Omar Khadr, just another tourist wandering Senate hallways?

PornAddict · Aug 22, 2018

Omar Khadr, just another tourist wandering Senate hallways?
Mark Bonokoski

August 22, 2018

Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr, 30, is seen in Mississauga, Ont., on Thursday, July 6, 2017. Colin Perkel / THE CANADIAN PRESS
After Guantanamo poster boy and $10.5-million-man Omar Khadr was seen strolling through the hallways of the Senate on Parliament Hill in mid-June as if he owned the place, the Trudeau Liberals went into damage control.

They leaked their version of the story to the Globe and Mail in order to put a political spin on what should have been a major story about the lapse of security on Parliament Hill, and how a convicted terrorist with undeniable face recognition was freely able to come so close to scores of parliamentarians.

Instead of focusing on the security issue, scorn was tossed earlier this week at the Conservatives, via the Globe, as if they had plotted Khadr’s presence on Parliament Hill with his wife, Muna Abougoush, and then laid in wait until the right moment to drop the bombshell.

The Globe, in fact, even had Khadr’s long-time lawyer, Dennis Edney, condemning the Conservatives for Islamophobia.

“I think (the Conservatives) are concerned about their own bigotry,” Edney told the Globe, accusing the federal party of Andrew Scheer of singling out Khadr because of his religion, not because he is the face of home-grown terrorism and associated with a notorious jihadist family who had close ties to the late mass-murder 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.

“All I can say is, if it was him, that’s (Khadr’s) constitutional right to be able to be there,” said Edney. “And why are they so worried about it as opposed to other individuals who come in?

“It sounds to me of Islamophobia.”

It was Jacqui Delaney, political aide to Quebec Sen. Leo Housakos, who spotted Khadr among the tourists on June 19 who were wandering the halls of the Senate, and who followed him to the Senate gift shop to confirm that her eyes were not deceiving her.

“I was shocked to see him there,” Delaney admitted. “I mean, he’s a convicted terrorist, yet there he was. What was security doing?”

Delaney is no newbie to news. A veteran radio and television broadcaster, she was once press secretary to former Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak before moving to Ottawa to work within the Senate.

“Because I am a known Conservative, my reporting to my boss of seeing Omar Khadr in the Senate was depicted as my partisanship being used to score political points against the Liberals,” she said.

“That depiction is total fabrication.

“Instead of being a story about what should be seen as a major breach in security, we got a political spin put to it by the Liberals,” said Delaney.

“It’s infuriating. This is my place of work. Four years ago, a guy stormed Parliament Hill and shot up the place.”

Instead of focusing on how Khadr managed to get inside Parliament Hill, regardless of the questionable threat he now poses, the Globe wrote of how the Trudeau Liberals took steps to “bar” Khadr from attending an invitation-only Parliament Hill celebration of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr where the prime minister was set to be the keynote speaker.

The source of this, according to the Globe, were two unnamed senior Liberal “insiders” who cited the Trudeau government’s concern that Khadr might crash the Eid al-Fitr event as an uninvited guest and cosy up to some Liberal MPs or cabinet ministers.

This would not be the best of optics, of course, considering the Trudeau government’s controversial $10.5-million settlement payout to Khadr, complete with a formal apology from the Canadian people.

Just to be assured, however, PMO spokesperson Eleanore Catenaro was quoted in the story, stating “the Prime Minister did not meet with Omar Khadr, nor did any senior ministers.”

In other words, everyone chill out.

Nothing more to see here … and what security lapse?

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colu...ust-another-tourist-wandering-senate-hallways

mandrill · Aug 22, 2018

Why would there be a "security issue"?

Any threat that Khadr may have constituted to the West ended almost 20 years ago. He's a Canadian citizen. He has every right to wander about the public areas of the Senate buildings.

His conviction was in front of a dubious military tribunal at Guantanamo in a proceedings so devoid of human rights that Canada was forced to pay $10.5 million in damages to him. And even that was long, long ago.

I had a client who tried to blow up Parliament once. He was certifiably insane at the time and he was arrested at the Greyhound Bus station on Bay Street and taken to CAMH. He never even got to Ottawa. 10 years later, he was cured and he went to visit Parliament. Nothing happened. No one cared. So why the big fuss about Khadr?

Why is the CPC so Islamaphobic that it has to track Khadr's movements?

Bud Plug · Aug 23, 2018

oagre said:
Why would there be a "security issue"?

Any threat that Khadr may have constituted to the West ended almost 20 years ago. He's a Canadian citizen. He has every right to wander about the public areas of the Senate buildings.

His conviction was in front of a dubious military tribunal at Guantanamo in a proceedings so devoid of human rights that Canada was forced to pay $10.5 million in damages to him. And even that was long, long ago.

I had a client who tried to blow up Parliament once. He was certifiably insane at the time and he was arrested at the Greyhound Bus station on Bay Street and taken to CAMH. He never even got to Ottawa. 10 years later, he was cured and he went to visit Parliament. Nothing happened. No one cared. So why the big fuss about Khadr?

Why is the CPC so Islamaphobic that it has to track Khadr's movements?

I'm glad you're not in charge of security anywhere, with your ex post facto analysis of security threats.

oldjones · Aug 23, 2018

Bud Plug said:
I'm glad you're not in charge of security anywhere, with your ex post facto analysis of security threats.

Where do we find the security qualifications of the outraged Conservative politicians quoted just as ex post facto? It is two months after the fact, and any danger (Hah!) is long past.

Or was the Sun sitting on this VITAL NEWS, and their cogent analysis of it (Hahha!) all this time? If the story even suggested the Sun made any effort to contact and get a statement from the real security folks involved, that and your comment might be worth serious attention.

At least oagre offered a diverting little anecdote.

Bud Plug · Aug 23, 2018

oldjones said:
Where do we find the security qualifications of the outraged Conservative politicians quoted just as ex post facto? It is two months after the fact, and any danger (Hah!) is long past.

Or was the Sun sitting on this VITAL NEWS, and their cogent analysis of it (Hahha!) all this time? If the story even suggested the Sun made any effort to contact and get a statement from the real security folks involved, that and your comment might be worth serious attention.

Seems to me from the story that the sequence of events was:

1. Delaney sees Khadr on June 19. She immediately reports it to Senator Housakos.

2. Housakos reports it to someone in the Liberal government, or a security official answerable to the government. We're not told who, and when, but I have no reason to think Housakos sat on the information.

3. Instead of providing a formal response to the report, the story is leaked by Liberals to the Globe as a story of CPC Islamophobia. It's unclear from the OP when that story ran, but there is a Globe2Go article http://globe2go.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx dated August 21 that refers to information coming from a Liberal insider on August 20, so it seems likely that the Liberal response, such as it was, only came out this week.

As a result, it doesn't look like the Conservatives or the Sun sat on this. It sure looks like the Liberals did.

oldjones said:
At least oagre offered a diverting little anecdote.

A diversion, yes. However, still no actual word from the Liberal government however, whether persons convicted of terrorism (regardless of where in the world and by what tribunal) should be stopped and questioned, and/or be pre-screened for access to the Parliament buildings.

They seem to understand the wisdom of keeping Khadr away from Trudeau himself.

oldjones · Aug 23, 2018

Bud Plug said:
Seems to me from the story that the sequence of events was:

1. Delaney sees Khadr on June 19. See immediately reports it to Senator Housakos.

2. Housakos reports it to someone in the Liberal government, or a security official answerable to the government. We're not told who, and when, but I have no reason to think Housakos sat on the information.

3. Instead of providing a formal response to the report, the story is leaked by Liberals to the Globe as a story of CPC Islamophobia. It's unclear from the OP when that story ran, but there is a Globe2Go article http://globe2go.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx dated August 21 that refers to information coming from a Liberal insider on August 20, so it seems likely that the Liberal response, such as it was, only came out this week.

As a result, it doesn't look like the Conservatives or the Sun sat on this. It sure looks like the Liberals did.

A diversion, yes. However, still no actual word from the Liberal government however, whether persons convicted of terrorism (regardless of where in the world and by what tribunal) should be stopped and questioned, and/or be pre-screened for access to the Parliament buildings.

They seem to understand the wisdom of keeping Khadr away from Trudeau himself.

I'm sorry, but if you see a security danger you report it to the Security Authorities which Parliament Hill is crawling with. You do not pass it of to some pol friend and then forget it. If it's at all serious you follow up., and if the 'threat' is being ignored you do what pols love.

You Alert the Media about your non-event. https://youtu.be/RcqgGj66Dfo?t=7

If it's real, what you do NOT do is wait two months for a slow news day to talk about this HUGE SECURITY THREAT. Unless all you have is this phony outdated occurrence to at least jerk your loyalists' knees, since your Convention's a yawner.

If you, or they, had the slightest concern with security you'd be asking the Mounties or the PPS for the details. Delaney and Scheer were elected to do this sort of stupid childish partisan stuff, and the Sun sells ads to people dopey enough to buy their malarkey. But you have no such excuse; you fell for it H,L and S.

Bud Plug · Aug 23, 2018

oldjones said:
I'm sorry, but if you see a security danger you report it to the Security Authorities which Parliament Hill is crawling with. You do not pass it of to some pol friend and then forget it. If it's at all serious you follow up., and if the 'threat' is being ignored you do what pols love.

You Alert the Media about your non-event. https://youtu.be/RcqgGj66Dfo?t=7

If it's real, what you do NOT do is wait two months for a slow news day to talk about this HUGE SECURITY THREAT. Unless all you have is this phony outdated occurrence to at least jerk your loyalists' knees, since your Convention's a yawner.

If you, or they, had the slightest concern with security you'd be asking the Mounties or the PPS for the details. Delaney and Scheer were elected to do this sort of stupid childish partisan stuff, and the Sun sells ads to people dopey enough to buy their malarkey. But you have no such excuse; you fell for it H,L and S.

And what story do you go to the media with before the Liberals respond (bearing in mind that no one saw Khadr back on parliament hill again, or apparently, any other convicted terrorists)? That the Liberals don't care about security? How would you know that before any response? Or that security protocols are in place, but a particular employee screwed up? As a politician, do you go to the press with that story? I wouldn't.

The rational take is that Delaney and Housakos weren't demanding an immediate answer (although the story doesn't detail efforts to follow up the original report and inquiry), but were outraged when the response finally came (from out of the blue), and the Liberals ridiculously tried to paint the concern as Islamophobia.

More to the point, shouldn't convicted terrorists either be pre-screened for access, or if not, at least stopped and questioned (as well as closely monitored)?

oldjones · Aug 23, 2018

Bud Plug said:
And what story do you go to the media with before the Liberals respond (bearing in mind that no one saw Khadr back on parliament hill again, or apparently, any other convicted terrorists)? That the Liberals don't care about security? How would you know that before any response? Or that security protocols are in place, but a particular employee screwed up? As a politician, do you go to the press with that story? I wouldn't.

The rational take is that Delaney and Housakos weren't demanding an immediate answer (although the story doesn't detail efforts to follow up the original report and inquiry), but were outraged when the response finally came (from out of the blue), and the Liberals ridiculously tried to paint the concern as Islamophobia.

More to the point, shouldn't convicted terrorists either be pre-screened for access, or if not, at least stopped and questioned (as well as closely monitored)?

Why go to the Liberals at all? If you're worried about security, go to Security! If you don't like what they do, or don't do, then you have something to publicize. Not until. And your beef is with the professionals of Parliamentary Protective Services and the RCMP, not fellow pols.

If you know something your PC twits didn't think worth saying about the pre-screening or lack thereof, you're welcome to tell TERB first, but I really think you should tell the twits you're defending so poorly, and ALERT THE MEDIA YET AGAIN!

There is no rational take on this empty run-of-the-mill CPoC nonsense. If you're sincere and genuine in defending this twaddle, I pity your wasted energy, but it is good you're wasting so little intelligence on it.
-------------
PS: Isn't it high time you guys alerted the world that convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela was once seen in the Parliament Buildings?

Bud Plug · Aug 23, 2018

oldjones said:
Why go to the Liberals at all? If you're worried about security, go to Security! If you don't like what they do, or don't do, then you have something to publicize. Not until. And your beef is with Parliamentary Protective Services and the RCMP.

If you know something your PC twits didn't think worth saying about the pre-screening or lack thereof, you're welcome to tell TERB first, but I really think you should tell the twits you're defending so poorly, and ALERT THE MEDIA YET AGAIN!

There is no rational take on this empty run-of-the-mill CPoC nonsense. If you're sincere and genuine in defending this twaddle, I pity your wasted energy. But it's good you're wasting so little intelligence on it.

Stylish but empty.

So what is the Liberal position on their instructions to the Parliamentary Protective Services? They are still the government, aren't they? Or are the corn festivals too burdensome this time of year to address such matters?

Or maybe the Liberals are just secure in the notion that if Khadr believes in anything, it's in not shooting the goose that lays the golden egg.

oldjones · Aug 23, 2018

Bud Plug said:
Stylish but empty.

So what is the Liberal position on their instructions to the Parliamentary Protective Services? They are still the government, aren't they? Or are the corn festivals too burdensome this time of year to address such matters?

Or maybe the Liberals are just secure in the notion that if Khadr believes in anything, it's in not shooting the goose that lays the golden egg.

I believe if you or anyone were to ask that question of them the answer would be along the lines of: Instructing the PPS properly belongs to the Speakers of the House and Senate and their Committee formed for the purpose; direct the enquiry to them. And/or to the parole officials to whom Khadr is still, I believe, responsible. But as you suggest and for the obvious reason you gave, it's highly unlikely he's as stupid as the pols who thought they could score by making a fuss.

Truly Trumpian: Speaking only to the already converted, while irritating and offending those they might want to add to the flock.

mandrill · Aug 23, 2018

Bud Plug said:
I'm glad you're not in charge of security anywhere, with your ex post facto analysis of security threats.

Buddy, I think CSIS is in charge of terrorism and homeland security in Canada. Why would I need to be in charge of security?

CSIS is doing a great job. They obviously don't think Khadr is a danger or they would have shadowed him. So I suggest you and your rightie friends take your "Nancy Drew, Girl Detective" kits and play with them in your back yard.

oldjones · Aug 24, 2018

oagre said:
Buddy, I think CSIS is in charge of terrorism and homeland security in Canada. Why would I need to be in charge of security?

CSIS is doing a great job. They obviously don't think Khadr is a danger or they would have shadowed him. So I suggest you and your rightie friends take your "Nancy Drew, Girl Detective" kits and play with them in your back yard.

While I wouldn't presume to know or say who CSIS might shadow, it seems childishly apparent that if you are shadowing someone, you don't alert them to it by stepping forward and telling them, "you can't go there" — such as into the Centre Block. Much more likely they'd quietly increase their surreptitious complement and alert parliamentary agencies to do the same so safety would be ensured without the target being aware.

None of the authorities would want to discuss that publicly. On the other hand, the PCs clearly want as little secrecy and as much personal political advantage as they can harvest.

Nothing to do with Khadr being any danger to anyone. And the Party Faithful fell in line.

Bud Plug · Aug 24, 2018

oldjones said:
I believe if you or anyone were to ask that question of them the answer would be along the lines of: Instructing the PPS properly belongs to the Speakers of the House and Senate and their Committee formed for the purpose; direct the enquiry to them.

The Speaker is elected by the government (at this time, that effectively means the Liberals) and will answer any question posed to him by the government, as well as address any safety concerns identified by the government, based on whatever they think is appropriate security policy. The PPS reports to the Senate, House, and the RCMP. CSIS is also answerable to, and takes direction from, the government.

Kind of like when you call the reception of large company with a customer service question, and instead of transferring you or your question to the person who can answer it, they tell you you've dialed the wrong number, and they provide you with another number at the company that you can try. And so it goes, until you finally get an answer, several calls later, or you get so frustrated with their approach that you give up.

With the distinction that in this case, when they finally answer your question, they give their answer anonymously to the press, and their answer amounts to nothing more than calling you a racist for asking the question.

Bad management.

nottyboi · Aug 24, 2018

Just another hate article from the Toronto Sun.

oldjones · Aug 24, 2018

Bud Plug said:
The Speaker is elected by the government (at this time, that effectively means the Liberals) and will answer any question posed to him by the government, as well as address any safety concerns identified by the government, based on whatever they think is appropriate security policy. The PPS reports to the Senate, House, and the RCMP. CSIS is also answerable to, and takes direction from, the government.

Kind of like when you call the reception of large company with a customer service question, and instead of transferring you or your question to the person who can answer it, they tell you you've dialed the wrong number, and they provide you with another number at the company that you can try. And so it goes, until you finally get an answer, several calls later, or you get so frustrated with their approach that you give up.

With the distinction that in this case, when they finally answer your question, they give their answer anonymously to the press, and their answer amounts to nothing more than calling you a racist for asking the question.

Bad management.

Paragraph One nicely summarizes the background facts pretty much as I have. Paragraph Two is a cute, but unrelated fiction, "kind of like" nothing we know of this matter, and Three doesn't connect its many 'theys', 'theirs' and 'yours' to either previous paragraph, so I can only wonder why you bothered.

To spare you any further wasted effort, No matter who you you meant them to refer to would make no difference: If the someone objected to Khadr's dangerous presence, they should have alerted the proper security authorities and followed up with them, or with their command if the first response was unsatisfactory. No place for politics, but politics is all that the story has.

The current silliness was, and is a non-issue, unsuccessfully puffed up into a pretext for entirely political indignation, and the only result is the decreasing respect that continued discussion of it arouses.

Bud Plug · Aug 24, 2018

oldjones said:
Paragraph One nicely summarizes the background facts pretty much as I have. Paragraph Two is a cute, but unrelated fiction, "kind of like" nothing we know of this matter, and Three doesn't connect its many 'theys', 'theirs' and 'yours' to either previous paragraph, so I can only wonder why you bothered.

To spare you any further wasted effort, No matter who you you meant them to refer to would make no difference: If the someone objected to Khadr's dangerous presence, they should have alerted the proper security authorities and followed up with them, or with their command if the first response was unsatisfactory. No place for politics, but politics is all that the story has.

The current silliness was, and is a non-issue, unsuccessfully puffed up into a pretext for entirely political indignation, and the only result is the decreasing respect that continued discussion of it arouses.

One, there is no way to spare me from wasted effort in posting here at TERB. By definition, it is a time wasting amusement. I'm sure the amusement will wear off eventually. It certainly has in the past, for extended periods of time.

Two, I haven't seen it reported who Senator Housakos reported the the incident to. I'm assuming, as a Senator (especially as former Speaker of the Senate himself!), he would be aware of who has the proper authority to act on that information. Delaney claims to have alerted security: http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjfw/it-s...tting-omar-khadr-on-parliament-hill-1.6336797 which I assume means the PPS detail. Your comments seem predicated on the assumption that no one bothered to alert security.

This is not a story about Conservative politicians who didn't care about the issue. It's a story about the failure of the government to provide some response about what had happened, and about what their position is on parliamentary security as it relates to Khadr, or any other convicted terrorist.

There shouldn't have been politics attached to this issue, but it was inevitable, given the Liberal apology and payment to Khadr. It would appear that the Liberals do not consider Khadr to be a "real convicted terrorist". It remains for them to say why.

mandrill · Aug 24, 2018

Bud Plug said:
One, there is no way to spare me from wasted effort in posting here at TERB. By definition, it is a time wasting amusement. I'm sure the amusement will wear off eventually. It certainly has in the past, for extended periods of time.

Two, I haven't seen it reported who Senator Housakos reported the the incident to. I'm assuming, as a Senator (especially as former Speaker himself!), he would be aware of who has the proper authority to act on that information. Delaney claims to have alerted security: http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjfw/it-s...tting-omar-khadr-on-parliament-hill-1.6336797 which I assume means the PPS detail. Your comments seems predicated on the assumption that no one bothered to alert security.

This is not a story about Conservative politicians who didn't care about the issue. It's a story about the failure of the government to provide some response about what had happened, and about what their position is on parliamentary security as it relates to Khadr, or any other convicted terrorist.

There shouldn't have been politics attached to this issue, but it was inevitable, given the Liberal apology and payment to Khadr. It would appear that the Liberals do not consider Khadr to be a "real convicted terrorist". It remains for them to say why.

C'mon, Buddy. Let the thread die ffs. You don't have to keep arguing with him. No one's reading any more anyway.

You'll keep going for pages with illogical, belligerent nonsense......

Bud Plug · Aug 24, 2018

oagre said:
C'mon, Buddy. Let the thread die ffs. You don't have to keep arguing with him. No one's reading any more anyway.

You'll keep going for pages with illogical, belligerent nonsense......

You're reading it. Stop reading if you like (and you are able).

Just curious, what gives you the idea that you are supposed to be moderating threads on this forum? If the answer is "nothing", you might want to give that answer a little thought.

oldjones · Aug 24, 2018

Bud Plug said:
One, there is no way to spare me from wasted effort in posting here at TERB. By definition, it is a time wasting amusement. I'm sure the amusement will wear off eventually. It certainly has in the past, for extended periods of time.

Two, I haven't seen it reported who Senator Housakos reported the the incident to. I'm assuming, as a Senator (especially as former Speaker of the Senate himself!), he would be aware of who has the proper authority to act on that information. Delaney claims to have alerted security: http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjfw/it-s...tting-omar-khadr-on-parliament-hill-1.6336797 which I assume means the PPS detail. Your comments seems predicated on the assumption that no one bothered to alert security.

This is not a story about Conservative politicians who didn't care about the issue. It's a story about the failure of the government to provide some response about what had happened, and about what their position is on parliamentary security as it relates to Khadr, or any other convicted terrorist.

There shouldn't have been politics attached to this issue, but it was inevitable, given the Liberal apology and payment to Khadr. It would appear that the Liberals do not consider Khadr to be a "real convicted terrorist". It remains for them to say why.

Wow! New information. Although this, like the OP's post of the Sun, appears to be secondhand, a re-hash of a CFRA interview no one has bothered to dig up. Still a new source.

I don't mean a PC hireling gossiping to her boss, and you yourself say the stuff about Senator Housakos is just surmise, (so can we please stop dragging him in as filler?)

Here is the editted sum and total newly revealed to me: "I [Jacqui Delaney] came face-to-face with a convicted terrorist at my workplace." and "it shook me to the core. I have a right to feel safe at work". I am not aware of any such right, are you? That's it. Done.

As a more reasoned and better researched account cited by your radio station quotes: "Visitors to Parliament Hill must undergo two security screenings but their names are not catalogued, unless they are meeting an MP or senator. Visitors are denied entry only if they are on a no-trespass list, which is not made public." and, from Amnesty, “If security forces in Canada had reason to believe that Omar Khadr in any way posed a serious threat such that there would be measures in place to keep him out of public buildings, they would do so. They have not done so.”

Besides what I've already said about this ongoing obsession, all I get from the above is that Ms. Delaney seems more concerned with manufacturing a political pretext that might advance a PC career than any credible fear of someone convicted by a foreign kangaroo court for what they'd done as a child. If she had any faith in the justice system that convicted him, surely the ten years he served in their harshest confinement should make her feel safe enough. But if not, she daily relies upon the sensible protections cited just above, that she must be fully familiar with as a Parliament Hill staffer. Suddenly they're not enough?

No one, including her, has yet cited any objection to them, offered any reason why they were inadequate, or suggested anything better. Only that Khadr was there — maybe, maybe not — and Delaney claims she was fearful of someone she saw.

Sort of a try, but no goal. And still a made-up storm. You can have the teapot to yourself.

Bud Plug · Aug 24, 2018

oldjones said:
Here is the editted sum and total newly revealed to me: "I [Jacqui Delaney] came face-to-face with a convicted terrorist at my workplace." and "it shook me to the core. I have a right to feel safe at work". I am not aware of any such right, are you? That's it. Done.

Just as a public service, there is such a right in Ontario and Federally Regulated workplaces. From the Occupational Health and Safety Act https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o01 :

Assessment of risks of violence
32.0.3 (1) An employer shall assess the risks of workplace violence that may arise from the nature of the workplace, the type of work or the conditions of work. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Considerations
(2) The assessment shall take into account,
(a) circumstances that would be common to similar workplaces;
(b) circumstances specific to the workplace; and
(c) any other prescribed elements. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Results
(3) An employer shall,
(a) advise the committee or a health and safety representative, if any, of the results of the assessment, and provide a copy if the assessment is in writing; and
(b) if there is no committee or health and safety representative, advise the workers of the results of the assessment and, if the assessment is in writing, provide copies on request or advise the workers how to obtain copies. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Reassessment
(4) An employer shall reassess the risks of workplace violence as often as is necessary to ensure that the related policy under clause 32.0.1 (1) (a) and the related program under subsection 32.0.2 (1) continue to protect workers from workplace violence. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Same
(5) Subsection (3) also applies with respect to the results of the reassessment. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Domestic violence
32.0.4 If an employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that domestic violence that would likely expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace, the employer shall take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Duties re violence
32.0.5 (1) For greater certainty, the employer duties set out in section 25, the supervisor duties set out in section 27, and the worker duties set out in section 28 apply, as appropriate, with respect to workplace violence. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Information
(2) An employer shall provide a worker with,
(a) information and instruction that is appropriate for the worker on the contents of the policy and program with respect to workplace violence; and
(b) any other prescribed information or instruction. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Provision of information
(3) An employer’s duty to provide information to a worker under clause 25 (2) (a) and a supervisor’s duty to advise a worker under clause 27 (2) (a) include the duty to provide information, including personal information, related to a risk of workplace violence from a person with a history of violent behaviour if,
(a) the worker can be expected to encounter that person in the course of his or her work; and
(b) the risk of workplace violence is likely to expose the worker to physical injury. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Limit on disclosure
(4) No employer or supervisor shall disclose more personal information in the circumstances described in subsection (3) than is reasonably necessary to protect the worker from physical injury. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Program, harassment
32.0.6 (1) An employer shall develop and maintain a program to implement the policy with respect to workplace harassment required under clause 32.0.1 (1) (b). 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Contents
(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the program shall,
(a) include measures and procedures for workers to report incidents of workplace harassment to the employer or supervisor;
(b) set out how the employer will investigate and deal with incidents and complaints of workplace harassment; and
(c) include any prescribed elements. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.
Information and instruction, harassment
32.0.7 An employer shall provide a worker with,
(a) information and instruction that is appropriate for the worker on the contents of the policy and program with respect to workplace harassment; and
(b) any other prescribed information. 2009, c. 23, s. 3.

Combined with other provisions of the Act concerning providing a safe work environment, and requiring employers to investigate suspected unsafe working conditions, and permitting employees to suspend work where there is a reasonable safety concern, very clearly employees are entitled to feel safe at work (at least measured reasonably, based on the standards of safety defined by statute).

Delaney is, however, a federally regulated employee. Here's a link to the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-86-304/index.html. Have a look at Part XX. You'll see essentially the same provisions.

Omar Khadr, just another tourist wandering Senate hallways?

Active member

Well-known member

Sexual Appliance

CanBarelyRe Member

Sexual Appliance

CanBarelyRe Member

Sexual Appliance

CanBarelyRe Member

Sexual Appliance

CanBarelyRe Member

Well-known member

CanBarelyRe Member

Sexual Appliance

Well-known member

CanBarelyRe Member

Sexual Appliance

Well-known member

Sexual Appliance

CanBarelyRe Member

Sexual Appliance