DND Repossession(Rant )

[peter simundson]

The Museum that had the vehicles does not simply restore them and display them. They are determined to drive them and get all systems (less armament) operating. They aggressively persue stripping vehicles of all parts they "may" use at any base they can get to. (Not vehicles in use or in Museums of course). Written off, not saleable or Hard targets are typical fodder. Having spent some time on bases I know it wouldn't take long before someone said "What the hell do they need all these parts, radio equipment and gun mounts for?" Then the phone call happens...the base commander says..."They were doing what on the base??"...I mean he doesn't want to get his career jeopardized.....more phone calls...then the inevitable...
this could be serious if they are actually driving them......and....
"I didn't know they would get them running"..(even if received that way)
Career protection is important.
It's like Don Smith's tank. It was on loan. But they never called it in because they seized all his equipment he loaned them. (Actually the Base Borden Museum operator did.) So they left it alone. But they don't forget.

In the Museum's case they were clawed back with an obscure reason.

PS

[servicepub (RIP)]

I guess that I will wade in on this also. It was mentioned in an earlier post that the 'claw back' is due to the US ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations). Anybody who runs a military museum in Canada should be well aware of the effects this US Law has had on the private ownership of military goods in Canada. Under pressure from the US State Dept the Government of Canada amended the Defence Production Act by adding a section on Controlled Goods. These goods, to further confuse things, are listed in the Export and Import Permits Act list of goods controlled for export from Canada.
I don't think that DND gives a rat's ass about MilVeh collectors but their ITAR compliance office probably had a bird when they heard that the US-manufactured military goods had been loaned by the CWM to a third-party. If the affected museum really wants to have the M113, etc.., back they should apply for an export perrmit from the US State Department (Yes, I know, the goods are already in Canada, but that's the way these things work.) If 'State' approves the 'export' then the CWM can return the vehicles to the borrowing museum.
The above is the result of 6 1/2 years at Foreign Affairs dealing with these issues. You might not like the answer and we will all agree that it makes no sense, but that is the way it is.

[peter simundson]

a great reply which makes sense.
I wouldn't doubt this could also be used as an excuse to have equipment returned if they couldn't find a good reason otherwise.

PS

[RHClarke]

Originally Posted by peter simundson

a great reply which makes sense.
I wouldn't doubt this could also be used as an excuse to have equipment returned if they couldn't find a good reason otherwise. PS

I purposely stayed out of this "debate" as it could have an impact on the type of work I do (when contracted...). But now, I can't resist since Clive brought up ITAR.

Two things strike me - first, the use of the word "loan" and the people who are surprised when the loan is called in. Leaving that word aside, the second issue is that magic abbreviation ITAR. ITAR trumps loans of any nature and is not a battle the little guy can win. You are dealing with the force of law of a superpower that has the balls to back up its legislation - even in a foreign land (read Canada).

Dealing with ITAR issues raises a lot of confusion, and it keeps lawyers busy. This wonderful "device" was put in place partially to make sure that allies who use US kit do not dispose of it in such a way that the kit ends up being used by US enemies. Just imagine the looks on the faces of US troops when they look up and see US made armoured vehicles in the service of their enemy... If you think it couldn't happen, think again. I am sure others on this forum can cite an example or two. The US and Cdn governments take ITAR seriously and there is no wiggle room in my experience.

I am of the opinion that you would have a better chance of ramming a stick of butter up a wolverine's arse with a red hot poker, whilst naked than fighting an ITAR issue.

[Grant Bowker]

When I saw that DND was starting action to dispose of the M113 series I asked a contact about how/whether I could acquire a set of the manuals for the M113. I thought that if they were disposing of the vehicles, they shouldn't need the manuals so it should be a perfect oportunity to get a set of the Canadian (if different from US) manuals for the hardware. I was told that ITAR extended to manuals so I would be out of luck. The person who told me this rarely mixes fact with supposition, so I accept the statement as being an official (though not direct) pronouncement.
The odd part of this is that M113 manuals (US version) seem to be readily available on eBay. On one hand they are a controlled item, on the other they are for open distribution (not free, but not expensive)

[Lynn Eades]

I have heard on the news here that the ANZAC parade in Adelaide will not be allowing Military vehicles, this year, for the first time. The news reader cited "security issues" as the reason.

[lynx42]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

I have heard on the news here that the ANZAC parade in Adelaide will not be allowing Military vehicles, this year, for the first time. The news reader cited "security issues" as the reason.

Lynn, More information please. I haven't heard of that decision.
I have been supplying ex-military vehicles for country Victorian ANZAC DAY parades for the past 24 years. I arrange it for 5 different towns in my area. So I would like more information.
I also belong to the Wartime Vehicle Conservation Group of SA Inc., the Victorian Military Vehicle Corps Inc. and am President of the Khaki Vehicle Enthusiasts Inc.
Thanks Rick

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

I have heard on the news here that the ANZAC parade in Adelaide will not be allowing Military vehicles, this year, for the first time. The news reader cited "security issues" as the reason.

We're really getting off topic now, but.........

It's actually the Army which will be withholding their vehicles for OH&S reasons. Private vehicles are welcomed by the RSL. See the article HERE.

[servicepub (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Grant Bowker

When I saw that DND was starting action to dispose of the M113 series I asked a contact about how/whether I could acquire a set of the manuals for the M113. I thought that if they were disposing of the vehicles, they shouldn't need the manuals so it should be a perfect oportunity to get a set of the Canadian (if different from US) manuals for the hardware. I was told that ITAR extended to manuals so I would be out of luck. The person who told me this rarely mixes fact with supposition, so I accept the statement as being an official (though not direct) pronouncement.
The odd part of this is that M113 manuals (US version) seem to be readily available on eBay. On one hand they are a controlled item, on the other they are for open distribution (not free, but not expensive)

In a government-world-of-its-own kind of way this makes sense as the ITAR only controls the export and not the (US) domestic ownership or transfer. Other domestic US agencies may have their own controls over some military goods, i.e., mortars and artillery for example which are classed as destructive devices by the ATF. That said, e-bay sellers who ship the manual out of the States are in violation of the US law.
Clive

[Lynn Eades]

How far back does this go? Does this apply to parts and manuals for a WWII jeep or Dodge?

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Grant Bowker

When I saw that DND was starting action to dispose of the M113 series I asked a contact about how/whether I could acquire a set of the manuals for the M113.

I was told that ITAR extended to manuals so I would be out of luck.

The odd part of this is that M113 manuals (US version) seem to be readily available on eBay. On one hand they are a controlled item, on the other they are for open distribution (not free, but not expensive)

The Actual US Legislation details the items that are covered. Clause 126.5 details that there are exemptions for Canada End-Users (only) for unclassified items. If the manuals are classified (written on the cover) then they require an EUC to export. However, if the manuals are a Canadian published version applicable to the Canadian variants, I'm doubtful that ITAR would apply within Canadian borders.

Lynn, although the Act was revised in 1992, there is no mention in the act of age or date of manufacture of the items concerned, or an exemption for a particular cut-off date. Makes sense, as a 1941 made M2 Browning .50 cal would be just as critical as a 1991 made version.