Grassland Stewartship Program Now Accepting Applications by Elizabeth Marshall

Elizabeth Marshall
Elizabeth Marshall

I read with interest the article by Diana Martin in your Jan. 17, 2017 issue “Grassland Stewardship Program accepting applications.” There are a number of concerns I have with this initiative regarding property rights.

The first blaring concern is that Conservation Ontario is involved. This is a non-government corporation set up by the Conservation Authorities to create policy, of which we assist paying for, through our taxes. One such policy was:

“5.0 Policy
Through the land use planning process, the … CA will pursue the acquisition of conservation lands eligible for the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP).”
“…CA staff will review these opportunities when they arise. ..CA has a policy for this which came into effect on May 10, 2002 and it is described in their publication titled “Conservation Land Protection and Acquisition Policy – Through Ontario’s Land Use Planning Process.”

This process is reactionary as it only occurs once a landowner makes an application. In order to receive approvals, the proponent must convey land or an easement for conservation or parkland.”

My question, to those who wish to participate, is – what happens after the money runs out or the program is cancelled? Do you get to remove the “grasslands” from your property to put it back into production or are you forever tied to the restrictions based in this program? It would seem this is merely history repeating itself.

Some 802 years ago there was a civil war, in England, between the King and the land/property owners. This was to settle that the King, amongst many things, was not allowed to enforce “endangered or protected species” acts on private property. These were called the “Forest Laws” of King John, where if you maimed or killed one of the King’s wild animals or chopped down a “protected tree,” on your own property, you were extremely fined or would be seriously harmed. The land/property owner’s won that war and through what is called “Magna Carta” the King was granted a licence to remain King. Yes the people had to allow the King to be the leader of England.

As for his forest laws, they were removed because they were included in the conditions that allowed the King to remain the King. That he could NEVER again dictate what happened on private land/property in regards to trees or wild animals. That document, called Magna Carta, is part of our constitution. Any one, and I mean any one, who denies that this document still stands needs to look to the Courts to see that even the Courts use this document to support their positions, so if it lives for them – it lives for us.

Through trickery and deception our government will attempt to entice property owners to give up their God given rights. This has happened may times throughout the history of man, but until the people say “NO” it will continue. Just a thought to perhaps remember; the deal you do today may come back and haunt you tomorrow.

Elizabeth F. Marshall is Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association, Author – Property Rights 101: An Introduction”, Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board, Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc
Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Mun. Councillors, etc., President All Rights Research Ltd., Steering Committee – International Property Rights Association