Are Canada's "criminal past" laws affecting Regent passengers?

[Travelcat2]

Yesterday we spoke with a man who had a drunk driving ticket 10 years ago and is still unable to enter Canada. Living near the Canadian border (British Columbia), we hear this type of story frequently. With the upcoming 2010 Olympics in BC, backgrounds are being carefully scrutinized (a relativelly insignificant arrest 20 years ago is counted as having a criminal past). Canadian news last month reported a plan to insure that trains and cruise ships entering Canada adhere to the same strict rules as arriving aircraft and automobiles.

The Mariner arrives/departs from BC every other week during the summer. If the Mariner were to arrive in BC with one or more passengers that are not "acceptable" to Canadian Immigration, how would Regent handle the situation? We will be on a cruise ending in Vancouver in May and have not seen passenger warnings. Just curious:confused:


Note: For those who have "Nexus" passes like we do, Canadian immigration is easier than in most countries since background checks have already been done. These passes take approximately three months and are a good idea if you are planning a Regent Alaska cruise.

[bellymaynes]

As a Canadian and a former employee for Canada Customs (I worked the border during summers while in university), I can say that in general a minor conviction (such as an impaired driving/DUI) will not keep you from being admitted into Canada. The Canadian and US governments use very similar policies and procedures at the borders and although technically, any criminal conviction can be grounds for denying entrance into the country, this will rarely happen. My brother has an impaired driving charge and on a trip to Vegas was asked if he had ever been arrested, his response was that he had an impaired charge a few years ago and was subsequently admitted into the US. He could have very easily been denied access. This scenario is also generally the case at Canadian crossings.

In these situations it unfortunately comes down to a discretionary call from the officer. If you are asked if you have every being arrested and you are honest, you present well and you don't appear to be a threat to national security, chances are you will be admitted into the country. If you are dishonest, act like a jerk and give them a reason to make an example out of you, chances are you are going to get it right back.

Customs Officers roles are not only to protect the country but also as ambassadors. Not allowing access to the country to those with minor criminal offenses would have a huge impact on the tourism economy and that is not their intent. They will not deny you access for no reason, that reflects poorly on the government and country. However other charges, such as drug possession, even minor are much more riskier and especially in British Columbia where there is a lot of drug transportation in and out of the country, you would definitely be risking a denial into the country.

After all is said, instead of risking it and being fearful of being denied into the country, a waiver can always be applied for by contacting your closest port of entry.

[Travelcat2]

Really appreciate your response and it is certainly not my intent to put down the Canadian government in any way. However, we have seen and heard case after case of people being denied entry into Canada for what we call "DUI" (Driving under the Influence". A relative was stopped in May, 2007 when attempting to enter Canada at Ottawa airport (her DUI was 8 years ago). After paying $200.00 (we were near the airport -- went back and paid for her), she was allowed temporary entry to Canada.

Living 21 miles from the border, in a University community, we meet many (way too many) young people who have had DUI tickets and cannot go to Canada (in some instances, they can pay for the temporary entry but must do so each time they enter).

Perhaps this has become more noticeable since a Passport is now required to enter Canada (or the U.S.) and that is why it is receiving a lot of press coverage. Recent newspaper accounts mentioned a person denied entry because of a "marijuana possession" conviction in 1965. It is possible that there is more press coverage in Washington state due to the accessibility to BC.

We enjoy Canada very much (although, with the dollar being what it is, no longer go there for lunch.) However, this policy is very real and could definitely affect Regent passengers.

[JPR]

How ironic (and typical) that PC Canada would deny someone entry for something (e.g., marijuana possession) which has been essentially decriminalized there! Just walk around certain parts of Vancouver and you can't avoid the smell...

[canadagal]

I have to agree with bellymaynes and his/her response but I would also think that during the Olympics that security and checks will be more heightened and also more sensitive to admission to our country. I've also heard in the press and on various forums on CC for umpteem years that the US government has also practiced this type of turn away to Canadian citizens so there also could be a bit of tit for tat going on and customs and border agents on both sides of the border do not respond favourably to someone with a conviction that has an attitude and does not present themselves well.......in otherwards.....act respectfully no matter how much a jerk you may find the agent to be. A little honey rather then vinegar goes a long way especially when admission is subject to the individual agent's approval. I agree that the west coast has always had a lax attitude to pot compared to the east but that too is changing and it's a change for the better in my opinion.
Pat

[Travelcat2]

I have to agree with bellymaynes and his/her response but I would also think that during the Olympics that security and checks will be more heightened and also more sensitive to admission to our country. I've also heard in the press and on various forums on CC for umpteem years that the US government has also practiced this type of turn away to Canadian citizens so there also could be a bit of tit for tat going on and customs and border agents on both sides of the border do not respond favourably to someone with a conviction that has an attitude and does not present themselves well.......in otherwards.....act respectfully no matter how much a jerk you may find the agent to be. A little honey rather then vinegar goes a long way especially when admission is subject to the individual agent's approval. I agree that the west coast has always had a lax attitude to pot compared to the east but that too is changing and it's a change for the better in my opinion.
Pat

I certainly agree that custom and border agents on both sides of our borders have to put up with difficult attitudes. However, this is apparently Canadian law (not my opinion -- this is the way it is -- at least for those crossing the border into B.C.). It would be sad to think that this law isn't being administered across the board (never occurred to me).

In any event, if a person with a record and bad attitude was faced with an agent that was a "jerk"(?) -- how would Regent handle the situation? Keep the person on board until they reach the U.S. (doubtful). . . . have them escorted across the U.S. border (45 or so miles away)????

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Sorry Travelcat, I don't mean to be combative, but I believe that you can blame your own government for lots of these Canadian regulations. Our government has bowed to pressure from the US on many fronts to prove to them that the we are not soft on terrorism. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the world is.

Don't know how misdemeanour convictions are handled for a Canadian attempting to enter the US, but I can't but imagine it's just as harsh. If I'm wrong, I am willing to eat my words.

[gazuccio]

Double message

[gazuccio]

Everyone as someone who has lived half their life in both Canada and the US there is no perfect world. Since 9/11 our lives as we know it have changed. It will never be the same, and the governements are having a tough time determining how much is too much and how much is too little. It is not an easy answer. True the laws are different in both countries and the beliefs of how each country is viewed by the other is also varied. Either way, we both live in amazing part of the world and should thank our lucky stars for the countries we live in. There are pros and cons of both and there is no perfect country. I can take pages and pages and give you views from both sides of the border, but in the end we are alias and we depend on each other for support and security. If there is something going on that doesn't make sense just try to figure out why it is happening and remember what happen not so long ago. Our governements are worried that the citizens of both countries will become complacent in this ever threatening world. And we do not want history to repeat itself. So next time you are asked to do something that upsets you, or frustrates you, just remember where we've come, how we got here, and that poor guy or gal that is just trying to do a job. There are no easy answers....

[Travelcat2]

Sorry Travelcat, I don't mean to be combative, but I believe that you can blame your own government for lots of these Canadian regulations. Our government has bowed to pressure from the US on many fronts to prove to them that the we are not soft on terrorism. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the world is.

Don't know how misdemeanour convictions are handled for a Canadian attempting to enter the US, but I can't but imagine it's just as harsh. If I'm wrong, I am willing to eat my words.

Wendy -- I do remember the U.S. government nagging Canada to strengthen their borders. . I have no idea if the U.S. looks at convictions of Canadian citizens. . . With all of the real problems in the world, it seems sad that the U.S. and Canada would spend their time on non-terrorist activity. Fortunately I live in an area where there are as many Canadians as U.S. citizens (shopping malls, restaurants, etc.) In fact, most places in Bellingham fly both flags -- this is a good thing (IMO).

The reason for starting this post was to learn if Regent is taking steps toward dealing with passengers that are not able to enter Canada. My concern is in response to recent news reports, experiences of friends (and our relative). I respect the decision of any government to deny access to their country -- however, still wonder why paying $200 changed their minds (again, this probably could happen here as well).

Cat

[canadagal]

I can't answer your question.....only Regent could I suspect. Have you contacted them to see what they have to say about this scenario? I suggest you do a search on other forums on CC about entry into Canada as I've seem some lately.......I think it was on the Hal board about pax being turned back at the border that were boarding in Vancouver and other threads about those that were cruising from Seattle with a stop in Victoria where pax had the same questions about immigration entrance. From the Hal forum:
I typed in the search words of "criminal conviction border" and this is what came up with immigration experiences in BC for those that had criminal convictions.
Pat

Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
Is entry to Canada really refused for Inadmissible Class folks on a Cruise? ( 1 2)
GmaPajama February 3rd, 2008 10:42 PM
by salty dingo 33 1,700 Holland America Line
An interesting article about more folks getting turned away at the Canadian Boarder ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
bepsf April 9th, 2007 12:50 PM
by BamaBaby 92 5,408 Holland America Line

[canadagal]

Also, I don't really think that it's Regent's problem to see if pax are admissable or not to Canada.......I would think that is the responsibility of the cruise pax. I read online at Regent that it's up to the pax to obtain certain Visas to various countries and if you are unable to obtain said visas for what ever reason than it's not their problem and they won't be held responsible if you can't be admitted. I would hazard to guess that when push comes to shove that would be there same position if anyone was denied entry to Canada.......I'm sure they would try their best to help anyone caught in this situation but in the end it's the problem isn't it?......whether you are being denied entry in Canada or let's say Australia. I've also heard of people applying to have their convction record cleared.......especially if it happened decades ago. I'd still contact Regent and see what their take is on all of this.
Pat

[Travelcat2]

I did the search on CruiseCritic and found a 3 page thread under "Ports of Call"......."Canada"..... A lot of arguments and negativity. This wasn't where I hoped to go with this thread -- it isn't about who is right or wrong -- just making people aware of a potential problem.

So, at least for now, I'll stop my multiple posts with the suggestion that anyone with a question contact Regent or the Canadian government. :)

[gazuccio]

If at worst it prepared people who read this for the possible consequences then this post was well worth it. I never heard of anything like this and it is something people should take the responsibility to find out if there is a question about the legality to enter into the US or vice versa...never think it was not worth the post. Thanks for the info...:D

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Lots of Canadians are ineligible to enter the States because of very old or quite minor convictions. There are elaborate businesses set up to help people get their status cleared--"pardon services". But the process is a long and complicated one. I have no idea if DUI is one of the offenses for which you can be barred, but I would not be surprised if it is. Presumably there are similar services available in the States. Oh, and DUI is no longer considered a particularly minor offense in many parts of the world.

[canadagal]

I'm sure none of us want this thread to turn negative either Travelcat and it does serve a purpose to alert people crossing on both sides of the border and into other countries that you need to do your homework about admission requirements.
If it helps anyone that does have a conviction I know that you can apply to the Canadian government for a Minister's Approval of Rehabilitation" to wipe the record clear. It costs money and time but would eliminate any hastle at the border.
Pat

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Pat, agreed, and thanks for that information. Yes, it's a pain, but necessary in our scary modern world I guess.

[Leonid]

I find this thread quite interesting in that DW & I have cruised to Alaska from SF twice in the last four years. Our first Canadian port of call was Victoria. No one that I know of on either sailing was asked by Customs officials about past "criminal" activity. In fact I did not see any Canadian officals on board, although I'm sure they were present. If one person had been asked, rest assure it would have been around the ships quickly.The only contact I had with officials was when I walked through the terminal on the way into the city. No one asked me anything. Same thing for those pax. who were going on tours. Nothing!

[Travelcat2]

From what I read in the newspaper a couple of months ago, ships and trains have not had the level of security as airplanes. Last year we traveled to Canada and back many times and were not asked about criminal activity -- usually we did not have to show our passports (going either direction). I believe all of our past "records" are linked to our passports (not sure about this).

Just a comment regarding U.S./Canadian relations. . . in Blaine, WA (on the U.S. side of the border) is where both Canadian's and U.S. citizens apply for the "Nexus" pass. Both Canadian and U.S. Border Patrol agents work side by side -- assisting people from both sides of the border. The Canadian agents have even given us restaurant tips for Vancouver. . . really nice people.

While it is the passengers responsibility to get their own visa, what happens if they don't? I assume that Regent checks our passports when they collect them. I know, for instance, that we need a visa for Australia next year (now available via internet) -- so we assume they will do whatever criminal background check is necessary (as they are quite strict in Australia). I suppose this brings up more questions than answers.


P.S. Wendy, I agree that a DUI is not a minor offense. . . however, if a person had one 10+ years ago. . . it is fair for this to be a reason to deny entry to any country indefinitely. Perhaps I feel this way because many of us (including myself) could have received a DUI in our younger days but were fortunate enough not to.

[FFMilesJunkie]

Out of curiousity, what would happen if someone was cruising from Seward to Vancouver but when they got to Vancouver they are not allowed entry to Canada? Would they take them straight to the airport and force them to fly back to the USA, or would they become Regent's problem and not allow them off the ship?

[Host Dan]

Out of curiousity, what would happen if someone was cruising from Seward to Vancouver but when they got to Vancouver they are not allowed entry to Canada? Would they take them straight to the airport and force them to fly back to the USA, or would they become Regent's problem and not allow them off the ship?
I would think they would not be allowed off the ship. This happened to a few folks when visiting Russia, and they didnt have proper paperwork.

Host Dan

[Iamboatman]

I am very confident they would be given a transit visa which only allows them to travel to the airport to leave the country...possibly being escorted.

The situation spoken of in Russia was someone only visiting while mid-cruise, which requires a specific visa;not disembarking the ship. (That was discussed in another thread about why it makes sense for many to obtain the individual visa and not just rely upon the group visa given to the ship and any tour operator.)

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Travelcat, yes, I agree, it could have happened to anyone. I suspect the pardon route is the way to go for your friend.

Leonid, I think it's different when you're just stopping at a port in Canada. When you fly into Vancouver it's quite different.

I believe all of our histories are accessible now through our passports--they don't have to ask those questions, they know the answers most of the time. It would be nice if they disregarded minor or ancient offences.

I suspect the way it works with Regent is that they would not let you board without the proper visas in your passport. Not sure, just betting it works that way.

[Travelcat2]

Out of curiousity, what would happen if someone was cruising from Seward to Vancouver but when they got to Vancouver they are not allowed entry to Canada? Would they take them straight to the airport and force them to fly back to the USA, or would they become Regent's problem and not allow them off the ship?

I agree with Host Dan that they may not be allowed to get off of the ship (unless personally escorted to the airport for their flight that is presumably already booked). Since neither the U.S. or Canada require a visa, there does not seem to be a way for Regent to be aware in advance of a potential problem.

With so many Alaska cruises starting and/or ending in Canada, Regent probably has a plan in place -- it would be helpful if a notice was given to those booking these cruises so the situation can be taken care of before they depart.


P.S. Wendy, my "friend" (almost funny that this is a person we see in a cocktail lounge occasionally), would rather not travel than pay the money -- his choice I guess.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Travelcat, hopefully it's a lounge that your "friend" doesn't have to drive to! :)