by SUSAN MANN
The most disturbing part of Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk’s special report on the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation’s modernization plan was the provincial government and the OLG knew before cancelling the Slots at Racetracks program the decision would slam the horse racing industry into the rails, says an industry spokesman.
Brian Tropea, general manager of the Ontario Harness Horse Association, says “they (the Ontario government) knew it was going to have negative consequences to the industry but continued on with the plan anyway.”
Lysyk says in her report, released Monday, the government had sufficient information “to know that without the program funding the number of racetracks could be reduced from 17 to as few as six. This would mean fewer race dates, less breeding and fewer economic benefits to the agricultural industry.”
The government announced in February 2012 it was ending the slots at racetracks program as of March 31, 2013. In the year ending March 31, 2012 the program provided $347.3 million in funding to racetrack operators and horse people, the report says.
Mark Cripps, agriculture ministry spokesman for Premier and Agriculture Minister Kathleen Wynne, declined to comment on the report, saying the agriculture ministry didn’t make the decision to end the program. It was the ministry of finance that made that decision, and Cripps directed questions about the program’s ending to that ministry.
Cripps says the only part he can comment on is the five-year Horse Racing Partnership Plan, which provides up to $500 million for the industry over the five years it is in place.
Scott Blodgett, senior media relations adviser with the finance ministry, couldn’t be reached for comment.
Lysyk’s report says the province and Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) had general information that the program funding wasn’t having the positive impact on horse racing and the agricultural sector that they had originally envisioned. There were ongoing concerns some racetrack operators weren’t using the program funding for its intended purpose of promoting live horse racing in Ontario and subsequently benefitting the agricultural sector.
When the OLG requested in 2010 racetrack operators account for their use of more than $1.3 billion in funding they received since 1998, “the responses of the racetrack operators gave no clear indication where or how the funding had been used to improve the Ontario horse racing experience,” the report says.
Tropea says a lot of Lysyk’s report talks “about the accountability and the benchmarks and the racetracks’ reporting and those types of things.” But rather than “making the racetracks accountable and having a transparent revenue-sharing agreement, they (the government) decided just to end it (the slots at racetracks program) instead.”
The report also notes the government and OLG did not properly consult with various industries, businesses and municipalities affected by the program’s cancellation.
Tropea says nothing that Lysyk said in her report surprised him. It just “verified everything that we’ve been saying for the last two years – that if they went forward with their modernization plan that it was going to have severe negative consequences for rural Ontario and the horse racing industry.”
Lysyk’s report also says OLG’s modernization plan initially will not offset the government’s decision to end the slots at racetracks program. Tropea says that modernization plan will never offset the losses from the program’s cancellation.
The government has entered into agreements with tracks to rent their facilities to allow slot machines to continue being there but “they need to make sure that the horse people have adequate funding to be able to continue to operate and make it a profitable business,” he says. BF
Comments
The horse-racing industry is being made out to be the only thing affected by the decision to change the funding formula - completely-forgotten, of course, is any consideration of the beneficiaries, for example, of the government's newly-increased ability to buy more of the often-cited insulin pumps.
I don't think I'm the only person more concerned that the medical system has adequate funding, rather than horse racing which is, at best, little more than an entertainment industry.
This story simply re-inforces what we already know about what government always does - the government made the wrong decision to pass legislation to effectively subsidize the horse racing industry in the first place, and when they finally decided it was the wrong thing to have done, they made a good decision to end it, but implemented it poorly.
The implications for other sectors of agriculture, particularly supply management, are clear, and rather-ominous - government will support you 100%, right up until the moment they don't, and when they change their minds, they'll have done the right thing, but will have done it in a wretchedly-poor way.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Horse racing is NOT agriculture . For any one and worse yet Bonnie Lysyk the Ontario Auditor General to state that the dollars subsequently benefit agriculture is out to lunch and wrong . Where do horses fit in food, fibre and fuel ?
$1.3 billion in funding and mainstream agriculture gets a capped $100 million RMP program . How out of touch does this prove the Liberals are ?
If horse racing isn't agriculture, then why is the OFA making such a big to-do about it all?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
If I understand you are an OFA PAC member and an accountant . Maybe you need to be asking some questions at your next meeting . You will likely get told some jargin about Revenue Canada qualifications .
Do horse farms and race tracks fall under the NMP then also ?
Some would also say that it is a way to make it look like they are on side with the opposition on an issue at Queens Park .
There are more horses today then when they were used as horse power in agriculture .
Horse owners . Memberships . Member benefit . Members spend money . Connect the dots .
Long and short it is about the money .
Yes horses live and are raised on farms , eat hay and oats . Horse racing does not occur on a farm and as you say is nothing more than entertainment . How are the earnings to horse owners looked at from Revenue Canada ?
If some horse farm owners are OFA members, then the OFA should be deciding whether the short-term interest of these members is worth the risk of being on the wrong side of those OFA members who are interested in seeing horse racing money spent elsewhere - however, this type of "big picture" analysis doesn't often play out at any farm organization.
More to the point, every farm organization has difficulty understanding the concept that good public policy may be at substantial odds with what the farm community believes to be good agricultural policy - another notable case where sound public policy is at odds with agricultural policy, is supply management.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So, who or what determines what is Good Public Policy? All public policy is usual tainted or guided by political spin such as Industrial Wind Energy being so called Green when clearly it is not... needed or adding savings to net CO2.
Good policy always tries to take entitlement away from the favoured few for the betterment of many - that's why supply management, for example, is bad public policy because it favours the few at the expense of many, and, at the same time is regressive because it is net-negative for jobs and economic activity.
The example of wind energy is a good one because without legislation to prop it up, wind energy wouldn't exist - it's always bad public policy to promote things which otherwise would have no reason to exist.
All farm groups tend to fall flat because when they analyse government policy, they can't see beyond their own interests, and wouldn't be able to identify good economic policy if it landed in their lap.
Once, just once, I'd like to see a farm group, any farm group, respond to any government budget or initiative by saying something like - "this is good for consumers, and as such, they'll be able to buy more of what we produce" instead of moaning and carping about how bad the announcement is for agriculture.
If it's good for our customers, it's good for us, but farm groups, and most farmers, aren't "wired" to see it that way - we tend to look at it backwards, by believing that if it's good for us, it will be good for our customers, and that's neither logical, nor rational.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Unfortunately your narrow version of good ag policy falls flat on its face when you consider what other countries such as the E.U. and the U.S. consider good ag economic policy for their farmers. We in Canadian agriculture with the exception of SM have to compete at least on the export market with such government economic investments. If I remember correctly, you had a hand painted "Equity with U.S. Grain Farmers" sign as your personal good Ag economic Policy on your grain trailer.
Not just Canada. Mr. Thompsons statements are accurate, and can apply to most agriculture, all around the world.
Even at the time of the "Equity with US farmers" campaign, we would have been further ahead to have tackled the real issue which was to get equity with Canadian farmers - particularly supply managed farmers who, because of their ability to be financial bullies in the farm community, were of greater risk to Ontario grain farmers than the US treasury.
By continuing to support supply management, and its ability to wreak havoc not just with consumers, but with the rest of the farm community, Canada avoids any consideration of good ag policy as well as good public policy.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Agreed, at the end of the day, creating a level global playing field for all commodities should be what good Ag policy is all about. Granted the inequity between supply and non supply managed commodities is an issue that needs to be fixed, however, it still leaves your "Equity with U.S. Grain Farmers" to be dealt with. Several years ago you suggested it was in the range of approx. $100 per acre. A corn countervail ensued and was won temporarily only to be overturned by a final decision which ruled in favour of cheap feed instead of "Equity with U.S. Grain Farmers". Meanwhile, with the exception of SM the North American integration of grains and livestock continues without a level playing field between countries. One solution to fix both your SM issue and your "Equity with U.S. Grain farmers" would be to have a totally Integrated U.S.-Canada Grain-Livestock Ag market system including Ag policy.
While it would be nice to have an integrated North American market for agriculture, that would, by definition, have to be after we have an integrated market in Canada, and that would mean getting rid of the bullying power given, by legislation, to supply managed farmers.
The idea of a level playing field between countries is going to remain a fantasy as long as we insist on not having a level playing field between farmers in Canada.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The biggest bully is our neighbour to the South and its not just Canada that is tossed aside on various trade disputes.The US has a bad reputation around the world,they invented the "protectionism" word,why would we ever think the 2 Countries could be integrated ?
I'd be fully-prepared to tackle anything the US throws at us if we could get rid of the financial bullies who use their ill-gotten, but, alas, currently legal, gains from 200% tariff barriers in order to make the rest of us second-class citizens in our own communities.
What is wrong with Canadian farmers, Canadian politicians, and Canadian farm groups, that they can't see that non-supply managed farmers are getting tired of always being "tossed aside" in favour of our protectionist dairy and poultry farmers?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-05/dairy-farmers-search-for-fair-milk...
Struggling dairy farmers in south-east Queensland are exploring opportunities to export milk to Asia in a bid to stay in business.
The euphemisms used by supply management supporters, especially "orderly marketing", while meant to gloss over supply management's many travesties, do no such thing.
If anything, these completely-misleading euphemisms simply infuriate people who can see through the ruses perpetrated by those who see nothing wrong with extracting money from the poorest group of consumers for the benefit of a few thousand millionaire farmers.
Therefore, I wish dairy and poultry farmers would take off their rose coloured glasses, and accept supply management for what it is - the legitimized enslavement of consumers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Essentially (with the exception of SM) we are currently somewhat close to an integrated N.A. livestock sector now. That is why Canadian livestock want Integrated free trade with the USA. I know, the current sticking point is COOL but our Ag Minister and Prime minister are in the process of making the U.SA comply via countervail.
Even the NFU which you love ????
This gives some credit to the lawsuit filed by horse breeders.It also adds to the thoery that politicians have only one mandate and that is to get re-elected!
The Governing Liberal strongholds are urban ridings,they hardly have any seats in rural Ontario.The Liberals have 17 seats of 22 in their so-called "Fortress" Toronto,the GTA has long sought a mega-casino of their own,so what better way of pleasing urban voters than giving them what they want and along with that the jobs and revenues that go along with it.
In the end its not a question of making or losing money because we know the Racetrack/slots were making money for all parties in the deal,the horse people,the racetracks,the rural communities and the Government.The ultimate question for the Liberal Party was "why partnership yourself in something that doesn't bring in votes"..We see it in others area's as well,the Gas plant cancellations and the Windturbine revolt,with only .08% of windturbines being in Liberal ridings.I ask,how many seats will the Liberals lose because of the callcellation of the horse racing/slots program?..the answer would be none!..they had none to lose!
There's a good chance that even in ridings like mine, with a racetrack/casino operating in nearby Clinton, the Liberals could, except for the fact that they're long-term toast because of their support for wind turbines, re-take this riding by cancelling the horse racing/slots program.
That's because we have an older population which would be quite-easily persuaded that cancelling the horse racing/slots program is going to translate into more money for health care - it would be an easy argument for the present government to make, and it would win a lot more votes than cancelling the horse racing/slots program would lose.
This lawsuit by the horse racing industry simply demonstrates the wisdom of the government decision - sore losers, and that includes the horse racing industry, don't elicit any sympathy.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Even the eldest of the elderly would have a hard time believing that cancelling a money making program like the horse racing/slots and then dealing out 500 million in compensation would somehow translate to better health care.
Maybe the Liberals could also persuade them into think Wind Turbines could actually bring their hydro rates down...in their lifetime!
The Government wants to know where the profits went at the racetracks,I think the people of Ontario would like to know where the Billions in Government profits went also.We all know that over a billion went to buy 2 seats in Oakville ridings with the gas plant cover-ups,where else?
While some people who don't understand economics believe that the horse racing/slots industry was "money-making" and/or "profitable", those who do understand economics know that this venture was, by definition, net-negative in that it would always result in fewer overall jobs and economic activity.
Let's put it this way - very few people of any age, even around here, have much sympathy for the horse racing industry in the form in which it became during the slots bonanza.
I don't think anyone around here finds it particularly hard to see that money not going to prop up the purchase of ever-increasingly big horse trailers, and the trucks to tow them, would be, and will be, better spent propping up health care.
The agricultural industry is mostly on the wrong side of this issue in that it, typically, can only see the downside of any government decision.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment