I know a little bit about the real and substantial connection test because I argued the leading case in the Supreme Court of Canada that applied it in the Internet context, and that test has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of the territorial scope. The fact is this bill includes routing as being an element that would make foreign direct communications--that is, from a foreigner to a foreigner, an American to an American, not accessed by a Canadian, not sent by a Canadian to the U.S.--subject to the act.
So I think the issue really is the principle's international comity. Should we be extending our legislation to cover matters that really and essentially are only communications between foreigners? To do so would actually have significant detrimental effects on Canadian companies, because there are Canadian companies that actually route, as part of their service, all messages through their relays, which are in Canada, and that would mean that their foreign customers would have problems using certain Canadian companies, and the Canadian companies would have to then move their relays outside of Canada to enable foreigners to use their service.
So I disagree with that comment.