Government of Canada announces one-year ban for pleasure craft and cruise vessels

[kevingastreich]

19 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

Such a cruise would not be legal under the PVSA.  A foreign flagged ship cannot transport passengers from one US port to a different US port (as in your example - embark in San Diego, debark in Alaska) without a stop in a DISTANT foreign port.

 

A distant foreign port is described as any port NOT "in North America, Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West Indies (including the Bahama Islands, but not including the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles, i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao)". 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by kevingastreich
error

[nocl]

2 hours ago, Mary229 said:

I guess that might be the final in Canada.  Here our Congress and executive branch do actually have overriding oversight though they seem paralyzed 

Not paralyzed which would imply that they wanted to to something about it.

 

In this case I doubt that there is any real interest in the executive branch or a majority of either house to do anything.  While on the surface the cruise industry seems to have a major financial impact, the number are small compared to the rest of the travel industry and the economy as a whole.  As such the government focus is on the overall economy and not foreign corporations who do their best to avoid US taxes and fees.

[d9704011]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

Not paralyzed which would imply that they wanted to to something about it.

 

In this case I doubt that there is any real interest in the executive branch or a majority of either house to do anything.  While on the surface the cruise industry seems to have a major financial impact, the number are small compared to the rest of the travel industry and the economy as a whole.  As such the government focus is on the overall economy and not foreign corporations who do their best to avoid US taxes and fees.

Don’t forget the lack of interest in facilitating the movement of that COVID-19 stuff around!

[nocl]

1 hour ago, YXU AC*SE said:

I think the quote actually is: 

"We will be consulting authorities in both the U.S. and Canada before we take any additional action."

 

Closing line is:

"While this is beyond our control, we remain committed to operating any portion of our Alaska season and we are hopeful that positive progress relative to the pandemic accelerates to the point that the Canadian Transport Minister will rescind the interim order and allow cruise vacations to resume in 2021."  

 

...   neither of which really read,  'we'll see you in court, buddy'.   🙂    YMMV though.    Scott. 

 

source: https://www.hollandamerica.com/en_US/news/2021-press-releases1/news-02042021-AlaskaCanadaRestrictions.html

I expect they will talk to appropriate authorities in the US and Canada, taking several weeks or months to complete the discussions.  In the meantime continuing to sell cruises and holding the fares.  Only to get finally conclude that nothing can be done and cancel the cruises then. As long as they are in discussions they can say that the situation is uncertain.

[kazu]

2 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

Well the cruise I had booked had a 3 hour port time.  If the Canadians would allow us they could set up vending machines in port for a brief stop not mingling with the Canadians.  

 

The Canadians would get their port fees and some tourism dollars plus the stop would satify the rules for cruises.  It probably could be a 2 hour port stop.

 

I’m sorry but I am at a loss.  How do Canadians get tourism dollars out of vending machines??

 

Side comment (and not aimed at the poster I quoted) It’s interesting to see all the lashing at Canada and what Canada should do on this thread and yet, on the other thread where Florida probably can’t do cruises until next year there is little comment and no lashing out at Florida and they have one heck of a lot more cruises than Canada does.

 

Sorry but I see a double standard here.  Until we get the pandemic under control, no one is going anywhere, so wear your masks, and hang in there until things are safer.

 

 

 

[Cruzaholic41]

Oh yeah. There hasn’t been any Florida trash talking at all throughout this whole mess. None. None with the Zaandam. None with the rate of COVID spread. Yeah, none at all. 
 

My goodness, how selective amnesia works around. 🙄🙄🙄

[xjust4fun]

I’m truly at a loss reading all these posts and the contradictions and rude statements about Canada and the decision to close the ports to cruising.  Folks, this  decision impacts us all, the decision was not made lightly, Canada has a responsibility to it’s citizens first and foremost, there is delays in getting vaccines.  We are all aware that many people have lost their jobs, their liveliness, businesses are failing, we have in the months of Jan. Over 213,000 additional people on unemployment.  Saving lives is paramount to this government. Stop being rude to the Canadians and have a look as to what is going on within your own Port authorities in the States.  We have strict rules in relations to non - essential travels, we might not like it but we are living with it.  Wear your mask and stay healthy, if our government decides at a later date to change the policy, then you will all hear about it and we can all get back into planning our holidays.  

[NMTraveller]

So I wonder why Canada did not allow cruise ships a technical stop?  Everyone stays on the ship and they gas up and or bring on provisions for a short stop which would satisfy PVSA.

[john2003]

A Canadian pilot would have to board. Full Hazmat gear?

Anyway all this assumes that everything is wonderful and ships ready to go, if only Canada would stop being unreasonable.  This is not the view that I can see from my perch.

At the moment we are very concerned about the transmission from the new mutations.  They don't understand the 49th parallel. The immediate future is uncertain for all of us.

[d9704011]

6 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

So I wonder why Canada did not allow cruise ships a technical stop?  Everyone stays on the ship and they gas up and or bring on provisions for a short stop which would satisfy PVSA.

It doesn’t satisfy the PVSA.  In any event, Canada has made a decision to limit the possible exposure of citizens to people on a cruise ship due to a declared health emergency.  Facilitating cruises by allowing a quick in and out to Canadian ports would be logically inconsistent with the goal of the Ministerial Order.

[Lady Arwen]

10 hours ago, kazu said:

 

I’m sorry but I am at a loss.  How do Canadians get tourism dollars out of vending machines??

 

Side comment (and not aimed at the poster I quoted) It’s interesting to see all the lashing at Canada and what Canada should do on this thread and yet, on the other thread where Florida probably can’t do cruises until next year there is little comment and no lashing out at Florida and they have one heck of a lot more cruises than Canada does.

 

Sorry but I see a double standard here.  Until we get the pandemic under control, no one is going anywhere, so wear your masks, and hang in there until things are safer.

 

 

 

As always, the voice of reason.....thank you Kazu!   I have read some very unfriendly comments here the past day or two and I really have to shake my head and wonder where it’s coming from.  The pandemic has impacted many people all over the world and often with devastating results, yet so many are concerned that they probably won’t get to cruise to Alaska this year!  Of course, someone needs to be blamed for this huge disappointment and today it’s Canada.  Perhaps our American friends and neighbours should take a good look at what’s been going on in their own backyard.  Lots of room for blame for everyone on both sides of the border.  

[KirkNC]

9 minutes ago, Lady Arwen said:

As always, the voice of reason.....thank you Kazu!   I have read some very unfriendly comments here the past day or two and I really have to shake my head and wonder where it’s coming from.  The pandemic has impacted many people all over the world and often with devastating results, yet so many are concerned that they probably won’t get to cruise to Alaska this year!  Of course, someone needs to be blamed for this huge disappointment and today it’s Canada.  Perhaps our American friends and neighbours should take a good look at what’s been going on in their own backyard.  Lots of room for blame for everyone on both sides of the border.  

Amen 🙏.

[Crazy For Cats]

The Canadian government is doing what they believe to be in the best interests of their citizens.  Every countries leadership should always put their citizens first.  While I’m disappointed with the news I fully understand the decision.

[cruisemom42]

44 minutes ago, Lady Arwen said:

Lots of room for blame for everyone on both sides of the border.  

 

I agree up to a point about wrongfully tossing blame around, but I also think that continuing to lay blame ANYWHERE other than on the disease itself is counter-productive.

 

I am amazed and disappointed in the number of people I see and hear about every day who act like spoiled toddlers that want to do something that is harmful to them -- let's say like eating dirt. Their parent, who knows more and is trying to ensure the health and safety of their child stops them. The toddler then vents his thwarted desire on the people trying to help him, screaming "I hate you! You are not the boss of me!"

 

And I'm sure someone will come back to me and say "why should we trust someone who has made X mistake, or who changed his mind about Y?

 

But honestly, who is infallible?  When your parents were raising you, did they never, ever make a single mistake?  And yet -- who would you rather trust to rear a child, a functional adult with knowledge and experience that a toddler doesn't have, OR another toddler?

 

The world has become a very dangerous place where real knowledge is not respected:  how often have I read on these very boards "Why did the captain say we couldn't dock at Grand Cayman?  I could do a better job than that captain!" Or "I could manage this pandemic better than Fauci or Bonnie Henry?"  I'm sorry, but that's just delusional. Unfortunately we've all come to believe that we are experts in everything just because we have opinion about it. Those are very different things...

 

The disease is our enemy. We are all fighting against IT and should stop fighting each other. 

 

[VermeulT]

19 hours ago, zelker said:

 

What do you mean by DIY B2B? 

one week on Koningsdam out of Vancouver (Sat-Sat) followed by one week on Oosterdam out of Seatte (Sun-Sun)

[AncientWanderer]

I didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating.  But since Alaska will be so hurt economically by losing another tourist season, wouldn't they request a temporary waiver of PVSA?  And might not that waiver be granted?  Perhaps they don't want the cruise germs in any case, but seems like an option.  

Again, sorry if I'm rehashing.

[Lady Arwen]

1 minute ago, AncientWanderer said:

I didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating.  But since Alaska will be so hurt economically by losing another tourist season, wouldn't they request a temporary waiver of PVSA?  And might not that waiver be granted?  Perhaps they don't want the cruise germs in any case, but seems like an option.  

Again, sorry if I'm rehashing.

Yes, there are numerous posts addressing this very issue.  You would need to start at page 1.

[Mary229]

2 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

I didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating.  But since Alaska will be so hurt economically by losing another tourist season, wouldn't they request a temporary waiver of PVSA?  And might not that waiver be granted?  Perhaps they don't want the cruise germs in any case, but seems like an option.  

Again, sorry if I'm rehashing.

Alaska has been asking for that for quite a while even before the pandemic but stepped up their requests during the pandemic.  Too many special interests blocking 

[AncientWanderer]

1 minute ago, Mary229 said:

Alaska has been asking for that for quite a while even before the pandemic but stepped up their requests during the pandemic.  Too many special interests blocking 

 

I wondered. So many things are different now because of the pandemic; seems like a temporary waiver could be on the list of "possibles."  It's probably best that travel doesn't happen anyway, but it's a huge hit for Alaska.  They could make their own rules, as Hawaii does, requiring testing, or now even vaccinations, so that tourism can exist.

Oh well...all conjecture.

[kennystwin]

29 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

They could make their own rules, as Hawaii does, requiring testing, or now even vaccinations, so that tourism can exist.

Alaska already has a strict testing for travelers policy https://covid19.alaska.gov/travelers/. If you arrive by air today without a negative test from the last 72 hours, you will be tested at the airport (at your expense) and be expected to quarantine until you get results. I suspect that when cruising returns, the cruise lines will initially have similar policies.

[Been There, Planning That]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/gary-bath-planters-new-car-peanuts-good-samaritan-1.5902694#:~:text=Canada-,Good Samaritan given new car after driving stranded family to,supply of road trip snacks.

 

This is the real story of Canadian US relations and worth a read.

 

Yes we have disputes, historical and current and as any good friends and neighbours will probably always have.  

 

But this story of a Canadian Good Samaritan driving a stranded American family to Alaska and then as is so typical of our neighbours Planters Peanuts gives him a car.

 

So NUTS to THOSE of YOU determined to make us enemies.

 

Ruth

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, AncientWanderer said:

I didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating.  But since Alaska will be so hurt economically by losing another tourist season, wouldn't they request a temporary waiver of PVSA?  And might not that waiver be granted?  Perhaps they don't want the cruise germs in any case, but seems like an option.  

Again, sorry if I'm rehashing.

 

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

Alaska has been asking for that for quite a while even before the pandemic but stepped up their requests during the pandemic.  Too many special interests blocking 

 

With PVSA it is not a case of special interests blocking. The regulation itself carries a very strict threshold under which it is very difficult for ANY exception to be granted (e.g., when PVSA can be waived) except where national security is at stake. The actual wording says that:

 

The navigation laws, including the PVSA, can only be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security if certain requirements are met:

• The transportation requested must be “necessary in the interest of national defense,” and
• If the waiver is requested under Section 501(b), the Maritime Administration at the Department of Transportation has confirmed that there are no coastwise-qualified vessels available to conduct the transportation.

A request to waive the PVSA should be submitted prior to the proposed transportation, i.e., embarkation of passengers. CBP strongly encourages potential requesters to contact the Maritime Administration prior to submitting a request to determine if there are any coastwise-qualified vessels available to conduct the transportation sought.

 

To assist CBP with the processing of the request, the following information should
be included in the request:

• Vessel name.
• Ports and dates of embarkation and disembarkation.
• The names of the individuals being transported and any work or activity the individuals will be conducting aboard, if any.
• An explanation why the transportation is necessary in the interest of national defense. 

 

No one can just wave a magic wand and make that threshold requirement disappear. There is no such thing as an economic waiver in the PVSA.

Edited February 6, 2021 by cruisemom42

[cruisemom42]

6 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

With PVSA it is not a case of special interests blocking. The regulation itself carries a very strict threshold under which it is very difficult for ANY exception to be granted (e.g., when PVSA can be waived) except where national security is at stake.

 

No one can just wave a magic wand and make that threshold requirement disappear. There is no such thing as an economic waiver in the PVSA.

 

Also chengkp75 gives a very good discussion of the rationale and the obstacles here (pay no mind to the tite of thread, erroneously called the Jones Act):

 

 

[nocl]

10 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

So I wonder why Canada did not allow cruise ships a technical stop?  Everyone stays on the ship and they gas up and or bring on provisions for a short stop which would satisfy PVSA.

Technical stops do not satisfy PVSA.  That loophole was closed around the same time that CBP started to enforce the regulations concerning cruises to nowhere and the visa types needed by crew.

[Mary229]

31 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

 

With PVSA it is not a case of special interests blocking. The regulation itself carries a very strict threshold under which it is very difficult for ANY exception to be granted (e.g., when PVSA can be waived) except where national security is at stake. The actual wording says that:

 

The navigation laws, including the PVSA, can only be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security if certain requirements are met:

• The transportation requested must be “necessary in the interest of national defense,” and
• If the waiver is requested under Section 501(b), the Maritime Administration at the Department of Transportation has confirmed that there are no coastwise-qualified vessels available to conduct the transportation.

A request to waive the PVSA should be submitted prior to the proposed transportation, i.e., embarkation of passengers. CBP strongly encourages potential requesters to contact the Maritime Administration prior to submitting a request to determine if there are any coastwise-qualified vessels available to conduct the transportation sought.

 

To assist CBP with the processing of the request, the following information should
be included in the request:

• Vessel name.
• Ports and dates of embarkation and disembarkation.
• The names of the individuals being transported and any work or activity the individuals will be conducting aboard, if any.
• An explanation why the transportation is necessary in the interest of national defense. 

 

No one can just wave a magic wand and make that threshold requirement disappear. There is no such thing as an economic waiver in the PVSA.

I disagree that the law is not designed to help special interests.  Of course it is.  Those interests can wrap themselves in the flag and couch it in talk of defense but it is ultimately at its core a protectionist law.  It is not on my political radar as something that needs to be overturned but I can clearly see what it is.

 

Added Wikipedia description of PVSA

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

Edited February 6, 2021 by Mary229