by MIKE BEAUDIN
Ontario’s standardbred breeders now have the financial stability they need to continue operating after reaching a $12-million enhancement rewards deal with the Ontario Racing Commission, says the head of the province’s breeders.
The agreement announced Monday provides enhanced rewards for breeders over the next four years, said Walter Parkinson, president of the Standardbred Breeders of Ontario Association (SBOA).
“I think this provides breeders the incentive to breed their mares this year through to 2018,” said Parkinson in a telephone interview from his home in Lucan, Middlesex County. “It’s a program we’re very happy with. It’s what we wanted to achieve.”
Did it make everybody comfortable? “Probably not,” said Parkinson. “But I think people realize the Ontario Stakes program is still a very strong program in comparison to other jurisdictions. There’s still a lot of value in breeding in Ontario.”
Standardbred racing in Ontario has been struggling since 2013 when the government cancelled its Slots at Racetracks program which had allocated 20 per cent of the revenue from slots at the province’s 17 racetracks to the industry. In March 2012, the province announced it would cancel the program effective March 2013.
Breeders said the abrupt cancellation caused irreparable harm because it sharply reduced the value of horses the breeders had invested in prior to the announcement the program would end.
In April 2014, 38 breeders filed a $65-million lawsuit against the Ontario Gaming and Lottery Commission, alleging they lost income from yearling sales, horse boarding and stud fees. The breeders claimed that cancelling the slots program was “arbitrary, capricious, irrational and demonstrates bad faith” by the gaming commission and Ontario.
In a statement of defence, dated May 15, 2014, the gaming commission said the breeders do not have any entitlement to racetrack revenue. Any damages claimed by the plaintiffs were “excessive, speculative and remote,” said the statement of defence, which asked that the action be dismissed.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
Parkinson said Tuesday that the $12-million program should satisfy most breeders but he said he couldn’t comment on the lawsuit because individual breeders and not the association had filed it. However, he told Better Farming in April 2014 the litigation would proceed unless a settlement could be reached.
Abigail Dancey, a spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, said in an email Tuesday it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the lawsuit because it was still before the courts.
Parkinson said under the new program the emphasis remains on breeding competitive horses. Breeders are compensated according to how well their horses compete.
‘It could mean the difference between a couple of thousand dollars and potentially tens of thousands of dollars depending on the quality of the horses you produce and how well they do in the program that year,” he said. “The bulk of the money comes down to how well the horses you bred potentially do as two and three-year-olds.”
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Jeff Leal, in a statement released on SBOA’s website, said the new agreement will enhance the current breeders’ rewards program.
“Horse racing is an important part of the fabric of communities across Ontario and this new agreement will continue to build confidence and support the growth and development of the industry going forward,” said Leal.
Parkinson said breeders who may have thought about leaving the industry would likely be encouraged to continue as a result of the agreement. “It’s still going to be a hard sell to encourage brand new people to come into the industry. But for those who are still in the industry, this is seen as a huge bonus.”
In June 2014, the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society signed an agreement with the Ontario Racing Commission for a five-year, $2-million-per-year enhancement of the current breeders awards program, as well as an additional $2 million immediate payment to further benefit those within the province who have participated in the breeding of 2013 Registered Ontario-bred Thoroughbreds. BF
Comments
Deleted
Editor: Comment deleted in accordance with our guidelines.
When you start investing large amounts of money in something (in this case a horse), to participate in a business that exists solely due to government legislation, you should also be prepared to suck it up when government takes it away.
Raube Beuerman
I have been saying that same thing about this country's dependencey on the US when it comes to shipping live beef and hogs south of the border and then COOL comes along.
If you are going to put the health of your agricultural industry in the hands of foreign legislation then you get what you deserve.
Yet we have been bellyaching about it for the past 6 years.
Ya really makes one wonder why you would want to be an export nation . Makes SM look super smart !!
Being an exporting nation is net-positive for jobs and economic activity. If we were to follow the (super dumb) example of supply management and use tariffs to effectively thwart trade completely, the net-negative effect on jobs and economic activity would cause our economy and our society to enter a "death-spiral".
What's worse is that after over 40 years of isolationism, the Canadian dairy industry's "death-spiral" is well underway, what with obscenely-high farm gate prices and sky-high tariffs leading to:
(1) declining per capita consumption when compared to the US
(2) stagnant or declining total market volumes
(3) consumers fleeing to the US
(4) producers paying obscenely-high prices for "lock, stock and barrel" dairy farms in a desperate attempt to increase their share of a declining market.
yet the aristocratic "Downton Abbey" mindset of quota owners doesn't allow them to even consider that their coddled and pampered way of life is regressive from the point of view of any economic indicator and will ultimately end badly for them, as it eventually does for all aristocracies.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
One only has to read your first paragraph to realize why the majority of readers on this site don't take you seriously.
Even with our high tariffs,Canada imports almost 6% of our dairy produce while the US with supposedly with no tariffs imports only 2%.You would think a free-trading country like the US would have an abundance of worldly dairy products on their shelves but that is not the case and never will be.
If an accountant such as yourself can't get the simplist of those numbers straight why would anyone believe anything else you have to spout.
Everything in my first paragraph reads chapter and verse from every economics textbook published in the last 150 years as well as being common sense to everyone except those with quota to defend.
Yet, whenever some anonymous fool comes on this site to deny the validity of economic principles which aren't open to debate, or even discussion, that arrogance and that dismissiveness speaks volumes about just exactly why supply management is not well-liked and will not be missed.
Furthermore, the above anonymous poster completely ignores the fact that with the exception of Canada and Mexico, the US is a long way away from any country with any comparative and/or absolute advantage when it comes to producing and/or shipping dairy products.
In addition, the above anonymous quota defender ignores the fact that what the US imports simply doesn't matter - the only thing that does matter is that Canada's 200% tariff barriers penalize Canadian consumers and costs us jobs and economic activity. It's this sort of flawed, and grindingly-stupid "logic" on the part of supply management supporters which, once again, shows exactly why supply management is not well liked.
Finally, I suggest, with no respect whatsoever, that the majority of readers on this site agree with me completely, and then some. It's the "fraidy-cat" supply management supporters who can't deal with the "numbers", with common sense, with basic economics and with reality.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
81% of Canadians support Supply Management.Being that the Conservatives only garnered 37% of the popular vote in the last election,one could say that twice as many Canadians favor SM as they do the ruling party of this Country.
Your whole theory that consumers are penalized just does not stand up.if that doesn't hold water then l suspect none of your other claims do either.
Claiming 81% support is likely bogus at best . What other choice is there in a protected market ? So many times surveys are done and the numbers are lumped together to make higher numbers . Let the consumer have a choice and let the consumer dollars spent on one or the other choice of products be the truth in the numbers .
As for election results , the Conservatives got the most votes . No desputing that .
I would agree with you on your last thought . Would also add to it but then it would or should likely get edited so I won't waste my cyber pen !
Say what you will but the fact is most Dairy producing industrialized Countries have ways of protecting their domestic supply,you won't find an abundance of off-shore dairy produce in the US as well,or New Zealand or Australia or most European dairy producing Countries.Oh,they are fine when it comes to exporting milk products but imports are minimal!
In response to "81%" http://betterfarming.com/comment/15331#comment-15331
If we surveyed children in Canada about Santa Claus, I am confident that more than 81% would support him. Should we establish billion dollar essential services and government programs based on that overwhelming support by the children of Canada?
Choosing the survey wording very carefully, and ensuring you ask the question of people who have been mis-informed or uninformed will get you the propaganda results the millionaire Supply Management cronies desire.
What does that prove?
Educate the public on all of the facts in a balanced manner on both sides of the issue, then ask a balanced, fair question.
I suggest the results will be totally different.
Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
Post new comment