Mill Closure

To Powell River Legacy group:

If (hypothetically speaking) the closure of the wildwood landfill also means the closure of the mill, and the loss of 640 jobs ,would you still try and close the landfill? yes or no! Please post so we all know where prlegacy stands.

Reply 1 from the PR Legacy group:

This is a great question as it makes very clear an assumption that is operating in Powell River regarding the landfill.

That assumption is the correlation between the landfill and the mill closing down.

First, there is NO direct correlation between the 640 jobs at the mill and the Wildwood landfill. When the mill stopped shipping the flyash to Rabanco in Washington state, no new jobs were created at the mill. So it makes no sense to assume that if the mill resumed shipping to Rabanco or found an alternate solution to the flyash problem it would cost jobs at the mill.

For years the mill has held the community hostage, with threats of job loss if the financial needs of the mill were not met with concessions to the both the physical and financial well being of the community at large and to their own workers. Now that the possible future closure of the mill is writ large by the new managers, this situation has changed. Look at the city's own Community Need document recently filed with the Agricultural Land Commission. You will see that it is not just a bunch of nuts who don't care about jobs at the mill who are predicting the closure of the mill. It is the city itself now. It really is time to stop being led by the nose by the mill's threats and to start grappling with the reality of the fact that the mill's days are numbered.

The Canadian pulp and paper industry was moved off-shore by its owners over the last 10 years. All industry predictions are that the within the next few years pulp and paper will no longer be produced in Canada. Mills ARE and will continue to be closing everywhere in Canada. What escapes the news stories when North American mill owners talk about how hard it is to compete globally, is that the competition they face is with mills THEY established in South America and the Philippines and other off-shore locations where labour is cheaper and environmental regulations are not so costly. Think about this for a minute. This has little to do with workers in Canada; how hard they work, how much they produce or whether a community is concerned about pollution. That has all been solved already as the companies have moved off-shore into our new global economy where they don't have to deal with the problems of democratic societies. And now, it is the time for the hedge funds to come in and see how much money they can make from what is left of the infrastructure of the pulp and paper industry in Canada. This is what we face now in Powell River.

There is absolutely nothing the citizens of this town could do that will affect how Third Avenue Management decides to run these mills. Citizen protest to protect the physical health of our community is simply a last gasp effort to protect our children from what is coming. The increased amount of flyash the mill is predicting to dump at the landfill has nothing to do with increased paper production and job retention. It has everything to do with increased energy production from the boiler. Regardless of what happens to the landfill, jobs will continue to be cut at the mill. If the application is granted, within a few years only 50 or so folks will be needed to run the boiler to produce energy (not paper) at our mill, burning whatever they find cheapest to acquire in the boilers.

The direct correlation of the well-being of the mill and number of folks employed there is to the management policies of the new owners and the financial state of the Catalyst mills as a whole. What happened back in 2001 when all of the cash (over a billion dollars in cash) was pulled from the Fletcher Challenge/Norske mills and then a billion was borrowed to purchase the Powell River mill (and others) was when our fate was decided.

Please be aware that it is in the company's interest to divide the community, to discredit anyone who opposes them.

It is in their interest to make the assumption that it is the landfill or jobs the "truth"; when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

It is in the interest of the company to let people go and shut down machines, to regionalize their offices and to pit neighbour against neighbour in the communities they are attempting to wring the last dollars out of at any cost.

We count our pennies and scrabble like a bunch of 2-year olds, while they count their stacks of cash and feed the lines that keep us looking at each other as the villains instead of at the realities we face in Powell River today.

Reply to Powell River Legacy group from Anonymous:

I asked for a yes or not answer, and you gave a bunch of gobbly goop that retards a simple request for a simple answer, please reply with either yes or no

Reply 2 from the PR Legacy group:

Let's look at your question again:

"If (hypothetically speaking) the closure of the wildwood landfill also means the closure of the mill, and the loss of 640 jobs ,would you still try and close the landfill? yes or no!"

What we are trying to show you is that your question makes no sense. We simply can't answer with a decisive yes or no, because either of those answers would be false. The question assumes something that simply ISN'T TRUE! This part of your question is false:

"the closure of the wildwood landfill also means the closure of the mill"

Where did you get that idea? Catalyst hasn't said that the closure of the landfill would mean the loss of any jobs.

Please reply.

Reply 3 from the PR Legacy group:

As the recent layoffs in Port Alberni, and here in Powell River show, there are numerous forces involved in job security in the BC paper industry. Type and age of machinery and high labour costs are two factors often cited as part of the high operational costs which make it difficult for our local industry to compete. Here are some other hypothetical questions which are also unhelpful in finding a sustainable solution to this problem.

IF the high cost of labour meant the closure of the mill and the loss of 640 jobs, would workers take a significant pay reduction to keep the mill going?

IF the current landfill is closed, and the only other site for a vertical landfill was to be on top of the old dump, adjacent to Joyce & Duncan Avenues (next to Max Cameron School) would it be reasonable to to do this if it kept the mill open?

The idea that PR Legacy is attempting to shut the mill down, with attendant job losses is false, and the recent issue of the Watchdog (which includes a photograph taken at the rally we held last month), is produced by another group. Our members are acutely aware of the state of the paper industry. When we meet we are not talking hypothetically, and our discussions include looking for alternate sites and finding uses for the flyash.

There are many unknown and variables such as:

Will the mill guarantee that 640 jobs will be maintained for the next forty years if their application for the landfill is approved?

Is it reasonable for the 600 homes in Wildwood, and close to the same in Townsite, to live with the attendant health risks involved with a vertical expansion as proposed?

How about if the mill cuts its workforce to less than a hundred jobs even with the landfill permit?

The landfill, as it is now, is nearly full. Much of it is known to be highly contaminated. The proposal being considered is unprecedented in this province and possibly in this continent. The contaminants could be forced out of the current landfill by the added weight of the flyash on top of it, polluting Powell Lake, Powell River and the Georgia Strait. The cost of cleaning this up could shut the mill down too. Is this a reasonable solution?

Reply 4 from the PR Legacy group:

It's a good question but not answerable if you believe that the mill jobs will be lost whether or not the landfill exists on the Wildwood Hill.

I think that relocating the landfill will create a few more jobs for Catalyst at this time.

Is it going to break the mill to start a landfill up a logging road? To create a dump that meets environmental standards right from the start (unlike the existing landfill)? To have it somewhere other than prime real estate or contentious proximity to residents who fear for their health in this age of increasing cancer rates?

My feeling is that unless they dump their stuff elsewhere it will always be contentious. I feel we need to help them come up with a site. What is wrong with the road where the logging trucks go under the cut; that road leaves the mill and goes where?

I don't want to see anyone lose their jobs. Just put the crud somewhere safer. Since the municipality and Sliammon are business partners, perhaps they, the Joint Venture could get together to come up with a safer location that is amenable to all.

Reply 5 from the PR Legacy group:

It seems the point of this question is to present a case that Catalyst will shut the pulp mill if they can't get their permit to expand the Wildwood landfill site.

As a former pulp mill worker who's job was eliminated in a workforce reduction caused by the continuing decline of the pulp and paper industry I can understand why many employees are taking Catalyst's threats of massive lay-offs seriously. Over the last 26 years the job security of these beleaguered workers has been consistently reduced. These very disturbing threats have been made by Catalyst, their employer and not by members of the community. There has been almost no complaint from local residents regarding the large tax concessions our city and province provide to Catalyst. It is not residents, taxpayers, or prlegacy and it's supporters who are threatening mill jobs.

I would respond to this with an equally relevant (and equally impossible to answer) question. If (hypothetically speaking) you were Catalyst's management and you knew that your landfill expansion was going to do permanent physical harm to Wildwood and Townsite  residents would you still put short-term profit first?

Only Catalyst, the corporate owner of the Powell River pulp mill can decide to shut down the mill and lay-off employees. This is not likely as long as there is money to be made, selling assets, electricity, and even some paper. Catalyst is choosing to put the profitability of their investment ahead of the long-term health and sustainability of the community. Using the threat of lay-offs to manipulate an isolated and vulnerable community into compromising their future is a just a low-down dirty trick, as the lay-offs are occurring anyhow.