Canadian Pacific is not in the business of verifying who has legal title.

Resolving theft is the government’s job, moving stuff is Canadian Pacific’s job.

The onus lies on the government to have sufficient personnel and processes to have the stolen item recovered quickly.

It's clearly stated in the video that the reason the police didn't go after the stolen SUV was because it was in the jurisdiction of the CP rail police[1]. So resolving theft literally is Canadian Pacific's job (more specifically the job of their private police force[2]).

[1] https://youtu.be/A3eG8ZbeXeQ?t=167

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific_Kansas_City_P...

In this case, I would question why a non governmental entity has a police force.

Perhaps you should instead question why you are commenting authoritatively on a video that you did not watch?

Per the wiki article I linked, they are actually federal police officers, it's just that Canadian Pacific appoints them:

> They are duly appointed and armed federal police officers that gather their authority in Canada via the Railway Safety Act as well as other acts.

Canadian Pacific is nearly 150 years old, I would bet that the Canadian government didn't want to be on the hook for policing such a massive geographic footprint for a private business, but at the same time did want to ensure that an industry that was vital to national security was secured. The alternative was probably nationalizing the entire business, which they likely also didn't have the stomach for.

I'm not an expert but I know there is a long history of railway police having the power of sworn officers. They are effectively quasi-governmental. (Although there is a clear conflict of interest when it comes to choosing to pursue crimes that aren't commercially relevant)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police

Oh they have a lot more than just a police force. They control a lot of the rail infrastructure and it holds back general transit improvements.

In much of North America the railways are older than the government.

I guess technically? The first Canadian railway was opened in 1836 (while CPR wouldn't be opened until 1885). Canada gained self-governance in 1867 but it was endorsed by the British government and didn't radically change the administrative structure so I feel like your statement is not particularly accurate.

For the rest of the continent: North America is commonly defined as the US, Canada and Mexico - Mexico's first rail system was established in 1837 sixteen years after independence in 1821 and the US's first railroad was built in 1827 just over fifty years after independence.

The CPR was done by 1885. Alberta and Saskatchewan weren't provinces until 1905. The original transcontinental railroad in the US was finished in 1869. Utah didn't become a state until 1896.

These places were very much the frontier when the railroads were built. There was minimal law enforcement provided by the barely-existent territorial governments and the railroads responded by hiring private security (famously Union Pacific hired Pinkerton) and building their own private law enforcement capacity and this was eventually formalized by laws in both countries permitting the practice of railroads having private police.

Much less familiar with the relevant Mexican history.

I mostly disagree that it's on the Feds to recover stolen property.

If the Canadian Pacific police is contacted, told "Canadian Pacific has my stolen car, these are the case numbers with 2 different police services, and here is the exact container the car is in", I don't see how the right response is do nothing.

Because Canadian Pacific is not a position to verify your claims.

But they are the only ones with physical access to the container. Obviously it requires some cooperation between the two agencies, and the lack of cooperation is what is being criticized.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for CPR not to hand over a shipping container I claim contains my stolen property - but they should stop transporting the goods so they can be offshored.

Canadian Pacific is kind of weird as a company as they have their own police force. They literally get to police themselves for historical reasons, so while it is reasonable for a regular company to not act on reports of theft, it is harder to say that about Canadian Pacific.

VR (Finnish national railway) has its own police force too, and AFAICT it's kind of mysterious. Only very rarely discussed in the media. Perhaps someone who knows more can comment.

Rail police is historically codified in Canadian law. It’s a matter of the car being out of the bag for a very long time, rather than CP Rail lobbying the government to have this force in place.

Yes, I would say the root problem is the government has outsourced its responsibility to a non governmental entity. Non governments should never have law enforcement authorities.

The historic reason for these powers is that it is often difficult to tell in the moment who has jurisdiction. Especially if it's a moving vehicle that can cross state lines.

Railroad police arrest and detain the suspect(s) and turn them over to whatever locale is determined to have jurisdiction after the fact. At the time those laws came into being, there was no really good way around this.