Municipal District of Taber councillors got to use the Farmers’ Advocate late last week as a sounding board in a special meeting in council chambers.
Jim Kiss, a representative with Farmers’ Advocate Office with Agriculture and Rural Development with the Government of Alberta, was on hand to give a presentation to the M.D. on what The Farmer’s Advocate offers, and wanted to know what issues were popping up in the area.
On the top of the list for attending councillors was drainage and dealings with the farm-implement industry. Alteration of natural drainage on parcels of land within the M.D. has been a long-standing bone of contention for frustrated M.D. councillors and staff.
“We have been called into disputes over that, although Alberta Environment would be the lead on that. It’s usually neighbour-to-neighbour type drainage issues,” said Kiss.
Deputy reeve Ben Elfring noted the M.D. has ran into drainage complaints for the last few years with relief not on the immediate horizon, especially as the snow melts from one of the harshest winters in recent memory.
“We have some impressive land down here that is very, very expensive and we get farmers who want to farm every square inch of it and they don’t care what it’s going to cost them to drain that land and who it’s going to affect,” said Elfring. “We’ve got a couple, three or four instances of that, and it’s frustrating because people come back to the M.D., and basically our hands are tied.”
Be it runoff or irrigation water in drainage problems, no one wants it on their land, added Coun. Duff Dunsmore, as ditches are altered without asking for permission.
“People are becoming a little more cacooned. It’s not as much about relationships with your neighbour anymore,” said Kiss. “That social licence is coming to agriculture. You find out fence disputes are never about the fence.”
Under the Farm Implement Act, which is consumer-protection legislation which Farmer’s Advocate houses, it sets out availability of repair parts for 10 years for new farm implement purchases and leases under Section 8 of Implied Warranty.
“I purchased a tractor back in the ’90s from a company that was swallowed up and we couldn’t get clutch parts for it twice. We went through such a process to get parts for that tractor and it was a good tractor. Do you think 10 years is even long enough?” asked Coun. Dwight Tolton to Kiss. “I don’t think many of us buy stuff thinking we are going to throw it away in 10 years. My issue is when a company buys another company and they’ll say, ‘You know what, we’re not going to get parts for this’,’ can we fight them?”
Kiss admitted when the legislation was drafted, the timeframe was a debated point, in which there is likely no perfect storm of a timeline.
“We tried to pick a number that was reasonable for both sides of the equation,” said Kiss. “You have to find the right balance.”
Kiss added to aid farmers, Farmer’s Advocate has an obsolete-parts directory for older equipment past the 10-year threshold.
Dunsmore brought up a situation in which he wrecked an unloading auger on a combine and there were a few places that had them, but none in southern Alberta.
“Went through five dealers before finding one that would lease it because they’re saying, ‘Well, we want to keep that for our customer.’ We ended up gong to Grande Prairie to get an unloading auger,” said Dunsmore. “There were none in factory. That’s a bit of a concern (conglomeration) because if you have a bunch of individual dealers around, they are more likely to work with you. I don’t think it’s about individual dealers... you can’t carry a part for everything, but this idea that they don’t really have to work together if they don’t have to, I don’t like that idea very much.”
Kiss responded there are some rules in place that say a 72-time frame for parts. If that part can’t be delivered in 72 hours then something like a loaner  or rental in the mean time while the machine is being fixed.
“You take a harvest like we had last fall and 72 hours is a long time for a part,” said Dunsmore.
“That is the tricky part with the fine line in the act, is what is required regulation and what is customer service,” answered Kiss.
Tolton chimed in and stated Alberta needs a better distribution system, much like the one Saskatchewan has for its farm implements.
“It’s not accidental that the warehouses are in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan government made it a rule that the warehouses had to be there for distribution. How many are there in Alberta? I think zero,” said Tolton. “The bus line service is getting worse and worse and Saskatoon isn’t exactly the most handiest place to get parts from now. It has to come down and across instead of going on the Number 9 across. It works better for Calgary and Edmonton, but not down here. We need a distribution centre in Alberta.”