Law Times

Page 6 January 14, 2019 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com Prepare for an unofficial election year BY KADY O'MALLEY T hink the cantankerous cross- aisle cacophony in the Com- mons is bad now? Just wait until election year. That, in a nutshell, sums up Official Ottawa's outlook on 2019 — which, for those who may not have it triple-red- circled on their calendar, is, indeed, an election year. The reality, of course, is that the hyperpartisan politicking has been underway for months — the inevitable consequence, it seems, of the still rela- tively new fixed election date protocol. Before 2007, it was a gamble, albeit typically a fairly safe bet that the call would come at some point during the fourth year of a government's man- date. There was, however, always the pos- sibility that a prime minister might decide to take that walk to Rideau Hall a few months ahead of schedule, which could put his opponents at a disadvan- tage for the opening days or weeks of the campaign. Even with a fixed election date, such a scenario could unfold, as the law doesn't explicitly forbid the gov- ernment of the day from trying its luck with an early call, which would be difficult to put into law without infringing on par- liamentary and constitu- tional conventions and prerogatives. Thanks to the latest fed- eral election law rewrite there's an official pre-writ period that places addition- al spending constraints on both political parties, and third-party groups, before the paperwork for the democratic stee- plechase is drawn up. As of June 30, federal parties will be allowed to spend up to $2 million on pre-campaign positioning, logistics and other prep work before the writ for the October election comes into effect, while third parties will face an even more modest cap of just $700,000. During the lead-up to the 2015 campaign — which, at 78 days, was the longest such ordeal in modern Cana- dian history — conventional wisdom within federal political circles was that the Conservative move to call the elec- tion in early August was a deliberate attempt to prevent left-leaning groups like Engage Canada from racking up hundreds of thousands of unregulated ad expenditures, as the limits only took effect once the writ was live. By triggering the election, the Tories were able to shut down those outside ad cam- paigns while still leaving themselves a generous buf- fer to deploy their own hard- earned cash, as the limits on spending by parties and candidates were pro-rated based on the number of days covered by the writ. In 2015, that worked out to roughly $54 million per party, or nearly double the average for previous elections, and not one party hit the cap, although the Liberals came closest with a budget of just over $43 million, more than half of which — $26 million, as per the fi- nal report — was poured into online, TV and radio ads. The Tories, for their part, spent $41 million total, with $19 million allocated to ad buys. Given that context, the new pre-writ limits seem downright parsimonious, and it's also worth noting that the same omnibus overhaul also imposes new disclosure requirements on third par- ties as well as limits on using funds from outside Canada. Even if the new rules offer some relief from slickly abrasive, American- style "contrast" campaigns — other- wise known as "attack " ads — it will do nothing to mute the politicians them- selves, who will be free to savage each other on social media, in the House of Commons and on the debate stage, their bon mots eagerly awaited, and amplified across the greater universe, by supporters. Which isn't to say that it's a bad idea to crack down on the pre-writ persua- sion circuit — far from it, as it at least reaffirms a fundamental principle of Canadian democracy, namely that is by no means perfect, but not nearly as existentially dysfunctional as the po- larized snake-pit south of the border. Just don't expect it to do much to stem the f lood of partisan rhetoric, most of which occurs far outside the parameters of federal election laws, and will undoubtedly continue — and even increase — unless members of the same audience let it be known, via the ballot box, that they're ready to walk out of the theatre. LT uKady O'Malley is a member of the parliamentary press gallery in Ottawa and writes about politics, procedure and process for iPolitics. She also appears regularly on CBC television and radio. COMMENT u EDITORIAL OBITER By Gabrielle Giroday ©2019 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reli- ance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $205.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at .............. 416-649-9585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com SALES AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Sales Manager Paul Burton ............................................ 416-649-9928 paul.burton@tr.com Consultant, Strategy and Business Development: Ivan Ivanovitch ...................................... 416-887-4300 ivan.ivanovitch@tr.com Business Development Consultant: Kimberlee Pascoe .................................. 416-996-1739 kimberlee.pascoe@tr.com Account Executive: Steffanie Munroe ................................... 416-315-5879 steffanie.munroe@tr.com Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Brown Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anita Balakrishnan Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laura Crawford Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phyllis Barone Production Co-ordinator . . . . . Jacqueline D'Souza Electronic Production Specialist . . . Derek Welford Tuition trouble M uch has been written about the debt many students take on if they decide to attend law school. What is interesting to me is how students are now mo- bilizing to draw attention to their displeasure with tuition fees, and how this ties to wider problems facing the profession — like a lack of diversity or mental health issues, particularly for younger lawyers. This week, Law Times reports on a group of students who have written an open letter to York University's Osgoode Hall Law School with concern over tuition rates. "That will be our last financial contribution to Osgoode or York University . . . until such time as Osgoode reduces tuition to a rea- sonable level — and thereafter only increases it with clear, specific, evidenced and public reasons," the letter said. The same story cites a forthcoming report from the Law Students' Society of Ontario that indicates only 13.6 per cent of law students who responded to the re- port didn't have any debt, after entering law school. In November, Law Times reported on how current and former students of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law wanted the school to cap annual tuition at $40,000 per year until the school per- formed a financial review. It was one of the newspaper's most-read stories of the year. People are paying attention to controversy over law school fees. Meanwhile, lawyers across Ontario have started to declare their interest in running for bencher at the Law Society of Ontario. Lawyers at all stages of their careers should con- sider running for a spot. Becoming a bencher may not mean one can directly affect the amount of tuition charged at a particular school, but it does mean a seat at the table with those who will chart the direction for the profession in the coming months, and years. LT The Hill Kady O'Malley Kady O'Malley

• Cover