I hear what you're saying and I agree completely.
Nevertheless, I think one of the problems we are dealing with changes things in Turkey's case, specifically. When we sell arms to any country that isn't necessarily our ally, should the burden of proof not be higher for the end use of those arms?
When dealing with allies, such as the United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey, we take for granted that the equipment we are selling them will be used for defence purposes. That is especially concerning when, in relation to the requirements that have to be met to acquire the equipment, they do not indicate that it will be used for offensive purposes in regional theatres to extend their political reach, on a geostrategic level.
I think that is the difference between the situation with Turkey and the situation with any other country that is not an ally of Canada's.