But given that, Professor, you suggest that the treaties are open to interpretation, but they're also open to application or not. If you don't have any proper or effective rules in your own regime that try to meet the questions that arise there, then you're not doing your job. I put it to you that in the case of Turkey, given the results of the facts that are known, there were no effective end-user assurances and there were no proper rules, or they weren't followed, in allowing this to happen.
I suggest to you that the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty provide a means, if you decide to follow them, to comply with the obligations you're taking on. Do you see the fact that the Canadian government has not actually prevented the diversion of these goods, and that if this is the approach it's not going to be able to do it in any other circumstances either?