Thank you.
Let me focus first on conscription because, based on my own discussions with individuals in government, I understand that this seems to be a really significant concern. Let me tell you why I think this is a weak argument.
First of all, under SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act, there are several entire branches of the IRGC that are designated as entities with which Canadians are prohibited from having certain dealings. So it seems to me illogical and inconsistent for the conscription argument to be used as an excuse not to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity, but irrelevant to designating entire branches of the IRGC under SEMA. But let's move on from that.
We need to clarify what conscription means in the context of joining the IRGC. It is true that Iranians are conscripted to perform military service, but they have a choice as to whether or not to join the IRGC. So while service in the IRGC may promise better pay—and other perks, for sure—as well as a chance to serve the revolution for those who ideologically buy into that, Iranians ultimately choose whether to join the IRGC. So conscription refers to mandatory military service generally, not to joining the IRGC specifically. Indeed, based on what I've read, retention levels in the IRGC among conscripts are quite low. In other words, it's proof that there is no gun to their heads at all.
So again, when a conscript is called forward to complete his or her military service, he can choose if he wants to serve in the IRGC or the regular armed forces. Many do want to serve in the IRGC, as I've said, because there are some perks, but this choice may be completely disregarded by recruitment officers, especially when their political background is suspect.
The whole philosophy is to enrol people who are devoted to the regime. Those who are up for a draft may express the wish to spend their service period in the IRGC, but they would have to go through a very rigorous test, and many are rejected. That, to me, is the strongest argument as to why conscription just doesn't stick here. Military service is mandatory; joining the IRGC, specifically, is not. In fact, people are turned away.
Moreover, every IRGC member, including those who are performing their compulsory military service, do have to swear a particular oath of loyalty to the ruler—in other words, to the Supreme Leader—and this indicates the doctrinal, ideological, and fanatical nature of joining the IRGC. Given the fact that nobody is forced to join the IRGC, the willingness to take this oath is important.
I want to make two more points about conscription, and then we can move on. Ultimately, the IRGC is the pillar of the Iranian regime, so failing to list the IRGC because some individuals may be conscripted—which they're not, but if they were—is essentially equivalent to exempting the SS from punishment because some Germans were forced into the core service also.
Finally, the only effective way of weakening the IRGC is to target their vast commercial empire. This means that we have to list the IRGC as a whole in order to achieve that objective.
I hope that covers conscription fairly comprehensively. Let me move on to this argument about a state agency versus a non-state actor. If I'm taking too much time, you can let me know, and I'll be pleased to—