DND Repossession(Rant )

[Ed Storey]

It appears that your rant is based on some form of dispute you have with DND concerning MV ownership with a side order of unhappiness towards the CWM. I think your ownership issues may also be with your provincial Ministry of Transportation as well.

Yes, as you stated, I do provide volunteer assistance to the CWM, although I will reassure you that I am not in any way offended by the comments. Although if you want to effect change and have your voice heard concerning CWM issues beyond this forum, then you should explore other mechanisms to do that. Your support to the 30 May event will be greatly appreciated and perhaps having your MVs there will encourage other members of the public to get into the hobby or be more aware of MV restoration. I look forward to seeing your vehicles.

I am unsure as to what you are defending yourself against as all I was asking was that you provide some details for the basis of your rant. For instance, if you had a copy of the loan agreement that DND uses with museums then we could all benefit from knowing the facts and could comment on them rather than just getting spun-up on some second hand details of a mystery e-mail from a 'friend'.

As a self-professed "green fever addict" I would have thought that you would have been a member of MVPA; for if you were, you would be familiar with the articles that I have written for "Army Motors" and in a recent edition a photograph of myself outside of the D-Day Museum in Portsmouth. That is Portsmouth, England. You asked if I have ever been to a vehicle museum in the US or Europe, hmm, do these count...?

England

IWM, London
IWM, Duxford
AAC, Middle Wallop
Tank Museum, Bovington
D-Day Museum, Portsmouth
RE Museum, Chatham
NAM, London

Belgium

Army Museum, Brussels
Liberation Museum, Knokke Heist

France

Les Invalides, Paris
Pegasus Bridge, Normandy
JUNO Beach Centre, Normandy
Victory Museum, Caen

Croatia

Technical Museum, Zagreb

US

USMC Air-Ground Museum, Quantico
USMC National Museum, Virginia
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland
Fort Lewis Military Museum, Washington State
US Intelligence Museum, Arizona

I am a member of MVPA as not only do they specialize in the collection and preservation of MVs, but they are also advocates in the legislation towards responsible MV ownership.

[Tony Smith]

Before things get too heated, let's look again at the original thread. An item was on LOAN to a museum, and it was asked to return it to the original owner (presumably the CWM, but possibly still the DND). End of story, full stop. I don't see anything subversive or underhand in that transaction. It wasn't sold, gifted or donated to the smaller museum, and both parties understood where ownership lay. It doesn't point to a hidden agenda by the CWM, the DND, or the Government at large (although it doesn't rule one out either!). It was part of a larger collection that could not be displayed, and was provided on loan to another museum that could display it. I think that is quite generous and a sign of co-operation between two museums with a similar charter. Knowing that the smaller museum did not own the borrowed item, it would have been wise only to allocate enough resources to bring the item up to a standard fit to display.

The question of ownership of items displayed in any museum is always an issue. Quite often items are bought outright with money from donations to the museum or from it's own accounts, or the item is gifted to the museum free of any conditions. In these cases, the museum is free to do with the item as it pleases, within it's own charter. However, where the items are lent to the museum, or bequeathed, or gifted with conditions, then the museum is bound by those conditions that applied to the acquisition process. If the vehicles mentioned are covered by an End-User Certificate, then the CWM may have breached their conditions of acquisition of the vehicles by on-lending to a third party, and are being forced to comply with the conditions. Certainly, the M113 vehicles would be under a US EUC, and if it does not list the 3rd party museum, then even the DND would be in breach. If the DND were to consider the consequences of breaching an International Arms agreement just for the purposes of appeasing a small museum, I'd hazard that the museum will always come off 2nd best.

I'm currently going through the process of negotiating an EUC to export an item, and it's not too difficult if supported with the appropriate paperwork. I would suggest the Museum in question contact the DND, and in conjunction with the CWM, apply to have the terms of the EUC modified to include themselves. Paperwork can be a PITA, but it's just paper and sometimes it's necessary to jump through some hoops to acheive an outcome.

Lynn's mention of the New Zealand M113s is a case in point. The original sale to a private buyer/dealer for re-sale was vetoed by the US State Department because the buyer did not have an EUC, and could not apply as the final owners of the vehicles could not be identified at that stage. It was presumed at the time that this was a closed door. Some vehicles were preserved in NZ Army hands, but I understand that at least one NZ private citizen has applied for an EUC and been granted ownership of one of the M113s, but with stringent conditions regarding uses and re-sale specified on the EUC. It is not the final say, just the conditions that are currently in force for that owner. A future application to amend the use or for re-sale will be necessary, and provided all the paperwork is in order, it will in all likelihood be granted.

[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)