I can't speak for them. I'm hoping my presence here will help with that awareness.
We have significant gaps, I would say, in rail likely more than anywhere else. Currently, we don't really have rail examination capabilities at first port of arrival in Canada. Trains that, for instance, used to be looked at in Fort Frances, Ontario, when coming into Canada, now are being looked at 400 kilometres away in Winnipeg. This means that the train enters Canada and then travels over 400 kilometres, unfenced and unsecured, to get to somewhere in Winnipeg where we don't really have the facilities to do a full search and we usually don't do the search anyway.
Many locations are not conducting any kind of cargo screening of rail. Most locations don't even do complete crew reporting. In Fort Frances right now, there's over a million dollars in AMPS—we call them AMPS, administrative monetary penalties—sitting on a manager's desk that are not being applied. We find that the latitude given to rail carriers is far and above anything that's given to any other kind of industry, such as trucking or air. The CBSA has not forced rail carriers to provide rail inspection facilities at the first point of arrival. This is despite their legal ability to do so under section 6 of the Customs Act. That's really the same act that enforces private bridge operators to build CBSA offices if they want to operate a crossing. The CBSA enforces it there, but with rail it doesn't seem that anything is being enforced right now.