工业部长梅拉尼·乔利（Mélanie Joly）要求总部位于美国的汉密尔顿（Hamilton）公司Stelco的母公司，在15天内撤销裁员决定；否则她将诉诸法律。
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly is giving the American parent company of Hamilton-based Stelco 15 days to reverse layoffs before turning to the courts.
在周四发给总部位于俄亥俄州克利夫兰-克利夫斯（Cleveland-Cliffs）公司的“要求函”中，乔利指出该公司违反了《加拿大投资法》（Investment Canada Act）中的相关规定。
In a "demand letter" sent to Ohio-based Cleveland-Cliffs on Thursday, Joly says the company is violating its commitments under the Investment Canada Act.
“如果克利夫斯公司未能遵守这一要求，部长可以根据该法案第40条向上级法院提出申请，”这封由加拿大广播公司（Radio-Canada）获得的信件中写道。
"In the event Cliffs fails to comply with this demand, the Minister may, pursuant to section 40 of the Act, make an application to a superior court," the letter, obtained by Radio-Canada, reads.
乔利表示，如果政府采取法律行动，将要求法院对克利夫斯公司处以罚款，并可能责令该公司出售其在Stelco的股份。
Joly indicates that if the government proceeds with legal action, it would be asking the courts to issue monetary penalties against Cleveland-Cliffs and potentially direct the company to divest from Stelco.
“我仍然愿意与克利夫斯公司坐下来协商，寻找解决方案。但我们的立场非常明确：保护加拿大的就业机会，维护我们的钢铁产业，并确保该公司履行对加拿大的承诺，”乔利在声明中说道。
"I remain prepared to sit down with Cleveland-Cliffs to find a solution. But our bottom line is clear: protect Canadian jobs, defend our steel industry and ensure that commitments made to Canada are respected," Joly said in a statement.
克利夫斯公司上月底表示，由于部分钢铁生产线的停产，计划裁员多达500名员工。联邦政府认为这一举措违反了该公司在2024年收购Stelco时所作出的“具有约束力的承诺”。
Cleveland-Cliffs said late last month that it plans to lay off as many as 500 workers as it idles certain steel production at Stelco, a move the federal government says violates "binding commitments" made when it bought the company in 2024.
联邦政府称，该公司在收购Stelco时承诺：在2024年至2029年间，至少要维持与2024年相同数量的工会员工和非工会员工的就业岗位。
The federal government has said the company's purchase of Stelco included promises to employ "at least the same number of unionized employees and the vast majority of non-unionized employees" as there were in 2024 through 2029.
克利夫斯公司辩称，此次裁员是为了“确保公司的生存”，因为美国对钢铁产品的关税严重影响了公司的销售业绩。但乔利对此理由予以驳斥。
The company said the planned layoffs are in order to "ensure the survival" of the company, as U.S. tariffs on steel squeeze its sales. But Joly has dismissed that reasoning.
“我必须明确指出：无论是自然灾害还是市场条件的变化，都无法免除克利夫斯公司履行对加拿大的承诺。这些承诺是必须履行的，没有任何例外，”她在声明中强调。
"Let me be clear: no act of god or change in market conditions can relieve Cleveland-Cliffs of the commitments it made to Canada. Those commitments are not optional," she said in her statement.
加拿大广播公司（CBC News）已联系克利夫斯公司寻求评论。
CBC News has reached out to Cleveland-Cliffs for comment.
此前，Joly曾向该公司发出最后通牒，要求其提出一项避免裁员的具体计划，否则将面临法律诉讼。但该公司否认了政府的指控，称这些裁员行为违反了该公司在2024年签署的协议。
Joly previously issued an ultimatum to the company to share a plan to avoid the layoffs or risk legal action. But the company rebuffed the government's claim that it is in violation of its 2024 agreement.
“你们声称Stelco的裁员计划违反了其承诺，这种说法是错误的，”Stelco公司的总裁兼法律顾问Paul Simon本月早些时候在给Joly的信中写道。
"Your representation that Stelco's planned layoffs cause it to breach its undertakings is false," Paul Simon, president and general counsel at Stelco Inc., wrote in a letter to Joly earlier this month.
尽管该公司坚称裁员是确保自身生存的必要措施，但Cleveland-Cliffs公司却在几天前表示：今年第三季度的业绩是该公司自收购Hamilton工厂以来的“最佳表现”。
Despite the company insisting the layoffs are required to ensure its survival, Cleveland-Cliffs said just days ago that Stelco's third quarter this year was its "strongest" since it acquired the Hamilton plant.
“第三季度的业绩是Stelco自两年前被收购以来的最佳表现。加拿大的热轧钢铁市场已经有了显著改善，”Cleveland-Cliffs公司的首席执行官Lourenco Goncalves在周一的声明中表示。
"Third quarter was Stelco's strongest ... since we acquired the company two years ago. The Canadian hot-rolled market has improved substantially," Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves said in a statement on Monday.
如果联邦政府真的对Cleveland-Cliffs提起诉讼，这也不会是Stelco第一次成为法律纠纷的焦点。2009年，加拿大工业部曾因就业保护问题起诉Stelco的前所有者——美国钢铁公司（U.S. Steel），最终该纠纷于2011年通过庭外和解的方式得以解决。
If the federal government proceeds to take Cleveland-Cliffs to court, it won't be the first time Stelco has been at the centre of a legal battle. In 2009, Industry Canada sued Stelco's previous owner, U.S. Steel, over job protection. The matter was settled out of court in 2011.