Interfor’s U.S. shift is a warning B.C. cannot afford to ignore
Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s Facebook post says Interfor is “leaving B.C.” and calls it the latest casualty of the B.C. NDP. The political language is sharp, but the underlying warning is real: one of B.C.’s historic forestry names is shifting key corporate support functions toward Georgia while the province’s forestry sector faces mill closures, tariff pressure, fibre constraints and weak investment confidence.
The careful wording matters. ConservativeBC says Interfor is moving its headquarters from Burnaby to Atlanta. Postmedia-based reporting says Interfor told employees it will move most executive and back-office functions to an office in Peachtree, Georgia, named that office as the company’s “primary hub for corporate and functional support,” and did not say whether the formal corporate headquarters would relocate. Either way, the signal to B.C. is not good.
This is not just another partisan meme. It is a test of whether British Columbia still wants to be a serious forestry jurisdiction.
What happened
Business Examiner’s summary of Postmedia reporting says Interfor Corp., a Burnaby-headquartered lumber producer founded in British Columbia, told employees it will move most of its executive and back-office functions to Peachtree, Georgia, just outside Atlanta. The memo was reportedly sent July 9 by CEO Ian Fillinger and described Georgia as the company’s primary hub for corporate and functional support.
The same report says no timeline was given, no job total was specified, no layoffs were planned, and Interfor would maintain a continued West Coast presence. That context is important. This is not a simple lights-out closure notice. It is a corporate centre-of-gravity move.
But a corporate centre of gravity matters. Head-office and support functions are where decisions, influence, future investment, talent networks and long-term strategy often cluster. When those functions shift south, British Columbians are right to ask why.
The B.C. footprint has already shrunk
Interfor’s own website describes the company as one of the world’s largest forest-products companies, with operations across North America, roughly 4.4 billion board feet of annual lumber capacity, 26 operations and 60% U.S.-based operations. Business Examiner reported that B.C., where the company was founded, now accounts for about 17% of Interfor’s capacity, while a May 2026 corporate presentation showed 58% of operations in the U.S. Southeast and Pacific Northwest.
That is the real story. B.C. did not lose its forestry advantage in one announcement. The advantage has been eroding for years. Companies follow fibre, cost, certainty, customers, time zones, taxes, tariffs and permits. When B.C. becomes more expensive, slower and harder to plan in, capital looks elsewhere.
Softwood tariffs are real — but they are not the whole excuse
The softwood lumber fight with the United States is a genuine problem. The B.C. government’s own softwood-lumber trade page says British Columbia and the forest industry have been engaged for decades in ongoing litigation with the United States, and that the province works with the federal government, other provinces and industry to respond to countervailing and anti-dumping duties.
Conservatives should absolutely fight for tariff relief. But B.C. cannot blame Washington for everything. Tariffs are one pressure. Domestic policy is another. If the province adds high costs, permitting delay, regulatory uncertainty, unclear land-use processes and weak investor confidence on top of U.S. duties, it makes a hard industry harder.
The NDP cannot keep calling this “transition” while communities bleed
B.C. forestry communities do not need another press release about transformation. They need working mills, predictable fibre, faster approvals, economic reconciliation that creates projects rather than gridlock, and a government that treats forestry as a future industry instead of an old economy to be managed into decline.
ConservativeBC’s release quotes Ward Stamer, its shadow minister for forestry, accusing the NDP of endless job losses and warning that Interfor’s remaining B.C. mills are in serious jeopardy. It also quotes Gavin Dew arguing B.C. has become a place where capital is hesitant because costs, legal unknowns and political uncertainty are too high. Those are party claims, but they reflect a question voters should ask directly: is B.C. easier or harder to invest in after years of NDP government?
The issue is not whether every Interfor decision can be blamed on one premier. The issue is whether B.C. is becoming the kind of place where forestry companies choose to grow — or the kind of place they gradually manage from somewhere else.
What a Conservative forestry plan should say
A serious pro-growth forestry plan should be practical, not just angry. It should include:
- faster and more predictable permitting;
- competitive taxes and operating costs;
- active pressure on Ottawa and Washington for softwood-lumber relief;
- clearer fibre-supply planning and land-use certainty;
- partnerships with First Nations that create projects, jobs and revenue rather than indefinite uncertainty;
- support for value-added manufacturing where it can actually scale; and
- a commitment to forestry towns that have carried this province for generations.
Bottom line
Interfor’s move should be treated as a warning light. B.C. can keep explaining away each closure, curtailment and head-office shift as a one-off business decision. Or it can admit that capital is voting with its feet.
Conservatives should make the argument plainly: British Columbia needs forestry policy that rewards building, hiring, harvesting responsibly and investing here. If B.C. keeps making itself expensive, slow and uncertain, more decisions will be made in boardrooms outside the province — and timber towns will pay the price.