There is a significant difference in the experience base and the capability and expertise base in the U.S. They are different approaches that reflect the different jurisdictional realities and contexts. We have privacy and confidentiality laws that are different from those in the U.S. It's not atypical that things that occur in the U.S. are not easily replicable in a Canadian context. They're different.
The member is quite right, Madam Chair, that Canada operates on a different model under a balance of probabilities, where that burden of proof, if you will, is somewhat more shared between the enforcement agent and the importer.
When we detain goods—and we do—and the goods are moved off to the side, there's an opportunity for the importer, similar to what happens in the U.S., to provide additional information. It's not to prove that they aren't made with forced labour, but rather to inform the final determination by the CBSA officer as to whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, those goods have been made with forced labour.
It's a different model. I think there's a lot of experience, and we're very fortunate to have a very close relationship with the U.S. We have regular monthly calls. Their risking team was actually embedded with and visiting with my team last spring for two or three days, transferring that knowledge. We are committed to getting better in this space. As our information base broadens, we think we will be able to get after the risks more effectively.
The member asked about entity lists. In the last six months, we have been able to start to run a daily algorithm of risks that we can associate with specific shipments.
We're moving forward. We're not where we would like to be, but we are getting better.