Help...need options for "criminals" in the family

[Putterdude]

:eek:

This didn't even occur to me for our Alaska trip. We will be crossing into Canada on our Skagway tour, so, the person I am worried about, thanks to these types of posts, did something minor but stupid & got community service, a fine & probation 24 years ago are they well past the need for any of the paperwork you guys are talking about? Or should I start helping them get proper forms filled out?

 

It is highly unlikely something minor done 24 years ago is going to cause you any problems with Canadian authorities. You don't have to volunteer any thing. If it did come up, don't lie about it, tell the officer the facts and it would have to be a pretty mean officer not to let you in.

 

Curiously, there currently no Canadian legislation that requires ships to provide passenger manifests however some do on a voluntary basis. If received then they are examined but this only applies with a stop in Victoria and a person with a record maybe advised discreetly by ship officials that they may not go ashore in Victoria.

[PhxRain]

Thank you for the replies!

 

We are going to rent a jeep & drive to Carcross on our own. Will they, all of us, be subject to more intense screening since we are driving?

 

Also, they asked me a good question - can they deny them boarding the ship in Seattle?:eek:

 

We can do without going over the border in Skagway, but the ship disembarks in Vancouver & we head stright to the airport from the ship.

 

We are hoping that once we are on the ship, getting through immigration & customs in Vacouver can go like this:

"You can't enter Canada, you have to leave."

"OK, we are heading to the airport right this second, thank you & good-bye."

 

#fingercrossed:o

[Putterdude]

Thank you for the replies!

 

We are going to rent a jeep & drive to Carcross on our own. Will they, all of us, be subject to more intense screening since we are driving? Your passports will be scanned.

Also, they asked me a good question - can they deny them boarding the ship in Seattle?:eek: No, you will don't be denied boarding in Seattle, there is no customs procedure and the cruise line has no ability to do a crim check

 

We can do without going over the border in Skagway, but the ship disembarks in Vancouver & we head stright to the airport from the ship.

 

We are hoping that once we are on the ship, getting through immigration & customs in Vacouver can go like this:

"You can't enter Canada, you have to leave."

"OK, we are heading to the airport right this second, thank you & good-bye."As I posted above, you will not have a problem disembarking in Vancouver and heading for the airport or driving to the border.

 

#fingercrossed:o

 

Hope this helps you.

[PhxRain]

Hope this helps you.

 

It does, thank you.:o I am feeling better 1) knowing it was NOT a DUI or drug offense & 2) after your input.

[Gunner22aa]

Over 10 years and no other offences and you are deemed rehabilitated as allready discussed. However be straight up and honest with the CBSA agents if and when they ask you about your previous criminal history regardless of how long ago it was. Not only can lying to the agent be cause to bar you from admission it in itself is a crime in Canada that can net you jail time or a heavy fine.

[Gunner22aa]

An offence comitted outside of Canada must have a similar or related crime under our criminal code to actually be considered a crime.

 

The big one is adultry. While considered a crime in the US military and some states it is not a crime in Canada. Therefore if you have been convicted of it in the US you are still elegable for admission to Canada as it is not a crime here. There are other offences as well but you should check with CSBA.

[Putterdude]

Similarly in some states a or some DUIs are a misdemeanor offence and does not show on a persons record and there is no need to declare it to a CBSA agent. If you do declare it, it is criminal offence and it could make you inadmissible to Canada.

[Skai]

Thank you for the replies!

 

We are going to rent a jeep & drive to Carcross on our own. Will they, all of us, be subject to more intense screening since we are driving?

 

Also, they asked me a good question - can they deny them boarding the ship in Seattle?:eek:

 

We can do without going over the border in Skagway, but the ship disembarks in Vancouver & we head stright to the airport from the ship.

 

We are hoping that once we are on the ship, getting through immigration & customs in Vacouver can go like this:

"You can't enter Canada, you have to leave."

"OK, we are heading to the airport right this second, thank you & good-bye."

 

#fingercrossed:o

 

I can only relay my own personal experiences here.

 

I had some youthful indiscretions some 20 years ago and previous to our recent Alaska cruise, I shared similar concerns as yours.

 

We too decided to rent a car in Skagway with the intent to go to Carcross and Emerald Lake on our own. We were prepared to accept the outcome if we were turned around at the border.

 

Upon reaching the border crossing the officer took our passports and asked a few standard questions ie. (Where in Canada were we going?, Purpose of visit?, How long were we staying?, Did we have any tobacco, alcohol? etc.)

 

It is my understanding that the border control officer has the ultimate control on allowing entry into Canada. Since it was just my DW and I, and we were obviously cruise ship passengers that were returning the same day with the intent on possibly leaving some tourist dollars in Canada.....Even if my record (no felonies) did come up when my passport was scanned, the border patrol officer made a judgment call and we were waved through.

 

When we arrived in Victoria, there was nobody checking passports/documents when we left the ship and passed through the cruise terminal.

 

Now I can't state with certainty that you may have the same outcome, but I am of the understanding that Canada has recently tried to loosen their restrictions concerning lesser prior offenses that occurred years ago as a result of their having lost out on American tourist dollars in the years since they started sharing criminal history databases with the U.S. border patrol post 9/11.

 

Now if any in your party have felonies on their record(Canada calls them 'indictable offenses') -- keep in mind that a DUII is considered one in Canada even though it isn't in the U.S -- It might make sense to be more proactive ahead of time to find out one's options rather than attempting to just see what happens at the border when you get there.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Skai

[PhxRain]

I can only relay my own personal experiences here.

 

I had some youthful indiscretions some 20 years ago and previous to our recent Alaska cruise, I shared similar concerns as yours.

 

We too decided to rent a car in Skagway with the intent to go to Carcross and Emerald Lake on our own. We were prepared to accept the outcome if we were turned around at the border.

 

Upon reaching the border crossing the officer took our passports and asked a few standard questions ie. (Where in Canada were we going?, Purpose of visit?, How long were we staying?, Did we have any tobacco, alcohol? etc.)

 

It is my understanding that the border control officer has the ultimate control on allowing entry into Canada. Since it was just my DW and I, and we were obviously cruise ship passengers that were returning the same day with the intent on possibly leaving some tourist dollars in Canada.....Even if my record (no felonies) did come up when my passport was scanned, the border patrol officer made a judgment call and we were waved through.

 

When we arrived in Victoria, there was nobody checking passports/documents when we left the ship and passed through the cruise terminal.

 

Now I can't state with certainty that you may have the same outcome, but I am of the understanding that Canada has recently tried to loosen their restrictions concerning lesser prior offenses that occurred years ago as a result of their having lost out on American tourist dollars in the years since they started sharing criminal history databases with the U.S. border patrol post 9/11.

 

Now if any in your party have felonies on their record(Canada calls them 'indictable offenses') -- keep in mind that a DUII is considered one in Canada even though it isn't in the U.S -- It might make sense to be more proactive ahead of time to find out one's options rather than attempting to just see what happens at the border when you get there.

 

 

I agree, and I have been assured it is NOT a DUI, DRUG or felony because even on the Canadian website it says if you have a felony, don't plan on getting through. So we are just going to go, and hope for the best, only speak when spoken too & only answer questions that are asked & not to volunteer anything more then the honest answer to the question. AND BE PLEASANT! LOL

 

We also have a "Plan B" if we are turned away at the Alaska/Canada border near Skagway and, thanks to putter, not worried about Vancouver because we will be headed directly out of the country.

 

Man, I tell you, traveling in Europe was less stressful! LOL

"Passport?"

"Here Sir."

"You're good to go."

 

Thanks for the advice everyone!

[Putterdude]

[quote name=Skai;

 

 

Now I can't state with certainty that you may have the same outcome' date=' but I am of the understanding that Canada has recently tried to loosen their restrictions concerning lesser prior offenses that occurred years ago as a result of their having lost out on American tourist dollars in the years since they started sharing criminal history databases with the U.S. border patrol post 9/11.

 

.[/quote]

 

Well not quite correct, there was an accord made between Canada and the US about 18 months ago to try to expedite the movement of people between both countries. One of the immediate results was that after being cleared US a CBP officers at the Vancouver Amtrak station the train would no longer stop at the Douglas border crossing and CBP go through another passport procedure. The few dollars may not be brought into Canada by "inadmissables" are not at play at all. I have avoided bringing this up, but may be of interest that a Canadian who has a criminal record is inadmissible to the US for life....at least Canada allows an American a window for redemption.

[Skai]

Well not quite correct, there was an accord made between Canada and the US about 18 months ago to try to expedite the movement of people between both countries. One of the immediate results was that after being cleared US a CBP officers at the Vancouver Amtrak station the train would no longer stop at the Douglas border crossing and CBP go through another passport procedure. The few dollars may not be brought into Canada by "inadmissables" are not at play at all. I have avoided bringing this up, but may be of interest that a Canadian who has a criminal record is inadmissible to the US for life....at least Canada allows an American a window for redemption.

 

Not to start a stir as I'm not exactly clear on what you are stating here.....

 

What you suggest may very well be in fact part of it, but having actually done a bit of research on this very issue prior to my cruise, I did in fact find some Canadian news articles referencing tourist industry grumblings relayed to parliament about the loss of tourist revenue that had indeed occurred due to U.S. tourists being turned away (and the loss of much relied upon revenue) for even the most minor of misdemeanor offenses since the joint criminal databases between both countries border officials were shared post 9/11.

 

 

 

 

Look up (Google) TAPF - Tourism Facilitation Action Plan

 

Here's an example of an article:

 

Just one mistake? Then welcome back to Canada

Posted on March 8, 2012

Dryden, Ontario — Like hundreds of other resort owners and outfitters in northwest Ontario, Bob Paluch says his fishing lodge saw a significant drop in clientele when Canadian border officials a few years ago began a crackdown on Americans with past offenses, most notably drunk driving convictions. According to some, rejections at the border became more prevalent a few years ago when the United States instituted a passport requirement for re-entry to the States.

 

But a federal Canadian policy directive could now lead to an influx of visitors – those with a single black mark on their records, including those with one drunken driving offense, for example.

 

“We lost a lot of people; our business was hurt a solid 15 to 20 percent, said Paluch, owner and operator of Temple Bay Lodge on Eagle Lake in Ontario.

 

Others weren’t as fortunate, according to Gerry Cariou, executive director of Sunset Country Travel Association. Not only were more Americans turned away at places like International Falls and Baudette, but fewer hunters and anglers were heading to far-away locations due to high gas prices and a poor economy in general.

 

“I know that some businesses went out of business because of (the loss of a certain tourist segment),” Cariou said, adding that revenues at some smaller resorts and lodges previously were just clearing expenses.

 

“We probably lost a lot of people (anglers, hunters) permanently, but probably 80 percent of those turned away fell into that (one offense) category,” he said.

 

Under current Canadian law, one conviction is the same as four, and it doesn’t matter if that conviction occurred last month, or last decade. But now, federal officials in Canada say, an exemption will make it possible for some of those with a drunken driving conviction to visit the country to hunt, fish, or for any other reason – once.

 

The new directive was announced two weeks ago during a conference call led by Jason Kenney, Canada’s minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism. The policy is part of a Tourism Facilitation Action Plan.

 

According to the TFAP, “Many tourists are stopped and denied entry at our borders because they are deemed inadmissible for having a minor criminal offense on their record. Often, these are outdated misdemeanors or minor infractions that took place decades ago.

 

“It is a dubious and intrusive rule,” the TFAP continues. “ … the current process for those refused is overly burdensome and requires substantial supporting documents and records that are not easily available. This rule results in millions of dollars in lost revenue from would-be tourists and has a negative bilateral effect.”

 

Greg Rickford, a conservative party member of Canada’s parliament, representing the Kenora District of Ontario, has pushed for the one-time exemption, until a long-term solution is found.

 

“As of March 1, this goes into full effect,” Rickford said early last week.

 

Rickford said he’s “championed the cause” on behalf of the tourism industry in northwest Ontario, but the rejection of some Americans with but one offense was felt elsewhere in the country, like British Columbia and in larger cities.

 

When elected in 2008, “I made it my personal agenda as a passionate fisherman” to help the Kenora-area resort industry, he said.

 

Wisconsin fishermen and hunters might want to make the best use of the exemption possible: “If we don’t get a long-term policy in effect this year,” only once can people with minor convictions use the exemption to cross the border, according to Rickford.

 

“If you come back a second time, you must have the temporary documentation and $200 fee already dealt with,” he said, referring to the paperwork and fees required to enter the country following a conviction in the United States. In Canada, it’s often referred to as “rehabilitation” documentation.

 

Convictions considered “major” still may preclude entry of Americans to Canada. Rickford said the exemption is for those with “one singular minor offense, including a DUI, punishable by less than six months in jail.”

 

However, he added, “discretion still rests with the border guard (the CBSA, or Canadian Border Services Agency).

 

“In no way do we condone any criminal action,” Rickford said. “But we recognized the past mistakes of people.”

 

Cariou says it’s best for Americans entering Canada to be “up front” with border guards, and to be polite.

 

For now, those in the tourism industry are working to get those once rejected to come back to Canada.

 

“Obviously, it’s a good thing,” Cariou said of the new policy.

 

Rickford said federal officials in Canada intend to work with members of the tourism industry, resorters, and American counterparts to “reconcile” differences in border-crossing rules, and to eventually establish a long-term policy that’s acceptable to most involved in the issue.

 

“It’s unclear how long it will be until a long-term solution is found,” he said. “But it’s very much on our radar screen.”

 

Cariou said such a long-term policy is important. “It would be ridiculous if it goes back to the same thing next year; it would make the country look even worse,” he said.

 

Paluch believes the exemption will inspire sportsmen with one-time, minor offenses to return to Canada to hunt or fish. In fact, he has an acquaintance in the U.S. who works with first-time DUI offenders. “And the number one thing that comes up is, ‘We can’t go to Canada anymore,’ ” he said.

[Skai]

As for "a few dollars not brought in by those that are inadmissible being not in play at all"

 

Here's another interesting read on that:

 

http://en-corporate.canada.travel/sites/default/files/pdf/Mediakit/tourism_industry_fact_sheet_jan_2013_-_en.pdf

 

When we were looking at our cruise to Alaska we had also considered taking a one-way Northbound from Vancouver to Anchorage, but being unsure if I would be allowed into Canada even for my long passed minor offense, we opted for the Seattle(RT) instead as to not be bothered with it.

 

We would have stayed in Vancouver for a couple of days had we gone that other route.

 

Add in hotel/restaurants and other tourist activities in the city and we would have likely left close to an additional $500 USD (beyond what we ended up spending in Carcross picking up some snacks at the store, and the souvenirs that we purchased in Victoria.)

 

Of course we are just one couple, but it must be stated that: More than 1 in 4 U.S. adult citizens have a criminal record. Even former U.S. president G.W. Bush had to apply for a special waiver to enter Canada due to his prior DUII conviction.

 

It's always about the money when it comes to issues like this.

[Putterdude]

I am quite familiar with the TFAP, what you have quoted is a lot of rhetoric from a few hunting lodge operators. In post #16 is a link to the law of Canada, nothing has changed. As a matter of fact if anything it has become more stringent. A couple of years ago I would have been comfortable in saying that a person with a record would have been admissible after 5 years but I am no longer comfortable in suggesting this to be the case,

[Skai]

I am quite familiar with the TFAP, what you have quoted is a lot of rhetoric from a few hunting lodge operators. In post #16 is a link to the law of Canada, nothing has changed. As a matter of fact if anything it has become more stringent. A couple of years ago I would have been comfortable in saying that a person with a record would have been admissible after 5 years but I am no longer comfortable in suggesting this to be the case,

 

Under previous thinking (a few years ago) a person with a record wouldn't have been admissible even after 20 years.

 

"US leisure travel represents Canada’s largest inbound travel market, accounting for 63% of all overnight inbound travellers in 2012. US leisure visitors took 10.1 million overnight trips to Canada in 2012, a 2.5% increase over 2011 and injected $4.8 billion in Canada’s tourism economy, a 4.3% increase over 2011.

 

-Canadian Tourism Commission

 

Canadian tourism declines despite world travel boom

Visits to Canada drop of 20% since 2000 could be hurting international trade

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-tourism-declines-despite-world-travel-boom-1.2426675

[Putterdude]

Under previous thinking (a few years ago) a person with a record wouldn't have been admissible even after 20 years.

 

"US leisure travel represents Canada’s largest inbound travel market, accounting for 63% of all overnight inbound travellers in 2012. US leisure visitors took 10.1 million overnight trips to Canada in 2012, a 2.5% increase over 2011 and injected $4.8 billion in Canada’s tourism economy, a 4.3% increase over 2011.

 

-Canadian Tourism Commission

 

Canadian tourism declines despite world travel boom

Visits to Canada drop of 20% since 2000 could be hurting international trade

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-tourism-declines-despite-world-travel-boom-1.2426675

 

II am not sure what you are trying to say, but the law is the law. Much like the US our laws are designed to keep undesirables out of our country regardless of how much they may spend, everyone else is most welcome. As I posted earlier, our laws just tend to be a little more compassionate then US regulations. The single biggest detriment to growth in the Canadian tourist industry in recent years has been the fact that until recently the CAD was higher than the USD. Now you can continue to Google various extracts of various opinions and articles but the underlying fact is that the if anything our laws have become more stringent when it comes to the admission of people with criminal records. You may not like that or agree with that but so be it.

[em-sk]

II am not sure what you are trying to say, but the law is the law.

 

The reality is the agents on the boarder have quite a bit of discretion. They are expected to do something reasonable and for it to be in the public interest. The ones on the US are in the same boat.

 

They will make a decision based on the risk you pose to Canadian society and what is in the public interest.

 

If you are on a train heading into Canada that is going to turn-around and head back in an hour or two in the middle of the wilderness on the Alaska-BC boarder they will likely not look that closely at your passport or even scan it through a computer. The same is not going to be the case if your driving into Canada near a major Canadian city with a car full of all your worldly possessions and you claim to be on day trip.

 

I don't think anyone can tell you what a specific agent will absolutely due in a specific situation based on the descriptions posted on this board. If it is something minor, in the distant past and all the paper work you have is showing your going to be leaving the country any way in a few hours I think a reasonable guess is they are going to ignore it and wish you a safe trip but no one can guarantee that outcome.

 

I use to work in a situation where we would bring consultants in from the US to do short term (few days) work in Canada (normally under NAFTA). I think the attitude and appearance of the person coming across to the agents at the boarder was a more important factor that a minor offense from 20 year ago.

Edited March 11, 2014 by em-sk

[Putterdude]

You have taken what I said out of context, however, you are absolutely correct. Although it can a two edged sword, the individual CBSA agent does have a great deal of discretion as to they admit to the country and I did point that out in an earlier post.

[em-sk]

You have taken what I said out of context, however, you are absolutely correct. Although it can a two edged sword, the individual CBSA agent does have a great deal of discretion as to they admit to the country and I did point that out in an earlier post.

 

My apologies. When I trimmed it down I should have include the second sentence. That make it closer to the point you were making.

[Skai]

Ithe underlying fact is that the if anything our laws have become more stringent when it comes to the admission of people with criminal records. You may not like that or agree with that but so be it.

 

And on that point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.....

[Putterdude]

And on that point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.....

 

and on that, you are quite correct. May I suggest a little more effort be put into the research of Canadian law, nothing you have posted has related to the laws of Canada as they currently stand.

[scottbee]

I agree, and I have been assured it is NOT a DUI, DRUG or felony because even on the Canadian website it says if you have a felony, don't plan on getting through. So we are just going to go, and hope for the best, only speak when spoken too & only answer questions that are asked & not to volunteer anything more then the honest answer to the question. AND BE PLEASANT! LOL

 

We also have a "Plan B" if we are turned away at the Alaska/Canada border near Skagway and, thanks to putter, not worried about Vancouver because we will be headed directly out of the country.

 

Man, I tell you, traveling in Europe was less stressful! LOL

"Passport?"

"Here Sir."

"You're good to go."

 

Had the USA not been so insistent in obtaining the criminal information from Canada about Canadians post 9/11, you wouldn't be in this situation. Canada agreed to provide the USA with information about all criminal acts by Canadians only if the USA provided the same type of information to Canada. There is no such agreement between the USA and European countries.

[Skai]

and on that, you are quite correct. May I suggest a little more effort be put into the research of Canadian law, nothing you have posted has related to the laws of Canada as they currently stand.

 

What I DO know (and what I've repeatedly stated in this thread) is that prior to TAPF(enacted last year), the rules were much more stringent than they are at the present.

 

Let me help refresh your memory since you've stated that you are well familiar with it.

 

"A new plan announced Friday , February 10 will make travel to Canada easier for those tourists with a minor blip on their criminal history. The tourism industry in Canada has been struggling, and since 9/11, criminal inadmissibility for minor criminality has been more detrimental to Canadian tourism than any other factor, including the struggling economy.

 

Not only has the policy has a negative impact on tourism, but has also deeply affected the convention business in the bigger cities. Companies are reluctant to hold conferences and conventions in Canada because they fear that some, if not many, of their participants will not be able to attend due to a minor incident that may have occurred many years ago.

 

The current policy allows a border official to deny admittance based on a single minor criminal offense, such as a DUI, for which no time was served in jail. Under the new policy, beginning March 1, those individuals with a single indictable offence in their criminal histories, for which they served less than 6 months jail, are less likely to be turned back at the border.

 

Under this new plan, if a U.S. Tourist meets the criteria under the Tourism Facilitation Action Plan, they are allowed admission into Canada after filling out a temporary resident permit form. There will be no fee for this permit. This is not an official change in the law and the ultimate decision is still up to the border official, but they are to be guided by this new policy."

[PhxRain]

Had the USA not been so insistent in obtaining the criminal information from Canada about Canadians post 9/11, you wouldn't be in this situation. Canada agreed to provide the USA with information about all criminal acts by Canadians only if the USA provided the same type of information to Canada. There is no such agreement between the USA and European countries.

 

Whoa there sweetie, no need for defense.

I've seen the other arguements on other threads since finding this thread, of one side blaming the other & no where in my posts do you see me blame one side or the other. This doesn't make me dislike Canada. I merely stated that this was not a problem in Europe & it was wonderfully stress-free to not even have that cross your mind at all. That is why it never occured to me when we planned this Alska trip until I caught this thread.

I don't care who started it or why, fact remains that no matter who started it, people in our travel party have to deal with it, plan for it or around it.

I just want all of us to have a nice fun vacation. :)

[Coral]

Had the USA not been so insistent in obtaining the criminal information from Canada about Canadians post 9/11, you wouldn't be in this situation. Canada agreed to provide the USA with information about all criminal acts by Canadians only if the USA provided the same type of information to Canada. There is no such agreement between the USA and European countries.

 

Not an expert in this but I remember reading that when George Bush was elected President (before 9/11), he had to apply for a waiver to visit Canada due to his previous DUI.

 

Ii think this has been going on for awhile.

[scottbee]

Not an expert in this but I remember reading that when George Bush was elected President (before 9/11), he had to apply for a waiver to visit Canada due to his previous DUI.

 

 

 

Ii think this has been going on for awhile.

 

 

Indeed, but until the USA-Canada pact the only way Canadian Immigration would know was if were a well known/publicized crime - such as George's. The rules didnt change (and the uS is even stricter than Canada) just the knowledge at the border did

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app