John Leroy SKOBERG

SKOBERG, John Leroy

Personal Data

Party
New Democratic Party
Constituency
Moose Jaw (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
February 2, 1926
Deceased Date
August 12, 2012
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Skoberg
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=c3dee5fe-7684-4bc1-9f50-3f66f0bf8721&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
locomotive engineer

Parliamentary Career

June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
NDP
  Moose Jaw (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 190)


September 1, 1972

Mr. Skoberg:

Mr. Chairman, this matter must be clarified in the House if we are to act responsibly. We hear this government talk about industrial peace. As far as I can see, we do not know whether the old agreement will be in effect until the new agreement is signed. By not proclaiming this section of the bill what we are saying to those people is that they should go on strike, because they will have to go on strike before this government sees any necessity to proclaim Part II of the bill. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely urge the minister to give some protection to the working people of Canada, as well as to the employers if they need it, so far as lockouts may be concerned.

If we do not give some protection to those people out there we will deliberately frustrate the intent of the labour bill we discussed earlier this year. We talked about the preamble in that bill and what we were going to do for the people, but we know now that they will be working without a contract until the declaration of a strike. Surely, this parliament could include a clause which would ensure that the old agreement will be in effect. Surely, we could do that much if we expect any consideration whatsoever. If we do not do that I feel confident that these people on the west coast will say to hell with this government and any legislation it may pass. This is the type of thing that brings about industrial conflict and confrontation, and that is not what we want in Canada.

What is wrong with a simple amendment introduced by the government that will leave the old agreement in effect? Who are we trying to protect? I cannot understand a situation in which we cannot do anything that will protect all the parties at the same time. I am bothered when it is suggested that this clause will not be proclaimed until something happens. There is the suggestion that this may occur, but I suggest that the Alberta Wheat Pool and the UGG agreed to the amount of money involved in the conciliation board report. They are now backtracking because these companies thought they could get off the hook by letting the government bring in legislation. I do not think this House should be blackmailed into a position along those lines. That is not why we were called back here.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Full View Permalink

August 31, 1972

Mr. Skoberg:

Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with Clause 8 I think we should consider something that pertains to the future. Many of us have expressed an opinion on more than one occasion about the importance of recognizing grain as being extremely important to our national economy. Before we pass Clause 8 we should give some direction to the government in respect of the future move-

August 31, 1972

ment of grain. We realize that when there is a tie-up involving the export of grain and other commodities people begin to talk about a national disaster leading to a confrontation. I suggest that the government should accept its responsibility in this regard instead of passing it on to someone else. If the government did this there would be no reason for passing legislation to handle this type of situation.

In recognizing the extreme importance of our export markets we should consider the position of the middleman in the movement of grain. We should decide whether this man is interested in making profits from moving grain and other commodities out of the country. We might also consider the idea of nationalizing our ports and adopting a comprehensive transportation policy.

All this could be looked into by a committee vested with authority to look into the general picture and problems affecting the whole movement of cargoes through ports in Canada. It has been noted in the past that people in the port of Vancouver would rather unload U.S. goods than Canadian goods. It has been suggested that grain could be handled separately. I am sure all members of the House would agree to a study to determine the effectiveness of moving grain as an item separate from general cargo.

With those remarks I should like to move:

That Clause 8, Part II be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:

"provided however that before December 31, 1972, the government shall initiate a study under the Inquiries Act into the possibility of separating grain from general cargo, such grain to be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board."

There may be some question whether grain should be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board or the National Harbours Board. We support the contention that the Canadian Wheat Board should be made responsible for such handling. If it is to be responsible for moving our grain into export position and making sales, it should be given the authority to move grain through the Port of Vancouver and other Canadian ports. We recognize the importance of this situation, and this amendment would require that some consideration be given to the setting up of a study to determine a better method of moving grain out of the country.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Full View Permalink

June 9, 1972

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):

Can the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, say whether or not he is aware if the government has been in consultation with the Canadian Airline Pilots Association regarding a possible boycott of those nations now harbouring hijackers?

Topic:   HIJACKING-CONSULTATION WITH CANADIAN PILOTS ASSOCIATION REGARDING POSSIBLE BOYCOTT OF NATIONS HARBOURING HIJACKERS
Full View Permalink

June 9, 1972

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):

Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister with regard to the hijackings that have been going on. If all reasonable efforts fail-and I mean reasonable efforts because Canada is recognized by the world's nations as being reasonable-in reaching agreements with other countries now harbouring hijackers, can the minister say if Canada would consider cancelling the landing rights of aircraft originating from countries that are not prepared to return hijackers immediately?

Topic:   AIR TRANSPORT
Subtopic:   HIJACKING-POSSIBILITY OF CANCELLATION OF LANDING RIGHTS FOR AIRCRAFT FROM COUNTRIES NOT WILLING TO RETURN HIJACKERS
Full View Permalink

June 9, 1972

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):

Can the Acting Prime Minister say whether or not the government has given high priority to the allocation of funds to provide comprehensive security measures in Canada?

Inauiries of the Ministry

Topic:   HIJACKING-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE SECURITY MEASURES
Full View Permalink