Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee.
I am Nick Arkle. I'm the chief executive officer of Gorman Bros. Lumber, based out of the Okanagan, here in British Columbia.
We are a B.C.-based, independent, family-owned and -operated company that is currently in its third generation. We have five divisions that range from what I would call very small through to mid-size, totalling just under 1,000 employees. That's before you count contractors and all others associated with the businesses.
We've operated continuously without interruption since 1951. While we have many employees, we'd still be considered small to mid-sized based on the throughput of logs that go through our mills.
We're an economic driver in each of the communities we reside in. When you add all the associated multiplier benefits, it just makes the importance even greater.
Our two largest divisions are focused on producing a variety of high-value products directed at the interior and exterior home finishing and renovation markets, with a large portion of that going to the U.S., although our products actually go to over 30 countries worldwide.
We are a member of both the BC Lumber Trade Council and the BC Council of Forest Industries, both of which I know are also making their own written submissions. I would like to point out that we fully support the positions and comments that will be identified in those briefings. We strongly believe in a pan-Canadian position regarding this dispute.
We also understand and appreciate the statutory rights of U.S. producers under U.S. trade laws, but we believe that working constructively to find and negotiate a solution to this trade dispute is really the approach we should be taking.
We're not afraid of litigation. We strongly believe, though, that our industry on both sides of the border has so much more in common than we have differences. I experience this all the time when I'm on trade trips.
We can and we should work together collectively to promote this incredible product that we all produce. There's an insatiable appetite for lumber products, and the benefit of using this product, as we all know, goes so much further than just the consumption of it.
The role of sustainable forestry and lumber use should be a major part of the climate change solution. It's not the problem. A greater use of wood across North America and within the global context should be aggressively explored—not barriers to its use. A combined North American position working together would be a far more efficient use of our combined resources than battling through ongoing trade disputes.
We'll continue to work closely with Minister Ng and her staff, with a focus on ensuring that high-value products are specifically recognized in any process or developments going forward. We appreciate the time that has been spent to date by both the minister and her staff to better understand the high-value portion of the industry and the specific impacts we face. The time the minister gave to a personal visit to our operations last year to better understand the challenges of the high-value producers was particularly appreciated.
This submission is to identify that high-value producers are disproportionately impacted due to the duty being based on the total value of the product as it crosses the border. What must not be forgotten is that high-value products require refined processes, special and targeted marketing, and customers building programs together with the producer. It comes with a very high cost. Many of the companies producing these high-value products are small to mid-sized companies that do not always have the same financial and borrowing depth of the larger producers.
Should this dispute go on for several more years, many small to mid-sized mills, especially those producing high-value products for the U.S., will be stretched beyond acceptable stress levels. Any and all delays in arriving at a settlement, whether due to delays in the administrative review processes due to the absence of appointed panellists or any other factors, could cause irreparable damage to the high-value lumber industry.
We believe high-value products need to be considered carefully going forward and receive the same level of attention as in 2006, when they were dealt with in a special fashion. This is important, especially in a dispute that is focused mainly on construction lumber.
Thank you again for this opportunity.