Thank you for the question.
I'm very content with the system that we have. The national targeting centre serves as a central node for a lot of the departments and agencies that hold the legislation, and that gives a lot of our partners a direct line to the people who will coordinate and effect a target examination. That is one success.
An additional layer of success would be that we have tremendous interoperability with our domestic partners on security intelligence. We do share information. We have mechanisms in place that allow us to—with authority—share intel or information that can see either a domestic enforcement action or potentially an action at the border for an examination and potentially the interdiction and seizure of goods.
The last thing I would add to that in terms of maybe elucidating some of the successes here is that those marine security operations centres are very much designed to allow us to sit alongside the people who have a vested and regional interest in the security and the compliance and in ensuring that illegal, unreported fishing does not occur. We have a variety of different methods whereby we can very quickly, in almost real time, provide a response on behalf of the agency. An officer will respond to, for example, a CFIA target when they want an examination to ensure that certain goods are not coming into or leaving Canada illegally or coming into Canada and might pose a threat to our ecosystems. Those are really great systems in place.
Again, to go back to the national targeting centre, it's a very high-performing area full of targeting officers who take this very seriously. A lot of them have regional roots in some of these communities and locations and, in addition to the professional dedication, there is an enhanced motivation to ensure compliance.
Those are the successes. In terms of the gaps, other than the implicit ones or the ones we discussed in terms of the identification of illegal fishing, I couldn't necessarily expand.