The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Can Canada Save Its Steelworkers?

Episode Date: October 8, 2026

As governments promise to protect Canadian jobs and industries, are their policies delivering? United Steelworkers president Ron Wells and McMaster University professor emeritus Wayne Lewchuk discuss the fallout from Stelco layoffs and the future of Hamilton's steelworkers. Then, Toronto Star investigative reporter Frédérik Plante examines questions about Ottawa's "buy Canadian" policy and where federal procurement dollars are actually going.Donate Today : https://tvo.me/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What a difference a year can make. When you support TVO, you're helping bring trusted stories, inspiring ideas, and lifelong learning to people across Ontario. And as a thank you, you can receive the 2027 TVO calendar. Filled with beautiful photography from the documentaries and programs your support helps make possible. It's a year-long reminder of the learning, beauty, and discovery your generosity supports. Donate $40 or more to claim yours today at TVO.com slash calendar 2027 and make every month a little more inspiring. 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 2020. 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 Karnie government can talk to talk. We look at whether the Karnie government is also walking the walk. I'm Jan Jagannadn, and this is the rundown. Yesterday, the federal government announced they're willing to,

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 manufacture 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 Luchuk, 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 characterize the mood in the room right now with your members right now? 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 bread winners in the household. But the overriding feeling is people are upset. upset they're angry. We feel that this layoff is unnecessary. We're being used as ponds in a political game in a trade war. So we think Stelko could make a go of it in the GELV selling GELV products, and anger is the overriding mood in the planet. Has there been any conversations between the union and Stelco since this announcement? 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 honored as much as possible. Obviously, the company pushes back. 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 has to still run. So that's the only real conversations we've had. 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 a steel town to see sort of this big impact.

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. Wayne, when the government approved the Cleveland Cliffs takeover of Stelko in 2024, the company promised to, quote, continue to employ at least the same number of unionized employees

and the vast majority of non-unized employees as were employed when the transaction was announced. Help me understand here, why would they break such a lot? a promise. Well, because they're a big company and they feel they don't have to play by the rules. It 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 honoring their commitments. And the irony is if you go to Cleveland Cliff's website, they claim that one of their guiding principles is ethical behavior. And I would suggest breaking this kind of a contract is hardly ethical. I should mention.

that we did reach out to Stelko 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? 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 a big issue. I guess you're starting to keep a bit in perspective in terms of Hamilton's history with Stelko. And keeping in mind that in the early 80s when I first came to Hamilton,

Stelko used to employ 26,000 people. And so we've seen a very, very steady drip and sometimes quite a sudden drip in jobs to the point now that we have a couple thousand people in Hamilton and the area working for Stelco. But, you know, 500 jobs is not something to not be concerned about for sure. Now, Wayne, you know, Stelko 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? Yeah, that's a question that's in the air at the present moment because Cleveland, Cliffs and Stelker are not the only one who are reneging on a deal. 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 jobs and expansions of employment. And you do get cases, you know, we're seeing here in Stelco. And now we're seeing in Stalantis up in Brampton where they've closed that plant, where they've got promises and they're not abiding those promises. And so I think, you know, we need to look seriously at 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 were an egg on their promises. They need to be convinced that these promises are real, not something that they make up just to get the money. 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 center. 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 pulled the plug on it. How does that feel? Well, I mean, disappointment isn't really a strong enough adjective. When we met Cliff's back two years ago when they were looking to purchase us, we told them our experience with U.S. Steel. how in 08, they idled both operations and the consolidated operations at the U.S. plants. So we described our concerns, and Lorenzo Gunglavis, the CEO of Cleveland Clist, says, trust us, where nothing like U.S. Steel will approve it to you. That and what they signed with the Cannes Investment Act,

and it's on the website, as Wayne pointed out, that they talked about their commitment. They said five years, no reduction of unionized workers. I mean, it was on their website. It's on the government of Canada website. And like I'm actually pretty happy that Prime Minister Carney and Minister Jolie have acted swiftly. They sent a letter to Stalko 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 divestments one of them, so be it. I think Canada's got to make an example that you can't let foreign corporations coming to our country, not abide by their agreements. They used to say Canada's open for business, but there's rules that's going to benefit Canadians, so those rules should be enforced.

Wayne, Ron just mentioned. 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, you know, federal government is doing. Wayne, help me understand, what do you make of Prime Minister Mark Carney's action so far? Yeah, and I think they're saying the right things. you know, the question is whether they have, you know, the courage to follow through on this. And I think it's really quite critical that they actually do follow through.

And I think there are a number of options 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 our Canadian history when we need to look back on how we got into this mess. And partly we got into this mess. It's because of a royal commission back in the mid-19-18. the McDonald's, the McDonald Commission, which pointed us down the free trade path. 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 dead in the water. 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 $75,000. workers and job seekers affected by disruptions in Hamilton Steel manufacturing sectors. It also includes money from the federal government as well. Is that actually enough for your members?

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 have 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 we don't want to be a satellite plant just for over full capabilities. Our members want full-time jobs. Wayne, this current case, I think highlights a big question about foreign ownership of Canadian assets. Is this of public interest? Is this something that we should be having a broader conversation of? I think absolutely.

I think we have to look around and see the world has changed. And certainly, Prime Minister Carney has encouraged a lot more foreign investment. Canada desperately needs capital. 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 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 ourselves are also big investors 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. Ron, your thoughts? When it comes to steel, I think every country, developed country needs its own steelmaking capability for infrastructure projects, for defense, 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 have that answer your question. your question, but I think Canada has to be self-sufficient. We can't rely on other countries. Ron, earlier you had mentioned, you know, feeling like you are caught in the middle, you and the workers you represent are caught in the middle of this trade war here. U.S. President Donald Trump announced an investment of $15 billion of a new steel plant in Iowa. I imagine that doesn't feel too great. No, and we think it's more than a coincidence. So on Monday, Trump's a that last Monday, Trump's in the White House

and, you know, we're talking about the $15 billion investment and the steel plan 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 apologize. And at the same time,

one of the biggest supporters, especially about the terrorists, Cleveland Cliff's CEO, Lorenzo Guncladis, is, you know, basically his decision that 500 Canadian steelworkers are getting laid off, which, you know, Stalko's an iconic company, USW Local 10.05's been around for 80 years. So it was front page news. So we think it's a bit more than a coincidence. You know, part of it's to help Trump in his midterms to show that his tariffs are working. And the other part is, I think it's 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 used as ponds in this situation. Wayne, your take? No, I think he's absolutely right. This is part of a much bigger play. And, you know, Trump has made no, has not disguised it 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 the, you know, one of us.

another move in that direction. You know, this new plant in Iowa, let's see if it comes to play or not. I mean, 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 can only compound the problems

that this sector is facing. 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 nationalize 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 nationalizing Stelco? 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 Stalko was a standalone company between 2017 and before Cliff Spots 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? Like there's other Crown Corp mail, you know, Canada Post, so it's definitely doable. Wayne? Yeah, I think SAPLA is 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 option, the strategy we adopted in the late 1980s to engage in free trade with the U.S. it does not seem to be working.

I'm not sure it's coming back. Certainly nationalizing 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. Ron, do you have any hope that Stelco could recall its workers back if a trade agreement? is reached between the U.S. and Canada? 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 Turkey, China, Korea coming into Canada. The largest exporter by far is the U.S. And right now there's remission on those tariffs. So they're able to sell-fill Canadian orders that we could fill from Stalko 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. Gentlemen, I want to thank you so much for joining us on the rundown. Ron Wells, Wayne Luchak, thank you so much for your insights. My pleasure. Thank you for having me. Another way Ottawa says it's working to protect jobs and build the economy, it's by 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.

Frederic Pont, great to have you on the rundown. How are you doing today? Good morning. I'm good. How are you? I'm doing well. Thank you. Why did the Toronto Star decide to look at where the government's contract dollars were going. Well, it's been a feature, a prominent feature of the Prime Minister Mark Carney's campaign and his government to tout Canadian businesses, this promise to build Canadian and to buy Canadian

for the past year and a half and a little bit more. And so we wanted to check what the government government, not only what the government was saying, but what the government was doing with with tax money. Now, Frederica, 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? 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 located. But this is, it has a different definition depending on where you look. And so what you see in procurement data is well-known American companies like Amazon, the tech giant or Lockheed Martin,

the defense contractor or general dynamics, another defense 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 a separate data set that is called the inter-government,

inter-corporate, the, sorry, the inter-corporate ownership review index. It's also a 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 than at the company. 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. 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, The 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 them 26% to just nine. That may seem counterintuitive. Like looking at that data, it doesn't seem like Canada's 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. Yeah, that's why we took a look at what the federal government was doing and not only at what it was saying. Indeed, I was also a little bit surprised by this. But what the data shows is that a lot of these very high numbers contract are for defense contractors and tech contractors. So we're talking like aircraft parts, ammunition, engineering services, a lot of a lot of license for software. So that's the kind of things that dominate the most lucrative federal contracts going to U.S. 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, controlled by other countries than the U.S. and Canada, hence the bigger part. I think there were a couple of contracts for UK-based companies. for that actually control the Davey workplace where they build ships in Quebec and the other one, I think, on the West Coast and on the East Coast.

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 by Canada policy have a structural flaw? Well, it depends on who you ask. The federal government, the liberal government says that it is working as intended

because the by Canadian policy, again, it doesn't look at the country of control. It looks at whether the company has a Canadian workplace, whether it has, you know, where it conducts activities. So that's how you see a company like General Dynamics, for example, which received large federal contracts for ammunition in the past and also was announced for these armored vehicles to be built in London, Ontario. Now, General Dynamics, it's a company that is headquartered in Virginia. It's a U.S. controlled company, but it has workers in the country. And so to the federal government, they're saying the policy works. But others, the critics say, well, actually, if we send our contract dollars to companies that are controlled in the U.S., we put, well, first of all, we're not supporting our homegrown industries. And also, we are putting Canadians at risk at a couple of levels with defense contractors and with tech contractors, notably with Canadians' data in the face of U.S. administration that's proven to be.

sometimes reckless with their own citizens' data. That's what people at the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives have told me. Now, Frederic, 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? That's another concern 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 U.S. advantage. But experts have told me, and we have also seen in recent procurement contracts, I think, with the German submarines, 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 care to be intentional about it. 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 ask them to explain the reasons for why they are still awarding contracts to U.S. controlled corporations, what did they tell you?

They did not really address the questions initially. They touted by Canadian policy, which we've talked about, and they said that they take Canadian data protection seriously and take measures to protect it. Now, after the piece was published, the opposition leader, Pia Poyev, repeatedly asked Prime Minister Carney about our reporting. Prime Minister Carney again touted projects. projects that were announced, some of these large contracts included with general dynamics. So it seems that the federal government thinks that there's no issue there and the policy is

working as intended. Frederick help. That is for Canadians to decide, of course. I should mention to our viewers and listeners that Ontario is also subject to the by Canada rules, which in turn means that TVO is also part of that. Frederic, I want to thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for your reporting and your insights on this. Thank you for having 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 to rundown at tvO.org. Until then, I will see you tomorrow. Here's something we're working on. 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. You're not imagining it. Historically, women's health has been under-researched and underfunded. Did you know it took until the 90s for ADHD and girls to be studied? And it can take decades to be diagnosed with endometriosis.

How did we get here? This season on mistreated, we're exploring that and more and speaking to those working on solutions. I'm Nan Kiwanuka. Watch mistreated Thursdays at 8.30 p.m. on TVO. to the podcast or stream us anytime.