Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is to the Government Representative in the Senate. For a change of pace, it is about municipal-federal relationships.

City of Toronto councillors have written a letter to Parliament urging them not to adopt the recommendations from the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario, which would result in Toronto losing a riding. They have stated that this would dilute the city’s voice on Parliament Hill, which flies in the face of our democratic values, our ideals of fairness and our ability to make sure the residents of Toronto can reach their representative in Ottawa.

What is your government’s position on this redistribution plan?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Your Honour.

As my colleague Senator Cormier did, I wish to rise very briefly to speak on the report by the Social Affairs Committee, which I will put to you for consideration and approval.

It is a report on gender-based analysis plus. It is focused on the policy processes in the federal government. I want to very quickly provide you with an overview of the history of gender‑based analysis plus and the work that we did.

The approach in the federal government on gender-based analysis was first developed in 1995 when the government committed to implementing gender-based analysis throughout federal governments and agencies. In 2001, gender-based analysis underwent a rebranding in becoming gender-based analysis plus so as to include identity factors beyond gender in the analysis of programs and policies.

So gender-based analysis plus was officially expanded to include race, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, gender, geography, culture, income, sexual orientation, education, sex and language.

In 2018, more changes came. The administration of gender‑based analysis plus went from being an agency to an official department of the Government of Canada.

However, notwithstanding the stated commitment to gender‑based analysis plus, barriers have persisted to a full implementation of intersectional policy analysis, which is the true aspiration of gender-based analysis plus.

The Auditor General of Canada has tabled three reports which identified such barriers beginning as early as 2009.

The most recent report by the Auditor General was released last May. It found that, despite some actions taken in and across government to identify and address barriers, gaps persist in departments and agencies in their capacity to perform gender‑based analysis plus. It is still not fully integrated into policy development and implementation.

In light of the Auditor General’s report, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology decided to undertake a study at the urging of my colleagues Senator Dasko and Senator Moodie. We heard from six experts and advocates before concluding by hearing from the Honourable Marci Ien, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth and officials from Women and Gender Equality Canada.

We also heard some success stories. I am an optimist. I think the members of my committee are too. I am going to share a few of the success stories that we heard about policy analysis in gender-based analysis plus.

For instance, the application of gender-based analysis plus caused changes to be implemented to programs and policies. Examples include the Black Entrepreneurship Program, the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy, the 50 — 30 Challenge and the COVID-19 emergency response.

We also noted that Women and Gender Equality Canada has experienced a year-to-year measured increase in certain indicators including the number of departments that have designated gender-based analysis plus champions and the number of departments in government that are actually formally using it.

I believe Canada should be proud to be a pacesetter in implementing the concept of gender-based analysis plus throughout the federal government. We found no other comparators. But, no doubt, more needs to be done.

Therefore, the committee is making 15 recommendations to fulfill our aspirations. Let me just give you a taste of them. I will not read them all out. I encourage you to read the report, but just a few to tickle your curiosity.

First, the name, gender-based analysis plus. We heard from many witnesses about the current name of the policy framework as it —

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I will try to pick up where I left off, talking about the Senate Social Affairs Committee’s report on gender-based analysis plus in the federal government. I was giving you just a taste of the recommendations. You will have to go and read the full report.

The first recommendation I want to share with you is about the branding of gender-based analysis plus. To me, it has always sounded like alphabet soup, and this was confirmed by many witnesses. In particular, they emphasized the implicit hierarchy in gender-based analysis plus, with the plus as a secondary thought and concern.

In addition, Sarah Kaplan, Director of the Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto, stated that: “The ’Plus’ focuses on adding race or income or disability or Indigeneity to gender rather than considering them simultaneously . . . .” This, I think, is what we would call intersectionality. For these reasons, the committee is recommending that the Government of Canada, led by Women and Gender Equality Canada, rebrand gender-based analysis plus as gender and diversity analysis.

Witnesses identified eight major barriers to the full implementation of gender-based analysis plus in the Government of Canada: training, timing, capacity, funding, data, measuring outcomes, accountability and leadership and perceptions and resistance.

There were a few recommendations that will capture this chamber’s attention because Parliament plays a role in using GBA Plus in our own work. We recommend that the Government of Canada table GBA Plus for all government bills when introduced in either chamber of Parliament and that Women and Gender Equality Canada, or WAGE, establish resources for parliamentary committees to support their use of GBA Plus when considering legislation.

We have other important recommendations on disaggregated data and impacts. We also heard about leadership because, in every construct, leadership matters. WAGE is clearly one champion, as is its minister, but GBA Plus is a feature of public service. We therefore need to consider a few public service levers.

A possible solution is that the Government of Canada factor the quality and implementation of GBA Plus into performance evaluations for senior management and, in addition, we recommend that the Clerk of the Privy Council be named as a champion for GBA Plus, leading the Privy Council Office and working across government to ensure its implementation throughout the federal government and its agencies.

So, colleagues, I move:

That the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled All Together — The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process: reducing barriers to an inclusive intersectional policy analysis, tabled in the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar, pursuant to notice of February 14, 2023, moved:

That, given reports of human rights abuses, repression and executions of its citizens, particularly women, in Iran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Senate call upon the government to immediately designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

She said: Honourable senators, the time is late and we are cold, but let me turn your hearts and minds to a place far away from us — a beautiful place with beautiful people but that has been governed with unparalleled brutality and oppression for the last 43 years: Iran.

It is also a place of courageous people, particularly the women of Iran, who have taken to the streets to fight for their freedom. They have discarded and burned their headscarves; they have cut their hair; and they have gathered in towns, villages and cities across Iran. But let there be no mistake: Their protests against the hijab are not simply about what they wear on their heads; it goes to the heart of their dissatisfaction, the despair and discrimination they face. Every time they raise their voices, they put themselves and their families at risk.

You all know that I fled from that country four decades ago, as much as I loved it, because I could not see myself or my daughter living under that regime. Making the decision to leave anywhere forever is fraught with peril and fear. But fear also releases courage.

This is the courage that is being released by Iranian women because they are leading the revolution. If I were to look for a literary proxy — an image for the fate of Iran — I would evoke the image of a modern-day The Handmaid’s Tale.

Recently at the Inter-Parliamentary Canadian Friendship Group for a Free Iran, famous actress and activist Nazanin Boniadi and human rights campaigner Masih Alinejad described Iran as a gendered apartheid state because women in Iran are not simply subject to discriminatory attitudes and behaviours; rather, their treatment is enshrined in the constitution and penal code of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

They are not allowed to wear what they want. They are not allowed to sing solo. They are not allowed to enter a sports stadium. They are not allowed to practise certain occupations. They have limited property rights, and, worse, they are forced to give up the rights to their children on divorce and are unable to travel without the permission of a father, a husband, a brother or another man who has inordinate powers over them.

Human rights organizations have reported the murder of 500 civilians in the recent past. Security forces, and especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, have used shotguns, assault rifles and handguns against peaceful protesters. Roughly 20,000 people have participated in protests around the country, and hear this: 74 children have been murdered.

For women, however, the IRGC prefers a special weapon: Sexual assault is a weapon of choice with debilitating effects on their victims and their families. As just one example, IranWire has reported on the assault of a young woman, Afsaneh, who was arrested for the mere crime of participating in a protest. She was imprisoned, repeatedly raped during her interrogation by the IRGC and subsequently took her life.

I have another story that I find hard to even read out. It is not in my nature to give words to the narrative of explicit violence against women, but let me say there is truth in these stories. I am not going to read out that story, because I don’t think I would be able to, and the story that I had in mind about violent sexual assault is just one of many. It is the tip of an iceberg.

Recently Iran said that it would issue pardons for prisoners, but like everything, it comes with a catch: To be pardoned, prisoners must pledge that they regret their participation in protests, or they will not be freed.

The crimes of the Islamic regime and the IRGC go beyond the borders of Iran. It is contributing to the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Iran has supplied kamikaze drones. They have been deployed more than 90 times against a civilian population. Iran and the IRGC fund and support Hamas and Hezbollah, creating significant regional instability. Iran is not a bystander in the world but has — again, I am sorry, colleagues — the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a bystander in the world. It has committed terrorist activities around it.

As pointed out by Marcus Kolga, the IRGC:

. . . has been implicated in embassy bombings, attacks on Jewish people, atrocities against Syrians, and the mass murder of Iranian protesters. It is also responsible for the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752, killing all 176 crew and passengers, including 55 Canadian citizens . . . .

I should also note that Canadian lives are at risk. The CBC has reported that at least three Canadians have had their lives threatened. For Iranian-Canadians, it is hard to see that members of the IRGC and their families are enjoying the safety of our democracy in Canada, even as the IRGC continues to threaten the lives of their compatriots in Iran.

Just for clarification, before I ask you to support my motion, let me state what the IRGC is and what it is not. It is not the professional military whose mandate is to protect the people of Iran. The IRGC is a paramilitary force whose mandate is spelled out in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and it is to protect the Islamic regime and its interests, not only within the confines of Iran, but also beyond its border, as with its support of Hezbollah. This point was forcibly made to the European Parliament by Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi. By tolerating the IRGC, the world empowers the Islamic regime, not only within the confines of Iran, but across the world.

The IRGC is pervasive. It is widespread. It reaches into every corner of Iranian life. No one is safe. There are eyes and ears everywhere. It is made up of self-styled officers, and it is fuelled by a steady stream of conscripts. Military conscription for young males is mandatory in Iran. No young man can get a job or travel without having completed this conscription.

But unlike when my husband was conscripted, there are now two paths: You can be conscripted into the professional military, or you can be routed to the IRGC. You have no say in this. This, of course, provides the IRGC with a constant replenishment of young minds and bodies. It leads to significant stigmatization of youth with unintended consequences for their families.

Does the IRGC fit the criteria for listing as a terrorist entity? According to the Criminal Code, the government may prescribe any entity if, at the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the government is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, one, the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity or, two, the entity has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with such an entity.

Honourable senators, I have outlined to you who the IRGC is and what it does on behalf of the Islamic regime. I believe that they fit the definition of a terrorist entity on these conditions. Further, an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling concluded that the IRGC is a terrorist entity.

According to Irwin Cotler and Brandon Silver from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, there are no legal barriers to prescribing the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The Government of Canada has already prescribed the Quds Force, which is one arm of the IRGC, as a terrorist organization, and I’m suggesting that the government list the entirety of the IRGC as a terrorist organization as opposed to just one arm of it.

Other countries are doing the following: On January 18, the European Parliament overwhelmingly approved a resolution that called on the European Union to add the IRGC and its subsidiary forces to the EU terrorist list and to ban any economic and financial activity involving businesses and commercial activities related to the IRGC or its affiliates. In early January, members in the U.K. House of Commons unanimously voted for a motion that urges the U.K. government to prescribe Iran’s IRGC as a terrorist organization. We need to add our voice in this chamber.

Colleagues, Ottawa has imposed travel bans on thousands of Iranians and has imposed sanctions on 127 individuals and 189 entities, but we need to do more. Those who are sanctioned are subject to a ban on transactions and there is a ban on their travel, but we need to also move forward and seize their assets and repurpose them to their victims. There are reports that there is lots of Iranian money in Canada and that Canada may well be awash with IRGC-tainted money.

I know that designating the IRGC comes with some issues, and I will speak just briefly to the government’s hesitation in doing so. The Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice David Lametti has said that since the IRGC is part of Iran’s military, and military service — as I described — is mandatory, it casts a very broad net. There are concerns that by casting this net, we would catch not just the shark but the little fish as well.

That should not be our intention. I agree. I have received lots of emails from former conscripts in Canada who are not able to travel to the United States or take up positions in the United States because the U.S. has decreed that the IRGC is a terrorist entity.

However, as Danny Eisen and Sheryl Saperia of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror have pointed out, Canada can list the IRGC as a terrorist entity and then deal with the issues. We can do so in a way that lets the little fish go but catches the sharks. They say:

Notably, section 42.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains a mechanism for overriding a finding of inadmissibility to Canada. It allows the minister to permit admission despite membership in a terrorist organization, if justified on national security and public safety grounds. Forced conscription and the absence of involvement in IRGC violence, supported by evidence, should fit these parameters. If additional carve-outs in the law are necessary, we are confident they can be quickly developed.

Honourable senators, the Islamic Republic of Iran has shown us who they are. They are a regime that represses its own people, takes away basic human rights and supports terror around the world. It is beyond time that the Government of Canada designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity. By doing so, Canada will take a firm, unequivocal and principled stand that the brutality of the Islamic regime will not be tolerated.

By doing so, we will stand with women, life and freedom.

Thank you.