U.S.-China Relations
NextFin News - Canada has given Cleveland-Cliffs five business days to save 500 Stelco jobs - or face a court fight that could end with the U.S. steelmaker forced to sell its Canadian assets. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly escalated the standoff in a speech at the Canadian Club in Toronto, telling the Ohio-based owner of Stelco that it must uphold the job commitments it made when it bought the Hamilton steelmaker in 2024, or "face the prospect of having to sell their Canadian assets." The confrontation puts a rare enforcement test behind one of Canada's most potent foreign-investment tools - and it lands on a company whose chief executive has publicly championed the very U.S. steel tariffs he now blames for the layoffs.
The clash is not only about 500 paycheques in southern Ontario. It is about whether the employment undertakings Ottawa extracts from foreign buyers under the Investment Canada Act carry real teeth, or whether they are political window dressing that dissolves at the first sign of a downturn. The answer will echo far beyond Hamilton, shaping how every future cross-border takeover of a Canadian strategic asset is priced, structured, and policed.
The Ultimatum and the Layoffs
Joly sent a letter on Monday, Oct. 5, to Stelco president and general counsel Paul Simon, demanding a plan within five business days showing how Cleveland-Cliffs intends to comply with all of the undertakings it accepted when Ottawa approved its acquisition of Stelco. If Ottawa does not like the response, she said, enforcement action follows. "They need to comply," Joly told reporters. "If not, we will use the full force of the law."
They must keep the jobs in Canada or face the prospect of having to sell their Canadian assets.
The undertakings are specific. Canada's approval of the 2024 takeover - valued at about $2.5 billion - was contingent on the new owner maintaining at least the same number of unionized employees and the vast majority of non-unionized positions for five years. Joly said the commitments include maintaining more than 1,500 jobs, and she rejected the argument that U.S. tariffs and changing market conditions relieve the company of those obligations.
Her reasoning is political as much as legal. Cleveland-Cliffs chairman and CEO Lourenco Goncalves has publicly supported U.S. steel tariffs, calling them necessary to curb dumped imports. Joly argued that a chief executive who backed the tariffs cannot now characterize their consequences as an unforeseeable "act of God or force majeure."
They cannot say that this is now an act of God or force majeure.
On the company's side, the cuts are real and already landing. Stelco announced plans to lay off up to 500 workers across its Hamilton Works and Lake Erie Works facilities in Nanticoke, Ontario, idling its cold-rolled and galvanized operations in Hamilton and consolidating production at Lake Erie Works. The company began issuing individual layoff notices in Hamilton, with the first layoffs taking effect the Sunday after the announcement. Ron Wells, president of United Steelworkers Local 1005, said about 90 workers would receive notices in the first week and roughly 330 Hamilton workers would be affected over three weeks, with additional cuts at Lake Erie Works and among co-op workers. Union leaders put the Hamilton share of the affected workforce at about 350.
Stelco insists the move does not shift production out of Canada: overall steel tonnage is unchanged, and the company expects a significant number of affected Hamilton employees to be absorbed at Lake Erie Works. The union disputes the scale of that absorption. Wells said only about 40 laid-off Hamilton workers have been offered positions in Nanticoke.
Goncalves has framed the layoffs as temporary. "Once this trade deal is reached and we're back and able to produce and sell galvanized steel, we will bring back these people," he said, adding that he believes a trade deal will come but does not know when. He argued the Canadian market is simply too small to support galvanized steel production from both Stelco and ArcelorMittal Dofasco, plus imports.
You can't operate in an efficient and profitable way running at 50 or 55 per cent capacity.
The Legal Fault Line: Headcount vs. Layoffs
The dispute turns on a narrow but consequential reading of the undertakings. Ottawa's position is that cutting 500 jobs breaches a promise to maintain headcount. Stelco's position is that it never promised to avoid layoffs at all.
In a seven-page letter to the industry minister, Simon wrote that the undertakings "do not stipulate a commitment to avoid layoffs." The company's defense rests on a distinction between a permanent reduction in employment levels and a temporary idling of operations with recall rights intact. Under Ontario employment law, a temporary layoff can run up to 13 weeks in a 20-week window - or up to 35 weeks out of 52 if specific conditions are met. Only when a layoff exceeds those thresholds is the employer considered to have terminated the worker, triggering termination and severance obligations.
That legal architecture gives Stelco a plausible path: if the idling is genuinely temporary and recall rights survive, the headcount commitment may not technically be breached. Union president Wells, however, said he expects Stelco to push ahead with the layoffs regardless of Ottawa's pressure, noting the uncertainty of duration: "Christmas ain't that far away, and we have no idea the duration of these layoffs."
The 2009 precedent looms over both sides. When Industry Canada took Stelco's former owner, U.S. Steel, to court over job cuts under similar commitments, the fight dragged on for two years before settling. A court challenge now would not be a quick fix; it would be a multi-year litigation over the meaning of promises made in a different trade environment. Ottawa has rarely gone to court to enforce investment undertakings - the 2009 case stands as the known precedent - which is precisely why both the government and the company have so much at stake in how this is resolved.
Joly has signaled she is prepared for a long fight and a heavy toolkit. Beyond fines and court orders to compel compliance, a superior court judge could order the company to sell off the business.
We will apply the full force of the law and every tool in the toolbox to ensure that this strategic capacity remains operational.
She also raised the possibility of the federal government providing financing or even taking ownership stakes in companies to keep important industries and jobs in Canada - a hint that Ottawa may be willing to become a shareholder of last resort in strategic steel capacity.
The Contradiction at the Center: A CEO Who Championed the Tariffs
The most damaging fact for Cleveland-Cliffs is not legal; it is rhetorical. The company's defense rests on portraying the tariffs as an external shock beyond its control. But Goncalves has spent more than a year and a half urging Ottawa to adopt stronger protections against foreign steel imports, describing U.S. Section 232 tariffs as "the most successful policy implemented on trade in the United States ever." He has advocated a "Fortress North America" approach aimed at protecting steelmakers in both countries from foreign imports while restoring U.S. market access for Canadian galvanized steel.
That record undercuts any force-majeure argument. A force-majeure defense generally requires an unforeseeable, external event that the party could not have prevented or influenced. A trade-policy outcome the CEO publicly lobbied for is neither unforeseeable nor wholly external. Joly's framing - "They cannot say that this is now an act of God" - is designed to close exactly that escape hatch.
Goncalves called Joly's comments "totally unfair" and "just playing with words." He said Cleveland-Cliffs would respond to her letter within the five-business-day deadline, preparing two submissions: one addressing the demand for a compliance plan, and a second, more detailed document containing commercially sensitive information. But the political optics are already set: the company that welcomed the tariff regime is now asking to be excused from the consequences of that regime.
The economic data Stelco cites is not in dispute. Simon's letter described an industry upended by U.S. tariffs, weakening demand, and continued foreign steel imports. Canadian exports of cold-rolled and coated steel to the United States have plunged 58% from pre-trade-war levels. Imports accounted for 45% of Canadian demand for those products despite Ottawa's import restrictions, and disruptions to Canadian industries that rely on cold-rolled and coated steel have driven a 10% decline in domestic demand.
Stelco cannot continue to produce cold-rolled and coated steel products without incurring significant losses that are not sustainable.
The numbers explain the business decision. They do not explain away the political contradiction.
Second-Order Consequences: The Regulatory Risk Premium on Cross-Border Deals
The immediate question is whether Cleveland-Cliffs keeps its Canadian steel plants. The more important question is what this fight does to the price of doing cross-border deals in Canada.
If Ottawa follows through - filing suit, seeking fines, or pushing for a forced sale - it would mark the first serious enforcement of ICA employment undertakings in nearly two decades. That would insert a new, quantifiable risk into every foreign acquisition of a Canadian strategic asset: the risk that a government-extracted jobs promise, signed in good economic times, becomes an enforceable constraint in a downturn. Buyers will price that risk. Some will walk away. Others will demand concessions - lower purchase prices, narrower undertakings, or government indemnities - that shift the economics of Canadian M&A.
The second-order transmission runs through capital, not just jobs. A forced divestiture of Stelco's Canadian assets would not be a clean transaction. Finding a buyer willing and able to operate money-losing steel capacity in the middle of a trade war is difficult; a distressed sale could itself trigger more layoffs or even closure - the opposite of the government's stated goal. Joly's suggestion that Ottawa might take equity positions in strategic industries points to a possible endgame: if no private buyer emerges, the federal government could become a part-owner, effectively nationalizing a slice of steel capacity to preserve it.
There is also a cross-border dimension. Cleveland-Cliffs is an American company operating on both sides of the border, and its stock reflects that dual exposure. Shares closed at $12.12, down 0.25% on the day, with a market capitalization of about $6.9 billion - well below the $16.70 52-week high. The company is navigating the tariff regime from both sides: it benefits from U.S. protectionism at home while absorbing the Canadian retaliation and export collapse abroad. A forced sale of Stelco would be a strategic retreat, unwinding the very North American integration Goncalves has argued for.
The political pressure is bipartisan. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre unveiled a five-point steel plan that includes urging Ottawa to sue Stelco's U.S. owner, seeking either the return of workers and the restart of idled operations or a forced sale to a Canadian owner willing to resume production.
The only thing that we would accept is these workers getting their paycheques, making Canadian steel to build our country.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has accused Cleveland-Cliffs of betraying Canadian workers. When both the government and the opposition are pushing for enforcement, the path of least resistance for Ottawa narrows considerably.
The Strongest Case Against Enforcement
The case for Ottawa is emotionally and politically compelling. The case against it is legally sharper than it looks, and it deserves a full hearing.
Stelco's core argument - that the undertakings do not prohibit layoffs - is a legitimate reading of the text. Governments draft undertakings to commit buyers to employment levels, not to guarantee lifetime job security for every worker. If Ottawa wanted to ban temporary layoffs, it could have written that prohibition explicitly. Reading a layoff ban into a headcount commitment stretches the text, and courts are generally reluctant to rewrite negotiated undertakings after the fact.
There is also a pragmatic counter-argument. Forcing a company to keep paying workers it cannot profitably employ does not preserve capacity; it accelerates losses. Stelco says it is losing money on cold-rolled and coated production. Compelling it to continue at a loss transfers the cost to the company's balance sheet and, ultimately, to its creditors and shareholders - and it does nothing to restore U.S. market access, which is the actual constraint. The union's own president expects the layoffs to proceed regardless. A two-year court battle, mirroring the U.S. Steel case, may end in a settlement that changes little on the ground while freezing investment decisions in the meantime.
Finally, a forced sale carries its own employment risk. A buyer stepping into a tariff-battered, import-exposed steel operation may cut deeper than Cleveland-Cliffs has. The remedy could worsen the disease it is meant to cure. That is the strongest argument for restraint: enforcement that looks tough in a press conference can destroy the very jobs it claims to protect.
Even so, the government holds the stronger political hand. The undertakings were the price of approval. A buyer that accepts them, then cites a trade environment it helped create as grounds for non-compliance, invites exactly the enforcement Joly has threatened. The legal text may favor Stelco; the political and reputational ground does not.
What to Watch
Cleveland-Cliffs said it would respond to Joly's letter within the five-business-day deadline; whether Ottawa received a substantive jobs plan or a legalistic rebuttal now determines whether this becomes enforcement or posturing. The next observable signals are concrete:
- The company's submission. If Cleveland-Cliffs offers a credible plan to recall workers or restart Hamilton operations contingent on a trade deal, Ottawa may pause. A purely legalistic rejection invites suit.
- Whether Ottawa files. A formal notice of default or court filing would confirm this is enforcement, not posturing. Absent filing within weeks, the threat loses credibility.
- The 35-week threshold. Under Ontario law, a layoff exceeding 35 weeks in 52 generally converts to a termination. If recalled workers are not back on payroll before that mark, the headcount commitment is breached in fact, not just in Ottawa's reading.
- A Canada-U.S. steel trade deal. Goncalves has staked the recall on exactly this. A deal that restores U.S. access would defuse the standoff; continued tariff stalemate pushes it toward the courtroom.
The falsifying signal for the enforcement thesis is specific: if Ottawa files suit and a court rules that the undertakings do not prohibit temporary layoffs - or if a trade deal is reached and the recalled workers return to payroll before the 35-week mark - the forced-sale scenario collapses.
Outlook: Three Scenarios
Base case - litigation with a negotiated exit. Ottawa files or threatens formal enforcement, and the parties settle on terms short of a sale: a recall timeline tied to trade progress, monitoring commitments, and possibly financial concessions. This mirrors the 2009 U.S. Steel pattern - a long fight ending in a compromise that saves face for both sides. The jobs return slowly, if at all; the precedent is set that undertakings are enforceable, but the enforcement is negotiated rather than imposed.
Downside case - forced divestiture. If Cleveland-Cliffs refuses to budge and Ottawa escalates, a court could order a sale of the Canadian assets. The practical difficulty is finding a buyer for loss-making capacity amid a trade war. A distressed sale could trigger deeper cuts, and Joly's equity-stake suggestion hints Ottawa may have to participate to keep the mills running. This is the outcome the market fears most: it reprices regulatory risk across Canadian M&A and leaves the workers no better off.
Upside case - trade deal resolves the standoff. A Canada-U.S. steel agreement restores U.S. market access, Stelco recalls the laid-off workers, and the enforcement question becomes moot. Goncalves has explicitly tied the recall to this outcome. It is the cleanest resolution, but it depends on negotiators in Ottawa and Washington moving faster than a steel market that is bleeding exports.
Across time horizons, the picture splits. In the short term, sentiment and politics dominate - every statement from Joly, Goncalves, or the negotiators moves the stock. In the medium term, fundamentals dominate - whether cold-rolled and galvanized demand recovers and whether exports to the U.S. climb back from the 58% plunge. In the long term, structure dominates - this fight will either harden the ICA into a real enforcement regime for foreign takeovers, or confirm that its employment undertakings bend when the economy does.
The central judgment: Cleveland-Cliffs walked into this fight with a weak legal story and a weaker political one. It praised the tariffs, then pleaded the tariffs. Ottawa now has both the motive and the toolbox to make an example of the case - but the example it sets may be that enforcement is easier threatened than executed, and that the workers in Hamilton are collateral in a dispute whose real stakes are measured in regulatory precedent, not paycheques.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
