broberts

The Order in Council providing authority for mandatory ArriveCAN submissions expires at the end of September. It's been widely speculated that it will not be renewed.

No. And, if a post quotes a blocked member's post you will see it if the quoter is not blocked.

Be mindful of differences between US and Canadian customs rules. Good example are Cuban cigars. While legal to bring into Canada, they are illegal in the US and may be confiscated.

Only one submission can be active at a time. Once you use it, you can enter another, the system will retain passport and vaccination data so only trip details need to be entered.

Yes, ArriveCAN does not require a test as they are no longer required to enter Canada. However, cruises that port in Canada require a negative test to board. It is no a Princess imposed requirement. It is a GOC imposed requirement.

Different situations. In your case testing was a government requirement. In the OP case it would be a Royal Caribbean requirement.

Surely it doesn't really matter. Would Royal Caribbean not make the arrangements if it requires a test?

The airport has a handy wizard, https://www.torontopearson.com/en/connections. It will detail the process based on your connection. If you have to clear customs and immigration you will need to use ArriveCAN. It would also be a good idea to use the advance CBSA declaration link in the ArriveCAN app.

The web and app data entry are close to identical in size and method. There is no reason you cannot continue to use the tablet. You might also consider using the phone as a hot spot so the tablet can access the web directly. Doing so would let the web page adjust sizing based on tablet characteristics.

You do not understand correctly. (Apparently you missed the excellent post #60.) When you leave Canada there is no ArriveCAN paperwork involved. (Probably why it's called ArriveCAN.) Perhaps cruising elsewhere would suit you better. (There is no requirement to visit our beautiful country. We'll miss you, but we do understand.) You do not need phone service in Canada. (How will you live without email?)

The app came first I believe. The web portal was introduced when it was pointed out that many do not have app capable devices. Pure speculation, I suspect the decision to start with an app was to maximize privacy. Nothing is sent or stored on servers until the submission is actually made. It's possible that only the highly encrypted QR code is transmitted.

If one uses the web portal, any browser equipped device can access the submission. So one can start a submission an a home PC and complete it using a phone browser (e.g. Safari or Chrome).

You shouldn't need a second ArriveCAN submission. Since submissions are very quick, were I asked for a QR at cruise check-in I'd be tempted to have the counter person guide me in falsifying ... umm ... completing a new submission.

The ArriveCAN required for boarding is supposed to be for the return. Your experience is odd.

Please clarify. Did you fly or drive into Canada to board the cruise? If so, did you use the same QR to board the cruise ship or did you create a new QR after arriving in Canada?

I'm not clear on this itinerary. Did you sail out of a US Port, called at Halifax, called at a port in Greenland, then returned to St John's? Showing proof of vaccination to a CBSA agent would dramatically reduce clearance rates. ArriveCAN speeds up the process as vaccination certificates of all variations are preprocessed. Merely entering the country with a passport provides the government with tracking data. ArriveCAN is not providing additional detail, just advance notice of travel.

Just because a disease is endemic doesn't mean it can be safely ignored. Numerous countries require proof of vaccination for different endemic diseases to enter. Other than inconveniencing you, are there any other reasons a country shouldn't do what it deems necessary to keep its residents safe?

The joke is people that don't think through consequences. You realize getting rid of ArriveCAN will just increase border wait times as people will have to present physical proof of vaccination, etc.?

The only reason one might have to make a second ArriveCAN submission is because they are entering the country a second time. Having to make the submission prior to boarding actually makes things easier for cruise passengers. Otherwise the submission would have to be made sometime during the voyage before returning to Canada. Every time one enters Canada one has to complete an ArriveCAN submission. What is so difficult to understand about that? That is not correct. See https://www.canada.ca/en/border-services-agency/services/arrivecan.html for the most current requirements and guidance.

This has always been the case. Anyone entering Canada must make an ArriveCAN submission each time. If one is boarding a cruise ship that leaves Canada and re-enters, an ArriveCAN submission is required. If one boards a cruise in Canada that does not return, no submission is required. If one flys into Canada to take a cruise, an ArriveCAN submission must be made prior to entry. If one then boards a round trip cruise another ArriveCAN submission must be made to board. It is actually for the return. Silly. If you are accepting of ArriveCAN to fly into Canada why do you consider it lunacy to use it on a cruise that enters Canada?

The port authority often has information. However, berthing assignments can change at the last minute.

One can use the wayback machine to lookup previous versions, https://web.archive.org/web/2022*/https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-transportation/marine-safety/ship-safety-bulletins/measures-support-safe-cruise-travel-canada-ssb-no-18-2021*

I'm not making an excuse for HAL. The post I quoted accused HAL of dishonesty based on nothing more than receiving what you perceive to be incorrect information. I get that you are upset and frustrated, but I think you are letting anger get the better of sound judgement.

To be a lie the misinformation has to be knowingly given. I doubt HAL intentionally provided misinformation. On might criticize the company for not insuring employees were current, but accusing it of dishonesty is a little too much.

To be a lie the misinformation has to be knowingly given. I doubt HAL intentionally provided misinformation. On might criticize the company for not insuring employees were current, but accusing it of dishonesty is a little too much.