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

[cruisemom42]

2 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

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.

 

Ok, I guess we just agree to disagree. I don't consider national security to be a special interest.

[AncientWanderer]

I've never known any law to be cast in stone.  Are there any?   🤔  It might require an "act of Congress," but there you have it.  

[Aquahound]

7 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

I've never known any law to be cast in stone.  Are there any?   🤔  It might require an "act of Congress," but there you have it.  

 

Exactly.  I do not believe the Puerto Rican PVSA exemption, nor the New York exemption for Canadian vessels has any particular national defense interest.  

[Sir PMP]

On 2/4/2021 at 12:16 PM, T8NCruise said:

No, the pandemic did that.

Yes, and Omar added a little more to that which might not be necessary.

[Cruzaholic41]

14 hours ago, xjust4fun said:

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.  

I think some folks around here need to grow a thicker skin. Expressing disagreement with a decision made by the Canadian government does not equate to “rude statements about Canada”.  Funny how the finger has been pointed in one direction through this whole pandemic but those same people get so offended at the hint of something controversial on their side of the border. 🙄

 

Besides, have we all forgotten who is truly to blame for this?  This started in a lab in China. 

[john2003]

All I will say is perhaps check some other news sources

[Cruzaholic41]

1 hour ago, john2003 said:

All I will say is perhaps check some other news sources

In other words, the ones that support your agenda. Gotcha. 🙄

[1ANGELCAT]

3 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

Exactly.  I do not believe the Puerto Rican PVSA exemption, nor the New York exemption for Canadian vessels has any particular national defense interest.  

What is the NY exemption ? 

[Aquahound]

Just now, 1ANGELCAT said:

What is the NY exemption ? 

 

Canadian ferries were allowed to run passenger ferry service between Rochester and Alexandria Bay due to the absence of US vessels offering that service.  Oddly, I also found an exemption for Canadian vessels in Southeast Alaska in the absence of US vessels.   

 

I'm pretty sure the AK one is rescinded due to the AK Marine Hwy being up and running.  Not sure about NY though.  I have no vis on that one.  

[tuolumne couple]

2 hours ago, john2003 said:

All I will say is perhaps check some other news sources

exactly! if not other new sources, factual occurrences. LOL

 

[Cruzaholic41]

20 minutes ago, tuolumne couple said:

exactly! if not other new sources, factual occurrences. LOL

 

So you know, for a fact, how and where COVID originated, huh?  

 

in your words - LOL!

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

Canadian ferries were allowed to run passenger ferry service between Rochester and Alexandria Bay due to the absence of US vessels offering that service.  Oddly, I also found an exemption for Canadian vessels in Southeast Alaska in the absence of US vessels.   

 

I'm pretty sure the AK one is rescinded due to the AK Marine Hwy being up and running.  Not sure about NY though.  I have no vis on that one.  

 

And just to add one more.  NCL's Pride of America and the 2 other former NCLA ships that used to cruise Hawaii only, did so...and 1 is still doing so...on a PVSA exemption because the ships weren't built in the US.  Of course, in that example, the ships flagged in the US.  Either way....still an exemption that can hardly be called a national defense interest.  

[richwmn]

3 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

And just to add one more.  NCL's Pride of America and the 2 other former NCLA ships that used to cruise Hawaii only, did so...and 1 is still doing so...on a PVSA exemption because the ships weren't built in the US.  Of course, in that example, the ships flagged in the US.  Either way....still an exemption that can hardly be called a national defense interest.  

I beg to differ with you on this. The exemption wasn't with the PVSA. The vessels involved were allowed to be Flagged as US ships despite the fact that they were not totally built in the US. Once they were flagged as US ships, they were in compliance with the PVSA and needed no exemption.

[Aquahound]

3 minutes ago, richwmn said:

I beg to differ with you on this. The exemption wasn't with the PVSA. The vessels involved were allowed to be Flagged as US ships despite the fact that they were not totally built in the US. Once they were flagged as US ships, they were in compliance with the PVSA and needed no exemption.

 

I get what you're saying, and I admit I don't remember the whole background, but POA is not allowed to cruise any other US itinerary other than Hawaii.  Isn't that due to a PVSA restriction?  

[Boatdrill]

On 2/4/2021 at 11:19 AM, terrydtx said:

This will kill what is left of Alaska Tourism unless Alaska cruises get a waiver from having to stop at a foreign port when sailing from Seattle

 

Or sailing southbound from Seward or Whittier. 

[trivia addict]

Aqua hound I’m only asking but are you sure it was Canadian vessels ferrying between Rochester and Alexandria Bay? Both of those cities are within US waters. Could it be that they were allowed because it was US territory and there were no stops in Canada? We were in AB last summer and none of the tourist boats were operating.

[richwmn]

25 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

I get what you're saying, and I admit I don't remember the whole background, but POA is not allowed to cruise any other US itinerary other than Hawaii.  Isn't that due to a PVSA restriction?  

Now that you mention it, I do remember a restriction that the 3 vessels (and now POA) were restricted to Hawaii itineraries plus trips to the west coast for necessary yard work. I don't believe that is in the language of the PVSA but might have been part of the deal that allowed NCL to carry the US Flag on those vessels.

edit --

Checking Wikipedia is states that the ships were subsidized by the US Government to be used in Hawaii.

"A letter of intent was signed on October 6, 1998, with Litton-Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi to construct two passenger ships for Hawaii inter-island service with options to build up to four additional vessels."

Edited February 6, 2021 by richwmn

[Boatdrill]

On 2/4/2021 at 1:28 PM, KirkNC said:

Geez, lots of conspiracy theories.  Maybe Canada did this because based on their best medical projections it will be unsafe to the people of Canada 🇨🇦 .  Those of us in the US have no one to blame but our friends and neighbors who choose to ignore medical based advice and created a perfect storm of Covid within our borders.

How is it that people who are following recommended protocols - mask wearing, social distancing, staying home, washing hands, etc. - are still able to be be infected ?  They haven't ignored medical based advice, they've followed it.  Please don't blame one another; the virus has its own protocol.    

[Aquahound]

23 minutes ago, trivia addict said:

Aqua hound I’m only asking but are you sure it was Canadian vessels ferrying between Rochester and Alexandria Bay? Both of those cities are within US waters. Could it be that they were allowed because it was US territory and there were no stops in Canada? We were in AB last summer and none of the tourist boats were operating.

 

I'm not sure what year it was enacted, but it looks like the law is still in effect (46 USC § 55121).  It says:

 

"Between Rochester and Alexandria Bay.-Until passenger service is established by vessels of the United States between the port of Rochester, New York, and the port of Alexandria Bay, New York, the Secretary of Homeland Security may issue annually permits to Canadian passenger vessels to transport passengers between those ports. Canadian vessels holding such a permit are not subject to section 55103 of this title."

 

 

[KirkNC]

19 minutes ago, Boatdrill said:

How is it that people who are following recommended protocols - mask wearing, social distancing, staying home, washing hands, etc. - are still able to be be infected ?  They haven't ignored medical based advice, they've followed it.  Please don't blame one another; the virus has its own protocol.    

My point was about the large number in the US that did not follow protocols.  As you say, you can follow and still get infected but I suspect a very large majority of those infected violated one or more protocols.

[nocl]

6 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

Exactly.  I do not believe the Puerto Rican PVSA exemption, nor the New York exemption for Canadian vessels has any particular national defense interest.  

But they are actually written into law. They are not ad hoc exemptions. So any other non-defense exemption will also require an act of Congress.

 

For example the change for the Puerto Rico exemption was Bill 98-563.

 

 

https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/98/563.pdf

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Boatdrill said:

How is it that people who are following recommended protocols - mask wearing, social distancing, staying home, washing hands, etc. - are still able to be be infected ?  They haven't ignored medical based advice, they've followed it.  Please don't blame one another; the virus has its own protocol.    

Because even if one follows the protocols, it only takes one slip up in the wrong place.  A family member visiting, talking with a neighbor without wearing a mask etc.

 

The protocols do not absolutely guarantee that any one person will not get it.  Only that the odds of staying healthy improve considerably and that considerably fewer of those that follow protocol will get infected than if they had not followed protocols.

[Aquahound]

Just now, nocl said:

But they are actually written into law. They are not ad hoc exemptions. So any other non-defense exemption will also require an act of Congress.

 

For example the change for the Puerto Rico exemption was Bill 98-563.

 

 

https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/98/563.pdf

 

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you.  I was just disputing someone else's claim that exemptions can only be granted under reasons of national defense. 

 

In no way do I expect any of this to happen for AK cruising.  The bureaucracy of writing it into law would not evolve that fast.   

[nocl]

Just now, Aquahound said:

 

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you.  I was just disputing someone else's claim that exemptions can only be granted under reasons of national defense. 

 

In no way do I expect any of this to happen for AK cruising.  The bureaucracy of writing it into law would not evolve that fast.   

A clearer way would be that exemptions granted for reasons other that nation defense would require the law to be changed by Congress.

[Aquahound]

3 minutes ago, nocl said:

A clearer way would be that exemptions granted for reasons other that nation defense would require the law to be changed by Congress.

 

I wouldn't put it that way.  The law itself is not changed.  Just that new laws are written granting exemption from 55103 (PVSA).  That's how the other laws were written; verbiage that says "are not subject to section 55103 of this title."  The DHS secretary can exempt from PVSA under current law as written but any other non national defense claims would need to be exempted by way of writing a new sub section under 46 USC.