With Canada now closed to cruises until 2022 is now the time to repeal Jones’ Law?

[ldubs]

9 hours ago, mom says said:

You all seem to assume that Alaska would be happy to just drop their current entry restrictions to allow thousands of cruise passengers to descend on them. Do you think that's likely?

 

My memory is pretty fuzzy but I seem to recall a mayor of one of the towns in the Southeast AK wanting to encourage a return of cruise ships.  Just one guy.  So I really don't know.  

[JRG]

10 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

I am not in favour of any country eliminating/relaxing Cabotage Laws. Cabotage Laws may have been established as early as the 1600's, but with the proliferation of FoC shipping, they are equally as important now for the safety of our coasts.

 

11 hours ago, Hlitner said:

The issue here on CC is not about "Cabotage laws in general" but specifically about the PVSA as it applies to Alaskan cruises.  And Heidi13's post specifically refers to the PVSA which is a specific Cabotage Law that applies to cruise ships.  I would also add that the recent ban announced by the Canadian government only applies to cruise and certain pleasure craft. 

 

I too enjoy some of Heidi13 posts and his intelligence on many matters is obvious but there is a higher order ethical and moral dichotomy and challenges objectivity, but only on this PVSA exemption topic.   His responses are written with courtesy and he substantiates most of his positions and backs them up.  But....

 

When the PVSA discussion threads become a pattern diluted with the conversation of Cabotage laws and their complexity,  then it detracts from healthy forum conversation from posters who think differently.    This is similar to gerrymandering in legislative nomenclature.

 

The second ethical challenge is that,  for the most part,   US residents do not have a sovereign right to dictate to other countries how their maritime laws should work,   so there is nothing to suggest that non-us citizens should have a sovereign right to dictate how US maritime laws should work. 

 

 Commenting with an opinion is one thing,   and yours are good (except for the smart phone thing) but participating in the patterned threads,  is by definition,  known as cognitive dissonance.

 

Quid pro quo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by JRG

[ldubs]

23 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

I feel exactly the same way as you do about the Jones/PVSA snafu on CC and the clusters of misinformed threads that spin....

 

But aren't we throwing out the baby and the bathwater and the bathtub at the same time?

 

It seems a better option  maybe to re-educate the posters so that the distinction between Jones and PVSA is made clearer.   

 

 

 

 

Even though often repeated, I agree it is good to have the discussions.  I just look at it as conversation and sharing of opinions.  And, as unlikely as it may sound, I might even learn a thing or two along the way. 😀 

[SelectSys]

12 hours ago, Hlitner said:

We remain unconvinced that a Presidential waiver or a PVSA amendment to allow cruising between two USA States would become a big deal. 

 

I think it might be a big deal - especially in the short run.  The recent government actions have led to the elimination of more union jobs in the US.  I am expecting this to continue as non-governmental union employees bare much of the brunt of policy changes now starting.  Touching the PVSA would create a very symbolic action publicly and the cruise industry has limited lobbying influence.  

 

[Hlitner]

2 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

I think it might be a big deal - especially in the short run.  The recent government actions have led to the elimination of more union jobs in the US.  I am expecting this to continue as non-governmental union employees bare much of the brunt of policy changes now starting.  Touching the PVSA would create a very symbolic action publicly and the cruise industry has limited lobbying influence.  

 

There is another way to look at it.  If cruising were to resume out of Seattle (instead of Vancouver) it would actually create more jobs for the International Longshoreman Union, more jobs for ship pilots, more jobs for tugboats (unionized), help fill empty Seattle hotel rooms, help near empty Seattle restaurants, more jobs for truckers (hauling food and supplies to the port), etc.  It would also be a win for the Alaskan ports that desperately want the business.  The only losers would be the Canadian labor unions, shops (that lose the commerce from cruisers), hotels (that house cruisers pre/post cruise, etc.  They would simply be the victim or beneficiary (depending on your point of view) of their own government's decision.

 

Hank

[ldubs]

12 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Since i have long admired (and agreed) with most of your posts this is a tough,   But why would I be surprised at a Canadian resident opposing the USA simply bypassing Canada to continue cruises to Alaska?   We remain unconvinced that a Presidential waiver or a PVSA amendment to allow cruising between two USA States would become a big deal.   And let us be very clear, we are simply talking about a cruise between two US States!  This is a USA problem and does not involve any other country.  The only reason that Canada has long enjoyed the business derived from Alaskan cruises is because of a USA law.  If Canada chooses to deny access to these cruises then we respect the decision of Canada...but should reserve the right to continue moving ships between our own country's States.

 

Hank

 

Some good points but I also think you misread the post.  I don't think there was any presumption to dictate US law in Heidi's post.   

[cruisemom42]

34 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

I feel exactly the same way as you do about the Jones/PVSA snafu on CC and the clusters of misinformed threads that spin....

 

But aren't we throwing out the baby and the bathwater and the bathtub at the same time?

 

It seems a better option  maybe to re-educate the posters so that the distinction between Jones and PVSA is made clearer.   

 

 

 

My post was made half in irritation and half in jest, so make of it what you will. I agree education is a good thing and I would say the same about all of the COVID threads that try to spread misinformation.

 

The problem for me is that I feel so many cruisers feel they are experts on topics like these, when in reality there is little chance -- even after lengthy explanations -- that they (and by that I mean to include myself) can really understand the true considerations and complexities associated with laws like these. We are looking at only a single thread that concerns us, but I feel that this is one of those cases where when you try to pull one string out of the cloth you mess up the entire design.

 

As an example:  I can try to explain virology and viruses and vaccines until I am blue in the face and yet many either cannot understand or refuse to believe what is said. 

 

I feel the same is true for the PVSA/Jones Act issue, except I am not one of the experts. There are some posting here who have a very detailed understanding, but there are many others who fancy themselves armchair experts whose main motivation (despite what they say here) is to be able to take a cruise, damn all consequences, full stop. They couch their arguments otherwise by talking about the welfare of those impacted by the halt to cruising. But many other industries are suffering even deeper impacts.

 

To me the main facts remain:

• In a time where we are faced with unprecedented issues related to this global pandemic, cruising for pleasure is not and should not be at the top of the list for those dealing with COVID. Far more important to focus on developing, testing, manufacturing, approving and monitoring vaccines and treatments and creating whatever infrastructure is needed to get them distributed ASAP. 
• The CDC, and the health advisories of many other countries, including Canada, Australia/NZ and the UK (all large English-speaking cruise markets) have issued guidelines saying they do not consider it safe to cruise while COVID remains uncontrolled. Why are we arguing about ways to get around this fact?

[JRG]

18 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

Why are we arguing about ways to get around this fact?

 

All good points.    Two answers to this fair question.

 

1) I think the CDC can learn from our grassroots knowledge on CC from the cruisers and help shape the Test Cruise parameters,  which is what we are all waiting for.  Opening up PVSA so we can do different cruises might be just what the doctor ordered for the CDC to setup the specs.   We are the cruisers and they have opened up the channel of communication to give them feedback.  

 

2)  I am always thinking (wishfully perhaps) beyond the pandemic to the Renaissance that should follow these Dark Ages.   I'm thinking long-term that PVSA needs to be overhauled the same way the BCS was overhauled for college football.   Its still a WIP but it took alot to get past the Big 10 and Notre Dame football TV contracts.   I've seen too many markets get what they want.

 

p.s   On a different note,  there is a movie on Netflix called "The Dig" that you may like.

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by JRG

[Aquahound]

11 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

It wasn't my intent to further the debate on Canada's action to ban cruise ships, which is why I started with Cabotage Laws/Acts, which most Maritime Nations have in force. Personally, I am not in favour of any country eliminating/relaxing Cabotage Laws. Cabotage Laws may have been established as early as the 1600's, but with the proliferation of FoC shipping, they are equally as important now for the safety of our coasts.

 

 

I haven't really had the chance to dig in to Canadian law, but are your Cabotage laws, both in cargo and passengers, similar to those of the US?  Also, are they distinguished in to 2 separate laws?   I'm just asking out of curiosity.  I work with my Canadian counterparts from BC quite bit, but I don't think we've ever discussed this topic specifically related to your laws.  It's seems it's usually the laws on the US side that impact commerce the most.  

[d9704011]

42 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

I haven't really had the chance to dig in to Canadian law, but are your Cabotage laws, both in cargo and passengers, similar to those of the US?  Also, are they distinguished in to 2 separate laws?   I'm just asking out of curiosity.  I work with my Canadian counterparts from BC quite bit, but I don't think we've ever discussed this topic specifically related to your laws.  It's seems it's usually the laws on the US side that impact commerce the most.  

If you’re interested, have a look at the Coasting Trade Act...

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-33.3/page-1.html

 

Many similarities.

[Heidi13]

30 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

I haven't really had the chance to dig in to Canadian law, but are your Cabotage laws, both in cargo and passengers, similar to those of the US?  Also, are they distinguished in to 2 separate laws?   I'm just asking out of curiosity.  I work with my Canadian counterparts from BC quite bit, but I don't think we've ever discussed this topic specifically related to your laws.  It's seems it's usually the laws on the US side that impact commerce the most.  

 

The Canadian Law, which is persuant to the Canada Shipping Act, is the Coasting Trade Act. It covers the carriage of both goods and passengers.

 

I suspect our Coasting Trade Act is probably very similar to the intent of the US equivalents, but note that we never covered US Laws during my certificates in UK & Canada. Last time I studied the Coasting Trade Act was in Shipmaster's Business in 1985, so memory is a little hazy on the specifics, as it wasn't one that applied to our operation.

 

It must be fun working with the TC Vancouver Office, as all the experienced chaps had retired just before me and all the Inspectors were brand new. The new hires were all from offshore, so were still learning Canadian Acts/Regs.

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

They would simply be the victim or beneficiary (depending on your point of view) of their own government's decision.

 

Your point regarding the benefit to other unions and labor interests is well taken.  Like most things political, it would likely come down to a battle between special interests groups.  Cruise lines themselves seem to have little pull.

 

I like what you wrote above.  More and more this is true as the visible hand of government in cooperation with key special interests determines whether or not you are a winner or loser generally.  

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

but there are many others who fancy themselves armchair experts whose main motivation (despite what they say here) is to be able to take a cruise, damn all consequences, full stop. They couch their arguments otherwise by talking about the welfare of those impacted by the halt to cruising. But many other industries are suffering even deeper impacts.

 

I like being an "armchair expert!"  Regardless of industry, that's part of the draw of these boards! 

 

I agree with other industries have similar or deeper losses.  I know someone with a business based on Disneyland and it has been really rough.  Close to 1 year without any revenue at all.  Many small retail, service and restaurant business in my city and all over America are gone for good.  No "too big to fail" support for them from government!

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Some good points but I also think you misread the post.  I don't think there was any presumption to dictate US law in Heidi's post.   

I agree totally, and think any attack on Heidi for his informative post is unwarranted.

[Cruzaholic41]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

They couch their arguments otherwise by talking about the welfare of those impacted by the halt to cruising. But many other industries are suffering even deeper impacts.

 

I think everyone is well aware of the COVID impact. But this is a cruise forum. There’s nothing wrong with people focusing on the impact to businesses associated with cruise travel. 

[JRG]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

I suspect our Coasting Trade Act is probably very similar to the intent of the US equivalents, but note that we never covered US Laws during my certificates in UK & Canada. Last time I studied the Coasting Trade Act was in Shipmaster's Business in 1985, so memory is a little hazy on the specifics, as it wasn't one that applied to our operation.

 

You are most probably correct.....except for the fact that the US Cabotage Law we are talking about was written in 1896,  the steamboat era,  and your Canadian laws are Modern as in 1985.   .  We don't fit into the marine industrial classification schema well and this makes us subject to the grandfathered nature of this PVSA Law.  It is our own faults and you do not have to be an expert or subject matter expert to realize this.

 

Furthermore,  the definition of passenger (a steamboat passenger) in 1896 is different from the definiton of a cruise passenger in 1985,  which would potentially be one basis for granting an exemption in an extenuating circumstance, or defending its out-dated-ness in the court of law.

 

We need to start talking about the carbon footprint differential created by PVSA too.   I think that when the other shoe drops A lot of posters will realize that PVSA also hurts us by the excess carbon emissions put forth into the atomosphere.

 

I'm not the best person to speak of Climate Change or Sustainability as I drive a V8.   But I am a good enough mathematician to figure out the PVSA is in some cases making cruiselines contribute more than they should be,  and cruiselines are committed to finding even the slightest of areas to show improvement,  this could force some opinions to change on the bigger picture.

 

Here is a copy of the letter sent to Biden from Travel Juneau

https://www.traveljuneau.com/juneaucares/locals/letter-to-president-biden/

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by JRG

[d9704011]

7 minutes ago, JRG said:

You are most probably correct.....except for the fact that the US Cabotage Law we are talking about was written in 1896,  the steamboat era,  and your Canadian laws are Modern as in 1985. 

Not so fast on that ‘modern era’ stuff.  Here is an excerpt from the following link that shows cabotage in Canada has been around in one form or another for a long time....

 

http://maryrbrooks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CabotageFinal.pdf

 

The origins of Canada’s coasting trade policy may ultimately be traced back to the Treaty of Paris, 1763. This treaty, which ended the Seven Years War, not only marked a new phase in Britain’s relationship with its colonies, but also provided Britain with virtually undisputed control of the sea and maritime commerce. The treaty enabled Britain to pursue, without significant constraint, policies designed primarily to promote and protect British colonial trade, and despite the repeal of the Navigation Acts in 1849, all trade out of ports in Britain and its colonies was restricted to British ships up until 1854. While restrictions on coasting trade between ports in the United Kingdom were lifted in 1854, similar restrictions remained in place in most British colonies, including Canada.4
The British North America Act, passed in 1867, provided the Parliament of Canada with authority over navigation and shipping, but any Canadian legislation could not be incon- sistent with UK law. In 1869 the Canadian Parliament enacted legislation continuing the restriction of coasting trade to British ships. This situation prevailed largely unchanged until 1931, when agreement was reached among the Governments of the Commonwealth to maintain uniform shipping legislation, and the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement was signed. This agreement established uniform registration require- ments and formally confirmed a common status for all ships of Commonwealth countries as ‘British’ ships. While the agreement provided each signatory State with authority to regulate its own coasting trade and to apply such customs tariff as it deemed appropriate, it also included an obligation, in Article 11, to treat all ‘British’ (Commonwealth) ships alike.

[JRG]

19 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

Not so fast on that ‘modern era’ stuff.  Here is an excerpt from the following link that shows cabotage in Canada has been around in one form or another for a long time....

 

Ok,  I get you.  I was relying on Heidi13's  date.   But for purposes of what we are talking about here,  it is still an outdated law for us here in the US,  especially ALASKA.

 

But its the carbon footprint thing that I'd would really like to throw out there and generate some healthy point-counter point  conversion and get away from the cabotage collage.

 

The carbon footprint argument could be all that is needed to get Biden to sign the EO that purportedly is in his in basket.   Don't ask me for a link on that though,  you have to go over to the RCI forum and you can't miss the headline.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by JRG

[SelectSys]

13 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

In 1869 the Canadian Parliament enacted legislation continuing the restriction of coasting trade to British ships. This situation prevailed largely unchanged until 1931, when agreement was reached among the Governments of the Commonwealth to maintain uniform shipping legislation, and the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement was signed. This agreement established uniform registration require- ments and formally confirmed a common status for all ships of Commonwealth countries as ‘British’ ships. While the agreement provided each signatory State with authority to regulate its own coasting trade and to apply such customs tariff as it deemed appropriate, it also included an obligation, in Article 11, to treat all ‘British’ (Commonwealth) ships alike.

 

See - I learn something everyday on Cruise Critic!  I am not sure if Canada has any local regulations, the door could be open for cruise ships registered in the Bahamas, Bermuda, etc could ply Canadian waters.   Of course this doesn't help ships flagged in Panama.

[CruiserBruce]

47 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Furthermore,  the definition of passenger (a steamboat passenger) in 1896 is different from the definiton of a cruise passenger in 1985,  which would potentially be one basis for granting an exemption in an extenuating circumstance, or defending its out-dated-ness in the court of law.

 

 

The significant difference between the steamboat pax of 1896 and the cruise passenger is that one was essential travel from A to B. The other is vacation travel. Looking at it that way, there is little priority to fixing/altering the PVSA simply to get someone a vacation during a pandemic.

[d9704011]

17 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

See - I learn something everyday on Cruise Critic!  I am not sure if Canada has any local regulations, the door could be open for cruise ships registered in the Bahamas, Bermuda, etc could ply Canadian waters.   Of course this doesn't help ships flagged in Panama.

Well, maybe.  Still won’t get you around that closing of Canadian ports to cruise ship business though.

[SelectSys]

9 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

https://www.dw.com/en/canzuk-could-it-be-britains-new-eu/a-55810928Well, maybe.  Still won’t get you around that closing of Canadian ports to cruise ship business though.

 

Of course.  I simply find some of the commonwealth legacy stuff fascinating.  It may come in handy as I have been reading some things online that the UK will be attempting to increase economic cooperation with some of its former colonies as part of its post Brexit life.  Canada, Australia and New Zealand are at the top of this list from most of what I have read.

https://www.dw.com/en/canzuk-could-it-be-britains-new-eu/a-55810928

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by SelectSys

[Hlitner]

Perhaps we should be clear that Cabotage Laws and Regulations in the US involve multiple statutes (i.e. PVSA, Jones Act, etc) which have been developed and amended over more then 120 years.  Over that time there have been numerous amendments and the enabling regulations probably number in the thousands.  So, if President Biden decides to waive enforcement of part of of one act and/or regulation (which he could do via Executive Order) it would not necessarily have much or any impact on other statutes and regulations.  The legal term "severability" comes to mind but I will leave that to the lawyers :).  

 

So, my point is that waiving a section of the PVSA would not change anything in the Jones Act (which regulates commercial shipping).  And simply issuing a waiver for passenger/cruise ships operating between US States would be how I would approach writing such an order.   The argument that such a waiver would impact labor law is probably not relevant since a waiver would not even need to speak to that issue.  Any subsequent court battles (if any) would likely take years and become moot when the COVID emergency has ended and things could return to  norms unless Congress were to decide that there is no need for the "distant foreign port" requirement in the PVSA.

 

Will any of this happen?  I am very skeptical because of previous statements made by the Biden folks.  But if the Alaskan Congressional delegation raises a big enough stink then who knows?

 

Hank

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

• The CDC, and the health advisories of many other countries, including Canada, Australia/NZ and the UK (all large English-speaking cruise markets) have issued guidelines saying they do not consider it safe to cruise while COVID remains uncontrolled. Why are we arguing about ways to get around this fact?

 

Bingo!  Makes many of our conversations really completely fruitless.  

 

 

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

 

We need to start talking about the carbon footprint differential created by PVSA too.   I think that when the other shoe drops A lot of posters will realize that PVSA also hurts us by the excess carbon emissions put forth into the atomosphere.

 

I'm not the best person to speak of Climate Change or Sustainability as I drive a V8.   But I am a good enough mathematician to figure out the PVSA is in some cases making cruiselines contribute more than they should be,  and cruiselines are committed to finding even the slightest of areas to show improvement,  this could force some opinions to change on the bigger picture.

 

 

 

What are you smoking?  Cruise ships have a bad history of polluting the ocean and polluting the air. They have a disgraceful history in Alaska. Environmental groups will be  very pleased that cruise ships won't sail in Alaska waters.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Charles4515