US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has what’s known as the Preclearance program, whereby US-bound travelers can clear customs and immigration prior to boarding their US-bound flight from select international airports.
The biggest market for these Preclearance facilities is Canada, where all major airports have such a facility. Canada is also the biggest inbound tourism market for the United States, and we’ve seen a huge reduction in the number of visitors from Canada to the United States this year. That brings us to some interesting comments that were just made.
US threatens to “take a look” at Preclearance facilities
Pete Hoekstra, the United States Ambassador to Canada, recently addressed the Global Business Forum in Banff, Alberta. The topic of US Preclearance facilities came up, in the context of a reduction of tourism from Canada to the United States. Hoekstra said the following:
“Preclearance is something that is done at the expense of the US government. Which, if you can’t make the numbers work anymore, you’re all business people, you know what that means.”
Former Canadian Diplomat Colin Robertson (who worked at the Canadian Embassy in Washington) confronted Hoekstra about these comments, and here’s how that went down:
“We’re your biggest source of tourism, if you end Preclearance, doesn’t that cut off your nose to spite your face?”
“Nobody said we were ending Preclearance, don’t put words in my mouth. These are all business people. Why is it unfair for me to say this thing within the relationship between Canada and the US has changed dramatically, and as a result, the United States has to take a look at it?”
The discussion went even further downhill when Robertson said that he hoped “the president is well informed” about the state of the relationship between the United States and Canada, and Hoekstra lashed out at him, saying “you don’t hear Americans talking about our disagreements with Canadian politicians and saying they’re uninformed,” and “we have the highest respect with Canadian politicians.”
To that, Robertson responded by saying “we don’t have anything you want, you got no cards, that, to me, is uninformed” (in reference to comments that had been made by Trump).
Oy, I was under the impression that typically these kinds of business forums are intended to improve relations and trade between countries, rather than make them worse, but it doesn’t seem like a whole lot positive came from this. There are a few things I find most noteworthy about the interaction.
First of all, it’s interesting how Hoekstra claims that the US pays for the Preclearance facility. Based on my understanding, that’s only partially correct. Yes, the US pays for staffing officers there, but the actual build-out of the facility, and all the Canadian officials conducting security, are at Canada’s expense.
Second of all, it’s funny how Hoekstra brings up the possibility of not being able to “make the numbers work” anymore, but then gets super defensive when it’s pointed out that this suggests the facilities might be cut. If he’s not suggesting that the facilities be closed down, then what is he suggesting?
Sure, of course maybe staffing should be updated a little, but that’s an internal thing, and hardly something worth bringing up in a business forum. Airports constantly change how staff are allocated based on demand, so I can’t imagine that was the intent.
I struggle to interpret this any way other than a veiled threat that if tourism continues to decline, Preclearance could be ended. Of course the irony in all of this is that even with Canada’s reduced numbers, there are non-Canadian airports with a lot fewer flights that still have Preclearance facilities, and we don’t see any threats being made there.
Bottom line
The US Ambassador to Canada told business leaders in Banff that the US might not be able to make the numbers work on Preclearance anymore, and “you know what that means.” But when it was suggested that he was hinting at cutting these facilities, he became super defensive. So make of all of this what you’d like, but I do find those comments to be pretty noteworthy.
What do you make of these comments, and what do you think the US Ambassador was suggesting?