Bill C-302 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley—Woolwich
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 29, 2004
- Debated in principleDec. 2, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 2, 2004
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 21, 2005
- Became lawFeb. 24, 2005
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
50% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (211 words introduced, 226 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only formal updates such as the royal assent date and chapter number. The core provision renaming the district to Kitchener — Conestoga stayed exactly the same.
- Added royal assent date and chapter designation.
After: “53-54 ELIZABETH II _________ CHAPTER 4”
- Added assent date line.
After: “[Assented to 24th February, 2005]”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill performs a single, mechanical name substitution by citing exact prior orders and statutes. No standards, discretion or open-ended language appear.
Clear-cut
“paragraph 38 of that part relating to the Province of Ontario is amended by substituting the name "Kitchener — Conestoga" for the name "Kitchener — Wilmot — Wellesley — Woolwich"”
Pins the change to one numbered paragraph in a named 2003 order already amended by a cited 2004 statute.“representation order declared in force by proclamation of August 25, 2003, under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as amended by section 23 of An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, chapter 19 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004”
Uses calendar date, chapter number and section reference to eliminate any ambiguity about the source text.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the amendment is self-executing.
Challenging the law itself. The enactment contains no prohibition or standard that could engage section 7 or 2(b) Charter vagueness or overbreadth claims.
Disputing a charge under it. The statute creates no offence or duty whose breach could be disputed; it merely alters a district name.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.