Page 1 | 2

[Cliquez ici pour le texte en français]
[<< Previous]
In the industry as a whole, the pattern of ownership was quite
diffuse, with many companies in operation. The situation
contrasted with that in the Nova Scotia coal industry. There, a
process of consolidation had begun in the 1880s, finally
leading, after the First World War, to the emergence of a single
dominant corporation, the British Empire Steel Corporation (Besco).
The industry in Nova Scotia had struggled under much greater
production costs than in the West, where the expense of mining,
especially on the plains, was relatively small. While high costs
encouraged concentration in the Maritimes, the emergence of
steel-making there also provided the coal industry with the
prospect of a large market, justifying expansion and
consolidation.3
No comparable market developed in the West after the early
expansion of the railways. The population of the prairies was
dispersed and did not support the regional industrial
development that would have greatly increased the demand for
fuel. For this reason, even the steam coal companies faced
limited prospects after the first decade of the 20th century and
outside investors did not have the motivation to sink further
funds into the industry in order to consolidate it.1
The dispersed nature of control
in the coal industry was harmful to operators in several ways.
In the Crowsnest Pass, the inability of the various companies to
co-operate weakened them in negotiations with labour,
particularly in the years before 1914 when the labour movement
was growing in influence. This same factor, in the long run,
tended to weaken enterprises and keep prices low. In the Pass,
the large concerns at Coleman,
Blairmore, and
Hillcrest vied for
the patronage of the CPR. On the plains, the situation became
destructive, especially during the Depression of the 1930s when
government-sponsored efforts to form producers' cartels were
unsuccessful in preventing price-cutting wars. Even before this
time, the frequency of failed enterprises was high as developers
with limited funds struggled with the costs of excavation and
mechanization in the face of uncertain fluctuating markets.
After considering the problem in 1919, a provincial royal
commission recommended the creation of a body to advise
prospective owners on investment and thus forestall further
failures. Unfortunately, nothing was done
.2
Ultimately, coal producers made
decisions in an environment largely controlled by outside
forces, especially the railways and the state. The policies of
the railways restricted the size of the market and tended to
depress the price for coal. By maintaining high freight rates,
the CPR, and later the CNR, discouraged the coal industry from
expanding into markets in eastern Canada and elsewhere. As major
consumers with alternative sources of supply, the rail lines
were also able to influence the price of coal. For instance, the
CPR forced Alberta steam coal producers to cut prices in 1886
when prices for Pennsylvania coal dropped. In the 1920s, the
existence of the American supply was once again used by the CPR
and the CNR to force producers to drop prices at a time when the
industry was struggling to maintain markets.3
The industry was also vulnerable
to the policies of the state. Faced with long distances to
markets beyond the prairies, producers would have benefited from
a favourable federal government policy encouraging the sale of
Western coal. This encouragement might have taken the form of
freight subsidies or higher protective tariffs to keep out
American coal. However, the tariff was never raised high enough
to keep out the foreign product. Subsidies were never great
enough to overcome the high costs of transportation.4
Given the restrictions posed by
the market and the role of the state, entrepreneurs thus faced a
limited range of choices. Their decisions were instrumental in
determining the expansion of the industry and in encouraging
local development in the vicinity of the various coalfields in
the region. As we shall see in the next sections, they also made
key decisions regarding technology
and the employment of labour.
They could not overcome the limitations of their environment,
which restricted the scope for expansion. However, the
entrepreneurs did play a substantial role in the development of
the coal industry in Alberta and southeastern British Columbia,
and this important facet needs to be recognized in evaluating
coal mining sites.
William N.T. Wylie, "Coal-Mining Landscapes: Commemorating
Coal Mining in Alberta and Southeastern British Columbia," a
report prepared for the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of
Canada, Parks Canada Agency, 2001.
|