Let me start by addressing the situation in Syria. As I mentioned, in October of 2019, as you say, we suspended permit applications following Turkey's military incursion into southeastern Syria. Further to our review of the situation, a determination was made in concert with our partners and our allies that the Turkish incursion into Syria did not destabilize the region. In fact, they went in with a view to protecting Turkish interests and not create human rights violations.
However, when we assessed the permit applications and whether they had contributed, we didn't look at whether human rights violations had been impacted in the region. We looked at whether the Canadian technology contributed to any human rights violations, or any violations of international humanitarian law. In the Export and Import Permits Act and the Arms Trade Treaty criteria that are now enshrined in the act, we do not have the legal right to look into human rights violations writ large. We look at whether human rights violations were caused as a result of the Canadian export of military technologies.
In the case of Libya, first of all, recognizing Turkey as a NATO partner, we were aware that Turkey was dealing with some very serious defence and security issues in that entire region, including in Libya and Syria. At the time, we determined through this review that was released yesterday that there may have been credible evidence as well that the Canadian technology that you're referring to—the sensors, the cameras—were used in that region as well, but prior to that we had no evidence that any Canadian military exports, or any technology exports, were being used for offensive purposes in Libya or in violation of our Arms Trade Treaty criteria.