photo courtesy of New Image Media
photo: Mare and foal on Willow Ridge Farm near Durham, Ontario
by DAVE PINK
The Ontario horse racing industry believes it has been stabbed in the back by the provincial government, and that the damage done will ripple through Ontario’s agricultural sector.
The government’s decision this week to scrap the 14-year-old slots-racetrack agreement — a decision the horse industry says will put the future of racing in jeopardy — is short-sighted, self-defeating and economically questionable, say rural stakeholders.
“This is going to have an impact on mainstream agriculture and the forage industry,” says Neil Currie, general manager of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
“There’s a lot more to this than what the government understands. We think they’ve bought a load of goods from the OLG (the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission),” said Currie. “We have some very serious concerns about their methodology.”
Report recommends new direction
The OLG report to the ministry of finance recommends, among other things, a new direction for the province’s slot machine operations — one that would see them more “strategically” located in urban centres and away from the racetracks. The changes will bring in an additional billion dollars in gambling revenue, the OLG contends.
That’s nonsense, say people involved in the racing industry. The proposal has not been well thought out, they say. If anything, these changes could bring on an overall loss of revenue to the province while endangering the 60,000 or so jobs of the people directly and indirectly involved in horse racing.
Currie says the OFA will support the horse industry and encourage the government to abandon the OLG’s recommended course of action.
Other agricultural organizations are also stepping up to oppose the move.
Ag groups oppose changes
“We’re trying to quantify what the impact would be, but there is certainly going to be an impact,” says Dave Buttenham, of the Ontario Agribusiness Association. “It could hurt equine feed sales, and that is a pretty significant tonnage. Then there’s the question of what becomes of those jobs in the rural areas.”
On a personal level the loss of Ontario’s racetracks could be devastating. “This will destroy us,” says Bonnie Rowntree, who operates a breeding and boarding facility for thoroughbred horses north of Durham, Ont.
photo: Bill and Bonnie Rowntree
“It kills me to know that a government, without any consultation with an industry, can just come in and wipe out that industry. I just don’t understand that.”
The Rowntree family owns six brood mares, and this winter was boarding 51 thoroughbred horses. The business survives on boarding fees and the annual sale of its yearlings, and the family has invested heavily in the farm. Last year they built a $100,000 barn and installed $75,000 worth of fencing, along with the purchase of a $40,000 trailer to transport horses, in the belief that the future of racing was secure because of the slots-racetrack deal.
That deal was a win-win for everyone, says Rowntree.
Old deal split proceeds
Under the arrangement set in 1998, when the slot machines started moving into the tracks, a deal was struck that allowed the province to receive 75 per cent of the slots profits — or about $1 billion a year —while 20 per cent went to the track and the remaining five per cent went to the host municipality. The racetracks’ gate and betting receipts went to the racing industry, and the province’s 17 tracks were taxed by the federal, provincial and municipal governments to the tune of about $780,000 in 2010.
The essential problem now, those in the racing business say, is that there are only so many gambling dollars to be had — money that is now being split between slots, racing, lottery tickets, casinos and bingos. Racing, once the top dog in the betting business, was forced to do the deal for the slot machines — its competition — by opening its facilities to them and sharing in the take.
Times were good, for everyone, the horse industry says.
But earlier this week the provincial Ministry of Finance gave a nod of approval to an OLG plan to initiate a massive redirection of the province’s gambling industry, one that would involve a massive redistribution of its slot machine facilities as well as construction of a new casino in the Toronto area and more outlets for the sale of lottery tickets. The OLG contends the moves will increase revenues by $1 billion yearly, and create 2,300 jobs in the gaming industry and another 4,000 jobs in the hospitality and retail sectors by 2018.
Job loss anticipated
Rowntree, and others in the horse industry, contend the OLG report is based more on wishful thinking than sound business practices and does not take into account the ripple effect of job losses through rural Ontario.
“If we go, what happens to our five employees?” asks Rowntree.
The farm bought $40,000 worth of feed last year from mills in Desboro, Hanover and Owen Sound, spent $25,000 for veterinary services, and more than $700 a week for hay and straw from local farmers.
“What happens to those people?” asks Rowntree.
“And we are just small peanuts compared to some of the other horse operations in this province. We’re small timers, just making a living. What will happen at some of those bigger farms?”
She says the Ontario racing industry is the most highly regarded in the world, with a reputation so good that many American breeders choose to keep their horses north of the border. That reputation, and the money that flows into this province because of it, is now in danger.
And the provincial government doesn’t seem to understand, says Rowntree.
In a written statement, finance ministry spokesperson Scott Blodgett said: “Our government is currently reviewing every program and asset as we lower the rate of spending growth.
“Since 1998, Ontario taxpayers have been subsidizing horse racing in Ontario at $345 million a year. This is more than we spend on research and innovation, water protection and road safety each year. It is also more than 10 times the total amount provided by British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba to the 14 total racetracks in those three provinces.
“Following a review of the program our government will decide whether this money could be better spent on key public services, such as education and health care. (For example, this kind of money would pay for over nine million hours of home care or insulin pumps and supplies for five years for almost 17,000 people.)
“The government remains committed to supporting the industry through the 6.9 per cent reduction in pari-mutuel tax, which leaves about $70 million with the industry for horse improvement, marketing and other industry support programs.”
Not a subsidy
But that’s nothing more than a smokescreen, those in the horse industry say — and they strongly dispute the government’s use of the word “subsidy.” The money that flows from Queen’s Park to the racing industry is nothing more than the legitimate kickback owed to it under the slots-racetrack deal.
“If anything, we subsidize them,” said Rowntree. “We allow them into our houses, and give them 80 per cent.”
John Gallinger, the president of Standardbred Canada, says the industry is now in shock. “The landscape has changed, but to what degree it will continue to change we don’t know. Horse racing will survive, but it will be very different.”
And there is a strong likelihood that some of the racetracks will close. The slot machines have already been shut down at Windsor Raceway, Fort Erie Racetrack and Hiawatha Horse Park in Sarnia.
“If there are less racing opportunities it is going to mean a loss. It’s supply and demand. People will have to scale back or be forced out of business, and there are people who have invested serious amounts of capital into the business,” says Gallinger.
“I was told there would be a consultation process. That didn’t happen,” he says.
“This is a poor decision. It makes no sense economically. This decision does not seem to be fact-based.
“We’re looking for an opportunity to sit down and discuss it. This had been a very successful partnership.”
Standardbred Canada has about 5,500 members among people in the harness racing industry.
Sixteen of the province’s 17 tracks feature harness racing, where the horse pulls its driver. The Woodbine Race Track in Toronto does double duty as a venue for both standardbreds and thoroughbreds, where the horse carries its rider. Fort Erie is also a thoroughbred track. BF
Comments
The real issue is that horse racing in Ontario, like dairy and poultry farming, like grains farming, and even like green energy, all depend on subsidies, either paid directly, or paid indirectly in the form of mandates, tariffs, and/or so-called "agreements" - and any industry depending on subsidies, including Ontario's horse-racing industry, is, by definition, net-negative by any economic and/or public policy "yard-stick". Farmers, and farm groups, would be well-advised to review the definition of "subsidy" and pay attention to the fact that since so much of agriculture is dependent on similar types and kinds of subsidies, sound economic principles will eventually prevail, the way they appear to have prevailed in the curtailing of the legislated "windfall" accruing to the horse-racing industry. The Rowntrees should have known that government largesse comes, and goes, and should have constructed their business model accordingly - more to the point, they, and the farm groups who support them, are wasting their breath trying to argue the case for horse racing against more insulin pumps. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Dear Mr. Thompson,
I appreciate your comments on this article, however, I feel the need to tell you how uneducated you are regarding the issues. I will start by telling you this is NOT, never has been, or never will be a SUBSIDY !!!
It is a revenue sharing program that took 2 years to negotiate with OHRIA ( Ontario Horseracing Industry Assoc. ) and the Provincial Government.
So let me clear up most of your misconceptions. 14 + years ago the Government wanted to implement casino style gaming in the Province on a large scale. They wanted to introduce VLT (slots)gaming through out the Province. They wanted these machine everywhere, however, nobody wanted them in their back yard. The Government then approached the racetracks across the Province to ask to put VLT’s in their facilities. Of course this was a great idea by the PC Government. What better places to put these machines. The tracks already had the land, the infrustructure, the clientele, the experience needed in running such a facility not to mention the most important thing of all, the support of the people, after all gambling has already been going on in these place for 100’s of years( Fort Erie 115 years ). It was a genius idea, all the Government had to do was move in. They didn’t need to spend a nickle of tax payers money buying or building anything. They didn’t need to get public approval and they didn’t have to wait years before enjoying the large profits created by these machines.
So, after 2 years of negotiations, finally a deal was struck with OHRIA and the Provincial Government. The deal was simple, for the use of our facilities, our parking, our infrastructure, our security as well as spending millions of dollars to upgrade theses facilities so they could accommodate slot machines as well as the biggest concession of all, allowing the Government to cannibalize our customers on our property.
For all of that, the Gov. agreed to give the tracks a very small share of the revenue (20%) and they would keep 80%. 5 % to municipal Gov. and 75 % to the Provincial Gov. A commercial contract to form this partnership was signed and agreed to for 15 years.
Now Mr. Thompson, how can you or anyone else can call that a subsidy ?? That is ridiculous. Any intelligent person knows the Liberal Gov. used that word as a ploy to get the general public angry with the thought of tax payers money going to horseracing when it could be going to health care and education. Just another one of their lying tactics to mislead the people of this Province. Slot money is not tax payer money, it’s gambling dollars.
The slots at racetracks program has been a huge success, and puts billions of dollars into the Government coffers for exactly that, health care and education. It has helped create an industry that employs over 60,000 full and part time jobs, most of these jobs in the rural areas where they are much needed.
The problem is, most of the people of this Province have no clue on how important this industry is to the Province and how much money it actually generates and that’s our fault. We should have been far more vocal about all the good the program has done and how many jobs it has created in the Province.
Here are some facts for you Mr. Thompson. Let’s just take Woodbine Racetrack for instance.
The slot revenue that goes to the Provincial Gov. each year from Woodbine alone is 600 million dollars net, that used properly could buy a lot of hip replacements and could help the education system in many different ways. That track alone employs 5900 people and is home to some 3000 horses.
Another fact, 25% of OLG’s total revenue from all sources comes directly from 2 racetrack slot programs ( Woodbine & Mohawk).
Another fact, the annual slot revenue from all racetracks(17) is more than all the casino put together in this Province.
Another fact, the horseracing/breeding industry sends 2 billion dollars annually back to the Province in tax revenue on expenditure.
Another fact, 1.7 billion dollars is paid to the Gov. through taxes from employed people in this industry.
Another fact, over 76 million dollars annually is paid to the Gov. in taxes from par-mutual betting on our product.
So you see Mr. Thompson if the Liberal Government was honest about the facts, (which are well published in the 2008 Sandusky report) the public would be outraged at the decision to end such a lucrative program and such a strong industry !! In fact the only industry in the Province which has seen growth in the last few years.
I challenge you to get the facts before you talk about something you haven’t got a clue about. The definition of subsidy is simple, take a good look at the Liberal Governments wonderful energy plan. Paying people who install solar panels on their property .80 a kWh when we are only paying max. .11 per kWh. Who picks up the tab for .69 loss per kWh ??? You guessed it, the tax payer !!!!!!
Sincerely,
Bonnie Rowntree
Willow Ridge Farm Thoroughbreds Inc.
Durham ON
The racing industry has had 14 years and 3.5 BILLION dollars to get it's act together.Amazing how quick they come together when their Golden Goose is attacked.
I can't see your save racing campaign getting to much public support.
Mr. Thomson: As agriculture has its foundation from Crown laws, I did look up the word "subsidy" as you suggest.
SUBSIDY:Eng. law. An aid, tax or tribute granted by parliament to the king for the urgent occasions of the kingdom, to be levied on every subject of ability, according to the value of his lands or goods.
Subsidies appear to be a TAX.
TAX Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary: (one select definition) ---"licenses granting a right".
Marketing licenses in Ontario/Quebec, under our constitution is a Crown right of which "SHALL be granted without fee".
Quota is a license with a quantitative value. So it a appears that the quota is a "tax".
So, if quota is a tax, the question then has to be asked...When a farmer sells his quota, can the government tax a tax?
Is that why the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Turner, publicly stated in the 1970's that quota could not have a value?
If, as you say, the money farmers receive is a subsidy (which might possibly be correct) then is there not an extreme injustice to those farmers when they pay another tax on disposition? Does not the Public benefit twice?
joann vergeer
In economics, the term "subsidy" means any sort of legislated entitlement, whether it be received in the form of direct payments, tariff protection, mandates, and/or any other sort, type, or kind, of "favouritism" - even including what I understand to be so-called "Crown Rights". Also, in economics, all subsidies, including even "Crown Rights" are regressive, and, by definition, are always net-negative to the economy and to society in general. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
'Legislated entitlement' is a form of tax. A 'tax' is a 'license granting a right'. It did not say a 'license granting a privilege'.
I can see the horse tracks have been granted a 'right' to raise money in the same way school boards were given a 'right' to tax at the municipal level.
And it seems that agriculture was given a right to a tax long before the school boards were in existence.
If our government can cancel a right to tax for agriculture, would our government consider cancelling schools right to "tax"?
It's pure semantics, and complete nonsense, to argue that a "privelege" and a "right" are two different things. Agriculture doesn't have the "right" to tax anything - well, except maybe food through supply management, but that is also an entitlement given by government which could easily, and should, be revoked. I wish people would get it through their heads that the concept of sovereign rights giving agriculture some sort of enhanced position in society, is complete rubbish. Government has the ultimate right to do what it wants, when it wants, and to who it wants, subject to our current Constitution, not one written on parchment or sheepskin in 1566. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Those remarks are shameful in my opinion.
There is a clause in our Constitution that gives farmers "marketing rights". You should know better than to deny farmers have constitutionally held rights.
The "rights" stem from 3 Royal Proclamations. If they have been revoked, please confirm. It is the basis of the marketing rights in Ontario/Quebec.
The Royal Proclamation in the mid 1660's actually defines the parameters of the trading rights.
Mind you, there are conditions, provisos, and limitations but the "rights" exist. The Government cannot revoke the Royal Proclamations.
And yes, there is a distinct difference between a 'right' and a 'privilege' especially in regards to our Sovereign domestic food supply laws.
joann vergeer
This is Canada in 2012, not England in 1665 - nobody cares abous so-called Royal Proclamations, nor should they. Furthermore, it is utter nonsense to try to claim that horse racers have any sort of "marketing rights" which would allow them to usurp monies which could be better used by the Province somewhere else. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You misconstrued my message. I never said horse racers had marketing rights. I said farmers have marketing rights.
If, as you say, I should get over things that happened centuries ago, then we should ignore things like Aboriginals 'rights' to fish in tidal waters, rights that existed since the Magna Carta and still upheld by the courts.
I don't understand why you insist on be divisive when it comes to farmers rights. Rights awarded to farmers for the Sovereign protection of the domestic population.
joann vergeer
A basic principle of economics is that the food security or "protection" enjoyed by any domestic population is enhanced, not reduced, by taking away farmer's "rights" to use tariff barriers to keep foreign food out. In short, your understanding of food security and the "marketing right" of farmers, is not just bad economics, but dead-outright wrong, and harmful to any economy which would allow farmers to have unfettered use of this type of protectionism. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I am suggesting that economics is at the very soul of agriculture and it is for the benefit of the Crown, hence the necessity to retain the Royal Proclamations.
But the 'marketing rights' are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, and confirmed in 1982 under our Charter of Freedom and Rights. Those 'rights' were entrenched to protect Crown's interests AND the 'domestic' population. The 'marketing rights' supply the Crown with a huge benefit but it is tied directly to an obligation.
What we are talking about is "social justice" for which economics must take a back seat by law under prescribed conditions.
While economics might state that price protection is 'dead-outright wrong' and is harmful to the economy, social justice states that when the 'domestic population' wants/needs domestic food supply, our farmers SHALL supply as it could be harmful to the health of the population. Its part of history but more importantly, is part of our Constitution.
So I take it you prefer to dissolve our Sovereign 'right' to food supply for the sake of economics? Just remember, if you choose to go that route, the Crown will still retain its benefits but you are will to release the Crown of its obligations. Is that fair?
You can't have it both ways - you can't support economics yet argue for special economic status for agriculture, in this case the horse racing industry. Furthermore, your arguments are complete and utter nonsense because it's definitely not social justice to force people to pay more for food for no other reason than to pamper farmers - if anything your arguments promote "social injustice" Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I think I will just throw this out. It stems from Mr. Stephen Thompson's insistence that the money the horse-racing industry receives is a subsidy.
As mentioned earlier, by definition a subsidy is a 'tax'.
Also by legal definition, a TAX is a "License granting a RIGHT".
Lotteries and gambling are technically both "allotments by chance".
In 1566, Queen Elizabeth l, instituted "lotteries" for the "reparation of the havens and strength of the Realme, and towardes such other publique good workes".
Agriculture, Immigration and Public Works were a combined ministry before confederation in Ontario. It would seem probable that the Agricultural Society of Upper Canada (1793) was given rights to "gambling" at their annual fairs. (is that why the slots are at agricultural societies in the first place? were societies given "lottery rights" before confederation?)
Mr. Duncan said "he may end a $345 million annual subsidy to horse racing". By his own words, he calls the revenues at the horse tracks "subsidies"... therefore he admits that the Queen in the Right of Ontario licensed a "right" to the tracks.
In essence, the government granted race tracks the right to tax. As with every legal right, there is a corresponding legal duty. Did the race tracks fulfill their duties?
But now the government wants to deny those tax rights without compensation. (unless there was an escape clause in the original agreement.)
If the Queen in the Right of Ontario bestowed agriculture a "License granting a right" in regards to 'lotteries', does Mr. McGuinty have the authority to renounce the lottery licenses without compensation? Can Mr. McGuinty revoke agriculture's right to tax ... tax money which in essence is devoted to Public good works as agriculture is Public Trust.
Curious!
joann vergeer
1566 was then, this is now - Government has, and always should have, the ultimate right to decide if insulin pumps are a better investment than horse racing. Period.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Governments have the ultimate right to decide where to spend their tax dollars but the government has the duty to respect entrenched "rights".
Land owners have rights. Period.
Horse owners have no more rights than anyone else - horse owners haven't lost anything except an entitlement which government has every right to decide could be best used somewhere else. BTW, landowner's rights people are flakes and nut-bars - the concept of entrenched rights is complete and utter nonsense. Land owners have no recourse if government decides to expropriate their land, nor should they. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Can Mr. S. Thompson explain why Mr. D. Duncan is being advised by "Obama's guys" with regard to our Ontario economics? (the Star 03/21/12) Obama economics are an unmitigated failure, yet Duncan chooses to be influenced by them? With leaders like Duncan, who needs enemies?
Firstly, most people with any sort of understanding of economics, don't read the Toronto Star, for good reason. Secondly, it doesn't take any sort of advanced training in economics, from any institution or jurisdiction, to see that Ontario's "economic principles" are unsound when it comes to Green Energy, supply management, and ethanol, yet recently-sound when it comes to horse racing. Thirdly, your claim that President Obama's economics are "an unmitigated failure" sounds like you are paraphrasing either loud-mouthed radio commentator, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the empty-headed Republican candidates for President. The fact of the matter is that the US economy is, and has long-been, suffering the aftermath of George Bush's disastrous mis-adventures in Afghanistan and his regressive policies which resulted in the 2008 recession - and very little to with President Obama. For example, this week's Economist magazine notes, starting on page 30, that the US economy, although neither robust, nor dramatic, is recovering after living beyond its means for more than two decades, and that president Obama's approval ratings for the way he handles the economy have been "growing steadily from August to February before slipping a little, probably on the basis of high petrol prices" Now, just where is this "unmitigated failure" which, when it comes to economics, you claim on the part of President Obama, and which you claim is influencing the present Ontario government? Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
you say that the economic principles are sound when comes to horse racing i must th,n assume you do not know all the facts.You heard 345 million annually and 3.4 billion since the slots at racetracks program was started but did you hear that ontario made 15 billion in that time frame and 1.1 billion last year alone.Did you know ontario horseman paid 261 million in direct taxes last year from over 31,000 people directly employed in the industry and that there are another 30,000 involved indirectly.Since 2000 the economic impact from the horse industry has risen 67% to the tune of 2 billion dollars last year.Personally that with that kind of return on investment i think it would be a program worth keeping.
You seem to have overlooked the basic economic truth that anything, like the horse racing industry, which is directly subsidized to the tune of $345 million annually, will ALWAYS be net-negative. It doesn't matter how many jobs people claim are generated, and/or how much in taxes are paid, it is, and will always be, a sub-optimal use of taxpayer money. Added to the fact that horse racing is, by definition, little more than just another segment of the entertainment industry, it is, I suggest, obscene to subsidize it to the tune of $345 million per year. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
We have at be cognitive to the fact that the phrase "subsidizing the race tracks" comes from government sources namely Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Duncan. I have not heard any other source using that terminology.
But, by all means correct me if this is wrong..... does not the race tracks "earn" and collect the income and then "pays" the province 80% of the profits?
That really means that the province is being subsidized by the gambling industry.
But it appears Mr. McGuinty killed the golden goose trying to lay claim to 100% of the slots profits.
joann vergeer
The only golden goose being killed is the $345 million goose masquerading as a race-horse. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Conspiracies? Hardly.
Don't read the Star; prefer The National Post.
There is nothing to emulate in Obama's handling of the American economy. In fact, Americans cite the success of Canada under Harper's leadership as something to be emulated there. Part of the secret probably lies in the fact that we didn't have corrupt politicians forcing banks to make bad loans. Bush is on tape appealing on several occasions to a Democrat Congress to control spending.
The Ontario horse racing industry was stabbed in the back by Duncan and McGuinty. Duncan is quoted as saying, “They showed me this book...” referring to Washington’s annual “cuts, consolidations, and savings” book highlighting proposed reductions and justifications for them. “When you see some of them, you’re going to go: ‘Yeah, that makes sense.’ What Obama’s guys advised me was that transparency is your friend..." (thestar.com March 21, 2012)
Is this man serious? Are you serious? His speaking ability leaves much to be desired. His credulity regarding American economics is just strange. It seems disastrous American economic ideas that Duncan admits influenced him, will no doubt result in the devastation of Canadian rural towns like Fort Erie that are dependent on a healthy horse racing industry. Then again, perhaps wiser heads will prevail. Maybe decisions will be reversed or privatization might occur. The latter may be the preferred result for Fort Erie's Racetrack.
Apparently you've been listening to Limbaugh.
Barack Obama is digging the US out of a hole made by administrations before him - Mr. Duncan is attempting to do exactly the same thing in Ontario, and by diverting $345 million away from subsidizing the horse racing industry, is making progress. In addition, I wasn't aware that one's speaking ability has anything to do with one's economic ability, but I guess that in your mind, it does - too bad. And it's complete nonsense, as well as an oxymoron, to talk about a "healthy horse racing industry" when the only reason for its health is the $345 million it receives annually from the public purse. I wish horse people, and the farm community, would, for once consider, that this $345 million is, and always was, something which government could give, and take away. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Where, Mr. Thompson from Clinton, would you suggest the rest of you "canadians" import your food stuffs from if you don't wish for "farmers" (of any sort) to receive benefits of their labour?
How would YOU like to get off your self-entitled backside at -40 temps in early morning to make your own food? Or milk your own cow? Right. There we have it again, you CAN'T. You must bow to the gov't and purchase milk that someone else produces, takes the financial risks to provide the bases for, so you're "safe" from disease. Get over it. If someone needs an insulin pump, I fully comprehend the gov't getting one - after the person (and their doctors, probably neighbours as well given this gov't's past workings) has filled out forms in triplicate and seen 18 other gov't employees to validate that the pump IS necessary.
Alternatively, why don't we just separate the city of Ontario from the country backwoods of Ontario, and you 'city' types start paying a realistic amount for your food? Or grow your own. If you're allowed that 'right'.
Only some segments of farming in Canada are net-negative - the problem is that thanks to the increasingly-protectionist demands of the farm community, those segments are growing ever-larger, and therefore, ever-more out-of-whack with the reality our children will have to face when it all comes inevitably undone. Thanks to tariff protection, supply management is, and will always be, net-negative, and ethanol will, thanks to mandates and/or subsidies, always be net-negative. Horse racing has, for the last dozen years, been net-negative but soon won't be - yet farmers, and farm groups, continually point to these sectors, particularly supply management, as being "a unique Canadian success story", when by any economic yardstick, they are not just an abject failure, but an impending disaster. This all stems from the almost complete inability of the farm community to understand any sort of proportionality, or reciprocity - if the people to which we export our grains, our livestock, and our pork, all adopted the protectionist stance based on the misguided concepts of "food safety" you seem to favour, then every sector of agriculture would be net-negative. One of the most-basic principles of economics is that food security (and even food safety) is enhanced, rather than reduced, when protectionism whether in the form of tariffs, whether in the form of subsidies, or whether in the form of mandates, is abolished. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
As I pointed out, a subsidy can be either received directly, or indirectly in the form of mandates, tariffs, or so-called "agreements". Therefore, a "revenue sharing" agreement is very-much a subsidy, and for you to claim otherwise is not only complete nonsense, but would also cause you to fail any economics course I've ever taken, or taught. Another reason your argument is economic nonsense is that if this "revenue sharing" wasn't a subsidy, you wouldn't be complaining when government proposes to take it away.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The raceway operators had an arrangement from OLG to grant 10% of slots revernue to the hosting establishment for maintenance of the racing facilities and advertising and promotion.... Having been around barns in extreme neglect and disrepair, I would like to see an audit of the use of OLG slots generated moneys by raceway operators and affiliated companies accounted for..... How much of this funding went into legitimate raceway maintenance.... doesn' t the public have a right to know this???? Also the slow loss of racing days was it real or was it accelerated?
Anna Lynn Meloche
Post new comment