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 Defence Act that a person who is accompanying the forces—and that's defined in section 61—is somebody over whom we would have jurisdiction. It boils down to whether they're accommodated with us, whether we provide them rations. If they're on one of our ships or one of our aircraft and they commit an act that's criminalized under either the National Defence Act or Criminal Code, we would have jurisdiction and we could prosecute them. In respect of the broader question that's relevant to the application of “armed conflict” in this bill, if there were a situation that Canada considered to be an armed conflict, and an individual was alleged to have committed an act hostile to Canada as a member of another armed forces or a member of an armed group, then he would be caught by the provisions of this bill. These are two slightly different concepts.