Could PVSA finally be gone for good.

[Tree_skier]

It appears that what was done temporarily could become permanent.

 

PVSA could be gone!

[erinsmom03]

Oh wow. I am really hoping that cruising to Canada returns. We have an Alaskan cruise booked next year, it's supposed to leave from and return to Vancouver. We are really looking forward to seeing Vancouver for the first time. We loved seeing Victoria in 2019!

[Tree_skier]

20 minutes ago, erinsmom03 said:

Oh wow. I am really hoping that cruising to Canada returns. We have an Alaskan cruise booked next year, it's supposed to leave from and return to Vancouver. We are really looking forward to seeing Vancouver for the first time. We loved seeing Victoria in 2019!

My suspicion is that those will continue as scheduled. The problem will be for the port of Victoria.  The only reason cruise ships stop there is to fulfill their obligation under PVSA.  With changes proposed because of the Canadian government's intransigence, Victoria will be ignored by all ships sailing out of Seattle.  That being said, it will put pressure on the port of Vancouver to be more competitive as cruise lines could start sailing more out of Seattle leaving the Vancouver market to pick up the scraps that can't be accommodated by the Port of Seattle.  Vancouver already has the disadvantage of being a substantially more expensive city to fly into.

[smokeybandit]

49 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

It appears that what was done temporarily could become permanent.

 

PVSA could be gone!

Canada: Cruises can't come here anymore
USA: What?  Why?  Can you reconsider?
Canada: Nope
USA: OK, well we don't need you anymore
Canada: What? Why? Can you reconsider?

That said, it'd be foolish to totally scrap the PVSA, just based on the law of unintended consequences. But it certainly should be revamped with a more modern tone.

Edited June 12, 2021 by smokeybandit

[cruisegus]

51 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

It appears that what was done temporarily could become permanent.

 

PVSA could be gone!

it just makes sense in the day and age, probably why it will not happen

[Pratique]

First question is why is the senator from Utah leading this effort?

 

None of the bills Sen. Lee has proposed address the crew immigration requirements. There are three proposed bills. https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/6/sen-lee-introduces-bills-to-repeal-reform-pvsa  As far as I can tell, none of these have been introduced to the Senate yet. I think he wants to get some co-sponsors first.

 

Watch his floor speech: 

 

[newcruzer2]

I have a California coast  cruise for 2022 and would MUCH rather end the cruise in Seattle than vancouver. will be interesting to see how it effects other itineraries like Hawaii, where couldn't go from LA or Seattle round trip without a foreign stop, may actually do one now

[Tree_skier]

1 minute ago, smokeybandit said:

Canada: Cruises can't come here anymore
USA: What?  Why?  Can you reconsider?
Canada: Nope
USA: OK, well we don't need you anymore
Canada: What? Why? Can you reconsider?

Exactly, I warned of this happening earlier on when Canada precipitously cancelled the rest of the Alaska season by banning cruise ships until Feb 22.  I was told by many right here on CC that PVSA would never be done away with, even temporarily. I had my sceptisism about the immigration issues but even that was overcome.  Someone even suggested that I hated the country of my citizenship for criticizing the government's actions. Now it is temporarily lifted and likely to be permanently lifted.  The only beneficiary of this law has been Canada.  Nobody cruises Alaska because it is stopping in Victoria.  288 ships will not stop and 130 million dollars won't get spent in Victoria.  Instead people will be spending that money in Seattle and an extra port stop in Alaska.  Well done Skippy and congrats to Sitka and Icy Point Strait.  You win.  

[Pratique]

2 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

Exactly, I warned of this happening earlier on when Canada precipitously cancelled the rest of the Alaska season by banning cruise ships until Feb 22.  I was told by many right here on CC that PVSA would never be done away with, even temporarily. I had my sceptisism about the immigration issues but even that was overcome.  Someone even suggested that I hated the country of my citizenship for criticizing the government's actions. Now it is temporarily lifted and likely to be permanently lifted.  The only beneficiary of this law has been Canada.  Nobody cruises Alaska because it is stopping in Victoria.  288 ships will not stop and 130 million dollars won't get spent in Victoria.  Instead people will be spending that money in Seattle and an extra port stop in Alaska.  Well done Skippy and congrats to Sitka and Icy Point Strait.  You win.  

Why do you think this is likely?

[Tree_skier]

5 minutes ago, Pratique said:

First question is why is the senator from Utah leading this effort?

That question is above my pay grade.  As to the other issues.  It has to start somewhere.

[Tree_skier]

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

Why do you think this is likely?

There is no incentive for the US to maintain a law that only benefits a foreign country.  Biden killed XL Keystone without one consideration of its impact on Canada.  That project arguably had great benefit to Americans but didn't fit his idealogical agenda and with the stroke of a pen it was gone.  I don't believe the US congress or the president will spend 15 seconds considering the consequence of this decision on Canada.  

[CPT Trips]

Victoria and Vancouver are worth the visit.

interesting that a Senator from a landlocked state would be the lead on this.

[Pratique]

7 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

There is no incentive for the US to maintain a law that only benefits a foreign country.

Likewise there is no incentive for the U.S. to relax the visa requirements for the foreign crew members.

[Tree_skier]

1 minute ago, CPT Trips said:

Victoria and Vancouver are worth the visit

While I agree that Victoria and Vancouver (my former home) are great places to visit.  I don't think a 5 hour stop, that is little more than a technical stop, is anything other than an add-on to fulfill the requirements of PVSA.  Without PVSA Victoria is toast as stop on an Alaskan cruise.

[Tree_skier]

6 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Likewise there is no incentive for the U.S. to relax the visa requirements for the foreign crew members.

I think that relaxing entry requirements for foreign workers fits quite well with the current administrations idealogical agenda.  H1B's just received a relaxation of rules, it wouldn't take anything to to relax the C1 rules in order to move changes to PVSA along I wouldn't think.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Tree_skier

[erinsmom03]

4 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

While I agree that Victoria and Vancouver (my former home) are great places to visit.  I don't think a 5 hour stop, that is little more than a technical stop, is anything other than an add-on to fulfill the requirements of PVSA.  Without PVSA Victoria is toast as stop on an Alaskan cruise.

 

We fell in love with Victoria when we were there. It would be quite sad to see it removed from the cruise itineraries. 

[Pratique]

2 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

I think that relaxing entry requirements for foreign workers fits quite well with the current administrations idealogical agenda.

But they need 60 votes, impossible to get for anything these days.

[rkacruiser]

38 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

That said, it'd be foolish to totally scrap the PVSA, just based on the law of unintended consequences. But it certainly should be revamped with a more modern tone.

 

I agree with this thinking.  There is sufficient discussion on CC's various Message Boards about the PVSA another one does not need to begin again, I think.  Does the situations when the Law was first enacted then exist/apply in the 21st Century?  I can't answer that.  But, I do think an examination of the Law is overdue.

 

Curious that the Senior Senator of Utah is suggesting this?  Yes.  But, maybe this is a bargaining chip being used for some legislative purpose by some other State's Senatorial delegation.  

[rkacruiser]

3 minutes ago, Pratique said:

But they need 60 votes, impossible to get for anything these days.

 

Impossible?  No.  Difficult?  Yes.

 

Many of the new members of the President's Administration have received the needed votes.  Just this last week, a Bill concerning our technology/industrial competition with China passed with 68 votes.  

[Tree_skier]

While in Canada last year we spent 4 days in Victoria.  I loved every minute of it.  I got a suite in a hotel overlooking the water. I spent every evening on their patio having dinner and then later drinks overlooking the water. Each day I did an "excursion" to a different activity doing my best to replicate the Alaskan cruse that I was supposed to be on that I was not.  The waiter at my hotel told that the lack of cruise ships have devastated his income.  This surprised me... He said that large numbers of cruise passengers stop into the hotel for a meal and drinks to or from the cruise port  into the inner harbor.

 

I quite enjoyed Butchart gardens.  With the absence of cruise ships there was probably less than 10% of their usual attendance.  It made for a great time.

 

Sorry I meant  to quote @erinsmom03 in this post.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Tree_skier

[Pratique]

1 minute ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Impossible?  No.  Difficult?  Yes.

 

Many of the new members of the President's Administration have received the needed votes.  Just this last week, a Bill concerning our technology/industrial competition with China passed with 68 votes.  

That was a completely different issue. I have not heard of any Republicans who are in favor of relaxing the immigration requirements, and I believe a few Democrats would also be opposed to it. Their votes would be conditioned on immigration reform. Also the labor unions would chime in. Watching Sen. Lee's floor speech, it doesn't sound like he has anyone's support yet. Long way to go, and not a priority issue worth spending political capital on IMHO.

[Tree_skier]

8 minutes ago, Pratique said:

But they need 60 votes, impossible to get for anything these days.

Forgive my lack of American civics, I have spent the majority of my life in Canada. Why were they able to pass ATRA but would be unable to make a small amendment to C1 rules like they have with other classes of visas.

[Tree_skier]

55 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

That said, it'd be foolish to totally scrap the PVSA, just based on the law of unintended consequences. But it certainly should be revamped with a more modern tone.

My thoughts entirely.

[rkacruiser]

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Watching Sen. Lee's floor speech, it doesn't sound like he has anyone's support yet. Long way to go, and not a priority issue worth spending political capital on IMHO.

 

Yes, I agree.  It's certainly not on anyone's front burner with either House at this time.  The most curious part of this to me is why Senator Lee chose to speak about this issue.  Oh, how I would like to be a "fly on the wall" in many offices in Washington, D. C. as well as in my own State Capitol.   

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

Forgive my lack of American civics, I have spent the majority of my life in Canada. Why were they able to pass ATRA but would be unable to make a small amendment to C1 rules like they have with other classes of visas.

ATRA is a very limited scope law that expires in February. There is no real downside to it and so no one was paying much attention. It passed by unanimous consent, which essentially means that no vote was needed. It is like naming post offices, not something most members of Congress care about. Repealing PVSA, on the other hand, would get a lot more attention and be more difficult to slide through. I suppose. I don't really know.