The initiative was outlined in a July 9 internal memo from President and CEO Ian Fillinger and subsequently reported by multiple Canadian media outlets. Interfor has not announced a formal relocation of its registered headquarters, which remains in Burnaby according to regulatory filings.
The company has not disclosed when the reorganization will be completed or how many positions may ultimately be based in Georgia. According to the memo, staffing changes will occur progressively as vacancies arise and new employees are recruited. Existing positions are not slated for immediate elimination, and Interfor expects to retain a presence on the West Coast.
The decision reflects the geographic evolution of the company’s operations. Roughly three-quarters of its business is now located in the Central, Eastern and Atlantic time zones, placing Georgia closer to a growing share of its production base and customers.
A shifting operational footprint
Founded in British Columbia, Interfor has steadily expanded in the United States over the past two decades. The company now operates across five regions with annual lumber production capacity of approximately 4.4 billion board feet.
According to its May 2026 investor presentation, about 58% of that capacity is located in the U.S. South and Pacific Northwest, while the B.C. Interior accounts for roughly 17%. Interfor continues to operate sawmills in Adams Lake, Castlegar and Grand Forks.
Union representatives view the move as another sign of the company’s reduced presence in British Columbia. Although the reorganization is not expected to directly affect existing mill operations, they said it reflects the growing concentration of Interfor’s assets in the United States.
The decision comes against a difficult backdrop for Canadian lumber producers, including constrained fibre supply, weak market conditions and elevated U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber.
Interfor reported a net loss of C$63.3 million in the first quarter of 2026, compared with a C$35.1 million loss a year earlier. The company attributed the result partly to lower lumber prices and sales volumes, asset-related charges, and higher export duties and tariffs.