The Master Rulebook


The Constitution Act 1867 is a rulebook. It is not just a rulebook, it is THE RULEBOOK for Canada!

The Constitution Act 1867 is the Master Rulebook which outlines how all other rulebooks should be made.

The First thing this Master Rulebook makes clear is:

1. Who can make rules (legislators);

2. Who can administer the rules (executive government);

3. Who can be the referee over the rules (judges).

The Second thing this Master Rulebook makes clear is what topics (Class of Subjects) the rule makers may make rules for.

Should an issue arise which falls under one of the topics (Class of Subject) the rule makers may make rules for, the rule makers may make a mini rulebook for that specific topic, or Subject rulebook.

In example, the Quarantine Act is a Subject rulebook, made by the assigned rule maker (the Parliament) under the Class of Subject provided under subsection 91 (11) of the Constitution Act 1867, seen here.

At Issue: Should the rule makers make rules in one or more of the Subject rulebooks which allows these rule makers to share or give away any part of their exclusive power to make rules to any part of the administration (executive government), would you, a reasonable person, not see that as a NEW rule not found in the Master Rulebook?

In example of the rule makers (Parliament in this instance) conferring their exclusive legislative powers to the King’s Privy Council (executive government) would be Section 58 of the Quarantine Act together with the definition of “regulation” seen under subsection 2 (1) of the Statutory Instruments Act. (This would be the Executive Council’s “Orders in Council”)

More to the point, if this NEW rule, or rules, made by the Parliament to share their rule making power with an administrator (executive government) was not written and made clear in the Master Rulebook, wouldn’t the rule makers (the Parliament), with the making of this sharing rule in the Subject rulebook not be breaking the rules of the Master Rulebook?

TO BE CLEAR, the rule makers, the administrators and the referees, by and under the rules of the Master Rulebook, are to be independent and separate branches of government which should be distinct from the other. Even Ontario recognizes and acknowledges this point as seen here:…/parliament…/branches-government

TO BE CLEAR, policy is NOT law! Nor should policy be made a legislative enactment as defined by the meaning of “regulation” under subsection 2 (1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, seen and established in Canadian Statute.

So if the rule maker makes a new rule which allows this rule maker to share their rule making power and blend their rule making power with the administrators (executive government), would you not agree the rule maker who made a rule to share or blend their rule making power without a rule existing in the Master Rulebook to make that rule, BROKE THE RULES of the Master Rulebook?

Please keep in mind, this has been the practice since before most of us were born. It began innocently enough at first. The practice would have been for minor things like the making of forms for the public to facilitate the rules. However, with the knowledge of Canada’s Constitution and this simple understanding being withheld from our education system, over time, with each passing generation, this knowledge is lost, until nearly extinct. Simultaneously, with subtle changes being made over time, a little more power to make law is usurped by the executive government, knowingly or unknowingly. Remember, without a degree in law, these administrators are likely to be as ignorant as the rest of us, blindly following the lawyers…

Intent aside, the ability to make law is slowly usurped by the executive governments from the legislators, (notice the distinction of these two things) until the ability to make legislative enactments is in the hands of a few, that few being the executive governments of Canada.This is of issue, for reason it is far easier to control a few, then to control the many. Further, it allows the infiltration of foreign entities to pervert the laws as a means of accomplishing governmental change within Canada. Preying upon the ignorance of the public, the public servants blindly just follow the orders….

This would be a pivotal step into overthrowing a Nation.

Related Articles

Bill 419

Interestingly PHIA already has provisions – 31(l) and 38(1)(g) – which allow for the Minister to collect personal health information for the purpose of planning and management of the health system. It also already contains provisions for the Minister to collect that information for the purposes of creating or maintaining an electronic health record at 31(o). The difference now, however, seems to be that custodians will no longer be able to refuse to disclose your personal health information to the government.

How have I been? Well…

How have I been? Well…
I suppose it starts with the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. It was an emotional few weeks, and it culminated in a violent quelling of a peaceful protest, which was perfectly in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 2(c) (the fundamental freedom of peaceful assembly). It was legal to participate in, and fund, such a gathering until the government decided to pass orders and measures which made it illegal.

Judicial Review update: April

All motions were granted by the court; a much desired outcome for CANS and its members: “The Applicant, Citizens’ Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS), comes before this court seeking to engage the Judiciary to perform a vital and rigorous ‘check’ among the ‘checks and balances’ integral to Canada’s constitutional democracy. The Applicant is asking the Judicial branch of government to take a critical look at decisions and actions taken by the Executive branch of government to determine if they are reasonable and lawful”


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.