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.
In this post:
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).
What can we make of US Preclearance comments?
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?
There are good people on both sides...
Hoekstra has such a punchable face. His boss and all his cronies are taking their ugly American filth everywhere and making us hated. What a way to ruin a name with the country we share close ties with and liberated the world with all those decades ago.
My heart especially breaks for those in Gander, Newfoundland, who provided comfort for stranded 9/11 passengers coming off several flights. What did they and other Canadians do to deserve this?
"We have the highest respect for Canadian politicians".
Maybe they shouldn't. "Elbows Up" Liberals have driven Canada into the ground, emigration is at an all time high, the economy is tanking. Canada deserves whatever it gets for voting in those goons in Ottawa for a Fourth(!?) time to finish off the country for good.
Oh please, what is PP going to do? Zip zero. He doesn't even a plan to confront Trump who would walk all over him.
You know, I flew to Newark from Toronto Billy Bishop on Porter last year, and the customs/immigration wait was three times as long as the flight itself! I was unlucky enough to be stuck between many intercontinental flights waiting in the same lines.
So yes, travellers who go cross-border are the biggest beneficiaries of pre-clearance facilities.
Also the pre-clearance officers at Toronto Pearson are generally very kind with me over the years. It's a good...
You know, I flew to Newark from Toronto Billy Bishop on Porter last year, and the customs/immigration wait was three times as long as the flight itself! I was unlucky enough to be stuck between many intercontinental flights waiting in the same lines.
So yes, travellers who go cross-border are the biggest beneficiaries of pre-clearance facilities.
Also the pre-clearance officers at Toronto Pearson are generally very kind with me over the years. It's a good service regardless of the politics.
glad you covered this. It is a potentially big story.
the conversation was confrontational both ways.
There are not a whole lot of countries that have as many pre-clear facilities as the US has; it is costly and, more importantly, it benefits Air Canada far more than it benefits US airlines. In the context of larger trade issues, it is worth revisiting the value of the number of pre-clearance facilities the US has in Canada if not the entire concept.
“the conversation was confrontational both ways.”
BOTH SIDES!
Drink!
The US ambassador to Canada is a disgrace, and a stupid one at that. Just like the fascist Nazi regime for whom he works and whose lines he parrots.
I value being able to fly from Canada to LGA. Delta alone has something like ~6 flights from YYZ to LGA daily. It’s a real market that would not exist if preclearance did not exist.
Just silly all around.
I can understand how there is some benefit to airlines themselves for having preclearance (some routes become more attractive to potential customers, reduced risk of having to foot the bill for a return flight if someone gets denied entry) but isn't the outsize benefit of a system like this actually the traveling public and the countries themselves?
I imagine businesses on both sides are more willing to do more projects and send more people to...
I can understand how there is some benefit to airlines themselves for having preclearance (some routes become more attractive to potential customers, reduced risk of having to foot the bill for a return flight if someone gets denied entry) but isn't the outsize benefit of a system like this actually the traveling public and the countries themselves?
I imagine businesses on both sides are more willing to do more projects and send more people to countries where preclearance exists because it's more convenient for their employees to transit back and forth (considering here Canada's oil and natural resources sector and US company involvement). I would wager it's also good for tourism (more in the US) because it makes the journey simpler and more efficient.
Not all government services make tangible/measurable profit, but they enable value and growth in other industries.
"Not all government services make tangible/measurable profit..."
100% spot on.
Nor are they supposed to, nor were they ever supposed to. This whole "government should never lose money on x, y, or z" is right-wing nutjob bullshit made up to enable taking yet more money from the public to put into private hands. It's a scam.
Agreed with Tim, US ambassador is doing his job, if the Canadians hate the US so much, why are they worried about Pre-clearance.
*Canadians hate Trump and his administration, not the US and Americans so stop spreading BS propaganda.
This administration is full of the absolute dumbest, most awful people