Thank you, honourable member and Mr. Chair.
Let me begin by addressing the fact that we very much believe and support the reality of the SPP initiative. In fact, our desired outcome is an integrated border that provides for benefits for both countries.The imposition of measures at the border--measures that thicken the border or that increase costs and reduce competitiveness--I don't believe is consistent with the approach we are trying to take to the Americans to ensure that our industry has access to U.S. markets and to ensure that the safety and quality of Canadian foods, in Canada and the United States or any other market, is recognized as ranking as good as, if not better than, food produced anywhere else in the world.
Let me start on the E. coli circumstance and the introduction of measures on testing at the Canadian border. Coming out of the three leaders' summit in Montebello, there was a clear commitment made by all countries to look at enhancements to food safety. Within the North American context, this was further iterated in the Speech from the Throne, which we strongly welcome.
In that regard, in dealing with E. coli specifically, it is important to note that measures being introduced for testing of Canadian product entering the United States are also being followed by measures by the United States to test beef products, beef trim used in hamburger, from all countries that export to the United States. That will be phased in, as we understand it from our U.S. colleagues, starting in January.
So in fact they perceive the measure that's specific on E. coli as being one that's not targeting Canada but is part of a broader strategy and one that we ourselves have been investing time and analyzing in terms of a comparable approach, again, because we want to secure the North American marketplace. We do not want this to be an opportunity for the United States to impose additional restrictions on Canadian packers and processors, or food retailers in fact who would be importing beef products from other countries, and use this as another reason to segregate or differentiate product. Our view is that the product is safe. It has a market, and that market should respect the safety of that product.
On the issue of specified risk materials, I would point out that, yes, the challenge in terms of the measures that were adopted in Canada in advance of measures by the United States...we are fully cognizant there were costs associated with that. We have worked, not only in terms of our previous presentations, on ensuring that regulations were not prescriptive but rather were outcome-based, and subsequently, to their implementation, are working forward with an industry advisory group that has looked at alternative approaches that could be followed to achieve those same outcomes as provided for in regulation. That group will be presenting to the Beef Industry Value Chain Roundtable in December for consideration of adjustments in those measures that would reduce some of those additional costs.
Furthermore, we were made aware earlier this week that the Food and Drug Administration has moved forward to submitting their proposed new rules on SRM for animal feed to OMB in the United States. So we look forward, at the point that it is posted by OMB, to have a full understanding of the scope of those measures, as they would be applied in the United States.
Having said that, with respect to the safety aspects, no animal feed, obviously, can enter Canada unless it meets our domestic standards. Imported animal feed from the United States has to meet the requirements of Canadian standards for feed. Similarly, on the issue of live animals, U.S. animals that would enter Canada would be subjected to the slaughter and inspection requirements in Canada, including the removal of all SRM from the human food chain, and parallel to that applied to Canadian animals. So the SRM, as it relates to the feed issue, is not a direct human health consequence because they are managed through processes of removing SRM at slaughter of animals.
On the handling of the SRM in Canada, there are multiple pathways currently in place that deal with incineration and with deep burial of the product. As you've indicated, industry is continuing to invest in innovation and technology approaches that would find alternate uses for the product, including biofuels and other types of products. I think these are areas that merit us ensuring that the material that is being taken out of the food system is disposed of in a way that prevents it from coming back into the food system in any inappropriate way.
The lessons that have been learned internationally around control of this material were a large part of our regulatory approach in managing SRM removal from animal feed to ensure it could be done in a way that was environmentally sound, had the support of industry to ensure there was a high degree of compliance, and that the measures could be verified and enforced.