Last month, some 1,000 workers at the Algoma Steel plant in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., were told they would soon clock out for the last time. How they — and the rest of the town — will manage through the transition to come is an open question.

Everyone knew that layoffs were coming — just not so fast or so many. The drive to decarbonize everything — from buildings to infrastructure to transportation — is shifting demand to lower-carbon steel. 

Algoma Steel, one of the town’s two major employers, had already seen business dip. Transitioning to lower-emitting Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steel making was the key to staying competitive. But that would mean closing down the mill's blast furnace and coke-making operations. The company had planned a year-long transition to ease the closures. That was, until US President Donald Trump’s unprecedented 50 per cent tariff hit. 

“This … forced a fundamental shift in our competitive reality,” wrote Algoma Steel’s CEO last December. The decision was made to fast-track the EAF transition. Instead of a slow exit, the community now faces a hard turn: 1,000 workers will soon be out of a job — about 300 of whom were laid off in a first wave near the end of March — with few options for equivalent work nearby.

Communities across Canada — from Hanna, Alta,, to Ingersoll, Ont., to Pictou County, N.S. — know this pattern well. Small, rural towns are navigating overlapping disruptions with limited resources. Global forces — from the inevitable energy transition to the unpredictable twists of international trade — are eroding the foundations of the community’s economy. People see their industries weakening; they know job loss is on the horizon. Does this spell the end of the place they call home? 

It doesn’t have to. But securing the resilience of Canada’s communities in the midst of global change requires a different approach to dealing with — and planning for — workplace disruption.  

Mass layoffs, while acutely painful for workers, can have long-lasting ripple effects across entire regions. These effects can be particularly acute in small, rural communities. Layoffs at one company can impact the stability of local vendors, suppliers and those down the chain. Higher unemployment means less spending. Coffee shops, hardware stores and grocers feel the pinch. So do churches and community groups — everything that depends on local philanthropy. Mortgage defaults go up, housing demand goes down and real estate values tank. Young people leave. Property tax revenue falls. The social services people need most in a crisis — such as education, training and mental health support — become overstretched and overwhelmed. In short, a major layoff can rip a community’s fabric apart.

It’s this community-level risk that Canada’s current policies fail to address. Focusing economic support just on directly affected workers and specific companies, as we currently do, misses the wider reality on the ground. It’s not just the laid-off workers who suffer; it’s their families, their neighbours, folks working in related businesses and the connective tissue of the community itself. 

The more than four million Canadians who live in places that could potentially experience workplace disruption need measures to address the wider impacts of layoffs on local businesses, municipal revenues and social services.  These measures must be accessible and easy to navigate. And they need to align, in scope and timing, with actual needs. 

The answer is a three-tiered, coordinated approach: (1) shore up highly susceptible communities before disruption hits; (2) provide rapid-response support when mass layoffs or major closures occur; and (3) target time-limited financial relief packages to those hit hardest. 

The best time to start addressing workplace disruption is before it happens. Governments can start working now to engage local partners in co-designing Community Transformation Agreements. These long-term resilience plans map out priorities for workforce development, training, economic development, community service needs and economic enablers (e.g., transportation, child care). They also spell out the roles and responsibilities of various levels of government, regional agencies and industries in delivering on the plan.  

Governments can also act now to set up rapid-response community support hubs — one-stop-shops that can be activated to provide tailored community-wide resources during and immediately after major closures and layoffs. Drawing on BC’s Community Transitions Services model, these hubs could prioritize the needs of directly affected workers and then the wider business ecosystem, before finally focusing on community services. These phases ensure cascading impacts are addressed systematically, and the whole community is stabilized.

Finally, in the worst-case scenario, governments should be ready to step in with targeted, time-limited financial relief packages. These should include temporary income support, time-bound payment deferrals (e.g., on mortgages, rent and loans) and targeted stabilization grants that enable essential community services to keep running despite property tax shortfalls.  

No one wants to see the closure of a plant that employed five generations or the evaporation of jobs from a once-bustling industry. But communities can — and should be supported to — survive and even thrive following these ruptures. Stopping the headwinds of global change isn’t an option. Preparing for change is how we can best ensure the resilience and future vitality of communities across the country. 

Shaimaa Yassin is senior research director and Abigail Jackson is senior research associate at the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

© National Observer