No. But you entered Canada legally and by doing so implicitly agreed and gave your consent to be subject to their laws while you are in their country. (But, if you were to have a baby I don't believe Canada would automatically give it citizenship; most countries don't.)
An illegal alien enters our country illegally and by doing so explicitly chooses to live outside the jurisdiction of our laws. Usually after they get here they continue to flout the authority of our laws by committing a whole series of additional crimes like identity theft, identity fraud, and tax evasion. They clearly do not consider themselves subject to our jurisdiction. That does not mean that we can't impose our laws on the illegal but they certainly have not given any consent to be governed by them. They are not subject to our jurisdiction in one sense of the word (have chosen not to be) but are in another sense of the word (we can impose them).
The World Court believes it has jurisdiction over American citizens for certain actions which they deem criminal. I don't remember us consenting to their jurisdiction over US citizens or our territory and I reject it and refute their claim of jurisdiction. I would expect my government to resist their claim of jurisdiction and even use force to assert our sovereignty from their jurisdiction. But they nevertheless continue to assert jurisdiction over us and might even impose their jurisdiction on one of us if they were to be foolish enough to travel to France or Brussels.
We have even occasionally imposed our laws on people who are not citizens, who have never entered and/or committed a crime within our territorial jurisdiction such as Manuel Noriega of Panama. We actually militarily invaded a sovereign nation to arrest him. He was apparently subject to our jurisdiction because we tried and I believe convicted him in US Courts. Is everybody in Panama subject to our jurisdiction?
My point is that the word jurisdiction is fuzzy and leaves lots of room for interpretation and definition. I want the Congress to define it to exclude anchor babies. The Constitution gives Congress sole authority over immigration policy so it is their right to define jurisdiction for the purposes of citizenship as they choose and the courts should defer and it would be appropriate for Congress to demand that they defer by limiting their jurisdiction which is also within their Constitutional authority.