Thanks for this article, I’d been wondering about the background on this.
One question though, why does your suggestion of the development of a domestic tourism industry require the removal of the cabotage/regulatory arbitrage industry? Seems to me they could co-exist?
And from a Canadian perspective, why do we care whether the cruise lines pay taxes to the USA? Are you suggesting that we should hope for the loss of the one-stop-in-BC cruise industry just so these cruise lines pay taxes to other foreign nations, and not sales taxes here in BC? It seems to me that the cabotage angle is a separate issue than the building a domestic tourism industry angle.
A counterintuitive moment to attack the cruise industry, but I like this idea. Part of the issue here is that the benefits of the cruise industry are borne by a few and the costs (the congestion, pollution, damage to marine life) are borne by the population at large.
If Canada is playing regulatory arbitrage, maybe there is more room to see how elastic the demand is from the cruise ships by raising additional per head levy’s so that the people who bear the cost of these negative externalities are better compensated. If you don’t like the industry anyways, what do you have to lose in trying to extract as much as you can from them? I don't see a lot of other feasible foreign stops on a cruise to Alaska.
The issue I would take with this article is that it is arguing against a source of income without proposing any sort of alternative. Transition to sustainable tourism sounds nice, but I’m not sure how this will accomplish it. Eliminating the cruise industry will further restrict the number of people coming into the area. For people looking to partake in sustainable tourism, I’m not sure that the emissions from taking a flight to lower mainland will be sustainable, and I expect most Americans will consider the experience in the Puget Sound to be pretty similar.
Years ago we took a trip on the Inside Passage from Tswassen (sp?) to Prince Rupert on the aptly named Queen of Prince Rupert. It was, sadly the last voyage for that service, but it was stunningly beautiful experience. I'd gladly pay for that again but you couldn't get me on one of those floating Gargantuas for free.
All very well for you to despise the low-hanging fruit provided by the cruise ship regulatory system, and even better should we be able to develop a real tourism industry such as the one you describe. In the meantime, a few thousand people here in Victoria depend on this despicable low-hanging fruit to survive from day to day, so maybe it might behoove you to despise it a little less until such time as they can all get back on their feet.
This article should remind Canadians jist how much the Liberals care about economic growth and how little they care, carbon tax aside, about the environment.
Thanks for this article, I’d been wondering about the background on this.
One question though, why does your suggestion of the development of a domestic tourism industry require the removal of the cabotage/regulatory arbitrage industry? Seems to me they could co-exist?
And from a Canadian perspective, why do we care whether the cruise lines pay taxes to the USA? Are you suggesting that we should hope for the loss of the one-stop-in-BC cruise industry just so these cruise lines pay taxes to other foreign nations, and not sales taxes here in BC? It seems to me that the cabotage angle is a separate issue than the building a domestic tourism industry angle.
A counterintuitive moment to attack the cruise industry, but I like this idea. Part of the issue here is that the benefits of the cruise industry are borne by a few and the costs (the congestion, pollution, damage to marine life) are borne by the population at large.
If Canada is playing regulatory arbitrage, maybe there is more room to see how elastic the demand is from the cruise ships by raising additional per head levy’s so that the people who bear the cost of these negative externalities are better compensated. If you don’t like the industry anyways, what do you have to lose in trying to extract as much as you can from them? I don't see a lot of other feasible foreign stops on a cruise to Alaska.
The issue I would take with this article is that it is arguing against a source of income without proposing any sort of alternative. Transition to sustainable tourism sounds nice, but I’m not sure how this will accomplish it. Eliminating the cruise industry will further restrict the number of people coming into the area. For people looking to partake in sustainable tourism, I’m not sure that the emissions from taking a flight to lower mainland will be sustainable, and I expect most Americans will consider the experience in the Puget Sound to be pretty similar.
Years ago we took a trip on the Inside Passage from Tswassen (sp?) to Prince Rupert on the aptly named Queen of Prince Rupert. It was, sadly the last voyage for that service, but it was stunningly beautiful experience. I'd gladly pay for that again but you couldn't get me on one of those floating Gargantuas for free.
All very well for you to despise the low-hanging fruit provided by the cruise ship regulatory system, and even better should we be able to develop a real tourism industry such as the one you describe. In the meantime, a few thousand people here in Victoria depend on this despicable low-hanging fruit to survive from day to day, so maybe it might behoove you to despise it a little less until such time as they can all get back on their feet.
This article should remind Canadians jist how much the Liberals care about economic growth and how little they care, carbon tax aside, about the environment.