That's a very good question.
The jurisdictional clause is designed to permit enforcement on behalf of Canadians. Now, as you're aware, telecommunications service providers are not liable for carrying traffic. So if there were traffic between Los Angeles and New York that is in the form of unsolicited e-mails, even if they violate U.S. law, the Canadian has not committed a contravention of the act in Canada. There is no violation.
What it does, though, is this. If the communications company is being swamped by e-mails coming into its network such that they can't properly manage traffic, it allows them to complain so that Canadian authorities can cooperate with authorities offshore to try to track down who's doing this and how can we shut it down and which country is in the best position to deal with it. But without a violation in Canada, we would not be able to get to first base of saying, listen, international partner, we've got a problem here and we need your help to fix it.
It does one other thing as well, which is that it gives the TSP that is concerned about the harm that's being done to its network potentially the right to bring a private right of action against the perpetrators. While our AMP regime and a finding by the CRTC may not be enforceable abroad, normally a Canadian judgment of a Canadian court would be, and that we think is a possible important remedy for the Canadian telecommunications service providers.