In terms of a state agency, the reason that fears are unfounded about the idea of listing a state agency as a terrorist entity in Canada is that, first of all, the Criminal Code, in which the provisions for the listing process are set out, does not prevent cabinet from designating a state agency. The language in the Criminal Code uses the word “entity”, which is extremely broad.
So there is nothing in the legal language itself to preclude the IRGC from being listed. Some may contend that IRGC actions are undertaken in the context of their official duties as a state military force, and therefore might fall outside the scope of the definition of terrorist activity, but this too is a flawed argument, because many of these activities run afoul of international law and therefore still come under the definition of “terrorist”, which is within the Criminal Code.
Another reason is that the IRGC is a powerful, independent, and wealthy institution with a very unusual mandate: to protect the ideals of the Islamic revolution. It's not to secure the country or its borders. There already is a conventional military force, called the Artesh. We are not advocating that the Artesh be listed here.
So from this perspective, banning the IRGC is actually not much different from banning a non-state actor, because it is not a conventional military force.
Finally, with regard to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which was recently passed as part of Bill C-10, this bill will allow victims of terror to file civil lawsuits against local and state sponsors of terror. In part, with regard to suits against state sponsors, this will require the government to create a list of foreign states that it designates as sponsors of terror.
So I want to ask: if the government is prepared to label a foreign state as a terror sponsor, why in the world would it balk at designating an agency of that state as a terrorist organization?
That covers the state agency. Do you want me to move on to—