Quebec Transport Ministry + MV owners

[rob love]

I drive a military vehicle daily to work on the highway, either the HMMWV or the M38A1CDN3. I will also tow my 105 with the old deuce a couple times a year. All are capable of cruising at 55, and I have not felt like I have been an impediment to the other vehicles, although they do prefer to go 10-20kms over the 90km speed limit. If a rule like this were to come to Manitoba, I would be landlocked....the highway is the only road leaving my place.



I note on the SAAQ website, it says the word "can" as opposed to must or shall for the first paragraph re what can be registered with C plates. Is there an advantage to C plates? Are they exempt from safeties, or do they get a reduced rate? Or is it merely a collective to remove vehicles that are not as fast as todays vehicles form the roadways.



I note the regulations state "no turret or weapons mounts. " Would having the GPMG mount on a M38A1 preclude you from having to get a C plate?.



Hopefully this nonsense does not make it out to Manitoba. Things are a little more laid back here. We also have MAAC (Manitoba Association of Auto Collectors) who are very involved in discussions with autopac re keeping the vintage vehicles on the road.

[Robin Craig]

I have had some looking around and discussion with others and would like to offer the following to the debate from what others have said to me

The SAAQ is looking at military vehicles by named type, non standard VIN's and mostly, was there ever a civil counterpart IMPORTED to Canada ( i.e does it have a Transport Canada Civil import classification )

For example, only three civil Iltis were imported to Canada, but, these are listed as VW type 183's and have a standard VW VIN, the rest are easy to find, as the have a DND number. The VW type 183s are exempt from this new rule.

If it has no civil road going counterpart, like a half track, Ferret etc, no C plate will be issued. If it has a weapons mount ...again, no C plate, its being pulled off the road

Imported Unimogs also get swept up easily as few early non-military types were imported, and Transport Canada has never authored commercial import as a truck...only in the classification of tractors

Same goes for anything that has no civil counterpart by Year of Manufacture, so you might get away with a an MB if it was a 46 ( first year of CJ-2) or an M-38A1 ( CJ-5) but only if the VIN doesn't trigger the SAAQ data base...an earlier MB will get a C plate, but, not if it has a pedestal mount for example, and its possible, as there was no civil variant before '46, that they are off the road, but the feeling is that they will be C plated

There is an appeal process , but that might be lengthy

To the guy in BC with the Ferret...BC has a an Act within the ICBC and Road users legislation that covers any vehicle that is Armoured. Basically, no armour is allowed unless engaged in transportation of valuables by a licensed company ( Brinks et al )

This legislation is on the books to prevent gangs from armouring their cars against gunfire, are issues in BC.

There is an appeal process for a case by case exemption, but he has to write to the minister of Transport BC with an explanation to why he needs it

Quebec does not use English Common Law ....the inverse is true under Quebec Civil Law, if its not prescribed, Quebec’s view is that its not legal ( therefore, new legislation is easy to create and enforce)

It is not so much the regulators it is mostly a lack of understanding of the vehicles themselves.

To what level SAAQ regulatory staff have much training or skill in separating classes and vehicle types is debateable, so the more general they can be, the easier it is to pass a regulation. This legislation could be changed by a group making a petition for adjustment, but , it would have to be a Quebec group showing why their MV's should be treated like any other vehicle

As it stands until this a former DND Iltis had to be modified to meet Quebec road safety standards before a licence was issues ( mostly lighting ).

In closing, in most cases in most provinces and territories, registering a vehicle for use on the road is a privilege not a right, nor is having a drivers licence. This is highlighting that, and reminds me that we should value what we have. I feel sad for those in Quebec who have to endure this.

[Harry Moon]

And of course any correspondence with Quebec authorities, written, email or otherwise must be in French....

[Harry Moon]

Who Does Not Require a Permit for an Armoured Vehicle?

Under the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Regulation, you can operate an armoured vehicle without a permit while performing your job if you are a:

Police officer
Armoured car guard
Government employee operating an armoured vehicle as part of your job
Diplomat
Licensed vehicle salesperson or registered motor dealer
Certified mechanic with a repairer’s license
You also do not need a permit to operate an antique-plated armoured vehicle or a military vehicle covered by the Defense Production Act.

[M38CDNBill]

Hi,

In France, the HMVs owners lived the same problem between 2002 and 2006 with the Sarkozy Law. Here is a short article about this law that was challenged with success by the authorities of the French Federation of vintage vehicles (FFVE) and the MVCG France.

https://www.ffve.org/dossier_vehicules_militaires

Cheers

[M38CDNBill]

Again me,

In this article published yesterday in the Journal de Montreal, Minister Bonardel states that it was the manufacturers of these vehicles who warned the government. "It was the suppliers themselves who wrote to us to tell us how dangerous it could be if there was an accident" he insisted.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...aide-bonnardel

If that is true, then we can assume that the government authorities of the other provinces of the country were also notified by these manufacturers/suppliers. For colleagues from other provinces, do you think that your government authorities have also received such letters?

[Grant Bowker]

Originally Posted by M38CDNBill

"It was the suppliers themselves who wrote to us to tell us how dangerous it could be if there was an accident"

Is it too cynical to suspect the corporations are mainly concerned with the danger to their financial well-being rather than any possible danger to the operators of the vehicles or members of the public?