dont know why the union president was shocked. Canfor only cares about the bottom line not the workers. Also Canfor Ceo's in the past have stated Canfor is a sawmill company not Pulp or Plywood.

Whew, glad that Canfor worries about the bottom line. Wouldn't want them to continue loosing money. cause eventually than there will be no employees.

I do not believe its a good thing to see our forest industry continue to reduce its diversity. While this closure of a plywood plant is economically right for the corporation, is it right for the province to allow this to happen?
The employment required to manufacture plywood is much higher for plywood than dimension lumber which is good for workers and apparently bad for the corporation despite the fact that plywood yields as good or better profits than that of dimension lumber. Proof of this is that peeler logs are always higher priced than that of large sawlogs.

Sending the wood which used to go to this plywood plant to another corporation sawmill saves them money in not having to rebiuld, but is it good for anything else?
How far does this concentration go and will our government stop letting corporations engineer our local economies?

Its time to tell our government that our trees remain our trees and that the corporations which were licenced to harvest these trees of ours were also obligated to process these trees of ours in specific locations and at a specific rate of harvest.
The timber licence was issued in trade for social economic benefit of the local people and it is in fact the people who endorsed the granting of this licence.

When in 2003,then forest minister Dejong decided to change the requirement to mill locally and therefore broke this social contract, he and the government unilaterally broke the public's ownership of our resource and gave full authority to the corporations to decide where and how our trees would be manufactured.
They in fact removed the requirement to manufacture at all and this timber can go anywhere the corporation chooses, and perhaps worldwide in log form.

Regardless of the lack of forsight which liberal forest minister Dejong had at that time, he and government had no such authority to make such a reversal of public control of our resources.

I believe the government acted outside of its ethical and perhaps legal obligations to the public in severing the social contract which the public had made. At the very least government was obligated to consult with the public BEFORE this decision should have be contemplated.

The liberal government is a good corporate friend, but it is no friend of the worker or the economic benefit to the many dependent communities where the trees grow and its citizens "expected" to see the resource be processed.
Expected because it was a social contract legally enshrined in the forest act.