Monthly Archives: February 2014
SubscriptionsGo to the Subscriptions Centre to manage your:My ProfileThe province has delivered a message to the board of directors of Iris Kirby House and its fundraising foundation: answer questions, and meet an array of conditions, or run the risk of losing government financial support.”We have had concerns around the management and governance of Iris Kirby House,” Health Minister John Haggie said in a late afternoon press release.”Over the past few months, we have met with the boards to resolve these issues; however, they have not yet been resolved.”‘The issues are around tracing where the public money has gone. It may simply be a matter of accounting and auditing, and that’s why we’ve suggested putting their auditors in a room with our comptroller general.’ Health Minister John HaggieIn an interview with CBC News, Haggie shed more light on exactly what those issues are.”The issues are around tracing where the public money has gone,” Haggie said. “It may simply be a matter of accounting and auditing, and that’s why we’ve suggested putting their auditors in a room with our comptroller general.”The province says “several conditions must be met” before any additional funding is provided to the shelter.finalizing a service agreement with Eastern Health, which hands out the cash;providing answers to questions on financial reports to the satisfaction of the province;having auditors for the boards meet with the comptroller general;submitting a report by an independent facilitator on workplace issues at the shelter;expanding board membership to include additional members of the public acceptable to both the province and boards.Canada Goose online Cathy Bennett, the minister responsible for the Women’s Policy Office, said she hopes the province’s questions will be easily answered by the board.”And that will help us ensure, as the minister has said, that there is accountability to the funds that Iris Kirby House is provided, to do the very important work that they do,” Bennett said in an interview.Last year, Iris Kirby House received $2 million through the public purse to fund the operations of two shelters, in St. John’s and Carbonear.
Getting to a deal that could add 150bn in annual trade between the two blocs will involve overcoming disparate views about genetically modified crops, livestock hormones, food safety and subsidies, according to analysts. Complex regulatory structures, political opposition and competing perceptions of how farming should be done may also pose barriers.
“It’s hard to see American hormone treated beef entering Europe,” said one analyst close to the French Agriculture Ministry. But the potential windfall from a trade deal could keep negotiators at the table. and EU is already about 3.2 trn a year. An accord would cement economic ties as the EU recovers from a sovereign debt crisis and China increases its role in global commerce. Such a deal may also open markets for small farmers and large food and ingredients companies.
“Agriculture will be the toughest part of any negotiations,” Tim Burrack, 61, who raises more than 2,000 acres of corn and soybeans along with hogs on a farm near Arlington, Iowa, said in an interview. He’s part of a farmers’ group called Truth About Trade Technology, which pushes for greater acceptance of genetically modified goods.
There is a “fundamental philosophical difference” in European and American attitudes to agricultural policy, particularly over health and safety issues. US officials have said they plan to resolve these differences during the negotiations, which both sides aim to finish within two years.
Livestock and biotech produce could be the “real battle royale here” said Clayton Yeutter, a former US Agriculture Secretary. “It’s extremely difficult to get congressional approval of free trade agreements without agricultural support,” he said. There will also be political opposition in Europe, Yeutter said.
“The big question is the one on subsidies,” which bilateral accords generally don’t cover. “Every country has the right to keep its system, in terms of direct aid,” he said. Despite high levels of government support, “French beef producers could have some problems if there are massive quantities of meat coming from the US.”
Both transatlantic partners have historically supported farmers, through US agriculture bills and the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Both are meant to boost farmer income while providing a stable, safe and affordable food supply.
Farmers in France were traditionally the biggest beneficiary, though in recent years aid to Greece and Spain has increased. EU direct aid to farmers amounted to 40.2bn in 2011, on a total budget for agriculture and rural development of 58.2bn. Crop subsidies for US farmers in 2013, excluding insurance assistance, will be $10.9bn this year.http://www.cheapgoose.top US government subsidised crop insurance payments for 2012 losses have already reached a record $14.2bn, according to a congressional estimate.
US imports of agricultural goods from the EU were valued at 11.3bn in 2012, while the US exported 7.4bn of similar products goods to the European bloc. After Canada, the EU is the second largest agri supplier to the US.
While US officials have said they’ll consider all issues, European Commission president Jose Barroso said last week that that “basic” accords on hormones in livestock and genetically modified goods won’t be part of the talks signaling early disagreement.
In dollar terms, the US would probably gain more from the agricultural component of a trade deal than the EU. Tight government budgets on both sides of the Atlantic may help reduce agricultural subsidies. Still, ingrained attitudes may trump economic arguments with perspectives that contrast as much as the size of farms themselves.
The US had an estimated 2.2 million farms in 2010, with an average size of 169 hectares. The EU had about 12 million agricultural holdings that year, with an average size of 14.3 hectares. At every level it’s a clash of culture.