Citizenship and Immigration committee  There are two prongs to that question. First of all, in respect of the jurisdiction of a service tribunal, a court martial, to try somebody who was alleged to have committed an offence against the Canadian Forces, Parliament has provided at paragraph 60(1)(h) of the National De

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Again, I think that given that this really partakes of citizenship and immigration, it would be better addressed by CIC counsel.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Mr. Chair, treason is an offence under the Criminal Code, so Parliament has created a criminal offence of treason with defined essential elements of that offence. What this bill is talking about in a general context, or a legal context, where this issue will play out, is a state

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Treason is an offence under the Criminal Code, so it sets out the essential elements of the offence. There would be actus reus and mens rea involved in that, and I suspect that to convict somebody of treason, there would need to be a pretty rigorous application of mens rea.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm not trying to be difficult, but it really is a little bit of an apples and oranges thing. Treason is an offence, whereas act of war is a legal state of being. If the question is whether I suggest that the bill could be improved by changing “act of war”, then the answer is yes

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, as part of the instructions given to us by the Government of Canada in pursuance of a mission.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Mr. Chair, I believe that question might be better addressed by the legal counsel who will accompany the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration . That's really not a question of military law, so I think it's outside the ambit of my expertise to respond.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Mr. Chair, pursuant to the National Defence Act, the enrolment of a member of the Canadian Forces binds them to serve in obedience to any lawful command. If one were commanded to defend a particular person or a particular interest, then one would do that.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Essentially, yes.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Chair, generally the question, I think, invokes the difference between criminal law in a domestic context and armed conflict in international law. In essence, armed conflict involves states or organized armed groups, whereas the action of armed robbery or assault is an individual

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Again, Mr. Chair, I think that question really partakes of the field of citizenship and immigration law and that would be better responded to by CIC counsel. With respect to the question of act of war, then that concept, which I suggested is better articulated as armed conflict,

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Mr. Chair, if I could just....

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It might be of some assistance to the committee to inform the committee that the term “armed conflict” actually appears in a number of places already in the federal statute base, including: the Geneva Conventions Act; the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; the National D

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, Mr. Chair. The “act of war” language would be a challenge to apply because of its imprecision and the potential for it to be misconstrued. I would suggest that it would be far preferable for the committee and for Parliament to consider using the “armed conflict” language ins

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Mr. Chair, there are two prongs to the response. First of all, with respect to terrorism, there are really four places that are relevant for our consideration in which terrorism is defined. It's defined in section 2 and section 83.01 of the Criminal Code. There are largely para