Mr. Chair, I think the question illustrates why the utilization of the term “act of war” in the bill is problematic. The way it would be framed right now in the proposed bill, an individual who's a Canadian citizen and engages in hostile acts against the Canadian Forces in the context of a war would then be caught by the bill, but that is extremely imprecise, and the likelihood of there being a declared war is low.
Our suggestion is that it would be preferable to substitute the term “armed conflict” because it would cover a broad spectrum of activity. Whether as a member of an armed force of a foreign state, or of an organized armed group such as the Taliban, or as an individual, the key point is that it would have to occur in a context in which Canada considered that there was an armed conflict.