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

[nocl]

6 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

And I have read several write up by analysts of cruise line stocks that are scratching their heads at the lines current valuations.

The market is being driven by the dramatic influx of capital due to multiple governments, as well as multiple national banks (such as the Fed) matched with wishful thinks that things will return to as they were when it comes to the travel stocks (ignoring the massive amounts of new stock having been issued and the high levels of new debt).  Fundamentals have nothing to do with it.

[nocl]

11 minutes ago, 1ANGELCAT said:

Just curious, does the US have any such provision concerning the presence of Canadian vessels in US territorial waters ?

Just keep in mind the Canadian rules do not just apply to US ships, but to all ships.

 

Clearly the US has some rules about ships, for example you do not see cruise ships sailing in and out of the US

[1ANGELCAT]

1 minute ago, nocl said:

Just keep in mind the Canadian rules do not just apply to US ships, but to all ships.

 

Clearly the US has some rules about ships, for example you do not see cruise ships sailing in and out of the US

I said vessels not cruise ships 

[kangforpres]

So when will HAL and all other CCL lines actually announce cancellations for Alaska 2021 season? Seems like a longshot that any modification to the PSVA will come in time to make a difference. Roughly half the Alaska fleet leave from Vancouver and half from Seattle, if Seattle is the only option I would think the would go ahead and cancel all the Vancouver departures.

 

We have a 7 day RT from Vancouver in mid-September, I just want confirmation that it's kaput, I've run out of patience for waiting and seeing.

 

Only in for the Deposit at this point, final payment due on 06-15-21.

 

-Paul

 

 

[iancal]

The smart retail investors got in at 9-10 and got out a short time later at 17-19.

 

 Far better return than holding to to FCC's or discounted gift cards. And you get the beans in your jeans immediately.

Edited February 8, 2021 by iancal

[bennybear]

13 minutes ago, 1ANGELCAT said:

I said vessels not cruise ships 

Not sure I understand your concern ,  each country makes their own rules.  

Edited February 8, 2021 by bennybear

[1ANGELCAT]

18 minutes ago, bennybear said:

Not sure I understand your concern ,  each country makes their own rules.  

My concern as you put it, is whether the US is doing the same thing . Banning foreign registered vessels from transiting  our territorial waters , and if not, why not.

[bennybear]

Just now, 1ANGELCAT said:

My concern as you put it, is whether the US is doing the same thing . Banning foreign registered vessels from transiting  our territorial waters , and if not, why not.

Each country does what is best for them. You seem to be suggesting a quid pro quo. 

[Aquahound]

2 minutes ago, 1ANGELCAT said:

My concern as you put it, is whether the US is doing the same thing . Banning foreign registered vessels from transiting  our territorial waters , and if not, why not.

No, the US has not passed a similar ban. 

 

I still question the legality of Canada’s ban though, regarding their waters. Innocent Passage is an international law and I question how Canada can overrule the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  
 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, 1ANGELCAT said:

I said vessels not cruise ships 

The point I was making was that the US has also put in place restrictions on some maritime travel, not the same as Canada, but some restrictions.  I believe the Chief also commented on some restrictions dealing with cargo ships coming into the US.

 

I do not think that Canada is not banning all ships, after all cargo ships are still sailing in and out of Canadian ports.

 

Other countries have also put restrictions on ships, including privately owned ones including French Polynesia, New Zealand, etc.

Edited February 8, 2021 by nocl

[Lido - Lanai]

31 minutes ago, 1ANGELCAT said:

My concern as you put it, is whether the US is doing the same thing . Banning foreign registered vessels from transiting  our territorial waters , and if not, why not.

Non-US flagged/registered freighters and container ships are currently arriving and departing U.S. and Canadian ports every day.

[nocl]

23 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

No, the US has not passed a similar ban. 

 

I still question the legality of Canada’s ban though, regarding their waters. Innocent Passage is an international law and I question how Canada can overrule the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  
 

From what I recall Canada claims a 12 mile territorial sea.  So not much international traffic would be going through those waters except those going to Canadian ports.  The area of impact would be the inside passage which is fairly restrictive (as I mentioned some of those need pilots) Or are you saying that the inside passage is considered to be wide open as far as innocent passage is concerned?

 

I believe Canada has a different opinion

 

Canada maintains that the Passage is part of its internal waters and that no right of innocent passage exists within it, whereas the United States of America believes the Passage is an international strait where the right of transit passage exists.Feb 27, 2019

 

Looks like it is an undecided issue.  I suspect that as long as the US ferry boats can make it through the US will not push the issue.

Edited February 8, 2021 by nocl

[YXU AC*SE]

So, just so we are all on the same page, the new interim order extends the current interim order that was to expire on 28 February 2021.  

 

As set out, the Canadian waters prohibition applies only to passenger vessels and ferries w/ registered pax capacity of >100, and equipped w/ berths ... 

 

 

 

Further, the right of innocent passage (at 5(1)(e)) and the Inside Passage (at 5(2)) are both carved out of the extant order.   The new interim order text will be published to the Canada Gazette here: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2021/index-eng.html   Scott.

 

  

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by YXU AC*SE

[sfaaa]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

 

I still question the legality of Canada’s ban though, regarding their waters. Innocent Passage is an international law and I question how Canada can overrule the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  
 

Learn it from the China no doubt.

[bennybear]

46 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

Learn it from the China no doubt.

?

[kangforpres]

Enough with the Canada bashing! It's absurd an outrageous to compare Canada to China. I got an email from my TA who has been in the cruise travel business for decades she said, I asked her when to expect my Sept. Alaska Cruise to be "officially cancelled"

 

She said "Everything is up in the air, if the Jones act is temporary amended we will sail from Seattle instead of Vancouver, also Canada may change it's mind.

 

Infection rates continue to drop and vaccinations continue to increase, if looks look significantly better by say April, then yes Canada may change their minds. After all, the US is Canada's biggest trading partner and vice versa.

 

-Paul

 

 

[Shmoo here]

26 minutes ago, kangforpres said:

I got an email from my TA

 

26 minutes ago, kangforpres said:

She said "Everything is up in the air, if the Jones act is temporary amended we will sail from Seattle instead of Vancouver

And here's  example of someone who should know better - it's not the "Jones" Act.  It's the PVSA.  

[kangforpres]

I referred to it as the PVSA, she called it the Jones Act. Since people are talking about the same thing (ships having to visit a foreign port before returning to the US) I don't think it's that big of a deal what you call it.

2 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

 

And here's  example of someone who should know better - it's not the "Jones" Act.  It's the PVSA.  

 

[nocl]

On 2/4/2021 at 11:25 AM, JeffElizabeth said:

Hopefully see a waiver. Otherwise the Alaska cruises start in San Diego,  go to Ensenada,  and then to Skagway? 

Takes longer than the CDC 7 day limit in place until November

[ScoutDiver]

Meanwhile the payment date for the May 22 koningsdam cruise is rapidly approaching.   I am not about to pay a significant lump of cash for a cruise that originates in a country where the government banned cruise ships for a year and is severely restricting air travel.  

 

I think people at HAL expect too much.  It is not even clear that the CDC will let ships sail out of Seattle.   I signed up for a  roundtrip cruise from Vancouver over a roundtrip cruise from Seattle because of the more scenic route.  

Edited February 9, 2021 by ScoutDiver
Adding more thoughts

[d9704011]

9 minutes ago, ScoutDiver said:

Meanwhile the payment date for the May 22 koningsdam cruise is rapidly approaching.   I am not about to pay a significant lump of cash for a cruise that originates in a country where the government banned cruise ships for a year.  

Why not?  All sorts of people have been making payments for cruises from a country that has instituted a set of conditions for cruising so stringent that the cruise lines aren’t even making a real effort to satisfy so as to return to their business operations.

Edited February 9, 2021 by d9704011

[Aquahound]

7 hours ago, nocl said:

From what I recall Canada claims a 12 mile territorial sea.  So not much international traffic would be going through those waters except those going to Canadian ports.  The area of impact would be the inside passage which is fairly restrictive (as I mentioned some of those need pilots) Or are you saying that the inside passage is considered to be wide open as far as innocent passage is concerned?

 

The Strait of Juan de Fuca is the main route into and out of Puget Sound, and all commercial traffic for the Seattle area.  The outbound traffic scheme goes through Canadian waters.  This is an example of Innocent Passage that for the life of me, I do not see how Canada can deny. 

 

I know cruise ships have to use pilots through the Inside Passage, but I don't know if the ferries have an exemption.  I do know that the US and Canada don't necessarily agree on whether or not Innocent Passage applies to the Inside Passage.  I contend that it does.  In fact, back in the 90s, it was found that Canada violated United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when they charged US fishing boats for transiting the IP.  So International law seems to agree with the US's opinion of the matter.  

 

I did check with the Alaska Marine Highway today.  They are exempted and will continue transiting the Inside Passage.   

Edited February 9, 2021 by Aquahound

[ScoutDiver]

13 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

Why not?  All sorts of people have been making payments for cruises from a country that has instituted a set of conditions for cruising so stringent that the cruise lines aren’t even making a real effort to satisfy so as to return to their business operations.

I am not putting up money for a Neptune Suite out of vancover when both the airport and port are closed at lest to Americans.   We are in the middle of a pandemic.  I work from home.  Even my employers office is closed except if absolutely necessary.

 

Employers are worried and we are concerned about whether a cruise runs or not.   

[cruisemom42]

23 minutes ago, ScoutDiver said:

Employers are worried and we are concerned about whether a cruise runs or not.

 

This.

 

I can't honestly understand all the rancor expressed over the last 10 pages!

[d9704011]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

The Strait of Juan de Fuca is the main route into and out of Puget Sound, and all commercial traffic for the Seattle area.  The outbound traffic scheme goes through Canadian waters.  This is an example of Innocent Passage that for the life of me, I do not see how Canada can deny. 

 

I know cruise ships have to use pilots through the Inside Passage, but I don't know if the ferries have an exemption.  I do know that the US and Canada don't necessarily agree on whether or not Innocent Passage applies to the Inside Passage.  I contend that it does.  In fact, back in the 90s, it was found that Canada violated United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when they charged US fishing boats for transiting the IP.  So International law seems to agree with the US's opinion of the matter.  

 

I did check with the Alaska Marine Highway today.  They are exempted and will continue transiting the Inside Passage.   

Here is an excerpt from Ministerial Interim Oder Number Four.  I expect Number Five will look pretty much the same except for changed dates and the new Minister’s name.

 

Exceptions

5 (1) Sections 3 and 4 do not apply to

• (a) a vessel that is in distress or providing assistance to a vessel or person in distress;
• (b) a vessel that is forced to navigate, moor, anchor or berth to avoid immediate danger;
• (c)a vessel that is engaged in research and that is operated by or under the authority of the Government of Canada, or at its request, or operated by a provincial government, a local authority or a government, council or other entity authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group;
• (d) a vessel that carries
  • (i) employees of the Government of Canada or a provincial or territorial government, or
  • (ii) peace officers who require a transportation service in the course of performing their duties or functions;
• (e) a foreign vessel in the territorial sea of Canada that is exercising the right of innocent passage in accordance with international law and article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, done at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982; and
• (f) a vessel that is not in service.

Foreign vessels in certain waters

(2) Despite section 3, a foreign vessel may, in the Great Lakes, the Inside Passage, the St. Lawrence River, the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the St. Lawrence Seaway

• (a) navigate, if passage is expeditious; and
• (b) moor, berth or anchor if those activities are incidental to the passage.