Davie: Canada should reconsider need for second AOR

first_img Photo: The interim AOR ship MV Asterix arrives for the first time at Pier 20 in Halifax harbor on 27 December 2017. Photo: Chief Petty Officer 2nd Class Shawn M. Kent, Royal Canadian Navy Quebec-based shipbuilder Davie Shipbuilding has urged Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to reevaluate the government’s decision not to order a second supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy.Speaking in Quebec last Friday, Justin Trudeau told an audience that the Canadian Armed Forces did an assessment and concluded that there was no need for the second supply ship proposed by Davie Shipbuilding.The shipbuilder noted that the requirement for a second supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy was studied by both the Senate and House of Commons permanent defense committees in 2017 and both committees concluded that Canada should procure a second interim supply ship from Davie to meet the operational requirements of the navy.“Given the statement from the Acting Vice Chief of Defence Staff, two parliamentary reports and documents provided by the Department of National Defence which confirm that the Joint Supply Ships will not achieve Full Operational Capabilities until 2025, there clearly remains a need for Obelix,” the shipbuilder said.“To that end, we would request that the Prime Minister conduct an independent third-party analysis of the utilization rate of the current supply ship, MV Asterix, and the exact time when the Joint Support Ships to be delivered from the Vancouver shipyard will achieve Full Operational Capability. This analysis should be concluded in an expedited timeframe (30 days) so that we can get on with providing the women and men of the Royal Canadian Navy the equipment it needs to carry out the job the government asks them to do, both in Canada and abroad.”In November 2015, the Canadian government awarded Davie Shipbuilding a $CAD700 million contract to deliver the MV Asterix, a container ship converted into an auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR) vessel. The ship was delivered to the navy in January 2018. Davie says it could deliver a second AOR – the Obelix – for $500 million, but the offer is yet to be accepted by the navy and the government.MV Asterix is an interim solution intended to replace the out-of-service Protecteur-class ships until the new Joint Support Ships are delivered. View post tag: Royal Canadian Navy View post tag: MV Asterix View post tag: AOR View post tag: Davie Shipbuilding Share this articlelast_img read more

Ethics panel clarifies how judges give testimony

first_imgMark D. Killian Managing Editor Judges no longer have to be subpoenaed before being able to give testimony to an investigative entity, according to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.The ethics advisory panel also recently ruled that a judge may not participate in a law firm’s litigation program at a firm retreat, but may belong to a Bar section’s executive council and serve in a nonprofit group’s leadership to improve a community’s quality of life. A judge also should discourage organizations from raising scholarship money in the judge’s name. SubpoenaReversing several prior opinions, the JEAC has ruled that a judge need not be subpoenad before giving factual testimony to an investigative entity. Opinion Number: 03-04.In several earlier opinions the committee had interpreted Canon 2B to require that a judge be under subpoena when the judge is testifying as a character witness or giving factual testimony.“The committee at this time elects to overrule its opinions in 98-15 and 00-7, ” the JEAC said. “These opinions prevent judges from cooperating with entities such as law enforcement, The Florida Bar, and the Judicial Qualifications Commission when they are investigating matters.”The commentary to Canon 2B allows a judge to give information pursuant to a formal request to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer and there is no difference in a judge giving information to an investigative entity upon a request and a judge giving information to a sentencing judge, a probation officer, or a parole officer upon request, the committee said.“In matters dealing with law enforcement, the judge could be viewed as obstructing justice if the judge refused to cooperate when he or she has relevant information and is requested to give this information,” the committee said. “In matters dealing with investigations by The Florida Bar regarding attorney misconduct or the Judicial Qualifications Commission dealing with judicial misconduct, the judge has an ethical obligation to cooperate with these entities.”The committee also found that non-testimonial interviews about factual matters, as long as they are not in violation of any other parts of the Code of Judicial Conduct, do not require a subpoena. Firm RetreatA judge may not participate in a law firm’s litigation program by presiding over mock trials at a firm retreat . Opinion Number: 03-03.The inquiring judge said several judges have been invited to the training retreat to help improve the trial skills of the firm’s lawyers. The judges would be the firm’s “honored guest” at an “upscale resort” and preside over a mock trial and critique the firm’s associates.The panel said while judges are encouraged to engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, attending the retreat would violate the “spirit and intent” of several canons.“Undoubtedly, a litigant would be uncomfortable appearing in front of a judge who had recently been an honored guest at the opposing law firm’s educational retreat,” the panel said. “This creates a reasonable doubt as to the judge’s capacity to act impartially.”The committee also said entertaining a judge at an exclusive resort by a private law firm carries an appearance of impropriety and the canons preclude a judge from accepting any gift or favor from anyone who has come or is likely to come and whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge. Community InvolvementA judge, under the aegis of a nonprofit organization, may serve in a leadership capacity to implement nonpartisan, citizen-developed recommendations to improve the community’s quality of life by improving race relations. Opinion Number: 03-01.The inquiring judge has been asked by a community-based organization to serve as implementation chair in connection with a study regarding race relations. The judge said its mission is to open dialogue, conduct impartial research, and consensus building.“Since the judge does not plan to be involved in fundraising or lobbying, and since there is little possibility that the civic organization will appear in court, it is not a violation of Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the judge to serve as chair of the implementing committee,” the committee said. “If it appears that the duties as chair require the judge to engage in activities which may conflict with the code, the judge should delegate some of the responsibilities to other officers.” Legal GroupsA recently elected judge may remain a member of the executive council of the Bar’s Trial Lawyers Section and a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates, as well as a member of the real estate partnership that owns the building in which the judge’s former law firm rents offices and continue to receive a regular distribution of the income from that partnership. The judge also may continue to receive periodic payments from the former law firm for the judge’s equity interest in the firm. Opinion Number: 03- 02.The JEAC said the panel has previously found that a judge could serve as chair-elect of the Family Law Section and that a judge may serve on the Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. Therefore, the committee held that a judge may remain a member of the Trial Lawyers Section and, as appointed, chair committees of the council after assuming the bench.“Further, the committee has continuously stated that a judge may be a member of and chair such councils as long as the judge’s involvement does not reflect on the judge’s impartiality or neutrality as a judge,” the panel said, adding, however, judges should not hold offices in local bar associations, “because such an election gives the appearance of the judge exerting pressure on lawyers that must litigate before that judge.”The committee also cautioned that judges are prohibited from lobbying for section legislative positions and “should avoid involvement in any activity which might reflect on the judge’s impartiality or neutrality.”As far as the judge’s continued membership in the real estate partnership that owns the building rented by the judge’s former law firm, the judge may continue to receive periodic distributions of the income from the partnership, but should disclose the relationship and, upon motion, be recused from any cases involving the firm due to the ongoing landlord/tenant relationship, unless a proper remittal of disqualification has been executed.Judges also may receive periodic payments from former firms for their equity interest in the firm or the firm may execute a note payable to the judge to pay the balance owed for the judge’s equity interest. Scholarship FundsA sitting judicial officer may not permit a not-for-profit organization which is controlled by a voluntary bar association to solicit funds for a scholarship named for the judge. Opinion Number: 03-05.The inquiring judge has been informed by a nonprofit foundation controlled by a voluntary bar that it has, and intends to continue, soliciting funds for a scholarship named for the judge as tribute to him as the first president of the voluntary bar and for his service as a judge.In several opinions, the committee said it has addressed the issue of lending the prestige of judicial office to charitable fundraising events and has made it clear that if the judge’s participation in any way involves the solicitation or gives the appearance of the solicitation of funds, the judge may not participate.“The committee concludes that as to the funds already raised, the judge has not lent the prestige of the office,” the panel said. “The committee sees no reason why that fundraising would be affected. Moreover the tribute is permissible and the judge’s only obligation is to avoid lending judicial prestige to further fundraising.”The committee said despite the “admirable goals of the foundation’s activities and the fact that the judge is well deserving of the honor to be bestowed,” it advises the judge to discourage the foundation from using the prestige of his office to advance its private interests by future fundraising activities in the judge’s name.The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is expressly charged with rendering advisory opinions interpreting the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to specific circumstances confronting or affecting a judge or judicial candidate. Its opinions are advisory, and conduct that is consistent with an opinion may be evidence of good faith on the part of the judge, but the Judicial Qualifications Commission is not bound by the committee’s interpretive opinions.The full text of the committee’s opinions is available on the Supreme Court’s Web site at www.flcourts.org. Once there, click on the “Judges’ Page” link in the left-hand column. Ethics panel clarifies how judges give testimony Ethics panel clarifies how judges give testimonycenter_img June 15, 2003 Managing Editor Regular Newslast_img read more

EGBA backs Independent Regulator as key Irish directive

first_img Related Articles Submit EGBA responsible advertising code gains European broadcaster approval July 3, 2020 StumbleUpon The European Gaming & Betting Association (EGBA) has backed a proposal from Irish Minister David Stanton to establish an independent regulator by 2020 to govern a reformed Irish gambling sector.Stanton seeks to establish an independent regulator as part of Ireland revamping its national gambling regulatory framework, introducing the mandate of the amended ‘Gaming & Lotteries Bill 2019’. “EGBA welcomes the proposal to introduce a regulatory authority for gambling and thanks Minister Stanton and his departmental team for their ongoing commitment and efforts to regulate online gambling in Ireland,” read an EGBA statement.Backing Irish progress on regulating online gambling services, the EGBA’s Dr Katie Hartmann – Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs – spoke to Irish policy stakeholders last week at a seminar organised by the Irish Department of Justice and Equality.Dr Hartmann stated that it is in the interest of all stakeholders for Ireland “to have a well-regulated online gambling market, which provides legal certainty and protects Irish players by ensuring they can play within a regulated environment”.Reflecting the interests of licensed online gambling incumbents, the EGBA continues to promote ‘sensible tax frameworks’ as a necessary function for regulated online gambling marketplaces.“To enable this a Gross Gaming revenue tax, among others, is of crucial importance so that licensed gambling operators can offer a competitive product.” Dr Hartmann added. “For the law to be a success it should introduce a licensing system which is competitive and establishes a high degree of standards for operators and consumers alike.”The reform of Irish gambling laws has faced numerous setbacks on a regulatory agenda that was first initiated in 2013 with the Dáil provisionally approving the ‘Gambling Control Bill’.At the start of the year, David Stanton warned Fine Gael counterparts that ‘gambling reform had to be delivered in 2019’, as gambling regulatory delays had hurt an unprotected Irish public.Seeking to improve Irish problem-gambling support structures, last March Irish betting stakeholders agreed to form a €1 million funded ‘Gambling Awareness Trust’ – bolstering Ireland’s problem-gambling harm’s counselling, research and treatment disciplines.Backing a responsibility agenda for Irish gambling, Dr. Hartmann said: “All reputable operators already have responsible gaming tools in place, but regulation should make those obligatory for all operators on the Irish market.“Likewise, the Irish authorities should consider introducing a self-exclusion register for those who have or are at risk of, problem gambling behaviour. These punters should be able to exclude themselves from accessing gambling websites if they feel the need to.“We look forward to the finalisation of the draft law and will work constructively with the proposed gambling authority to implement it.” EGBA – Black market looms on Spain if government proceeds with its advertising blackout July 14, 2020 Share Share David Clifton, Licensing Expert: Has the die already been cast? July 15, 2020last_img read more