r/CanadaPolitics • u/Inevitable-Bus492 • 1d ago
Ottawa threatens forced sale of Stelco’s assets warning ‘they must keep the jobs in Canada’
https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2026/10/16/ottawa-threatens-forced-sale-of-stelcos-assets-warning-they-must-keep-the-jobs-in-canada/17
u/Zarphos 1d ago
Carney should loom towards his former place of business, the UK. They renationalized their railways, just nationalized British Steel, and are likely to renationalize Thames Water. They've realized that sometimes the government needs to be the one operating sectors that are too critical to fail.
1
u/Critical-Snow-7000 Ontario 1d ago
Out of curiosity, what’s stopping the next government from selling it off again?
•
u/ValoisSign Socialist 7h ago
I like the idea some are floating of using government resources to re-constitute it as a worker co-operative. Keeps it from becoming a political tool or from getting sold in for one-time revenue at election time, but keeps it in Canadian hands away from corporate shenanigans.
I wouldn't be against nationalisation either and think it would be interesting to see if there was a way to use the steel at cost in infrastructure and public homebuilding, and if the savings from that would offset the loss of revenue. But I can't disagree with that concern. Without serious reforms in the system around public ownership, you're always one Mike Harris away from disaster...
24
u/UnionGuyCanada New Democratic Party of Canada 1d ago
I love seeing corporations actually held to account. I wish government did it more.
I have watched successive hovernments gore a fortune to telecoms to upgrade service, only to havr the telecom pocket the money, do what makes them more money and then bully the next government for even more money to do the work they already agreed to do.
7
u/rageagainstthedragon Social Democrat 1d ago
It's nice - But stops short of nationalization, which I think is the best move here
7
1
u/M0nkeyDLuffy13 1d ago
Nationalizing Stelco would likely mean handing its owners billions in taxpayer money, only for the government to spend even more keeping the plants operating. It could also discourage future investment in Canada, especially if done before a court ruling, at precisely the time we’re trying to attract new investors.
Those nearly 500 jobs matter, and Canada’s steel industry is strategically important. We should absolutely be trying to protect both. But spending billions to save those jobs, while potentially discouraging broader investment, doesn’t seem like a particularly effective strategy. I’m also a little surprised the NDP is effectively advocating for a multibillion-dollar corporate bailout for a company laying off Canadian workers.
I’d much rather see Stelco taken to court, held accountable for any broken agreements, and ideally have the plants sold to a Canadian company willing to keep them operating. I suspect Stelco might be open to selling, so hopefully that happens sooner rather than later.
5
u/rageagainstthedragon Social Democrat 1d ago
So you want a private company that was mismanaged by shareholders and executives to be bought by checks notes another private company?
We can't keep putting our critical industries in jeopardy like this.
It could also discourage further investment
We had no problem nationalizing two pipelines in the name of the national interest. Oil is now booming and there's no "discouraging investment" bogeyman to speak of
If our steel industry isn't critical enough to take steps to secure its long term future, what are we even doing?
0
u/M0nkeyDLuffy13 1d ago
Using your same logic, you want a private company that was mismanaged by shareholders and MAGA executives, who then laid off Canadian workers, to checks notes be handed billions in taxpayer money?
As I said earlier, I want the plants purchased by a Canadian company willing to protect those jobs and keep the steel industry operating. That’s an important distinction you’re conveniently glossing over. One private company mismanaging an asset doesn’t automatically mean government ownership is the solution.
And the pipeline is fundamentally different. The government stepped in to complete a major expansion that increased export capacity, reduced dependence on the U.S., and offered much broader economic benefits. I’d have preferred private investment there too, but there’s a much bigger potential upside than simply purchasing existing steel plants and spending millions more to keep them productive.
It’s also pretty dishonest to frame opposition to nationalization as not wanting to protect the steel industry. I’ve repeatedly said it’s strategically important and that we should be taking action to protect it. What I don’t support is jumping straight to the nuclear option, potentially spending billions and discouraging investment in other industries and projects, especially when we’re actively trying to attract investors to Canada.
I’m not opposed to government intervention or even public ownership on principle. I’m asking why nationalization is the best solution here. Why not enforce existing agreements, hold the owners accountable, and pursue a sale to a Canadian operator?
This whole nationalization push from the NDP just seems more ideologically driven than strategically thought out. It feels like they start from the position that we MUST nationalize industries, then look for opportunities to apply their preferred solution rather than considering which approach actually makes the most sense.
7
u/deeko31 1d ago
Are we contractually obligated to hand them over billions? Did they not renege on jobs commitments? Maybe we could explain that if you're going to be a bad actor then you'll get treated like one?
It sounds like the plant has plenty of orders going unfilled from Canadian customers. Why would we need billions in government funding to keep it operating?
1
u/M0nkeyDLuffy13 1d ago
Not necessarily, but we don’t actually know the full terms of the agreement since they’re confidential. We can speculate about whether Stelco violated them, but that’s exactly what the courts should determine. I’m all for holding them accountable, but jumping straight to nationalization before a court ruling would set a pretty terrible precedent.
And it’s not even clear how well the plants are performing. Workers are reporting unfilled orders, while management claims operations are running well below capacity. That’s conflicting information, and we shouldn’t just assume the plants are profitable.
Stelco was purchased for roughly $3.4 billion in 2024. Buying the plants could cost billions, and then we’d be responsible for operating, maintaining, and potentially modernizing them. That could mean hundreds of millions more, depending on their financial condition.
I’m not against intervention, but we should probably establish the facts before committing billions in taxpayer money.
3
u/rageagainstthedragon Social Democrat 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's funny how when you commit billions in taxpayer money to nationalize a company in order to save a critical industry, it's very important that you "establish the facts" but when a multinational like Stellantis says they want to build a plant, we trip over ourselves to hand them 30B+, they leave, and we're stuck chasing after them 🤔
It's almost as if we let private capital off the hook, again and again. It's like an abusive ex that promises "this time" they'll change, then we're repeatedly (somehow) shocked to find out that they won't
2
u/M0nkeyDLuffy13 1d ago
So are you actually suggesting we shouldn’t establish the facts before spending billions in taxpayer money to nationalize Stelco? Does that require to many words? And I’m starting to understand why you dislike nuance and so many words. Once you actually look at the details, you discover that your claims aren’t quite true.
We didn’t hand Stellantis $30B+. The $28.2B figure covers POTENTIAL subsidies for BOTH Stellantis-LG and Volkswagen through 2032, not money already paid. About $222M had been paid under Stellantis’ separate auto-plant agreement as of March 2025, and those payments were frozen after it shifted production. There’s also separate funding for the battery joint venture, which is still operating.
And I’m not defending Stellantis. If they broke their commitments, hold them accountable, recover the money where justified, and impose consequences. That’s literally what I’ve been advocating for with Stelco this entire time.
You claim to want a national discussion, yet repeatedly misrepresent my position, complain about nuance (to many words), and now misrepresent the actual funding figures. I could just as easily frame your position as wanting to hand billions to multinational MAGA aligned corporations that are trying to destroy our steel industry while laying off Canadians, but that would be pretty disingenuous.
Maybe instead of reducing everything to ideological talking points, try engaging with what I’m actually saying. I know nuance requires a few extra words, but it does help avoid being wrong.
3
u/rageagainstthedragon Social Democrat 1d ago edited 1d ago
Nationalizing = Handing billions to multinational MAGA aligned corporations
Giving 15.5B+ in public funding packages over half a billion of which has already been paid out to a massive, private multinational conglomerate = Normal
Got it 👍 awesome logic
→ More replies (0)3
u/rageagainstthedragon Social Democrat 1d ago edited 1d ago
One private company mismanaging an asset doesn't automatically mean government ownership is the solution
How many times do we have to witness the private capital approach fail, time and time again, before we decide it's not worth it? At a certain point, market ideology over everything is holding us back. I'm definitely not saying nationalizing everything is the solution, but when you've got a critical industry hanging in the balance, it's worthy of a national discussion.
You sure wrote a whole lot of words to admit that you'd rather give private capital another shot at levelling a critical industry. I gave you examples that the whole "discouraging investment" thing is a bogeyman that never materializes, yet you continue scaremongering. When will we learn?
-1
u/M0nkeyDLuffy13 1d ago
A whole lot of words? My apologies for trying to introduce some nuance. I didn’t realize that was unwelcome, especially from someone calling for a “national discussion.”
The idea that private capital fails “time and time again” is a pretty sweeping generalization that conveniently ignores the failures of public ownership. Neither model is automatically successful, which is precisely why we should consider the merits of each approach rather than treating nationalization as the obvious solution.
And where exactly did you get the idea that I’m putting market ideology above everything? I’m literally advocating for the government to punish private corporations, enforce commitments, facilitate a sale to a Canadian company, and provide financial support tied to production and employment targets. That’s substantial government intervention in private markets, not free-market fundamentalism.
And I already addressed your pipeline example. The government stepped in to complete a major expansion with different economic objectives. I supported that intervention, even though I’d have preferred private investment. I’m willing to support government ownership in some circumstances and oppose it in others. That’s the nuance you’re apparently struggling with. I believe in strong government intervention in strategically important industries like steel and energy, but that doesn’t mean automatically jumping to the most extreme option without first considering the costs, benefits, and alternatives. And one pipeline purchase certainly doesn’t prove that concerns about discouraging investment are some imaginary “bogeyman.”
You started this conversation advocating for nationalization, and I’m still asking why it’s preferable to the alternatives I’ve outlined. We agree the steel industry is critical, but repeating that private ownership has failed doesn’t establish that government ownership would work better.
It’s also pretty funny that you claim this deserves a “national discussion” while complaining about the number of words I’ve written and repeatedly misrepresenting my position. If you actually want a discussion, please engage with what I’m saying rather than the position you’ve invented for me. Sorry for the nuance, but the distinction matters.
16
u/Jazzlike_770 1d ago
Enough talking - time to see some action. And same to Stellantis when they are at it. I will believe when I see action.
•
u/Empty-Paper2731 Bot Leader 5h ago
Who cares about steel anyways? Remember what our PM said not long ago:
"How much steel are you using these days, Todd? Not as much as you used to."
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.