The arguments about jurisdiction put forward by Facebook did not concern the territory, the location of the data on a given territory. The notion of Safe Harbor potentially calls that scenario into play.
According to the company, since we had not demonstrated any real prejudice to Canadians, we did not have the legal jurisdiction to speak out. I don't think the notion of Safe Harbor is an obstacle in this case.
You referred to the lack of awareness. It's quite possible that at a certain point in the evolution of this company, the executives were relatively naive and may indeed have lacked awareness to some degree.
However, my concrete experience leads me to think that this is not a matter of the lack of awareness. The executives say that they want to do better. The regulatory agency says to the executives' representatives that they must do better because according to that agency, they have broken the law. The executives are then aware of that fact, and yet they still decide not to act.