I am aware of that concern. Our current jurisdiction is based on territorial jurisdiction as interpreted in R. v. Libman. The way that jurisdiction is interpreted is that if it's something with a real and substantial link back to Canada—so a decision made here, the money came through here, or there's a subsidiary in another country controlled from Canada—all of that provides an extraterritorial jurisdiction but not nationality jurisdiction, which I think is the criticism.
On April 30th, 2012. See this statement in context.