Good evening everyone.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on such an important issue.
I'll start where my colleague Mr. Juneau left off.
The concept of terrorism may not necessarily apply to the IRGC. It's a vague concept on which there is no consensus. I won't teach you anything by telling you that there is no commonly agreed definition within the United Nations. It's more of a political concept than a scientific one.
Nevertheless, there is an intuitive understanding of what a terrorist organization is. It's an organization that uses violence and fear to achieve political objectives, usually by illicit or illegal means. Now, if we stick to that definition, imperfect as it may be, the IRGC meets a number of those criteria, which would lead me directly to the belief that it is a terrorist organization, even if it isn't a non-state organization.
First, it's a violent organization that employs illegal means. Its involvement in Iran's ballistic and nuclear programs, which are subject to international sanctions, already makes it an illegal organization. The IRGC controls vast segments of the Iranian economy, and uses that power to finance illegal activities. From that point of view, one criterion has already been met.
Second, it's a brutal and arbitrary organization that uses indiscriminate violence. It has been accused of numerous human rights violations on many occasions over many years. Professor Amiry‑Moghaddam reminded us of that.
The IRGC doesn't shy away from acts of torture, systematically raping women when they're arrested and sent to prison. Surveillance, intimidation, physical violence and detention all suggest that this organization's weapon of choice is terror and psychological pressure.
On the other hand, it is a subversive organization that uses ideological means to achieve political goals. When it operates outside Iran's borders, it works to overthrow power or promote a number of non-state actors seeking to seize power, from the Houthis in Yemen to Hamas in Palestine. It acts by supporting internal repression, or by contributing, through the Quds Force, to clandestine operations and targeted assassinations. It is increasingly involved in insurgency and regional destabilization in the Middle East and elsewhere. It therefore challenges the status quo.
Furthermore, in a much more concrete and precise way, it's an organization that has long been involved in terrorist activities in Latin America. As my colleague reminded us, it has recently been involved in terrorist activities in Europe. It has carried out targeted attacks and assassinations on European soil, and supports terrorist groups. For example, of Hamas's $500 million annual budget, $100 million came from the coffers of the Iranian regime and the IRGC's budget.
Together, all these factors suggest that we are indeed dealing with a terrorist organization, even if it is not a non-state organization.
In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate a number of points raised by my colleagues. Listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity does not rule out other means or approaches. Indeed, it's not one or the other.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, is not our greatest threat. However, as members of that group increasingly work with China, Russia and other countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, those countries represent significant threats to us and fall into the same category.
I'd like to pick up on what Mr. Mahmood Amiry‑Moghaddam said, namely that comparing the IRGC to the Nazis and the SS is no exaggeration. It's an apt parallel.
Moreover, the considerations and arguments put forward by Canada for not listing this group as a terrorist organization seem to me to be specious and complacent. The idea that this could seriously damage our diplomatic relations with Iran does not hold water. Nor does the idea that it could have consequences for the Canadian community of Iranian origin.
Many of our fellow Canadians are being intimidated by IRGC members here and on Iranian soil, and that's unacceptable. It's insulting to think that it could affect Canadian businesses, and that it could pose a—