Jump to content

New bill introduced to make elimination of Canadian port requirement permanent


Recommended Posts

https://globalnews.ca/news/8192998/u-s-congressman-pushing-for-cruise-ships-to-permanently-bypass-british-columbia/

 

Alaska Congressman Don Young has introduced legislation that, if passed, would allow cruise ships to permanently skip ports in British Columbia.

Young, a Republican serving his 25th term in the U.S. House of Representatives, is pushing for a law that would allow ports or land owned by Tribes or Alaska Native Corporations to satisfy the Passenger Vessel Services Act’s  foreign stop requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense.

If cruising is such a vital part of the state's economy we shouldn't have that dependent on a foreign nation.  

If I'm not mistaken there are lobbying groups in Victoria that would love to see a cruise ship ban enacted or the current ban made permanent.  If they are successful they could cause a lot of harm to Alaska's tourism industry.  It's better to get ahead of that in case it comes to fruition.

https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2021/09/16/alaska-senator-introduces-bill-permanently-allow-cruise-ships-sail-alaska-without

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone not super familiar with the PSVA, what are the chances of this bill passing? If it passes for Alaska what grounds would they have to keep it in place if other states want it removed? 

@twangster I know you are more familiar with the PSVA and have made mention before on this forum how important it is for the US Maritime workers that it remain in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vancity Cruiser said:

As someone not super familiar with the PSVA, what are the chances of this bill passing? If it passes for Alaska what grounds would they have to keep it in place if other states want it removed? 

@twangster I know you are more familiar with the PSVA and have made mention before on this forum how important it is for the US Maritime workers that it remain in place.

As written the PVSA can only be bypassed for interests of national security so like ATRA it will take Congress to change or modify the law. 

Congress has the power to do many things.  I never would have predicted the ATRA (Alaskan Tourism Restoration Act) would have passed through Congress but it did, quite easily.   I have no insight if the new bill will receive similar support in the same Congress that passed ATRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny because on the Blog it shows U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is going to introduce the bill in the Senate. Maybe pushing on both houses of Congress will get it passed. She did not mention that it would be just for native lands or tribes just for Alaska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

Maybe it will push Canda to allow the ships back.

Canada will allow cruise ship to resume porting in their country starting this November, however like twangster pointed out there are some in Victoria who would like to see a permanent ban on cruise ship so what Lisa Murkowski is trying to do is get ahead of this by being proactive instead of reactive.  Alaska's cruise season shouldn't be linked to Canada allowing cruise ships to port in their country.  Hopefully Alaskan's support Murkowski in this endeavor and hopefully Congress realizes the importance of this issue and not allow a foreign country to ever again dictate they type of tourism allowed to take place in Alaska. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bryresangel said:

What would be the downside? I feel like it has the potential to boost Native economy, but am not sure of the cons.

The downside, theoretically, would be foreign-built cruise ships could compete with U.S.-built ships, but Senator Murkowski added an exception for that:

This legislation will create jobs for American merchant mariners in the cruise industry, and to ensure foreign-built cruise ships do not compete with U.S.-built ships, this waiver will end once there is a U.S.-built cruise ship that carries more than 1,000 passengers.

19 hours ago, CrznTxn said:

It's funny because on the Blog it shows U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is going to introduce the bill in the Senate. Maybe pushing on both houses of Congress will get it passed. She did not mention that it would be just for native lands or tribes just for Alaska.

This happened with the 2021 temporary relief bill. They introduced a bill into Senate and House at the same time. I'm not a congressional expert to know what this is called, but I know it's a common strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt said:

This happened with the 2021 temporary relief bill. They introduced a bill into Senate and House at the same time. I'm not a congressional expert to know what this is called, but I know it's a common strategy.

I think it's simply called "saving time".  The bill has to pass in both House and Senate before it goes to the President so it is useful to start the process in both chambers at the same time.  Of course, it gets complicated when the House and Senate versions of a bill aren't actually the same.  Then, they have to work out a compromise version and revote so they actually approve the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

US-built ships ?  Are there any or even a chance that there maybe some in the future ?  Can you imagine the cost of a cruise ship built in the US ?  Lol

That and the fact US shipyards couldn't build a ship to compete with modern cruise ships.

I think this provision is here to prevent someone in Congress objecting on that theoretical basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 9:59 AM, Atlantix2000 said:

I think it's simply called "saving time".  The bill has to pass in both House and Senate before it goes to the President so it is useful to start the process in both chambers at the same time.  Of course, it gets complicated when the House and Senate versions of a bill aren't actually the same.  Then, they have to work out a compromise version and revote so they actually approve the same thing.

This is correct. Legislation moves through the process much faster and has a better chance of a vote if both chambers have a version. The only thing that would signal it could move faster would be bipartisan co-sponsors, but we don't know if there are any at this point. If there are differences in the versions, it will go to the conference committee for review and revision. Then back to the separate chambers for another vote on the revised/final version. More than likely, Murkowski's aides and Young's aides are drafting the legislation together to ensure this doesn't happen. However, the Senate has different rules for amending bills, so who knows right now if it will change. As of now, neither Sen. Murkowski nor Rep. Young have actually filed their versions of the bill, at least from what I can tell. I dug through both the House and Senate bill trackers as well as their websites for sponsored legislation. You can find the ATRA in both their records, but that is it to this point. Issuing the press release before filing the bill gives a feel for how receptive their colleagues are to making this work around permanent as well as a way to "go public" with the plan to get their constituency as well cruise industry people and supporters like us to pressure their reps and senators to support the legislation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Downside - International conventions and law don’t include any definition of capacity like 1,000 or 2,000 or 6,000 guests.  It’s one thing for the US to create law for US flagged ships but once you introduce foreign flagged then international conventions become involved.  

Granted these international conventions are very dated and could use some updating but that’s a whole other can of worms.  

So while the proposed change specified a guest count the rest of the world might ignore that since by international convention a passenger vessel is a passenger vessel.  That is just scratching the surface.  

It’s a lot more complicated.  I’d love to hear from someone with a focus on this area of law.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 9:29 AM, Matt said:

This happened with the 2021 temporary relief bill. They introduced a bill into Senate and House at the same time. I'm not a congressional expert to know what this is called, but I know it's a common strategy.

The 2021 temporary relief bill was passed by what's called Unanimous Consent. The representative or senator can ask for unanimous consent for a bill to be passed. It's usually (but not always) pre-arranged. As long as there is no objection, the bill is passed from that chamber. BUT, Any single representative or senator can object, and it stops. Remember, the temporary relief bill passed on it's 2nd attempt. There was an objection in the Senate the 1st time around (I don't remember from who or why) but it was passed the 2nd time. Our government acts in crazy ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...