But that would have been known, presumably, to the government as well.
What disturbs me, sir, is that, at the end of the day, even the government study by GAC can't confirm that there were actual end-use assurances given and that Baykar did not violate any end-use assurances. Even though it went from the Government of Canada to Baykar, which put it on a UAV and sold it to the Government of Turkey, from whence it went to Azerbaijan and got used, there was no diversion.
Is there something wrong with the optics of this? The logic doesn't make sense. Either the rules are not right or the government is not applying them right. Does it make sense to you that this is not a diversion?