t Stelco’s entire business.
It’s galvanized steel.
According to the company’s October 19 earnings release, Canada’s hot-rolled steel market has improved substantially. Stelco became a positive contributor to the company’s quarterly adjusted earnings.
But Goncalves argues that Canada’s galvanized steel market is oversupplied and that the federal government hasn’t done enough to address the problem.
The company is indefinitely idling its galvanizing lines and says affected workers will be recalled when conditions improve.
That’s an important distinction.
A company can have a profitable steel operation while one particular product line struggles.
And Cleveland-Cliffs says approximately 2,000 Canadian jobs are being preserved.
I don’t intend to pretend those facts don’t exist just because I’m angry about the layoffs.
But here’s where my patience runs out.
Goncalves has praised the Trump administration’s trade policies while criticizing Mark Carney and the Canadian government’s handling of trade.
The same American trade policies that have made life miserable for Canadian steel producers are being celebrated by the man who owns one of Canada’s most important steel companies.
Meanwhile, Canadian workers are being told their jobs depend on Ottawa fixing the market.
That’s quite a position to take.
Especially when your company accepted employment commitments as part of the deal that allowed it to buy Stelco.
Canada needs more than another warning
I don’t know whether Cleveland-Cliffs has legally breached its agreement.
That depends on the precise terms of its undertakings, including any exceptions, and how they apply to the layoffs.
That’s something Ottawa must establish.
But I do know this.
Canada didn’t approve the Stelco takeover simply because an American corporation wanted to own another steel company.
The government approved it after receiving commitments intended to protect Canadian interests.
Those commitments were part of the bargain.
And Canada has every right to insist that the bargain be honoured.
If Cleveland-Cliffs can demonstrate that the layoffs are permitted under its agreement, let it make that case.
If it can’t, Ottawa should enforce the commitments.
Not issue another sternly worded statement.
Enforce them.
And if a different owner would better protect Stelco’s future, then a sale deserves serious consideration.
I’m not convinced nationalization should be the first answer. Buying an existing steel company with public money carries risks and costs.
But neither should Canada sit quietly while an essential industry becomes a bargaining chip in somebody else’s trade war.
We need Canadian steel for infrastructure, construction, manufacturing, energy projects, and defence.
We need the skilled workers who produce it.
And we need foreign investors to understand that when they make legally binding commitments to Canada, we expect them to mean something.
Cleveland-Cliffs says Stelco is performing better.
Good.
Now let’s find out whether its promises to Canadian workers are worth as much as its promises to shareholders.
Because a five-year commitment shouldn’t become optional after two.
The Recap…
Cleveland-Cliffs says Stelco just delivered its strongest quarter since the American takeover.
Yet up to 500 Canadian workers face layoffs.
Ottawa approved that takeover with binding five-year employment commitments.
Now Canada may have to prove those commitments actually mean something.
The Gut-Punch…
If an American company needs Canada’s permission to buy our steel industry, its promises to Canadian workers shouldn’t expire the moment those promises become inconvenient.
Sources:
Cleveland-Cliffs… Third-quarter 2026 financial results, October 19, 2026
CHCH News… Stelco’s strongest quarter and the layoffs, October 19, 2026
Global News… Joly discusses potential penalties and forced sale, October 14, 2026
If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.
Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.
No paywall.
No spam.
No nonsense.
Leave anytime with a single click.
I promise not to take it personally.
Thanks Fred for clarifying this issue.I havent had time to dig it out and don t have the business background to trust my judgement about what s on their side or what s needed. God I miss the journalism of old. Is there a likely Canadian buyer? Might someone reliable overseas be interested? Can we force a sale?