Bill C-304 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Battle River
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 1, 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
47% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (194 words introduced, 209 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The core provision renaming the electoral district stayed identical. Only formal headings, dates, and publication details were added for the final statute.
- Updated session reference to reflect passage into the next regnal year.
Before: “First Session, Thirty-eighth Parliament, 53 Elizabeth II, 2004”
After: “First Session, Thirty-eighth Parliament, 53-54 Elizabeth II, 2004-2005”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill performs a single, mechanical substitution of one electoral district name by amending a precisely identified paragraph in a named representation order. Every reference is to an exact date, statute, chapter, section and paragraph with no subjective language.
Clear-cut
“paragraph 25 of that part relating to the Province of Alberta is amended by substituting the name "Westlock — St. Paul" for the name "Battle River"”
Identifies the exact paragraph and the precise textual substitution required.“declared in force by proclamation of August 25, 2003, under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as amended by section 32 of An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, chapter 19 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004”
Pins the target document to a specific proclamation date and prior amending statute with chapter and section numbers.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the name change is effected directly by the statute itself.
Challenging the law itself. The law is a narrow factual amendment to an electoral boundary name and engages no Charter rights, rendering a successful challenge unlikely.
Disputing a charge under it. The provision creates no offence or prohibition, so disputes over whether a violation occurred cannot arise.
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.