49799 5
INTERIM REPORT
STATISTICAL EXAMINATION-
OF
CERTAIN GENERAL CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORTATION BEARING ON TRE
MIC PROBLEM OF THE PROPOSED
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL
BY
W. 8ANFOED EVANS
Chairman, Georgian Bay Canal Commission.
1916
PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT.
OTTAWA
'PRINTED BY J. m L TACHË, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST
EXCELLENT MAJESTY
' 1916
[No. 196—1916.] Price, 20 cents.
' ''6 / j -| ,
PROPOSED GEORGIAN BAY CANAL
IN RELATION TO
FT. WILLIAM
PORT ARTHUR
6 GEORGE V
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
A. 1916
INTERIM REPORT
STATISTICAL EXAMINATION
of
CERTAIN GENERAL CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORTATION BEARING ON THE
ECONOMIC PRORLEM OF THE PROPOSED
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL
by
W. SANFOKD EVANS
Chairman, Georgian Bay Canal Commission.
1916
PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT.
OTTAWA
PRINTED BY J. de L. TACHÉ, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST
EXCELLENT MAJESTY
1916
[No. 196—1916.]
6 GEORGE V SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b A. 1916
TABLE OE CONTENTS.
Page
Royal Commission ®
Introductory Statement 9
Scope of Report - 9
F. eight Traffic to and from Lake Superior. ..." 13
Distribution of Traffic by Lake Districts / • • ■
Total Traffic by Lake Districts i 14
Canadian Traffic by Lake Districts 16
United States Traffic by Lake Districts 18
Number, Capacity and Nationality of Vessels 20
Development of Canadian Carriers 20
Total Traffic by Nationality of Vessels 22
Distribution by Nationality of Vessels, according to Lake Districts... 23
Load Factor ....'. 25
General Load Factor in Lake Superior Trade 26
Monthly Distribution of Eastbound and Westbound Traffic 26
Load Factor of Canadian Traffic - . 28
Load Factor of Canadian Vessels ' 30
Vessels Carrying Canadian Grain 33
Total Traffic by Principal Commodities 36
Traffic to and from Lake Michigan . 39
Future Development of Traffic ... i 44
Wheat and Flour 44
Shipments to Europe .! 45
Sources of Supply 50
Tendencies affecting Price 51
Conditions affecting Cost 58
The Routing of Export Wheat 62
.Causes of Diversion 64
Liners and Tramps 67
Ocean Freight Rates on Wheat 70
Competition on the Ocean 72
Effects on Canadian Wheat Exports 72
Load Factor on the North Atlantic 74
Ocean Freight Rates in 1915 77
Bank Returns in Canada ..... 80
Appendix, Stat'stical Tables 87
Precis Index of Hansard Debates, House of Commons and Senate 136
19b—It
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
DIAGRAMS.
Diagram No. . Title. Pagb
Proposed Georgian Bay Canal in relation to Transportation Routes.
Frontispiece.
1. East and Westbound Distribution of Total Traffic through Canals at
Sault Ste. Marie, 1913 15
2. Distribution by Lake Districts of Total Traffic through Canals at Sault
Ste. Marie. 1913 . ..- 16
3. Development of Canadian Vessels on Inland Waters 21
4. Monthly Distribution of Total East and Westbound Traffic through the
Canals at Sault Ste. Marie, 1911, 1912, 1913 27
5. Grain Shipments from Fort William and Port Arthur compared by
Monthly Percentages with Eastbound Movement of Total Lake
Superior Traffic 1 30
6. Distribution by Principal Commodities of Total Traffic through Canals
at Sault Ste. Marie, 1913 "... 36
7. Grain Shipments from Chicago by Rail and by Lake 41
8. Weekly Shipments of Wheat and Flour Averaged for nine years,
1905-1913 7 47
9. Weekly Shipments of Wheat and Flour from Chief Exporting Countries
Averaged for nine years, 1905-1915 49
10. Monthly Receipts of Wheat at Terminal Elevators, Fort William and
Port Arthur 51
11. Wheat in Store at Terminal Elevators, Fort William and Port
Arthur 52
12. Comparison between Total Shipments of Wheat and Flour to United
Kingdom from all countries, and Quantities of Wheat Marketed
at Fort William and Port Arthur 54
13. Monthly Quantities of Wheat Delivered at and Shipped from Fort
William and Port Arthur in Relation to Prices at Liverpool and
Winnipeg opp. 56
14. Freight Cars Engaged in Wheat Traffic 59
15. Labour Employed in Grain Traffic 60
16. Lake Vessels Engaged in Wheat Traffic 61
17. Eastbound Movement of Western Canadian Wheat 63
18. Direct and Indirect Exports of Western Canadian Wheat 66
19. Exports of Canadian Wheat from the Port of Montreal 68
20. Ocean Freight Rates on Wheat to United Kingdom from Chief Export¬
ing Countries opp 72
21. Ocean Freight Rates on Wheat, September to December, 1915, to
United Kingdom from Chief Exporting Countries opp 76
22. Monthly Returns of Canadian Chartered Banks, 1909 to 1914 opp 80
23. Principal Banking Accounts as Percentages of Total Resources, 1909
to 1915 opp. 82
24. Call Loans, Current Loans, and Deposits Elsewhere than in Canada,
as Percentages of Total Resources of Canadian Banks, 1909 to
1915 84
6 GEORGE V
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
A. 1916
COMMISSION
Appointing commissioners to inquire into and report upon the commercial feasibility
and national advantages to be derived from the proposed construction of a deep
inland waterway from the Georgian bay, Ontario, to the port of Montreal in
the province of Quebec.
Dated 18th March, 1914.
Recorded 1st April, 1914.
Lib. 212, Fol. 67.
THOMAS MTTLVEY,
Deputy Registrar General of Canada.
CANADA.
George the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, KING, Defender
of the Faith, Emperor of India.
To all to whom these presents shall come, or whom the same may in anywise concern,
Greeting,—
Wheireas in and by an order of His Royal Highness our Governor General in
Council, bearing date the eighteenth day of March, in the year of Our Lord One
Thousand Nine Hundred and Fourteen, provision has been made for a careful and
thorough inquiry by our commissioners therein and hereinafter named in respect of
the proposed construction of a deep inland waterway, providing for accommodation
for the large lake carriers from the Georgian bay, in the province of Ontario, to the
port of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, from the point of view of the commercial
feasibility and national advantages to be derived from such a waterway, and in that
connection to inquire into and consider the following questions, namely :—
1. A study of the transportation problem in relation to the proposed waterway;
to what extent can it help in developing the resources of the country.
2. The advantages of a large waterway from the lakes to the seaboard, open to the
largest type of lake carriers; the feasibility of these carriers navigating such water¬
way and the influence on the rate regulation of transport, especially upon cheaper
commodities which the country produces.
3. The competition of the waterway with the railways; effect on railways, by
creating new industries, on account of cheap transportation of low grade freight that
cannot be handled by rail, causing an expansion in industries, an increase to the popu¬
lation and a demand for a higher class of freight seeking transportation by rail.
4. The probable volume of traffic available on account of the natural advantages
of such waterway, which would be the shortest and deepest water route from the head
of the Great Lakes to the seaboard for the largest lake vessels and the probable length
of the open navigation season through this waterway.
5. Traffic of the Great Lakes; how it reaches the seaboard. The percentage of
Canadian traffic handled through United States ports, and causes for this diversion.
5
6
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
6. Lake transportation; rates that obtain; lake and rail rates as against all rail
rates; also a comparison "with an all water route rate; also a comparison between the
proposed Georgian Bay Ship Canal route and all the competing routes in existence
and in course of construction and their capacity; comparative cost of transportation
per ton mile, rail, lake and rail, and all water.
7. A comparison of the volume of traffic that may be handled by water as against
the rail routes within the same period. Possible economic advantages of such a
waterway.
8. The position of the Northwest; Fort William and Port Arthur being the
objective point of all lines running through the wheat belt. Plow the situation at the
head of the lakes would be ameliorated; would an all water route from Fort William
to the seaboard, for largest lake vessels, be the natural complement of the present
water and rail routes?
9. The position of the existing and projected Gulf Lines via Galveston, what
their influence would be regarding diversion of traffic from the lakes and St. Lawrence
route. The effect upon the movement of the traffic by the opening of the Hudson
Bay, and Pacific and Panama routes.
10. The conditions that exist at the Atlantic seaboard, Canadian and United
States, as to handling traffic, and1 as to ocean and insurance rates.
11. 'Interprovincial trade. The facilitating of trade between the provinces. The
Northwest to supply Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime Provinces with wheat at a
cheaper transportation rate; Ontario and Quebec to supply in return the product of
their manufactures, whilst it will perhaps be possible for Nova Scotia to supply coal
to some Ontario points at a cheaper freight rate than it now costs to bring it from the
United States, effecting a great saving to the country.
12. The iron industry and other mineral resources; the deep waterway as a factor
in their development.
13. Pulp industry and the possibility of development.
14. The tendency to manufacture at the base of supply; «the possibilities along
the route of the waterway where raw material that cannot be transported by rail at a
low rate is available. The easy development of large water powers at dams, for manu¬
facturing purposes.
15. New territory opened in the Northwest and the requirements to move the
grain crop in the future to open market; the cost of transporting wliea'.' from
important centres in the Northwest to head of lakes.
16. Storage at the head of the lakes and the seaboard; extent of terminals required.
17. Markets, general statistics, synopsis of history of deep canals; their trade
development.
18. Generally speaking, the commercial feasibility of the proposed waterway.
Now Know Ye that by and with the advice of our Privy Council for Canada,
we do by these presents nominate, constitute and appoint William Sanford Evans, of
the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, financial agent; Frank Stephen
Meighen, gentleman, and Edouard Gohier, merchant, both of the city of Montréal,
in the province of Quebec, to be our commissioners to conduct such inquiry;
to have, hold, exercise and enjoy the said office, place and trust unto the said William
Sanford Evans, Frank Stephen Meighen and Edouard Gohier, together with the
rights, powers, privileges and emoluments unto the said office, place and trust of right
and by law appertaining during pleasure,—And we do further nominate, constitute
and appoint the said William Sanford Evans to be the Chairman of the said Com¬
mission.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
7
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
And we do hereby under the authority of the revised Statute respecting inquiries
concerning public matters confer upon our said Commissioners the power of summon¬
ing before them any witnesses and of requiring them to give evidence on oath or on
Solemn affirmation if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters, and orally or
in writing, and to produce such documents and things as our said Commissioners
shall deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are hereby
appointed to examine. And we do hereby further authorize the said Commissioners
to employ such technical and professional ■ assistants as they may deem necessary in
connection with the inquiry. And we do hereby require and direct our said Com¬
missioners to report to His Eoyal Highness the Governor General in Council the result
of their investigation together with the evidence, if any, taken before them and any
opinion they may see fit to express thereon.
In testimony whereof, we have caused these our letters to be made patent and
the great seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness: Our Most Dear and Entirely
Beloved Hncle and Most Faithful Counsellor, Field Marshal His Eoyal Highness
Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, Duke of Connaught and of Strathearn; Earl
of Sussex (in the Peerage of the United Kingdom) ; Prince of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland; Duke of Saxony, Prince of Saxe-Coboung and Gotha;
Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter; Knight of our Most Ancient and
Most Noble Order of the Thistle; Knight of Our Most Illustrious Order of St. Patrick;
One of our Most Hono'urable Privy Council; Great Master of Our Most Honourable
Order of the Bath; Knight Grand Commander of Our Most Exalted Order of the
Star of India; Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael
and St. George; Knight Grand Commander of Our Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire; Knight Grand Cross of Our Eoyal Victorian Order; Our Personal Aide-de-
Camp; Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of our Dominion of Canada.
At our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this eighteenth day of March,
in the year of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and fourteen and in the fourth
year of Our reign.
By Command,
THOMAS MULVEY,
Under-Secretary of State.
Honourable Robert Rogers.,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir,—Pending tbe completion of the statistical survey of the principal facts and
conditions entering into the transportation problems referred to the Georgian Bay
Canal Commission, which it was arranged should be undertaken as preparatory to
the work of the Commission, I heg to submit the following Interim Report covering
such matters as have already been submitted to examination.
Tours respectfully,
W. SANFORD EVANS.
Ottawa, 1916.
6 GEORGE V
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
A. 1916
INTERIM REFORT, GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION.
By W. iSanford Evans, Chairman, Georgian Bay Canal Commission, 1916.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.
Under the authority of Parliament, a survey and investigation of the practic¬
ability and probable cost of the long-mooted proposition to construct a deep waterway
from Georgian bay to the harbour of Montreal, by way of the French and Ottawa
rivers, was initiated in 1904 under a board of engineers. In 1909 this board submitted
a report (Georgian Bay Ship Canal Report upon Survey, with Plans and Estimates of
Cost, 1908), the plans providing for a waterway 22 feet deep, with a length of 440 miles,
in which there would*be 28 miles of canal excavation, 66 miles of channel dredging, and
346 miles of river and lake; with 127 locks of a minimum length of 650 feet, with 65
feet clear width and 22 feet clear depth, the lift ranging from 5 feet 'to 50 feet ; and
with a minimum water supply in the summit basin, capable of being increased, which
would permit of 20 lockages per day throughout a season of about 210 days. ' The cost,
originally placed at $100,000,000, was, in view of increases in the cost of materials,
subsequently estimated at $125,000,000.
In 1914 a Royal Commission was issued, in the terms already set forth, for a
report upon the " commercial feasibility " of such a canal, and in general upon many
elements of the transportation problem in Canada. The engineers had reported that
the canal was practicable, but the report of the Georgian Bay Canal Commission was
to be upon the question whether or not it would pay Canada to spend $125,000,000
upon this public work.
A reasonable judgment upon the economic feasibility of any proposition must be
based upon a careful study of facts and upon an equally careful estimate of tendencies
and possibilities of development. As many of the conditions which constitute the
economic factors of a problem such as this have not previously been statistically studied
in Canada, and are not adequately set forth in any existing compilations, it was con¬
sidered desirable to collect anid arrange certain important classes of facts as preliminary
to the consideration of any conclusions by the commission, and even as preliminary
to the holding of public hearings. An arrangement was accordingly made by which
the chairman of the commission undertook this preparatory statistical survey, anid
this interim report, sets forth some of the facts so far examined. It is not a report on
conclusions, but rather a general introductory statement of part of the case to he
argued, and takes the form of a summary statement, illustrated by diagrams, and an
appendix containing tables of figures. It is submitted at this stage for constructive
criticism and for suggestions as to other essential matters to be taken into considera¬
tion so that the case may be made complete. As soon as the most important funda¬
mental facts are available and within the knowledge of those interested, argument
can profitably be heard', and in due time, and after full public hearings, the Georgian
Bay Canal Commission will present its report.
Siriope of this report.—Great public works, such as railways and canals, may be
undertaken for political, military, or economic reasons. The terms of Confederation
imposed on the Dominion Government a political obligation for certain works of
this kind. Military purposes have led to very large expenditures .on transportation
9
10
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
facilities in many countries, and perhaps neither military nor the higher political
reasons should be overlooked in conection with any public work. The present ques¬
tion, however, is whether there is an economic reason for a Georgian Bay canal.
A canal is constructed to carry traffic and from the national standpoint might have
economic justification
(1) If existing traffic facilities are congested, or in danger of congestion within
a period of time for which provision should now be considered, and if the proposed
canal offers adequate and satisfactory additional facilities.
(2) Even if actual congestion is not threatened, them if a sufficiently great volume
of traffic! is likely to be affected by the building of the canal so that the decreased cost
or the increased convenience will bear a remunerative relation to the capital invested.
Under this heading there would be two inquiries :—
(a) As to the volume of traffic that would probably use the canal itself;
(b) As to the volume of traffic likely to be affected by the competitive influence of
the canal, through the effeat of -the new route on the rates and conveniences of other
routes.
(3) If its construction would probably promote the development of traffic to a
greater extent or at a more rapid rate than an alternative improvement in facilities,
and to a degree commensurate with the cost.
(4) If ira connection with its construction collateral assets or benefits might be
created, of which water-powers may be taken as one example, which, properly appraised,
might so supplement the traffic advantages as to make the total national return appear
profitable. '
This interim report does not deal with possible collateral values created by the
building of the proposed Georgian Bay canal, whiah must later be inquired into, but
solely with the problem of traffic.
Again, this report does not deal with the important questioni of local traffic, but
only with the problem of through traffic. A canal might enable the population along
its banks to receive and ship goods on better terms than at present and might lead to
a marked increase of population in that district and to the establishment of new
industries; and it might also further the development of such natural resources as
that district may contain. To the extent to which it is a net addition to the sum of
national well-being, and is not accompanied by a corresponding loss elsewhere or is not
only a transfer from one point to another, an economic advantage to a section of the
population or to a limited district may be counted a national advantage. But it must
not cost too much and the burden of the cost must be properly placed. The natural
resources of the territory tributary to the proposed canal should be carefully investi¬
gated, and an estimate made of all probable local gains. In this report, however, only
facts and conditions bearing on the general traffic problem of Canada are under
examination.
The proposed Georgian Bay «anal would form a new channel in the St. Lawrence
and Great Lakes water-route from the Atlantic ocean to the heart of the North Ameri¬
can continent. Over certain of the existing channels of this greatest of inland water¬
ways there now passes an enormous volume of traffic. Some of this is Canadian traffic
and some United States traffic. Some of the vessels are of Canadian or British
registry, and some of United States registry. These vessels freely use all canals and
improvements in the waterways, without distinction because of the nationality of the
vessel or the national ownership of the canals or deepened channels, and, within the
restrictions of the coasting laws, some traffic of Canadian-origin is carried in United
States vessels, and some traffic of United States origin is carried in Canadian vessels.
This great waterway is paralleled to the north and to the south throughout its whole
course by many railway lines, which also carry an enormous traffic of mixed national
origin and destination.
<GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION"
11
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Among the materials necessary as a basis for a reasonable judgment on the econ¬
omic feasibility of the canal in its relation to general traffic, there should be facts
covering the following points :—
fl) The magnitude of the total traffic of both countries that now so moves and
that may in the future so move as to fall within the sphere of influence of such a canal.
Traffic of Canadian origin or destination, that is, traffic that enters into Canadian
trade, should be differentiated from United States traffic in order that it may be con¬
sidered separately, for the national advantage to Canada of benefits conferred on Cana¬
dian traffic would be much more direct and would be calculated on broader grounds
than would the advantage to Canada that might be incidental to benefits conferred
on United States traffic.
(2) The routes now followed by traffic and the causes of the present distribution.
If necessary in order to discover these causes, the goods must be traced from their
point of origin right through to their ultimate destination, even if this involves a
study of transportation conditions on the ocean and of the methods and demands of
foreign markets.
(3) The classes of goods now constituting the traffic, and the possibilities of
increase in each of these classes and of the addition to the traffic of new classes' of
goods.
(4) The present nature and probable tendencies of railway competition against
the water routes.
The traffic that would probably feel first and most directly the influence of a new
canal is the traffic that now passes by water between the East and the West in North
America. This report represents the results of an investigation of this waterborne
traffic along the above general lines. No detailed study of the rail-borne traffic and of
railway competition has yet been made.
In the summary statement no attempt is made at exhaustive treatment, but rather
the facts of a single year or with respect to a single article are selected to illus-
iiie general conditions found to exist, and diagrams are freely used. Indeed,
much of the report is but an explanation of the diagrams. In the appendix are given
tables of statistics, some compiled direct from original material and some taken from
various authoritative publications, which will in most cases provide material for a
much more extended study. The year 1913 has been chosen for special attention, first
because the traffic movement was greater in that year than in any other, and second,
because 1913 was the latest complete year before the disturbances created by
the war, and witnessed the fullest manifestation of the tendencies of what may be
called normal times. Normal conditions must be understood before the abnormal can
be rightly judged.
There is included in the appendix also a precis index of Hansard Debates of the
House of Commons_and the Senate on the Georgian Bay Ship Canal, 1902-13.
A.s many other problems, beside that of the Georgian Bay canal, depend upon the
same fundamental facts, it is possible that the material herein presented may prove of
interest in more than the one practical direction.
In this report, the quantities, and not the values, of freight traffic are taken into
consideration, whenever these can be obtained, and less attention, is paid to freight
rates than to the general conditions that underlie freight rates.
It is the weight, or the bulk, of freight traffic that chiefly creates a transportation
problem, and not its value. Cargoes and carloads are measured by tons and not by
dollars. To illustrate: In the fiscal year 1912-13, Canada imported unset diamonds
to the value of If put into one package, these diamonds- would probably
weigh about 44 pounds, and the whole package could be thrown into the corner of the
1 Report of the"Department of Customs, Trade and Navigation, year ending March 31, 1913,
p. 354.
12
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
small safe in one express car. Im the same fiscal year, Canada imported large quantities
of soft coal, aggregating over five times the value of the diamonds. Taking for com¬
parison the quantity of soft coal which at the entered price would give a value equal
to the diamonds, we have a freight tonnage of 1,923,175 tons. According to the report
of the Department of Railways and Canals,1 there were in that year on all the railways
in Canada a total of 14,746 coal cars, with an average capacity of 38J tons. If all these
cars were assembled to carry the above amount of coal, each car would have a little
over 3£ loads. Put in another way, if these cars were made up into trains of forty cars
each, and twelve such trains were despatched per day, it would' take 104 days to move
the load. Here we have a big transportation problem, whereas the same value ini dia¬
monds offers no transportation problem at all, but only an insurance or police problem.
It may be much more profitable for a country to produce or trade in goods that must
be weighed by ounces or pounds, but it is only tons, no matter what their value, that
can fill vessels or cars and that require new canals, deeper channels, more railway
lines and heavier rails and bridges.
Freight rates do not always explain traffic movements, and are sometimes symptoms
rather than causes. A relative cheapness of rates will not always divert traffic: from
other routes; for traffic-often seems to move upstream against higher rates. There
are many conditions which determine the routing of traffic, and it is impossible to
reach sound practical conclusions by studying freight tariffs alone. What has been
sought in the present investigation is the causes of traffic movements, whether these
causes have manifested themselves in freight rates or not. There may be artificial
interferences with the operation of these fundamental causes, such as may arise from
the exercise of governmental regulation on the one side, or from conferences, affili¬
ations, pools, or combinations on the other, but it has not been possible in the time to
trace the influence on the courses of traffic that may have been exerted by these means.
i Railway Statistics, year ending June 30, 1913, p. 139.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
13
FREIGHT TRAFFIC TO AND FROM LAKE SUPERIOR.1
The principal volume of waterborne traffic between the East and the West Lit. North
America passes back and forth through the Sault Ste. Marie canals, and it -an there
be conveniently measured and analysed owing to the admirable statistical reports2
prepared under the direction of Lt.-Col. Mason M. Patrick, Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Army, covering the traffic of both countries through all the canals, and of the Cana¬
dian Department of Railways and Canals3 dealing specially with the traffic through
the Canadian canal.
In diagram 1 is represented in graphic form the total freight traffic of Canada and
of the United States combined, passing through the canals at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
and Michigan, during the season of navigation of the year 1913.*
Fig. 1 shows the total freight traffic divided into eastbound and westbound traffic.
Of a total freight traffic of 79,718,344 short tons, there passed eastbound 59,205,853
tons, and westbound 20,512,491 tons. Among the points to be noted are:—
(1) The magnitude of this traffic. In tons of cargo and in net registered tonnage
of vessels, the traffic through the Sault Ste. Marie canals during somewhat less than
eight months of open navigation greatly exceeded the twelve months' total of any other
canal or of any single port in the world. Its figures, so far as narrow waterways are
concerned, are apparently surpassed only by those of the Detroit river,2 which, in addi¬
tion -.o carrying over 87 per cent of the traffic which also passes through the Sault
Ste. Marie canals, carries traffic to and from lake Michigan, lake Huron, and Georgian
bay and local traffic for Detroit river ports. A direct comparison in freight tons with
the traffic through the Suez canal is not practicable, but the net registered tonnage of
vessels passing through the Suez canal in the year 1913 was 20,033,884 tons, while
the net registered tonnage of vessels passing through the Sault Ste. Marie canals in the
navigation season of the same year was 57,989,715 tons.
(2) The distribution of traffic as between eastbound and westbound, the ratio
being 2.88 to 1.
(3) The growth of the traffic. In the appendix4 are given detailed figures for
1911 to 1915. In 1890 the total freight traffic was 9,041,213 tons; in 1900, 25,643,073
tons, and in 1913, 79,718,344 tons.
Fig. 2 shows the origin of the traffic." No matter what the original national source
or the ownership of the goods may be, the traffic! originating at Canadian ports is, in
accordance with the commonly accepted definition, called Canadian traffic, and is
represented in solid black ; while the traffic originating at United States ports is called
United States traffic, and is represented by the hatched portions of the figures. Out
of a total eastbound traffic of 59,205,853 short tons there originated at Canadian ports
0,103,847 tons, or 10.30 per cent. Out of a total westbound traffic of 20,512,491 tons
therp originated at Canadian ports 771,410 tons, or 3.27 per cent. Of the total east-
boiund and westbound traffic combined, 6,875,257 tons, or 8.62 per cent, was of Cana¬
dian origin.
1 Appendix Tables 1-17, pp. 87-102, Statistics, 1911-15.
2 Annual Statistical Reports of Lake Commerce, passing through canals at Sault Ste. Marie,
Ontario and Michigan, with a Supplementary Report of commerce passing through the Detroit
River.
3 Canal Statistics.
4 Appendix, Table 1, p. 87, Statistics, 1911-15.
t> Appendix, Table 2, p. 87. Statistics, 1911-15.
14
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Fig. 3 shows the destination of the traffic,1 that is the freight shipped to Canadian,
ports as compared with the freight shipped to United States ports. Of the total east-
bound freight, 6.11 per cent, or 3,619,636 tons, was destined to Canadian ports in the
east ; while of the total westbound freight, no less than 29.02 per cent, or 5,954,388 tons,
was destined to Canadian ports in the west.
It will he noted that there are marked differences in the relative proportions of
traffic in figures 2 and 3. It is evident, for example, that a much smaller amount of
freight arrived at Canadian ports in the east than was shipped from Canadian) ports
in the west, the difference being 2,484,211 tons. This means that a large amount of
Canadian freight, eastbound, was shipped to United States ports, and that there was
not a corresponding amount of United States freight shipped to Canadian ports. The
heavy shipments of Canadian grain and flour to United States ports are not offset by
any correspondingly large movement of United States traffic, at least from the Lake
Superior district, to Canadian ports. On the other hand, nearly 7£ times as much
freight arrived at Canadian ports in the west as was shipped from Canadian ports in
the east, the difference in this case being accounted for chiefly by the large shipments
of United States coal to Canadian ports in the west.
Distribution of traffic by lake districts.—Leaving the St. Marys river the traffic
eastbound divides, one portion diverging to ports on lake Michigan, one to ports on
lake Huron and Georgian bay, a very large portion to lake Erie ports, while the bal¬
ance goes to ports on lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river. Westbound, streams
of traffic converge from all these districts. It has not so far been found practicable to
work out the traffic belonging to each individual port, but the material is- available for
estimating the traffic of ports grouped according to lake districts.
It is clearly important to understand how existing traffic by water is routed.
Traffic between lake Michigan and lake Superior will probably, for example, prove to
have little bearing on the problem of a Georgian Bay canal ; and again, the traffic now
received at and shipped from lake Erie ports must be examined with a view to determin-.
ing to what extent this routing is due to the fact that the commodities constituting
the westbound traffic; originate in districts directly tributary to lake Erie, and to whet
extent the eastbound traffic now received at those ports is influenced by fundamental
causes, such as consumption demand or the existence of through export facilities.
With regard to the traffic with lake Huron and Georgian bay and with lake Ontario,
it will he important also to inquire what proportion belongs to local districts that
could not be served by an alternative route through a Georgian Bay canal. At this
stage, however, only the general facts of distribution will he presented.
Total traffic by the lake districts *—In diagram 2 is shown the total eastbound traffic
through the Sault Ste. Marie canals during the season of navigation of 1913, divided
according "to the lake districts to which the freight was shipped, and the total west¬
bound traffic divided according to the lake districts from which the freight was shipped.
Comparing the quantity shipped to lake Erie in the eastbound figure with the quantity
shipped from lake Erie in the westbound figure, the relation of outward to returni car¬
goes with respect to that lake district is indicated; and so with each of the other lake
districts. The preponderance of the traffic with lake Erie ports is strikingly
apparent.
Of a total eastbound freight traffic of 59,205,853 tons, there was shipped to ports
m lake Erie, 49,427,101 tons, or 83.48 per cent; while of a total westbound traffic of
20,512,491 tons, there was shipped from ports on lake Erie, 19,297,105 tons, or 94.07 per
cent. Of the combined total of eastbound and westbound traffic of 79,718,344 tons the
traffic; between lake Erie and lake Superior amounted to 68,724,206 tons, or 86.2 per cent.
Traffic with lake Michigan ports comes second in total amount, although it is only
about one-twelfth as great as the traffic between lake Superior and lake Erie, the figures
1 Appendix, Table 3, p. 88, Statistics, 1911-15.
2 Appendix Table 4, pp. 88-90, Stat!stics, 1911-15.
Diagram No. 1.
EAST- AND WESTBOUND DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL TRAFFIC
THROUGH CANADIAN AND AMERICAN CANALS AT
SAULT STE MARIE.NAVIGATION SEASON 1913
FIG. I BY TOTALS
M WESTBOUND
~ I ^ ' i v^C 771.410 TONS - U.S -19.741 081 TONS
t.l'IriCen-neiiji-ncMMH 'J T
Ep:
\
FIG 3 BY PORTS OF DESTINATION
WESTBOUND
5954.388 TONS-U.S 14,558,103 TONS
16
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
being 6,704,080 tons, or 8.40 per cent. Eastbound tbere was shipped to lake Michigan,
6,376,535 tons, or 10.77 per cent of the total, and from lake Michigan ports westbound
there was shipped 327,545 tons, or 1.59 per cent of the total westbound freight.
Of the combined total eastbound and westbound, the traffic, between lake Huron
and Georgian bay and lake Superior amounted to 2,885,890 tons, or 3.62 per cent. To
lake Huron and Georgian bay ports there was shipped eastbound, 2,445,945 tons, or 4.14
per cent; and westbound from lake Huron and Georgian bay ports, 439,945 tons, or
2.14 per cent.
Of the combined total eastbound and westbound, the traffic between lake Ontario
and St. Lawrence river and lake Superior amounted to 1,404,168 tons, or 1.76 per cent.
To lake Ontario and St. Lawrence river ports there was shipped 956,272 tons, or 1.61
Diagram Ho. 2.
DISTRIBUTION BY LAKE DISTRICTS OF TOTAL TRAFFIC
THROUGH CANADIAN AND AMERICAN CANALS AT
SAULT STE. MARIE, NAVIGATION SEASON 1913 ,
per cent, and from lake Ontario and St. Lawrence river ports there was shipped west¬
bound 447,896 tons, or 2.18 per cent.
Canadian traffic by lake districts4—Of a total traffic of Canadian origin amount¬
ing to 6,875,267 tons, 48-33 per cent, or 3,322,534 tons was traffic to and from lake Erie
ports. Traffic with lake Huron and Georgian bay ports came second, with 2,361,375
tons, or 34.34 per cent. Traffic with lake Ontario and river St. Lawrence ports
amounted to 1,107,317 tons, or 16.10 per cant. From Canadian ports on lake Superior
to ports on lake Michigan there was shipped '34,031 tons or 1.22 per cent of the total.
In this traffic with lake Erie nearly all the freight was eastbound, very little freight
westbound having originated at the Canadian ports on that lake. Lake Ontario and
river St. Lawrence ports supplied a little over one-half of the westbound traffic, namely,
394,148 tons, or 51.09 per cent of the total Canadian westbound traffic. Lake Huron
and Georgian bay ports supplied 353,395 tons, or 45.81 per cent.
1 Appendix. Table 6, p. 91, Statistics, 1911-15.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 17
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
The particulars are as follows :—
Toïal Canadian traffic by lake districts—Navigation season, 1913.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
From lake Superior
eastbound to
To lake Superior west¬
bound from
713,169
394,148
11-68
51 09
3,298,667
23,867
64 04
309
2,007,980
353,395
32 89
45 81
84,031
1-38
6,103,847
771,410
Combined total
1,107,317
16 10
3,322,534
48 33
2,361,375
34-34
84,031
1-22
6,875,257
Of the total traffic originating at Canadian ports which was shipped to Canadian
ports1, lake Huron and Georgian bay had 52-10 per cent, lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence river, 29-02 per cent, and lake Erie, 18 -87 per cent. When the westbound
shipments are examined separately, lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river stand first
with 52-93 per cent, and then follow lake Huron and Georgian -bay with 44-08 per
cent, and lake Erie with 2-97 per cent. The particulars are as follows:—
Canadian traffic to Canadian ports by lake districts—Navigation season 1913.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent,
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Pei-
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
From lake Superior
eastbound to
To lake Superior west¬
bound from
Combined total. . .
713,169
388,666
23 29
52 93
694,592
21,867
22-68
2-97
1,654,098
323,700
54-02
44-08
3,061,859
734,233
1,101,835
29-02
716,459
18-87
1,977,798
52-10
3,796,092
Of the traffic originating at Canadian ports which was shipped to United States
ports,2 no less than 84-63 per ctnt was traffic with lake Erie, nearly all being east-
bound grain shipments from Fort William and Port Arthur to United States ports on
that lake. The eastbound shipments to United States ports on lake Huron are also
chiefly gTain to Port Huron.
1 Appendix, Table 6, p. 92, Statistics, 1911-15.
2 Appendix, Table 7, p. 93, Statistics, 1911-15.
19b—2
18 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
The particulars are as follows :—
Canadian traffic to United States ports by lake districts'—Navigation season 1913.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
From lake Superior
east-bound to
To lake Superior west-
5,482
14 74
2,604,875
2,000
85 60
5-38
353,882
29,695
11-63
79 87
84,G31
276
3,041,988
37,177
Combined total
5,482
17
2,606,875
84 63
383,577
1246
84,931
273
3,079.165
United States Traffic by Lake Districts}—Practically 90 per cent of all traffic
originating at United States ports moves between lake Erie and lake Superior. Some
large shipments of iron ore go to lake Michigan, and there are grain shipments to lake
Michigan, to lake Huron and Georgian bay and to lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
river. Principally because of its coal shipments, lake Erie supplies 97-63 per cent of
all United States traffic carried westward.
The particulars are as follows :—
Total United States traffic by lake districts—Navigation season 1913.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
From lake Superior
eastbound to
To lake Superior west¬
bound trom
243,103
53,748
•46
•27
46,128,434
19,273,238
S6-86
97 63
437,965
86,550
■82
•43
6,292,504
327,545
11-85
1-66
53,102,006
19,741,081
Combined total
296,851
•41
65,401,672
89 78
524,515
■72
6,620,049
908
72,843,087
The chief features of United States traffic shipped to Canadian portsa are the
large shipments from lake Erie, principally coal, the shipments of grain to. lake Huron
and Georgian bay and to lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river. Part of this grain
is Canadian grain shipped via Duluth and Superior, but as the shipment is from a port
in the United States it is from the transportation standpoint United States traffic.
i Appendix, Table 8, p. 94, Statistics, 1911-15.
9 Appendix, Table 9, p. 95, Statistics, 1911-15.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 19
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
The particulars are as follows:—
United States traffic to Canadian ports by lake districts—Navigation season 1913.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
17 13
97'64
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
From lake Superior
eastbound to
To lake Superior west¬
bound from
196,495
43,374
35 '23
•83
95,548
5,097,086
265,734
3,694
47-64
■07
557,777
5,220,155
76,001
1-46
Combined total
239,869
4-15
5,192,634
89-87
269,428
4-66
76,001
1 31
5,777,932
United States traffic shipped to United States ports1 may be examined in the fol¬
lowing table :—
United States traffic to United States ports by lake districts—Navigation season
1913.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
From Lake Superior
eastbound to
To lake Superior west¬
bound from
46,608
10,374
■08
•07
46,032,886
14,176,152
87-61
97-62
172,231
82,856
•33
'57
6,292,504
251,544
11-97
1-73
52,544,229
14,520,926
Combined total....
56,982
•08
60,209,038
89 78
255,087
■38
6,544.048
9-75
67,065,155
i Appendix, Table 10, p. 96, Statistics, 1911-15.
19b—2J
20
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
fi GEORGE V, A. 1916
NUMBER, CAPACITY AND NATIONALITY OF VESSELS.
How many vessels were engaged in 1913 in the carrying of the enormous freight
tonnage which passed through the Sault S te. Marie canals? Of what types and sizes
were these Vessels, and how does the classification of 1913 compare with the classifica¬
tions of earlier years ? How many were Canadian vessels and how many United States
vessels, and how did they compare as to capacity and what proportions of the traffic
were carried by each? These and many other points must prove of practical interest
and perhaps of great importance.
The development in type of vessels employed in the lake Superior trade will indi¬
cate the results of experience in economy and efficiency of transportation. The division
of the total traffic, or of the traffic on certain routes, between Canadian and United
States vessels will throw light on the nature and limits of national competition in the
carrying trade under the present coasting laws and the existing conditions of trade.
What is the present " load factor " of vessels in this trade, that is, how well filled are
they on the average, how does the load in one direction compare with the load in the
other, and on one route with another, and how is the load distributed in each direction
throughout the season? How does the "load factor" of Canadian vessels compare
with that of United States vessels? Such matters must be understood before the rela¬
tive development possible to the Canadian carrying trade can be estimated and before
the probable advantages or limitations of a new water route can be judged.
Development of Canadian carriers.—While by comparison with that of the United
States the Canadian mercantile fleet on the inland waters is small, it is yet of con¬
siderable size and its capacity has been steadily growing.1 In diagram 3 (fig. 1) is
presented the comparative increase in gross tonnage of vessels of Canadian and British
register engaged in the carriage of passengers and freight on the Great Lakes and con¬
necting waters, the river St. Lawrence between Kingston and Montreal, the Rideau
canal, and the Ottawa river between Ottawa and Montreal ; that is, on the inland waters
west of Montreal to the head of lake Superior.
Ini actual number of vessels there has been no great change in recent years, but the
type and size have improved. In the fiscal year 1899-1900 there were 242 vessels so
engaged; in 1905-06 the number was 270; and in 1913-14 the number was 265.
The size of the vessels thus registered for service on the above inland waters, as
measured by the aggregate gross tonnage, was, in 1899-1900, 90,924 gross tons; in
1905-6, 157,625 gross tons; and in-1913-14, 310,176 gross tons. In 1913-14 there were
five fewer vessels engaged than in 1905-6, but the aggregate size of the vessels had
practically doubled. Larger vessels had been substituted for smaller vessels. The
changes that have occurred in the aggregate eize of vessels in the different classes,
according to gross tonnage, are set forth in fig. 2 of diagram 3.
The great increase in capacity has been in the class of vessels of over 2,000 tons
gross register (say, over 1,250 tons net register) and since 1908-9 the capacity of this
class of vessels has been greater than that of any other class. A marked increase has
also taken place in the aggregate capacity of vessels between 1,000 and 2,000 tons gross
register. There has been an actual falling-off in the class of vessels between 500 and
1,000 tons gross register, while the capacity of vessels under 500 tons gross register has
remained fairly constant, but in this smallest class the number of vessels has greatly
decreased, showing that many of the very smallest vessels have been discarded and
somewhat larger vessels substituted.
l Appendix, Tabie 18, p. 103, Statistics, 1899-1914.
Diagram No. 3.
DEVELOPMENT OF CANADIAN VESSELS ON INLAND WATERS
GROSS TONNACE OF VESSELS REGISTERED IN CANADA & GREAT BRITAIN
ENGAGED ON THE GREAT LAKES AND CONNECTING WATERS. WEST OF MONTREAL.
FIG. I. COMPARISONS OF ACGREGATE TONNAGE.
1899-1900
FISCAL YEAR
NO. OF
GROSS
VESSELS
TONNAGE
1899-1900
242
90.924
1905-1906
270
157.625
1913-1914
265
310.176
1913-1914
FIG.?.
clas:
IFIED i
IY TON
4AGE
F ves:
ïELS.
•
/"*'
/
Vessels
under
betwM
500 to
n 500 ;
§ Ï
Thus.
)tons...
i
over
1.000
£000 t
- 2JMK
ms
. —-
-
y
/_j
fj
9
rJ.
4
w'
f t
1
D
i-mrmrt
'"""N
* 3
i ..
o
2
u 1899-00
1900 0
1901-02
1902-03
IS03-04
1904-Ub
1906-06
1906-0/
190/Ofc
908-09
909-10
1910-11
1911-12
LSI?-13
1913-14 0
FISC
AL
LAHt
90.924193.638198.7541103,6091116.8861147.6401157.625
13b, 337
183.6/6
220968125054612 58.39812637921295.8101 310.176
AGGREGATE GROSS TONNAGE OF ALL CLASSES OF VESSELS
w'1
z
Oc
1 o
.3$
ZD
O
22
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Of the above Canadian mercantile fleet, consisting in 1913^.14 of 265 vessels of
310,176 tons gross register, or 214,580 tons net register, there passed through the Sault
Ste. Marie canals in the navigation season of .1913,1 144 vessels of 170,558 tons net
register; that is, 54 34 per cent of the number and 79-48 per cent of the capacity, show¬
ing that the larger vessels in the Canadian fleet were engaged in the Lake Superior
trade to a greater extent than in the shorter trades:
In 1913,1 708 vessels of United States register, having a capacity of 1,807,412 net
registered tons, passed through the Sault Ste. Marie canals. Compared with the Cana¬
dian, they were 4-91 times as numerous; their value was 8-31 times as great; andi they
had 10-59 times the capacity. On the average the United States vessels were thus very
much larger than the Canadian, and had a relatively greater carrying capacity in pro¬
portion to capital invested. The United -States vessels carried 15-17 times* as much
freight as Canadian vessels, and were thus more heavily loaded or made a greater num¬
ber of trips. It should be noted, however, that Canadian vessels carried 47,825 passen¬
gers, while the United States vessels carried only 29,369 passengers. Kelatively there
were more passenger boats in the Canadian fleet. The particulars are as follows:—
Canadian Vessels.
Class.
No.
Valuation.
Tonnage.
Passengers.
Registered.
Freight
Short Tons.
141
3
$15,155,700
140,000
167,3S1
3,177
4,816,355
4,013
109,231
47,825
144
$15,295,700
170,558
4,929,599
47,825
United States Vessels.
594
114
$122,418,500
4,707,000
1,644,084
163,328
70,357,467
4,256,809
174,469
29,369
708
$127,125,500
1,807,412
74,788,745
29,369
852
$142,421,200
1,977,970
79,718,344
77,194
Total Traffic by Nationality of Vessels.'2—Of the total easthound freight traffic
through the Sault Ste. Marie canals in 1913, 3,389,860 tons, or 5-72 per cent, was carried
in Canadian vessels, and 55,815,993 tons, or 94-28 per cent, was carried in United
States vessels; while of the total westbound freight traffic, 1,539,739 tons, or 7-50 per
cent, was carried in Canadian vessels, and 18,972,752 tons, or 92-50 per cent, was car¬
ried in United States vessels. Of the combined eastbound and westbound total, 6-18
per cent was carried by Canadian vessels and 93-82 per cent by United States vessels.
Of the traffic originating at Canadian ports and amounting to 6,103,847 tons east-
bound and 771,410 tons westbound, Canadian vessels carried of the former 3,165,610
tons, or 51-86 per cent, and of the latter, 761,535 tons, or 98-71 per cent; or of the
1 Appendix, Table 11, pp. 97-98, Statistics, 1911-1915.
2 Appendix, Table 4, pp. 88-90, Statistics, 1911-1915.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
23
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
total eastbound and westbound combined, amounting to 6,875,257 tons, Canadian ves¬
sels carried 3,927,145 tons, or 57-11 per cent.
With, regard to traffic destined to Canadian ports, of the total of 3,619,636 tons east-
bound, Canadian vessels carried 3,286,109 tons, or 90-71 per cent; while of the total
westbound, amounting to 5,954,388 tons, Canadian vessels carried 1,515,437 tons, or
25-40 per cent. Out of the total eastbound and westbound combined, Canadian ves¬
sels carried 4,798,546 tons, or 50--12 per cent.
Because of the coasting laws, Canadian vessels of course carried all the Canadian
traffic destined to Canadian ports, but of the eastbound traffic originating at Canadian
ports which was shipped to United States porte, amounting to 3,041,98'8 tons, Canadian
vessels carried only 103,751 tons, or 3-41 per cent. Of the westbound traffic of Canadian
origin destined to United States ports, amounting to 37,177 tons, Canadian vessels
carried 27,302 tons, or 73-43 per cent.
Of the traffic originating at United States ports and shipped eastbound to Canadian
ports, amounting to 557,777 tons, Canadian vessels carried 224,250 tons, or 40-2 per
cent. Of the large westbound traffic of United States origin destined to Canadian
ports, amounting to 5,220,155 tons, Canadian vessels carried 778,204 tons, or 14-90 per
cent.
Distribution by Nationality of Vessels According to Lake Districts}—Traffic
between Lake Superior and Lake Ontario and Biver St. Lawrence ports is largely con¬
trolled by Canadian carriers. Out of a total eastbound of 956,272 tons, Canadian
vessels carried 749,364 tons, or 78-36 per cent-; and out of a westbound total of 447,896
tons, Canadian vessels carried 424,705 tons, or 94-08 per cent; or out of a combined
total of 1,404,168 tons, Canadian vessels carried 1,174,069 tons, or 83-61 per cent.
The traffic with Lake Huron and Georgian Bay ports is also largely controlled by
Canadian vessels. Of the eastbound total of 2,445,945 tons, Canadian vessels carried
1,820,349 tons, or 74-42 per cent; of the westbound total of 439,945 tons, Canadian
vessels carried 345,854 tons, or 78-61 per cent; or of a combined total of 2,885,890 tons,
Canadian vessels carried 2,166,203 tons, or 75-07 per cent.
Of the enormous traffic with lake Erie ports, Canadian vessels carried a very
small portion ; of the total eastbound business, 1 • 62 per cent, and of the total westbound
business, 3-81 per cent, and of the combined total only 2-24 per cent. Nevertheless,
Canadian vessels carried more tons of freight to and from lake Erie ports than to and
from ports on lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river.
With lake Michigan ports the traffic of Canadian vessels was relatively insignifi¬
cant.
i Appendix, Table 4, pp. 88-90, Statistics, 1911-1915.
24 INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
The particulars of distribution by nationality of vessels by lake districts are as
follows :—1
Total traffic and percentages carried5 iby Canadian and United States vessels accord¬
ing to lake districts—Navigation season 1913.
Direction.
National¬
ity of
Vessels.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons. »
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
Cent.
From lake Superior
Canadian.
U. S
749,364
206,908
78-36
21-64
804,353
48,622,748
1-62
98-38
1,820,349
625,596
74-42
25 58
15,794
6,360,741
•24
9976
Total eastbound....
To lake Superior
westbound from...
956,272
49,427,101
2,445,945
6,376,535
Canadian.
U. S
424,705
23,191
94 08
592
735,200
18,561,905
381
96 19
345,854
94,091
78 61
21 39
33,980
293,565
10-37
89 63
447,896
19,297,105
439,945
327,545
Combined east and f
westbound totals.. \
Canadian.
U. S
1,174,069
230,099
83 61
16 39
1,539,553
67,184,653
2-24
97-76
2,166,203
719,687
75-07
24 93
49,774
6,654,306
•75
99-25
1,404,168
68,724,206
2,885,890
6,704,080
i Appendix, Table 4, pp. 88-90, Statistics, 1911-1915.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
25
LOAD FACTOR.
Cost of transportation per -unit of cargo, and therefore the economic basis of
freight rates, must depend largely on the load factor obtaining for the carriers. If
a vessel has a full load each way on every trip it will operate at the maximum of
efficiency and at the lowest cost per unit of cargo. The load factor may fall short of
this ideal in two general ways ; there may be enough freight in one direction to furnish
full loads, but not enough in the opposite direction to furnish more than partial loads,
or the freight may be offered so irregularly in either direction or in hoth directions
that the loads vary throughout the season. To meet the requirements of any parti¬
cular "trade" there must be vessels enough to carry the maximum amount of freight
offering for shipment at any particular time. If, then, the freight does not continue to be
regularly offered throughout the season, but if, for example, the amount in one period
of the year is very much less than the amount in some other period, then the shipping
either will be uneconomically employed in the slack months, or vessels must be diverted
to other trades; and in either case average costs per unit of cargo will tend to be
increased. In the same way, if outward and return freights are unequal, the number
of vessels must be proportionate to the greater of these quantities, and the voyage in
the opposite direction will not be fully efficient, which likewise will increase average
costs per unit of cargo. Transportation costs per unit of cargo are therefore, other
things being equal, lowest in that trade offering the most favourable load factor.
Among the other general conditions determining costs are distance, or the comparative
length of the voyage, and time, which is not necessarily in exact proportion to the
number of miles to be travelled. We have thus three general factors affecting the
economic basis of freight rates and therefore the relative advantages of competitive
routes :—
(1) Distance, or the length of one rouite as compared with another. Certain
costs are almost directly proportionate to distance travelled. In long-voyage trades the
vessel can make fewer round trips in a season than in short-voyage trades, and must
distribute its season's costs over a smaller number of cargoes. Put in another way,
it takes a larger number of vessels to move "the same amount of freight in a season
over long routes than over short routes, and therefore the freight on the long route
must meet the costs of the larger number of vessels.
(2) Time, or the period necessary for a round trip. If navigation on one route
is rendered slower than on another because of obstructions, such as canals, or narrow
or shallow waterways, requiring slower speeds, the costs on that route as compared
with the more open route will be relatively higher. On the other hand, the length of
time a vessel must spend in port in a season in loading and unloading must be taken
into account. In short-voyage trades a vessel is in port more frequently than in long-
voyage trades, and a greater proportion of its time is spent in loading and unloading.
This will tend to modify the factor of distance in favour of the long-voyage trade. On
one route half as long as another route a vessel will not he able to make quite twice
as many voyages in a season because it will hâve to spend almost twice as much time in
loading and unloading.
(30 Load factor, as discussed above.
26
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
General load factor in the Lalce Superior Trade.1—Eastbound, in 1913, there
passed through the Sault Ste. Marie canals, 29,067,251 net registered tons of shipping,
carrying 59,205,853 short tons of freight. There were thus 2-03 short tons of cargo
for every net registered ton of vessel capacity. A net registered ton equals 100 cubic
feet of space, and the average long ton of freight is assumed to occupy 40 cubic feet.
According to these accepted standards of measurement it may be assumed that a vessel
can carry approximately 2J long tons of average freight per registered ton.2 There
are many passenger and package freight vessels in the Lake Superior trade in which
the freight capacity would fall mudh below the theoretical standard, and on many
occasions vessels of all classes must have sailed with comparatively light, loads. In
view of thpse conditions, and even allowing for the difference between the short ton
and the long ton, an average record for a total season of 2-03 short tons of cargo
- for every net registered ton that passed through the canals is remarkable. Such results
could occur probably only in a trade in which a large proportion of the freight con¬
sisted of heavy bulk commodities such as iron ore, of which, upon occasion, more
than 2i long tons could be loaded into each registered ton of space. In view of the
above figures it may fairly be said, therefore, that the freight boats in the Lake
Superior trade went east with full loads, and to this extent approached the ideal of
economic loading in that direction.
On the return trips westbound, however, only 20,512,491 short tons of freight
were carried, or only a little over one-third of the freight carried on eastbound trips.
The exact ratio was 2-88 eastbound to 1 westbound. In 1912 the ratio was 3-23 to 1,
and in 1911, 2-13 to 1. This disparity between eastbound and westbound traffic is a
departure from ideal conditions; but there are few trades in the world in which
freight is even approximately equal in both directions, and a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1
cannot be regarded as exceptionally unfavourable.
The second important condition of satisfactory traffic is the regularity with which
freight is offered throughout the season. A vessel might sail full on every trip it
made, but might not be able to make regular trips because freight was not available
at all times; or a greater quantity of freight might be offered in one month, necessi¬
tating the employment of a large number of vessels, while in some other month, or
months, comparatively little freight might be offered, causing the laying-up of certain
vessels or their diversion to other trades. The vessels remaining in the trade might
continue to carry good loads, but the general load factor of that trade would become
unfavourable.
Monthly Distribution of Ehstbound and Westbound Traffic}—In diagram 4 the
quantities of freight carried in each month of the navigation season are shown for the
years 1913, 1912, and 1911. The solid black columns represent the quantities of east-
bound freight, and the hatched columns the quantities of westbound freight. The full
months of open navigation on the Great Lakes are May to November, inclusive. Ordi¬
narily navigation is open for a week or two at the end of April, and, at increased insur¬
ance, the season is extended at least until the 10th of December. April and December
are thus short months. Comparing the heights of the solid black columns it is seen
that the eastbound freight is offered with great regularity, November showing the
smallest quantify, due to the falling-off in iron ore shipments after the first heavy
frosts. Still more remarkable under the conditions, however, is the evenness of the
westbound shipments. With only about one-third of a load for the mercantile fleet in
that direction, the westbound freight is distributed throughout every month of the
navigation season. The fleet could carry all the westbound freight in less than three
1 Appendix, Table 16, p. 101, Statistics, 1911-1915.
2 Buoyancy differs with types of construction and this theoretical standard could not often
be reached under actual loading- conditions.
Diagram Xo. 4.
MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF
TOTAL EAST AND WEST BOUND TRAFFIC THROUGH
CANADIAN AND AMERICAN CÂNALS AT
SAULTSTE.MARIE
28
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
months, but, instead, it receives about one-tbird of a load for each trip. The monthly
distribution of traffic in this trade therefore approximates the ideal, assuming that the
ratio of eastbound to westbound must be 2 or 3 to 1.
The detailed figures showing the tons of freight carried each month in relation to
the total net registered tonnage passing through the canals are as follows :—
Freight tons per registered ton by months—season of 1913.
EASTBOUND.
Month.
Net
Registered
Tonnage.
Freight Carried.
Freight
Tons per Ton
Registered.
April
568,591
4,116,487
4,301,178
4,379,149
4,036,966
4,073,226
4,233,721
2,868,919
489,014
1,098,123
8,332,178
8,855,821
9,107,569
8,263.273
8,348,801
8,675,590
5,574,135
950,363
1-93
202
205
207
2'04
204
204
194
1 94
May
July
September
October
December.
WESTBOUND.
April ....
May
.Time
July
August ...
September.
October ...
November.
December..
948,712
4,069,577
4,339,264
4,317,853
3,996,387
4,051,030
4,300,612
2,641,354
257,645
807,432
3,044,017
3,257,792
3,170,555
3,226,169
2,561,664
2,243,684
1,871,042
330,236
'85
- '74
'75
•73
•80
'63
•52
•70
1 28
The highly favourable general load factor in the lake Superior trade, due to the
satisfactory loading and to evenness of distribution throughout the season, must deter¬
mine the economic basis of freight rates in this trade, and must to a large extent domi¬
nate the whole problem of transportation on the Upper Lakes. If the routing of any
large proportion of the traffic in either direction were changed in such a way as to
alter the average load factor, then the economic basis of freight rates could not remain
what it was in 1913. The route with the more favourable load factor could at a certain
point successfully compete against the route with the less favourable load factor, even
against some decreased cost of navigation on the latter route. Again, if the load fac¬
tor presented by traffic of Canadian origin happened to be less favourable than the load
factor presented by traffic of United States origin, then Canadian traffic would tend to
be subject to somewhat higher costs if handled exclusively by itself. If Canadian
vessels attempt to operate on a less favourable load factor than United States vessels
then they must be content to earn less profits, or at times perhaps even no profits at all.
Load Factor of Canadian Traffic.—Taking by itself the traffic originating at Can¬
adian ports in 1913, we have 6,103,847 tons eastbound and 771,410 tons westbound, or
a ratio of 7-91 to 1. This may be compared with the general ratio for all traffic of both
Canadian and United States origin combined of 2-88 to 1. If the Canadian traffic had
been handled separately, the vessels which carried the eastbound load would on the
return trips have had only 12-64 per cent of their cargo space filled, instead of the
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
29
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
actual 34-75 per cent which, on the average, fell to all vessels engaged in the combined
lake Superior trade that season.
With traffic of United States origin, the ratio of eastbound to westbound in 1913
was 2-69 to 1. If this traffic had been handled entirely by itself, the vessels which
carried the eastbound loads would on the return trip have had 37-17 per cent of their
space filled. Traffic of United States origin therefore presented from the transporta¬
tion standpoint a much more favourable ratio than traffic of Canadian origin.
In 1911 the ratio with respect to traffic of Canadian origin was 4-09 eastbound
to 1 westbound; in 1912, 4-70 to 1; and in 1913, as we have seen, 7-91 to 1. During
these three years the ratio grew less favourable, due to the fact that the eastbound
shipments of Canadian grain increased to a much greater extent than the westbound
shipments of Canadian goods. With respect to United States traffic, the ratio in 1911
was 2-05 to 1; in 1912, 3-15 to 1; and in 1913, 2-69 to 1. In each of these years,
therefore, the ratio for United States traffic was more favourable than that for Cana¬
dian traffic.
The second condition for a satisfactory load factor is evenness of distribution
throughout the season. It is not practicable with the material now available to
present separate diagrams of the monthly distribution of Canadian traffic and of
United States traffic along the same lines' as diagram 4, which represents the monthly
distribution of the total combined traffic, but it is possible to give in tons the monthly
shipments of grain from Tort William and Port Arthur, which in 1913 were as
follows :—
As grain forms the greatest part of the Canadian eastbound traffic, the above
distribution may be accepted as approximately representing the distribution of east-
bound Canadian traffic as a whole. Diagram 5 presents, in the solid black line, this
monthly distribution worked out according to percentages, that is, the quantity
shipped in each month is reduced to a percentage of the total amount of Canadian
grain shipped in a season; and comparison is made with the distribution
in percentages, similarly worked out, of the total combined eastbound traffic, as
shown in the dotted line. Taking the months of May to October, for example, it
will be seen that only about 3-47 per cent of the total season's Canadian grain
load was carried in August,, while 24-54 per cent was carried in October, and that
wide variations existed also in the other months. But with the total combined traffic
the monthly percentages remained within remarkably narrow limits, varying only
between 13-96 per cent and 15i38 per cent. If we deduct Canadian grain from the
total eastbound traffic the range of the balance would be only between 13-64 per cent
and 16 -19 per cent in the same months. ' —.
It is evident, therefore, that the load factor presented by Canadian traffic is
much less favourable than that presented by United States traffic.
In this examination of traffic movement in the lake Superior trade, only general
totals are taken into consideration. Any general conclusions indicated by the statistics
here presented must be re-examined in the light of further analysis of details. In
the matter of load factor, for example, the nature of the freight shipped must be
taken into account. Bulk commodities and package freight present somewhat different
Tons.
April. .
May. .
June.. ..
July.. ..
August. .
September.
October. ..
November.
December.
305,260
703,704
316,718
415,110
191,160
209,927
1,353,071
1,172,559
845,942
Total
5,513,451
30
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
problems. United States traffic offers large quantities of bulk freight in both direc¬
tions, while the bulk freight of Canadian origin is practically all in one direction,
and consists of eastbound grain. This fact probably increases the unfavourable posi¬
tion of the load factor in Canadian traffic.
Load Factor, of Canadian Vessels.1—Under the conditions prevailing in the lake
Superior trade, actual and potential competition must exist between the mercantile
fleets of Canada and the United States. Operating side by side in the same waters,
there would be a tendency towards the same standards of service and of profits even
if, by legislation, the spheres in which the respective fleets could operate were kept
entirely separate. As it is, however, the coasting laws of the two countries leave
Diagram No. 5.
GRAIN SHIPMENTS FROM FT. WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR
COMPARED BY MONTHLY PERCENTAGES WITH
EASTBOUND MOVEMENT OF TOTAL LAKE SUPERIOR TRAFFIC
25%
20%
15:
10%
5%
0%
GRAIN
TOTAL
TRAFF1
I
imwwm\
1
■ ■■—J
h 1
■ ——i
j
1
1
i
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
open to competition all that portion of the traffic of the two countries which passes,
or can be made to pass, from a port in one country directly to a port in the other
country, either because the goods so shipped are destined to the latter country for
consumption or can pass in transit through that country on favourable terms. There
was thus open to competitiori in 1913, theoretically at least, all the traffic that was not
carried directly from one Canadian port to another Canadian port and from one
United States port to another United States port. Subtracting this coasting traffic
from the totals, there remained 3,599,765 tons eastbound and 5,257,332 tons west¬
bound open to competition. Canadian vessels were free, so far as legislative restric¬
tions are concerned, to carry all of this traffic, and so were United States vessels.
As a matter of fact this traffic was divided, the Canadian fleet securing 328,001 tons,
1 Appendix, Table 4-12 to 15, pp. SS-98 to 100, Statistics, 1911-15.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
31
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
or 9-11 per cent of the eastbound, and 805,506 tons, or 15-32 per cent of the west¬
bound, or 12-79 per cent of the combined total. In proportion to the relative carry¬
ing capacities of the two fleets, the Canadian fleet secured somewhat the larger share.
By adding competitive traffic in the above amounts to the traffic that exclusively
belonged to it as being billed from one Canadian port to another Canadian port, the
Canadian fleet changed an unfavourable load factor into one that was much more
favourable.
More important, perhaps, than the mere statistical examination of the facts of the
competitive division of traffic in the Great Lakes is the question of the extent to which
competition does or may determine the diversion of traffic. Canadian grain from Eort
William and Port Arthur for Europe can, for example, follow Canadian routes to a
Canadian ocean port, it can go to certain United States lake ports and pass back from
them to Canadian routes and ocean ports, or it can move through Canadian lake ports
to United States ocean ports, or can directly take United States routes to United
States ocean ports. The same is true of United States export grain from Duluth and
Superior. Goods destined for lake Superior from the Eastern States have under cer¬
tain conditions the choice between a Canadian lake port and a United States lake port.
These are but examples of the alternatives that enlarge the possibilities of competition.
How far do competitive conditions in lake shipping determine the-routing of such
traffic ?
Goods are routed by the shipper, and either at his own discretion or on instructions
of the consignee. In the routing, for example, of so much Canadian export grain to
United States lake and ocean ports, is the decision of the shipper determined by such
conditions as lower freight rates by United States vessels or to United States lake ports,
or by a shortage of suitable Canadian vessels, necessitating the engaging of United
States vessels which must sail to a United States lake port; or are the causes found,
not in the lake shipping conditions at all, but in facilities beyond the lakes, such as the
supply of ocean tonnage at the different ports of export ?
In the general facts now under consideration, certain points may be noted having
a bearing on these questions. The Canadian fleet, as it existed in 1913, carried all the
Canadian grain and other goods actually routed from one Canadian port to another
Canadian port, and in addition was able to carry eastbound 103,751 tons from Canadian
to United States ports and 224,250 tons from United States ports to Canadian ports,
and westbound picked up more than half its total load at United States ports. Again,
the Canadian fleet eastbound carried on the average only 19-87 freight tons per regis¬
tered ton of capacity, while the United States fleet carried 30-88 freight tons per regis¬
tered ton. Even making allowance for the proportion of passenger and package freight
boats, it would appear that the Canadian fleet could have carried a larger amount of
freight than it did carry, at least if the freight had been regularly offered. That on
the average for the season the Canadian fleet could have carried more Canadian traffic
to Canadian ports, if it had been so billed, does not, of course, mean that at times of
exceptionally heavy offerings of freight the Canadian fleet may not have been found
inadequate.
That the Canadian fleet shares in the competitive traffic shows that it is able to
meet competitive freight rates, and indeed it is obvious from all the facts that freight
rates in the lake Superior trade must tend to be the same for like services with all
vessels. If Canadian vessels could not, on the whole, give as favourable rates as United
States vessels, they could not, with the various alternative routings possible, hold even
the proportion of the traffic they carried in 1913. Two questions arise here : How are
Canadian vessels able to meet the rates of United States vessels, and why is the Can¬
adian fleet the size it is, that is, why is it not bigger or smaller ? The load factor the
Canadian fleet can establish must largely determine these matters.
If the Canadian fleet had carried all the traffic originating at Canadian ports, the
ratio of its eastbound to its westbound load would have been 7-91 to 1. If it had been
32
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
confined to the Canadian traffic routed to Canadian porta, the ratio would have been
4-17 to 1. Both these ratios would have been unfavourable as compared with the gen¬
eral ratio in the lake Superior trade of 2-88 to 1. The Canadian fleet actually secured
a ratio of 2-20 to 1. This result was due to its carrying eastbound only 3,165,610 tons,
or 51-86 per cent, of the traffic originating at Canadian ports, and in addition, 224,250
tons originating at United States ports, and carrying westbound practically all the
traffic originating at Canadian ports in the east, or 761,535 tons, which was 98-71 per
cent of the total westbound Canadian traffic, and then adding 778,204 tons loaded at
United States ports. The Canadian fleet carried eastbound a little more than one-half
the Canadian eastbound traffic, and carried westbound a little more than double the
amount of the Canadian westbound traffic.
The amount of Canadian traffic carried by United States vessels, although a
large percentage of all Canadian traffic, was relatively less important to the United
States fleet than was the United States traffic to the Canadian fleet. Eastbound the
United States fleet carried 2,938,237 tons, or 48-14 per cent of all the traffic origin¬
ating at Canadian ports, but this amounted to only 5-26 per cent of the total east-
bound load of the United States fleet. Westbound the United States fleet carried
only 9,875 tons of Canadian traffic, or 0-05 per cent of its total westbound load. Its
participation in Canadian traffic did not improve the general load factor of the United
States fleet, for the ratio between the eastbound and westbound Canadian traffic carried
by it was 297-54 to 1, but the Canadian traffic was relatively so small'that it could be
carried on occasional trips when other equally satisfactory cargoes did not happen
to be offering.
In comparing the ratio for the Canadian fleet of 2-20 to 1 with the ratio of the
United States fleet of 2-94 to 1, loading must be taken into account. Eastbound, as
we have seen, the Canadian fleet carried relatively lighter loads, and even westbound
it carried 9-03 freight tons per registered ton to 10-49 freight tons carried by the
United States fleet. On the other hand, it carried a bigger proportion than the United
States fleet of package freight, which is perhaps more profitable, and more passengers.
If the Canadian fleet had on the average a longer route than the United States fleet,
because more of its vessels made the long water trip to Montreal, this would modify
the appearance of the figures of loading, since the vessels on longer routes cannot
make so many trips in the season, and therefore cannot carry so many tons of freight.
But it is doubtful if the route of the Canadian fleet is quite as long as that of the
United States fleet, for the Canadian fleet carried 53-69 per cent of its load on the
short route to lake Huron and Georgian bay, and only 22-10 per cent to lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence River ports, while the United States fleet carried 87-11 per
cent of its load to lake Erie.
In their trade with lake Huron and Georgian bay ports, the Canadian vessels
carried 1,820,349 tons eastbound and 345,8-54 tons westbound, an unfavourable ratio
of 5-26 to 1. In their trade with lake Erie ports, however, the Canadian vessels
carried 804,353 tons eastbound and 735,200 tons westbound, which gives the -emark-
ably favourable ratio 1-09 to 1. In the trade with lake Ontario and River St.
Lawrence ports, Canadian vessels carried 749,364 tons eastbound and 424,705 tons
westbound, a ratio of 1-76 to 1. In the small trade with lake Michigan the Canadian
vessels carried eastbound 15,794 tons, and westbound 33,980 tons, or a reversed ratio
of 1 to 2-15. Lake Erie therefore offered the best load factor for Canadian vessels,
at least for the bulk freighters. The second best load factor was found in the trade
with lake Ontario and St. Lawrence ports, the westbound freight including 36,195
tons picked up at United States ports, and probably chiefly hard coal. The lake
Ontario boats westbound could, of course, pick up soft coal at United States ports
on lake Erie, but the carriage of soft coal is largely left to the bulk freighters, which
cannot at present engage in the lake Ontario and St. Lawrence river trade. Grain
freight rates on the shorter Georgian bay route are generally the same as to lake
Erie ports, but the longer route presents a more favourable load factor.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
33
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
On account of its containing a larger proportion of small andi medium-sized
vessels the Canadian fleet might appear to be at a competitive disadvantage so far as
economy of handling is concerned. Vessels up to about 2,000 tons net register are,
however, able to compete in the open lake trade, because they are better adapted to
the package freight business, and they besides have the trade through the Welland
and St. Lawrence canals entirely to themselves.
Vessels Carrying Canadian Grain.—Two special statements were prepared from
the official records at Fort William and Port Arthur covering the seasons of 1911-
12-13, the one containing the name, nationality, and registered tonnage of each vessel
carrying grain from those ports with the details of its cargo, the date of clearance
and the port to which it sailed, and the other containing the name, nationality,
capacity, and amount of cargo of each vessel delivering coal to those ports, with the
date on which each cargo was entered for unloading. Compilations of details in
these two statements are interesting in connection with a study of the real nature of
the traffic in the lake Superior trade and of the competition between Canadian and
United States vessels.1
The following table shows the tons of grain carried from Fort William and
Port Arthur in the season of 1913 by Canadian vessels and by United States vessels,
in each case classified according to net registered tonnage:—
Vessels Carrying Grain from Fort William-Port Arthur—Season of Navigation,
1913 (Classified).
Registered Tonnage
(Between). (
Number
of
Vessels.
Amount Carried
(Short Tons).
Percentage
of
Total Carried.
Canadian Vessels :—
15
67
11
1
5
111,145
1 1,582,673
429,386
120,720
463,791
4T0
58'45
15-85
4-46
17 13
1000 H 2000
2000 ,i 3000
3000 H 4000
4000 I, 5000
99
2,707,715
United States Vessels :—
-
1000 H 2000 .
25
17
74
38
31
2
228,636
267,075
935,465
596,316
513,336
25,052
8-91
10-41
36 46
23 24
20 00
0-98
2000 H 3000
3000 „ 4000
4000 „ 5000
5000 H 6000
Total
187
2,565,880
It will be noted that there were practically twice as many United States vessels
engaged as Canadian vessels, and that the United States vessels were on the average
very much larger in capacity, yet the United States vessels did not carry as much
grain as the Canadian vessels, the explanation being found in the fact that a major¬
ity of the United States vessels made only one trip with Canadian grain in the season,
l Specially compiled from statistics at the port of Fort William-Port Arthur, courtesy
Board of Grain Commissioners.
19 b—3
34
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
while many of the Canadian vessels were steadily employed in carrying grain through¬
out the season, one Canadian vessel having taken as many as twenty-eight loads.
The number of loads per month taken by Canadian and United States vessels
is as follows:—
Loads of Grain per Month from Fort William and Port Arthur.
Month.
April
May
J une
July
August
September..
October ...
November.
December..
Totals.
Canadian
Vessels.
United States
Vessels.
43
7
122
32
96
19
107
11
74
7
83
22
149
89
145
110
30
55
849
352
These figures illustrate the irregularity of grain shipments. Canadian vessels,
on the average, carried 8-57 loads for each vessel engaged, while the United States
vessels carried but 1-88 loads per vessel. The Canadian grain fleet was apparently
engaged to something approaching full capacity only in the months of May, October,
and November. In October, and particularly in November, shipments direct all-
watér to Montreal tend to fall off and the boats double up on the shorter routes and
can thus make more trips.
The large proportion of Canadian vessels under 2,000 tons net register, 67 out
of 99, or more than two-thirds, is notable. These vessels carried 62-55 per cent of the
grain carried by Canadian vessels, or 32-12 per cent of the total grain carried by all
vessels. Vessels of this size can use the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, but these
vessels actually carried from Fort William and Port Arthur more than four times
the grain that travelled direct to Montreal by water, and they therefore successfully
engaged in the open lake competitive traffic, and, as pointed out, are probably able
to do this because of the return package freight business.
.By comparing the list of vessels carrying grain from Fort William and Port
Arthur with the list of vessels carrying coal to those ports, it is possible to determine
the direct relationship between the coal and grain traffic in so far as those ports are
concerned. It might be supposed that if Fort William and Port Arthur received
4,217,248 tons of coal and shipped out 5,273,595 tons of grain, the vessels that unloaded
coal would èimply move from the coal dock to the grain elevator and1 fill up with
grain, for the return trip. The load factor offered by these two bulk commodities in
that year at those ports was extraordinarily favourable. As a matter of fact, how¬
ever, there was only a slight relationship between these two traffics in so far as United
States vessels were concerned. United States vessels carried 3,609,496. tons of coal to
Port Arthur and Fort William, and United States vessels carried 2,565,880 tons of
grain from those ports, but only occasionally did the vessel that brought coal load
grain, or the vessel that went east with grain return with coal. Only 397,413 tons of
the total coal load of United States vessels to those ports, or 11-10 per cent, can thus
be traced into a direct relationship with the grain-carrying traffic of United States
vessels from Port Arthur and Fort William. Most of the United States vessels, after
unloading coal, sailed light to load iron ore or some other freight at other ports.
Other vessels, mostly light, came in to load grain. In November and December, after
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
35
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
the ore trade falls off, there is a much more direct relationship between the two traffics.
Of the 637,640 tons of coal carried to Fort William and Port Arthur by Canadian
vessels, no less than 389,873 tons, or 64-11 per cent, was carried by vessels that imme¬
diately loaded grain, or had returned with coal after carrying down a cargo of grain.
This means that the portion of the Canadan grain fleet, consisting of bulk freighters,
or at least such bulk freighters as were on the route to lake Erie ports, pretty regu¬
larly loaded coal back. The facts, particularly with regard to the United States
vessels, tend to show that the movements of lake vessels are determined by general
conditions rather than by the traffic conditions peculiar to individual ports. Iron ore
and coal probably dominate the whole position, the remaining traffic being more or
less incidental, except with the smaller vessels. The participation of United States
bulk freighters in Canadian traffic, and their actual or potential competition in this
traffic, must largely be determined by conditions in the iron ore and coal traffic.
As nearly all the iron ore traffic falls to United States vessels under the coasting
laws, Canadian bulk freighters must so adjust their loads of grain and coal as to be
able to meet the competition of United States vessels on the basis of the standards
set in the iron ore and coal trades. In November about one-third of the United
States fleet is laid up or diverted to other trades, and so during that month and in
December plenty of United States tonnage has been available for the Canadian grain
traffic when rates have been made sufficiently attractive.
19b—3J
36
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
TOTAL TRAFFIC BY PRINCIPAL COMMODITIES.
In diagram 6, figures 1 and 4, there is presented graphically an analysis of the
total eastbound and the total westbound traffic through the Sault Ste. Marie qanals,
Diagram No. 6.
DISTRIBUTION BY PRINCIPAL COMMODITIES OF TOTAL TRAFFIC
THROUGH CANADIAN AND AMERICAN CANALS AT
SAULT STE.MARIE, NAVIGATION SEASON 1913
FIG. 2
FIC.3
. IRON ORE
2. GRAIN S FLOUR
3. LUMBER.
4. GEN'L. M'CH'OISE.
5. COPPER ORE
6. MISCELLANEOUS.
WESTBOUND
FIG. 5
FIG. 6
1. COAL
2. CEN'L. M'CH'OISE.
3. MANUFACTURED IRON.
4. SALT.
5. MISCELLANEOUS.
according to the commodities carried. The figures for the season of navigation of
1913 are as follows 1
i Appendix, Table 17, p. 102, Statistics, 1911-14.
/GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
37
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Eastbound— Tons. Per cent.
Iron ore 48,076,977 81*20
Grains, including flour 9,632,792 16*26
Lumber 978,697 1*65
General merchandise 403,068 *69
Copper 85,378 *14
Building stone, sand, pig-iron, etc 28,941 *04
Total • 59,205,853
Westbound—
Coal
General merchandise
Manufactured iron..
Salt
Miscellaneous
Total
18,622,938 90*84
1,367,792 6*66
380,152 1*85
108,997 *53
32,612 *15
20,512,491
Iron ore constitutes 81-20 per cent of the total combined eastbound traffic of both
countries, while coal constitutes 90-84 per cent of the combined westbound traffic.
The combined eastbound shipments of grain and flour rank third in total quantity,
but the iron ore traffic is nearly five times as great as the grain and flour traffic, and
the coal traffic is almost twice as great. Other classes of commodities, however valu¬
able they may be in themselves, are almost insignificant when quantities are compared.
It may almost .be said that traffic in the lake Superior trade consists of iron ore in one
direction and coal in the other direction, with occasional loads of grain and flour and
a little miscellaneous cargo. Both the iron ore and the coal are United -States products,
and most of the iron ore is carried to lake Erie ports as being nearest to points of
consumption, while the coal is shipped from the same ports as being most convenient
to points of production. These facts account for the enormous vessel tonnage in the
lake Superior trade, for the fact that the shipping is so largely of United States
register, and for the fact that 83-48 pey cent of all the traffic passing through the Sault
Ste. Marie canals is in the trade with lake Erie.
From the standpoint of the proposed Georgian Bay canal it will be important to
determine, in the first place, what proportion of the existing traffic in the lake Superior
trade might be diverted to the new route or might be beneficially affected by the new
route to the national advantage of Canada, and in the second place, what increase in
traffic is likely to occur in the future in each of the principal classes of commodities,
or to what extent the new route might facilitate such increase by rendering new
markets available or decreasing the cost to present markets.
If nearly all the iron ore shipped' in 1913- (fig. 1, No. l)wafe' destined to indus¬
trial plants within the distributing areas controlled by Chicago, Gary, and the lake
Erie ports, then that portion of the traffic could not have been diverted to a Georgian
Bay canal. Most of the lumber (fig. 1, No. 3) was United States coasting traffic,
and in any case would not likely have moved down the Ottawa valley in competition
with the lumber of that district. The copper ore (fig. 1, No. 5), like the iron ore, was
destined to industrial plants out of the competitive range of the proposed canal; and
the miscellaneous traffic (fig. 1, No. 6) was largely building stone and sand, and,
therefore, strictly local in character. If, after careful investigation, it should be
decided that the traffic that existed in 1913 in the above classes of goods could not
have been diverted, then there would be left for further consideration the classes
consisting of grain and flour and general merchandise (fig. 1, Nos. 2 and 4). The
quantities represented by these two classes would compare with the total traffic as
fig. 2 with fig. 1. The shaded portions of fig. 2 (grain and- flour, 3,543,134 tons; gen¬
eral merchandise, 359,283 tons) represent the United States coasting traffic ia these
two classes, with this exception that grain grown in Canada but shipped from Duluth-
Superior is in this case not* included as United States traffic. The spring wheat grown
38
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
in the United States and shipped from Duluth-Superior is, unless with crops of more
than average size, nearly all milled in the United States, little being exported to
Europe in the form of wheat. The surplus of winter wheat shipped from Chicago is
thus rather more open to the competition of Canadian routes than is the wheat shipped
from Duluth-Superior. If, now, it be desired to compare the balance of the traffic
not subject to these doubts or limitations with the total traffic, fig. 3 (grain and flour
6,089,658 tons; general merchandise, 44,785 tons), in which the shaded portions of
fig. 2 are left out, may be compared with fig. 1.
Treating westbound traffic in the same way, it,is clear that the coal shipped in
1913 (fig. 4, No. 1), being. Pennsylvania coal, would not have used a Georgian Bay
canal. The salt (fig. 4, No. 4), in so far at least as it wa& Canadian traffic, was prob¬
ably shipped from the Windsor district; and the miscellaneous (fig. 4, Nô. 5) was in
any case unimportant. The balance of the traffic consisted of general merchandise
and manufactured iron as in fig. 5, of which the shaded portions (general merchan¬
dise, 834,932 tons ; manufactured iron, 203,343 tons) were United States coasting
traffic. With the shaded portions left out, the comparative quantities (general mer¬
chandise, 532,860 tons; manufactured iron, 116,809 tons) would appear as in fig. 6.
This treatment is, of course, merely suggestive, and the relative quantities in
the shaded and unshaded portions of figs. 2 and 5 are, with the details now available,
only very rough approximations. By the careful application of some such method it
should, however, be possible to arrive at reasonably accurate quantities of each class
of commodities that should appear in figs. 3 and 6 ; that is, it should be possible, in
respect to the traffic of any particular year, to segregate the quantities and classes of
freight for which a Georgian Bay canal, if in existence, might have been able to
compete. After excluding traffic necessarily controlled by United States routes, there
should, in the second place, be excluded such,traffic as would necessarily be controlled
by the present Canadian lake-and-rail routes, and the water route by lake Erie and
lake Ontario, because such traffic originated at or was destined to points which could
not be conveniently reached by the Georgian Bay Canal route. What would be left
after this second exclusion would be the traffic that could be competed for by the
Georgian Bay Canal route as against the existing Canadian routes, and in the case
of export or import traffic, as against the competition also of certain United States
routes and of the route through the west coast around by the Panama canal, and of
that by way of Hudson bay. A consensus of opinion might even be reached as to the
proportion of this competitive balance which might fall to the Georgian Bay canal,
and as to the extent to which such canal might affect the freight rates and facilities
on the other routes.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
39
TRAFFIC TO AND FROM LAKE MICHIGAN.
Lake Michigan carries a large traffic that does not in its course pass through the
Sault Ste. Marie canals, and has not therefore entered into the statistics just exam¬
ined. A few general facts may here be presented to indicate broadly the character
of this traffic and the routes by which it moves. The traffic of the port of Chicago
forms the greater part of the traffic of lake Michigan, and may be taken as repre¬
sentative.1
In the season of 1913 the total traffic of the port of Chicago, in and out, amounted
to 12,605,201 freight tons. For comparison with lake Superior ports it may be stated
that in that year the port of Duluth-Superior had a freight tonnage of 46,875,416 tons,
and Fort William-Port Arthur a little over 12,000,00© tons. The principal commodi¬
ties received at and shipped from Chicago were
Received— Short Tons.
Iron ore 5,583,881
Coal 2,018,610
Merchandise, unclassified 1,526.,000
Shipped—
Grain, flour and mill stuffs 1,906,407
Total 11,034,898
The balance of 1,570,303 tons consisted of receipts of grain, lumber, salt, sugar,
manufactured iron, etc., and shipments of merchandise, manufactured iron, and other
classified articles. The ratio of total freight tons received to total freight tons
shipped was about 4 to 1. The iron ore was from lake Superior and from Escanaba
or other lake Michigan ports. In the trade between lake Michigan and eastern lake,
districts the bulk commodities were grain eastbound and coal westbound, with some
general cargo in both directions. In this trade more tons moved westbound to
Chicago than eastbound from Chicago, but if an accurate analysis could be made the
difference in the total might be found comparatively small. Traffic, however, was less
evenly distributed throughout the season than in the lake Superior trade, the arrivals
and departures of vessels curving upward to a peak in July and August, and then
following the same curve downward.
Chicago has traffic with Canadian ports in grain eastbound and package freight
in both directions. In 1913, Chicago shipped grain and fiour to Canadian ports as
follows :—2
Lake Shipments to Canadian Ports, 1913.
Prom Chicago to
Depot Harbour
Midland
Tiffin
Collinswood
Port Colbourne
Kingston
Pi escott
Montreal
Other "Canadian ports.
Total....
v Flour.
Bbls.
78,000
78,000
Wheat.
Bush.
32,000
58,000
266,000
656,000
l,ou9,000
2,621,000
Corn.
Bush.
1,537,000
1,520,000
2,351,000
3,432,000
184,000
695,000
45,000
55,000
9,819,000
Oats.
Bush.
2,315,000
332,000
189,000
2,836,000
1 Annual Report of Chicago Board of Trade.
2 Appendix, Table 21, p. 106, Statistics, 1911-14.
40
INTERIM REPORT OF TRE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
The greater part of these shipments merely passed through Canada in transit to
the Eastern States; a part was exported from Canadian ocean ports; and a small
balance, particularly of corn, was retained in Canada for consumption. It is an
interesting fact that Canadian lake-and-rail lines compete directly with United States
lake-and-rail lines for traffic between the Eastern States and the North Central and
Western States. Canadian ports on Georgian bay thus under certain conditions
compete with Buffalo, even although some of the traffic may be carried by rail across
the border at Niagara Ealls. Other portions of this in transit traffic cross the
border at such points at Prescott and points on the railway lines south of Montreal.
Of the above totals of grain the following amounts are reported as in transit ship¬
ments which passed back again into the United States:—1
In Transit Shipments, 1913—■
Flour brl. 15,367
Wheat hush. 89,500
Corn •' 8,573,538
Oats, i '* 3,076,636
Of the shipments from Chicago to Canadian lake ports which were destined for
export through Canadian ocean ports the principal item was wheat, 2,375,724 bushels,
an amount corresponding with the shipments to Port Colborne and to Montreal. In
certain years the shipments of grain from Chicago for export through Canadian
ocean ports are very much larger than they were in 1913. Beduced to tons the total
grain and flour shipped from Chicago to Canadian ports amounted1 in 1913 to 409,218
tons.
Package freight moves in both directions through Canadian lake ports in transit
between Chicago and the eastern states and between Chicago and Europe, but the
total is not large in tons.
From the statistics of the arrivals and departures of vessels engaged in foreign
trade, it is evident that Chicago ships much more to Canadian ports than it receives
from Canadian ports; and further that these shipments are heavier in certain months
than in others.
Vessels in Foreign Trade—Chicago District.*
Month.
April.
May .
J une..
July.
August
September.
October
November.
December. .
Arrivals.
No. Tonnage.
Total
2
13
20
22
23
15
21
24
148
4,397
22,072
31,064
27,693
36,388
25,542
31,889
36,157
20,508
235,710
Clearances.
No. Tonnage.
13
13
23
34
44
44
38
44
4
257
» Chicago District comprises Chicago, Michigan City, Waukegan, Gary and Indiana
Harbour.
The clearances for Canadian ports were about If times the arrivals from Cana¬
dian ports, and the aggregate registered tonnage clearing was almost 2J times
i Appendix, Table 22, p. 107, Statistics, 1909-14.
Diagram No. 7.
GRAIN SHIPMENTS FROM CHICAGO BY RAIL AND BY LAKE.
FIG. I YEARLY TOTALS OF ALL GRAINS 1900 TO 1913 .
FIG. 2 WEEKLY SHIPMENTS OF WHEAT ALONE 1912 AND 1913.
42
INTERIM REPORT OF TH.S
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
the tonnage arriving. The vessels arriving averaged about 1,500 tons net register,
and if we assume that these same vessels cleared again for Canada, then the additional
vessels loaded for Canadian ports averaged about 3,000 tons net register. Bulk
freighters were added to carry the grain, while the regular package freight business
was done by the smaller boats. The bulk-freighters did not load back from Canadian
ports to Chicago.
While the Canadian lake-and-rail lines are competitors with the United States
lake-and-rail lines for Chicago business, the all-rail lines are the strongest competi¬
tors of all. As compared with the quantities of grain shipped by rail from Chicago,
the shipments by lake have shown a marked relative decline in the past ten years. It
would appear that the railways now do the regular grain traffic business and the lake
carries the peak of the load.
In diagram 7, two figures are presented in illustration of this development. Fig.
1 shows the total movement from Chicago of all grains for fourteen years, divided
into rail shipments and lake shipments, the former with a marked tendency to
increase, and the latter with a tendency to decline, until in 1913 about 3J times
as much was shipped in all directions by rail as was shipped by lake. In figure 2 the
shipments of wheat by the eastbound rail lines, alone, are compared for the years
1912 and 1913 with the shipments of wheat by lake. Most of the wheat shipped east-
bound by rail was destined to points that could be reached also by the lake-and-rail
lines, and the traffic in this figure is therefore largely competitive traffic. It will be
noted that the eastbound rail lines do a fairly steady business every week in the year,
while the lake shipments are crowded into a few weeks from the end of July to the
middle of September. The lake in those years was extensively used for only about
one-third of the navigation season. It may not be without significance that the peak
of the lake wheat load from Chicago corresponds with the slack period in grain ship¬
ments from Fort William and Port Arthur. In 1913 the eastbound rail lines from
Chicago carried 27,933,000 bushels of wheat, while the lake carried only 16,173,690
bushels; in 1912, shipments by lake were a little larger than shipments by rail, the
quantities being: rail, 16,680,800 bushels; and lake, 17,523,384 bushels.
In every class of goods received and shipped by Chicago, even coal, and with the
one apparent exception of salt, the rail lines have succeeded in securing the larger
share of the traffic. By lake Chicago received 1,212,687 barrels of salt iu 1913, and
by rail, 950,058 barrels.
What proportion of the,traffic now passing between Chicago and Cai adian ports
might be diverted to a new route such as the proposed Georgian Bay canal ! What are
the possibilities of increasing the trade between lake Michigan and Canadian ports?
On what basis should the value to Canada of the diversion of the merely in transit
traffic be measured? Canada at present supplies no return bulk traffic for lake Michi¬
gan, coal westbound now dominating the lake Michigan trade. How could the proposed
new route establish a competitive load factor?
Freight traffic in the lake Superior and the lake Michigan trades constitutes
nearly all the present waterborne traffic which might be affected by the building of a
Georgian Bay canal. There is, in addition, a certain amount of traffic to and from
ports on Georgian bay and lake Huron and the town of Sault Ste. Marie which might
be competed for by the proposed new canal, but in the total this traffic is not large.
The immediate purpose of this section of the present report is met by the setting
forth of the main features of the existing traffic by water.
Other interesting and important aspects of the problem remain for future exam¬
ination. From the traffic returns of the Welland and St. Lawrence canals a great
deal of information can be gathered as to the nature and distribution of the traffic
now using the eastern section of the existing water route. There is local traffic on
this part of the route as well as through traffic., To what extent has the local traffic
developed? Railways across southern Ontario compete directly with this water route
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
43
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
as they would with a Georgian Bay canal. What do the facts indicate as to the
ability of the railways to secure traffic under such competitive conditions? What
changes may reasonably be expected from the completion of the new Welland canal?
What is the theoretical traffic capacity of the present fit. Lawrence canals? How
should costs by the Welland and St. Lawrence canals compare with costs from Buffalo
to New York by the new Erie canal and costs by the St. Lawrence canals with costs,
by canal, from Oswego to New York?
Before attempting a study of these matters of detail, relating particularly to the
mechanical ability of the railways and of other canals to compete with the proposed
Georgian Bay canal, the general treatment of the subject will be continued,—first,
by raising the question of the probable development of traffic in the future ; and second,
by following the present export traffic after it leaves the Great Lakes waterway to see
under what general conditions it becomes part of the great traffic of the ocean.
44
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC.
It is not possible to rest the case for the Georgian Bay canal after arguing alone
on the traffic conditions of the present. In the year 1913 was found the greatest
volume of traffic between the East and the West in North America which has yet been
recorded. If it should seem that Canada, had the Georgian Bgy been then completed,
might have derived from the traffic of that year an additional benefit commensurate
with the cost of the canal, then an effective argument for immediate construction
could be offered. Nevertheless, it would still be wise to consider the general causes
and tendencies that affect the development of traffic. If, on the other hand, Canada's
probable share of the traffic of 1913 might not seem to warrant a further large national
investment, it would be necessary to inquire whether there might not be reasonable
expectation that traffic would so increase year by year that the investment would
soon become profitable, and would accordingly be a sound business proposition.
With respect to each class of goods transported in 1913, there should, therefore,
be an inquiry with a view to determining the possibilities; first of the maintenance
of the. present volume of traffic, and second, of the increase of this volume and parti¬
cularly of such increase as might come within the competitive influence of a Georgian
Bay canal. Taking, for example, iron ore and copper ore eastbound, the probabilities
of the continued shipment of the present immense tonnage should be considered,
because if this traffic were greatly reduced, either by failure of the supplies of raw
material or by the opening up of more favourable sources of supply for eastern
industrial plaints, or were diverted by the establishment of a centre for the iron indus¬
try at some point further west, then the whole economic structure of lake traffic would
be altered. If, again, new markets for this iron and copper ore could be opened up,
because of the construction of a new deep waterway to the sea or, at least, in such
districts as would render a Georgian Bay canal a competitive route, then this ore
traffic would become a factor in deciding the economic feasibility of the proposed
canal, and it would remain only to set a value in national advantage on the passage
of such traffic through Canadian channels.
The problem of coal traffic is perhaps even more important. If any large section
west of lake Superior is likely to continue dependent upon supplies of eastern coal,
and if the Pennsylvania coal fields can control that market, then lake Erie must
retain a strong attraction for shipping. If, on the other hand, it should appear
possible to develop a new source of coal supply for the west, such as the Nova Scotia
fields, for example, then Canadian routes might supply bulk traffic westbound and
greatly improve their competitive position. The traffic in general merchandise and
manufactured articles may be expected to increase in some relation to the increase in
population. It should also be inquired whether certain classes of goods not now
shipped by the lakes, such as meats, provisions, and packing-house products, of which
Chicago alone ships eastbound by rail over one million tons per year and some of it to
Montreal for export, might not under practicable conditions be made to contribute
tonnage to the new water route.
/
Wheat and Flour.—Because the movement of grain and flour is to-day Canada's
greatest traffic problem, and because these products form so large a part of the total
freight now apparently open to the competitive influence of a Georgian Bay canal, it
may be well first to study the possibilities of this traffic in some detail. For the sake of
simplicity of treatment, the present study will be confined to wheat, or wheat and flour
alone. Any principles discovered or methods evolved can then be applied to other
grains.
GEORGIAN BAT OANAL COMMISSION
45
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
How much wheat will western Canada be prepared to offer for shipment five,
ten, or twenty years hence ? What general conditions will set the limits to the produc¬
tion and shipment of wheat? What proportion of the total wheat traffic will be
destined to districts or countries that could be reached on favourable terms by a route
through a Georgian Bay canal?
To give an estimate of the quantity of wheat there might be for shipment from
western Canada in any future year is to make a guess. Will it be 500,000,000 bushels!
Will it be 1,000,000,000 bushels ? Or will it not he any greater in ten or twenty years
than it was in 1913 ? It will depend upon conditions. Some of these conditions may
already be recognizable. If a large wheat traffic should be deemed necessary in order
to make a new canal economically feasible, it is clearly desirable to select such deter¬
mining conditions as> can be agreed upon and apply them as tests to the guesses that
may be made.
One general determining condition will be the number of acres of land in western
Canada capable of growing wheat ; but as there is more of such land than can, by any
stretch of probability, be turned to account within a generation or two, this condition
will not impose any practical limitations. Good wheat land need not grow wheat; it
may be used for other crops, or it may continue to grow prairie grasses.
A second general condition will be the extent of the world's demand for wheat,
and the price it is prepared to pay for it. Assuming an abundance of good land and
labour enough to cultivate it, the limitation upon the quantity of wheat actually raised
will probably be found in market conditions. What markets could be reached by way
of a Georgian Bay canal? What will be the demand of these markets, and what will
be the tendencies affecting price ?
From the standpoint of a Georgian Bay canal, the Orient may be excluded from
the markets to be considered, because what wheat and flour western Canada may ship
to the Orient will undoubtedly go out by the west coast. If the United States should
cease td produce enough wheat for its own needs, only a portion of such western Cana¬
dian wheat as might be purchased by the New England states would take the long
eastern route to Montreal before crossing the border. On this continent a Georgian
Bay canal çould compete for shipments to the markets of eastern Ontario, Quebec, the
Maritime Provinces, and the New England states, but these markets, while valuable,
would not call for the creation of new transportation facilities. The important
market, obviously, is Europe. In the past, out of every 7 bushels of wheat and
flour shipped by all exporting countries, Europe has absorbed a little over 6 bushels.
It is the only great market for breadstuffs, and in shipments to this market from
western Canada a Georgian Bay canal might prove a competitive factor.
If the European market for wheat and flour is thus likely to prove one of the con¬
ditions mainly determining such future shipments of wheat as are of concern to the
problem of a Georgian Bay canal, then the probable capacity and the probable methods
and prices of this market should be applied as tests to the estimates of such shipments.
Before attempting to forecast future conditions in the European market, it will be
desirable to understand the present conditions. For this purpose the answers to four
questions, at least, should be clearly worked out:—
(1) How much imported wheat and flour does Europe now buy?
(2) How does Europe now buy this wheat and flour, that is, how are its pur¬
chases distributed throughout the year?
(3) Where does Europe now buy this wheat and flour?
(4) What price tendencies are now observable in connection with the
European market?
Shipments to Europe.—Diagram 8 graphically presents the answers to questions
1 and 2, and illustrates certain other interesting points as well. The answer to question
46
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
3 is presented in diagram 9. For the purpose of these diagrams, Broomhall's statistics
of the weekly shipments of wheat and flour (included at its equivalent in bushels of
wheat) have been taken for the years 1905 to 1913, inclusive. The actual shipments
in the first week in each of the above nine years have been added together and divided,,
by nine to arrive at the average first week's shipments during that period, and so with
each of the other weeks of the year. The drawings thus contain fifty-two columns,
and represent the average movement of wheat and flour in each week of the year for
nine years.1
The quantities of wheat and flour shipped by exporting countries are the quanti¬
ties which are received by importing countries. These diagrams may, therefore, be
looked at from the point of view either of exports or of imports. The definite dates
given are the dates of shipment from the countries possessing surpluses, but the quan¬
tities represent the needs and the purchases of importing countries more truly than
they do the surpluses of exporting countries.
In diagram 8, fig. 1, taken as a whole, can be seen the average quantities of wheat
and flour shipped from all exporting countries in the world to all importing countries
in the world, while from the base to the superimposed white line can be found the
quantities shipped weekly to Europe from all exporting countries. The importing
world purchased on the average in the above period 562,184,000 bushels of wheat and
flour per year, of which the importing countries of Europe took 484,104,000 bushels,
or 86-11 per cent.
These latter figures, therefore, represent the capacity, before the war, of the Euro¬
pean market for imported wheat and flour. It is interesting to note that during the
first year of the war, or from August 1, 1914, to July 31, 1915, there was shipped to
European countries, 477,344,000 bushels of wheat and flour, or a little less than the
average of the previous decade, the increased purchases of some countries being offset
by the partial embargo on imports by Germany and Austria.
% The wheat grown in the world between 1905 and 1913 averaged about 3,400,000,000
bushels per year, so that only about 16 per cent entered into international commerce.
Europe, as a whole, grew four times as much as it imported, and even the countries
of Europe showing net imports grew twice as much as they imported. The following
table gives the production of wheat and the net imports of wheat and "flour of the
principal importing countries of Europe for a representative year, 1912 :—
Country.
Austria-Hungary...
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Holland
Italy
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom...
Totals.
Year.
Wheat Crop.
Wheat and Flour
net imports
during
subsequent 12
months.
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
Bushels.
254,210,000
15,280,000
. 3,760,000
333,600,000
160,240,000
4.600,000
165,600,000
312,000
5,600,000
112,000,000
7,808,000
3,176,000
57,400,000
1,123,616,000
i Appendix, Table 23, p. 108, Statistics.
Diagram No. 8.
WEEKLY SHIPMENTS OF WHEAT AND FLOUR
AVERAGED FOR 9 YEARS. 1905 TO 1913.
43
INTERIM REPORT OF TUE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Pigs. 2 and 3 in diagram 8 show the division of European imports into quantities
imported by the United Kingdom and quantities imported by the continental countries
of Europe. The Unitéd Kingdom is the largest single importing market in the world,
and during the period under review it imported 217,424,000 bushels of wheat and
flour per year, or 44-91 per cent of the total imports of Europe.
Coming now to the question of the distribution throughout the year of European
importations of wheat and flour, it is manifest from the diagram that there is a ten¬
dency towards evenness of distribution. Breadstuffs are consumed day by day through¬
out the year in approximately the same quantities, and the fundamental demand,
therefore, tends to be steady. For some reasons the importing world has not con¬
sidered it practicable or profitable to import in one or two brief periods a total year's
requirements of wheat and flour, perhaps partly because to unnecessarily store
imported grain in Europe would be to unnecessarily pay interest on a sum equal to
all costs, charges and intermediate profits involved in the transfer of the grain to
Europe, whereas grain can be stored at the point of production for the interest on
farm costs alone; partly because the consequent congestion of traffic would throw an
ill-balanced load on the world's transportation systems, and make freight costs too
high ; and partly because such a load would be as difficult to finance as to transport.
If the world's shipments had been absolutely even, the weekly quantity would have
been 10,811,000 bushels. The smallest week's average shipments, 8,040,000 bushels in
the week of July 16, was only 2,1-5 per cent below this general average; and the greatest
week's shipments, 13,136,000 bushels in the week of October 2, was only 25-63 per cent
above the general average. As the contingencies are innumerable, this is not, after
all, a very great divergence from the straight line. When longer periods than a week
are considered, the relative differences become smaller. The following are the totals
when the year is divided into quarters and halves :—
Average World's Shipments, 1905-13, Total 562,184,000 bushels—
1st quarter year 135,224,000 (bush.)
2nd " 142,048,000 1st half year 277,272,000
3rd " 131,752,000
4th " 153,160,000 2nd " 284,912,000
Average Shipments to ex-European Countries, 1905-13, Total 78,080,000 bushels—
1st quarter year 19,368,000 (bush.)
2nd " 19,224,000 1st half year 38,592,000
3rd " ... , ... 18,528,000
4th " 20,960,000 2nd,' " 39,488,000
Average Shipments to Europe, 1905-13, Total 484,104,000 bushels—
1st quarter year 115,856,000 (bush.)
2nd " 122,824,000 1st half year 238,680,000
3rd " 113,224,000
4th " 132,200,000 2nd " 245,424,000
Average Shipments to Great Britain, 1905-13, Total 217,424,000 bushels
1st quarter year 59,040,000 (bush.)
2nd " 54,392,000 1st half year 113,432,000
3rd " 49,672,000
4th " 54,320,000 2nd " 103,992,000
Average Shipments to Continent of Europe, 1905-13, Total 269,616,000 bushels
1st quarter year 57,328,000 f ' (bush.)
2nd " , 68,568,000 1st half year 125 896 000
3rd " 65,152,000
4th " 78,568,000 2nd 41 ...... 143 720 000
These figures confirm the substantial evenness of distribution visible to the eye
in the diagram. Shipments to ex-European countries were remarkably regular.
Shipments to the continental countries of Europe temporarily declined about the time
the new European crop was ready for the market, and the average was adjusted a
little later by exceptionally heavy purchases from the new crop of the exporting coun-
Diagram No. 9.
WEEKLY SHIPMENTS OF WHEAT AND FLOUR
SHOWING QUANTITIES FROM CHIEF EXPORTING COUNTRIES
AVERAGED FOR 9 YEARS, 1905 TO 1913.
ffom
S ' . : : "S : : : ^ : : o : : : ; ; ; ; g : : "5 : : : • = . f*: Sr : : f: t3 ' : : : ° : . . & : : :
=» ^ 2 <; S ^ 3 «î ÇQ LQ 2 S
O I
(O
Z
o
i«|irii
I O
FIG.4.' FROM INDIA
CO
z
O
■""■i|iiiiimi"i|iiiiii|IHIil
19b—i
50
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
tries of the northern hemisphere. This causes the irregularity in the diagram that is
most noticeable. The United Kingdom purchases most heavily in the first quarter
of the year, and the continent in the last quarter.
Sources of Supply.—Diagram 9 sets forth the average weekly contributions of
wheat and flour from the chief exporting countries to the totals which have just been
considered.1 In most cases the statistics used in this diagram represents shipments to
all countries, but the shipments from India and from the Argentine are shipments to
Europe alone. As the shipments to ex-European countries are so even week by week,
it may for all practical purposes be said that this diagram shows how each of the
principal grain exporting countries sends supplies to Europe, that is, how Europe
buys from each of these countries.
Beginning at the bottom of the diagram with Australia (fig. 6), it will be noted
that shipments are heaviest in the first three months of the year, immediately follow¬
ing the Australian harvest, but that a steady export of a moderate quantity is main¬
tained throughout the year.
The Argentine (fig. 5), where the harvest is a little later than in Australia, ships
a very large proportion of its whole surplus in February, March, and April, the ship¬
ments dwindling off towards the end of the year.
India (fig. 4) ships more heavily in the middle of the year, also just after its
harvest, but holds over a fair proportion of its surplus for regular export during the
balance of the year.
The Balkan States (fig. 3) ship heavily, but on the whole regularly, during the
last four months of the year, but hold over a substantial quantity for shipment dur¬
ing the next spring and summer.
Russia (fig. 2) also ships heavily after its harvest, hut holds over a large propor¬
tion until the new year. During January, February, and March, certain Russian
ports are closed by ice, but nevertheless a substantial and regular export takes place.
When navigation is re-opened the volume of export increases, but regularity tends to
be preserved. Considering climatic conditions, the export of the Russian surplus
would appear to have an exceptionally well-regulated distribution throughout the year.
The. United States and Canada (fig. 1) are treated together in 'commercial
statistics. From the two countries combined the heavy shipments begin in August
and extend on into the following January. In May a sharp peak is found following
the opening of navigation on the Great Lakes and the marketing of " May " wheat.
The sharpness of this May peak is in contrast with the broader movement which
follows the opening of navigation in Russia. A considerable proportion of this May
peak consists of Canadian wheat, which also is largely represented in the shipments
during October, November, and December. The exports from the United States,
during certain years before the Canadian exportable surplus became large, have been
examined, and it would appear that in some years at least there was a greater regu¬
larity of shipment than was found on the average between 1905 and 1913.
If diagram 9 be now examined in relation to diagram 8 it will be seen that the
importing world buys relatively heavily as soon as new crops are threshed, when wheat
is intrinsically cheapest or there is the greatest pressure to sell. Taking the ship¬
ments to the United Kingdom for special examination, it will be noted that the first
bulge in these shipments corresponds with the new crop marketings of Australia and
the Argentine; that the second bulge corresponds with the marketing of May wheat
in Canada and the United States and with the re-opening of navigation in Russia;
that there is a small bulge corresponding with the marketing of the early winter wheat
in the United States and in the Balkan states; and that the final bulge corresponds
with the spring wheat marketing of the United States, Canada, and Russia. It is at
these periods the United Kingdom buys a little more than its average consumption
1 Appendix, Table 24, p. 109, Statistics.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
51
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
requirements, probably because it has been found profitable to do so, but it buys in
any period only a little more than it requires for consumption, the only storage neces¬
sary being such as would carry over the surplus for a few weeks.
If the law of the consuming market be evenness of distribution throughout the
year, then it is clear that this law must be recognized by producing countries and
must determine to a large extent the volume of production, the methods of marketing
and of transportation, and the system of finance of the country which aims to supply
any large proportion of the European demand. Any estimate of Canada's probable
shipments of wheat and flour to Europe in the future should be tested by the general
conditions in Europe and in other producing countries which are suggested by the
facts illustrated in these two diagrams.
-"ptagdaw no. 10.
MONTHLY RECEIPTS OF WHEAT
at
TERMINAL ELEVATORS. FT. WILLIAM & PORT ARTHUR.
Jan.1909 to Aug. 1914. inclusive.
Tendencies Affecting Price.—Presumably wheat will not be grown, and, therefore,
will not be shipped, unless the price is reasonably satisfactory to the producers. The
existence of adequate transportation facilities at moderate cost may tend to improve
the net return to the producers, but will not necessarily make this net price sufficient,
under all conditions, to justify the production of wheat rather than some other pro¬
duct. No estimate of the* volume of future traffic in any article should be accepted
until present price tendencies are examined and the probable effects on price of the
new assumed volume and of the new conditions proposed to be created have been
studied.
What has been the relationship between Canadian wheat quantities and prices,
and what tendencies, if any, have developed in connection with Canadian methods of
marketing? As it is only in recent years that the Canadian surplus has been large
enough to be an appreciable factor in international trade, this inquiry may be con¬
fined to the period from the beginning of 1909 to the end of the crop year 1913-14.
The primary markets of the world are those most directly in touch with, and there¬
fore of most immediate importance to, the world's producers; and it is by the selling
19b—ii
52
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
pressure in primary markets exerted against the buying pressure from ultimate con¬
sumers that the course of prices is chiefly determined, although this course may be
modified by many intermediate agencies.
Canada's great primary market-place for wheat is the terminal elevators at
Fort William and Port Arthur. It is there Western Canadian wheat is offered to
exporters and to the Eastern Canadian trade. Prices quoted on the Winnipeg Grain
Exchange are prices "in store Fort William-Port Arthur." The official records1 of
the receipts from the interior at these terminal elevators, month by month, show the
manner in which Western Canada places its wheat on this market.
In diagram 10 these monthly receipts are shown from January, 1909, to August,
1914.2 The outstanding feature of these receipts is the extreme peak developed in the
last quarter of the year. A smaller peak in the month pf May has also become clearly
Diagram No. 11.
WHEAT IN STORE
at
TERMINAL ELEVATORS. FT. WILLIAM & PORT ARTHUR,
showing Maximum Amount in each Month,
Jan.1909 to Aug. 1914. inclusive.
!
r-T
r
;>
I
P
P
1
P
i
tÈ.
r
r
vÂ
1
-
w
f
P
J
■m
1
1
1
j
'
Â
_
' i
g J
i
Wi
!
%
m
%
mm
§
$
iii
$8
i\i
$
3
£
5
S
U
%
1
é
909.
1
910.
911.
191
2 .
1913.
1
9
1
4
defined. It is obvious that Western Canada's method of marketing is to sharply thrust
forward, immediately after the harvest, the greater part of its surplus, reserving some¬
thing for a second thrust about the following May. This marketing in extreme peaks
is not the accident of one or two years, but evidently the settled practice, becoming
more definite year by year as the surplus has increased in volume.
Purchasers take wheat from the elevators every month in the year for shipment
eastward by lake or by rail, although rail shipments are small by comparison. As
shipments month by month do not strictly correspond with receipts, there is a varying
amount always in store in the elevators. Diagram 11 represents the maximum amount
of wheat in store in the Fort William and Port Arthur elevators in each month,
according to the official weekly reports.3 The outstanding feature of this diagram is
the accumulation of wheat in the elevators during the period in which navigation is
closed, that is, between December and April, iti which latter month the peak of the
year's storage load tends to be found. 1
The difficulties, or higher costs, of transportation in the winter time may influence
some on thus holding over wheat ; others may wait in the general hope of higher prices ;
while the very large private and country elevator interests buy wheat for the purpose
1 Annual Reports of Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
2 Appendix, Table 25, p. 110, Statistics, 1909-15.
3 Appendix, Table 26, p. 112, Statistics, 1909-15.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
53
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
of carrying it over the winter to ensure earnings on their investments in elevators.
What the elevator companies buy they immediately sell again for delivery in some
future month, because they desire only a safe investment showing a margin equal to
carrying charges for their elevators; and all other owners of wheat who have wished
to borrow against their holdings have " hedged," that is, entered into a definite con¬
tract for delivery in some future month. Most of these future contracts are for May
delivery. The result, therefore, is that, partly because of the close of navigation on
the lakes, but largely because of the trading, handling, and financing systems that
have developed, a decided market peak accumulates for the month of May, which peak
consists of the amount in store in the terminals in April plus the receipts from the
interior in May. The second and greater peak of the year consists of the receipts
during September, October, November, and December. It is therefore at these two
periods of the year, Western Canada offers important volumes of wheat to the world's
consumers.
What, now, is the relation between these Canadian market peaks and wheat
prices? If diagram 8 be again referred to, it will be perfectly clear that we are here
dealing with a method of marketing which is not at all in accordance with the general
law of consumption demand. The wheat prices used for this inquiry will be the prices
of contract grade wheat at Liverpool, and the prices of cash No. 1 Northern wheat on
the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. These latter prices, as explained, are the prices of
wheat in store in the terminal elevators at Eort William and Port Arthur, that is, the
cash prices, on the spot, of the very quantities under consideration. Liverpool prices
are selected because Liverpool is, more nearly than any other, a world market, and
because in any case the United Kingdom was the purchaser, during the period under
review, of over 91 per cent of all the Canadian wheat exported, and therefore the -con¬
ditions at a representative market of the United Kingdom are the conditions to which
the Canadian surplus actually stood in chief relationship. In the Liverpool market
for contract grade wheat the importer can sell under the form of a " future delivery
contract," the wheat he has just contracted by cable to buy from the Canadian
exporter, and which wheat may at the moment still be in the terminal elevators at Fort
William and Port Arthur, where its local market value is the Winnipeg cash price.
The two sets of prices selected are therefore more nearly corresponding prices than
any others that could-be taken.
Before actually comparing quantities and prices, one or two ppints should be noted
in connection with the demand in the United Kingdom for imported wheat. The
United Kingdom is the leading importing market for higher grade wheat, and this
not only because of the very large quantities of wheat required, but also because the
merits of hard wheat are perhaps more generally recognized in the United Kingdom
than in other importing European countries. The millers of the United Kingdom,
however, do not make a flour of hard wheat alone. Hard wheats of various kinds are
mixed with soft wheats of various kinds to make a blended flour. By this means the.
miller renders himself more independent than he otherwise would be of any one par¬
ticular kind of wheat. If a special quality of wheat grown in only one country is
relatively scarce, or very strongly held, the miller may, from other wheats upon the
market, and by slightly altering his proportions, continue to produce a flour which
preserves all the main characteristics with which his customers have become familiar.
Imported flours can be blended as well as imported wheat. The advantages from the
standpoint of the purchaser, of the use of a blended product are obvious, and, whether
or not this system remains a permanent business policy, it is a fact that during the
years under review the United Kingdom met only a part of its requirements by pur¬
chasing hard wheat and hard-wheat flours, and for the balance purchased soft wheat
from many parts of the world to supplement its own domestic soft-wheat supplies.
The relationship of Canadian primary marketings to the purchases of the United
Kingdom are shown in diagram 12. The solid black portion of this diagram is a repro-
54
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
duetion of diagram 10 and represents the amount of wheat received each month at
the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. The hatched column in the
month of April, which should be measured from the base of the figure, represents the
maximum amount in store in those elevators in that month, being the peak of the
accumulations there for May delivery as shown in diagram 11. The dotted line repre¬
sents the total shipments to the United Kingdom month by month of wheat and flour
from all the world, that is, ronghly, the total monthly purchases of the United King¬
dom from all countries.1 Taking any one month, and measuring from the base of the
figure to the dotted line, the total amount purchased for shipment to the United
Kingdom in that month is shown.
Diagram No. 12.
COMPARISON BETWEEN
-TOTAL SHIPMENTS or WHEAT and FLOUR to UNITED KINGDOM non ALL COUNTRIES,
AM)
QUANTITIES or WHEAT MARKETED at FT WILLIAM & PORT ARTHUR.
dotted line represents worlds shipments of WHEAT and FLOUff to United Kingdom.
solid black represents monthly receipts of WHEAT at Ft WtHiam and Port Arthur.
hatched columns represent maximum amount of WHEAT m store at Ft. William and Port Arthur in April of each year
Diagram 12 makes two almost startling revelations. First, that Western Canada
sometimes puts upon the market in a month much more hard wheat than the United
Kingdom, the only important consumer of its surplus, will purchase of all kinds of
wheat and flour from all the world; and, second, that the United Kingdom purchases
regularly and heavily during many months in which Western Canada has practically
nothing to offer.
In October, 1913, Western Canada marketed 37,546,000 bushels, while the United
Kingdom purchased of all kinds of wheat and flour only 19,075,000 bushels. In
November, 1913, the Canadian marketings were 30,946,000 bushels, and the purchases
of the United Kingdom, 16,918,000 bushels. In November, 1912, the figures were
27,563.000 bushels against 20,984,000 bushels; and in November. 1911, 19,941,000
1 Appendix, Table 27, p. 112, Statistics, 1909-14. '
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
55
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
bushels against 19,587,000 bushels. In these months there was delivered at Fort Wil¬
liam and Port Arthur an absolutely greater amount than the United Kingdom would
purchase of hard and soft wheat combined, and of flour, for delivery from all countries.
If we add together the figures for the two months of October and November in each
of these years under review, the comparison is as follows :—
Canadian Marketings Total Purchases
Terminal Elevators. United Kingdom.
1909—October.... 1 BUShelS" BUShelS'
November. . j 32,137,000 38,497,000
1910—October .... 1
November. . j 31,944,000 41,097,000
1911—October .... 1
November..; 39,261,000 39,515,000
1912—October .... 1
November..} 47,170,000 43,905,000
1913_November..' } 68,492,000 35,993,000
If it could be determined exactly how much of the purchases of the United King¬
dom consisted of hard wheat, it would undoubtedly be found that the Canadian 6upply
exceeded the demand of that market in the above two-month periods in every one of
these years, and that in 1913 it was considerably more than twice the quantity required.
The May peak also, which should be constructed by placing the April storage column
on the top of the May receipts, was greater in three of the years than the total demand
for all kinds of wheat and flour in any one month, and very much greater than the
demand for hard wheat alone. And Canada is by no means the only source of supply
of hard wheat, even in the autumn months.
As over 61 per cent of the surplus product of Canadian mills-during these years
was shipped to the United Kingdom as flour and was included in the above quantities
of total imports of that country, it is evident that even the very large purchases of
wheat by the Canadian millers, second only in importance to the purchases of the
United Kingdom, would only partially diminish the pressure of the Canadian peaks,
as shown, upon the market of the United Kingdom.
Bearing in mind this relationship of Canadian supply to the demand of the
United Kingdom, it will now be interesting to bring into juxtaposition the quantities
marketed at Fort William and Port Arthur and the prices of wheat at Liverpool and
at Winnipeg. For this purpose, diagram 13 is presented. In fig. 1 are the Canadian
quantities which have already appeared in diagram 12, although in this case turned
upside down as overhanging the market, the dotted line again representing world ship¬
ments to the United Kingdom. In the centre of the diagram (fig. 2) are two price-
lines.1 The black line represents the price of contract grade wheat on the Liverpool
Corn Exchange, and shows the highest and lowest quotation on that exchange during
each month. The red line represents the high and low quotations during each month
on cash No. 1 Northern wheat on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. At the bottom of
the diagram (fig. 3) are the monthly shipments, by lake and by rail combined, from
the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, showing how the wheat moves
out into general consumption.2
Taking first the two price-lines with their fluctuations, it is evident that both Winni¬
peg and Liverpool markets are subject to the same general conditions. Ln its general
trend it is obvious that the Winnipeg market either follows the Liverpool market or
moves with it under the same influences. A spread in price between the two exchanges
is necessary if business is to be done between them, the spread being at least sufficient
to cover all costs of the transfer of wheat from the elevators at Fort William and Port
Arthur to dockside Liverpool. The spread is actually slightly greater than appears in
t Appendix, Table 28, pp. 113-114, Statistics, 1909-14.
2 Appendix, Table 25, pp. 110-111, Statistics. 1909-15.
56
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGp V, A. 1916
this diagram because No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat, quoted at Winnipeg, is above
the standard on which the Liverpool quotations are based, and commands a small
premium, about 1J cents per bushel, when delivered on Liverpool contracts. Where
the two price-lines overlap, or are very close together, after allowing for the premium
as above, it is evident that no export business was being done by Canada or could be
done. The spread between the prices becomes extreme toward the end of 1912 and
toward the end of 1913.
Tracing the Liverpool price line alone, it will be noticed that there are three sharp
upward movements, in 1909, 1912, and 1914, and one sharp decline in 1910. In the
spring of 1909, Europe was in a nervous state following the annexation by Austria of
Bosnia and Hertzegovina. This was the period also of the Patten " corner " in Chicago.
In 1912 occurred the Balkan war, which not only had its effect on European sentiment,
but the closing of the Dardanelles by Turkey interfered with exports from the Black
Sea and shut up a considerable number of ocean vessels. The sharp upturn in 1914
marked the beginning of the present great war. The extreme drop in 1910 apparently
had no great significance. At midsummer, as we have seen, Europe imports less wheat
than at any other period of the year ; the world's crop of 1909 had been the largest for
many years, and the prospects for the European crop of 1910 were for a still larger
local supply. Under these conditions, it is explained, some cargoes of grain from
Australia arrived at Liverpool on shipper's account, and the owners were finally forced
to sell at a big sacrifice, which temporarily became manifest in all market quotations.
These four extreme fluctuations occurred, therefore, under exceptional conditions, and
more ordinary causes must be looked to for the explanations of all other price varia¬
tions shown.
The quantities in fig. 1 should now be closely examined in their relation to the
price-lines in fig. 2, attention being first confined to the Liverpool prices. Starting
at the right hand of the diagram and letting the eye follow down the direction of the
autumn peak of 1913, it will be seen that it fits, into a marked depression in the
Liverpool price, the line having apparently sagged many cents per bushel. The same
thing is seen with the qutumn peak of 1912, although not to so great an extent. There
are clearly defined depressions also corresponding to the autumn peaks in 1911, 1910,
and 1909. In each one of these five years the heavy Canadian marketings at the end
of the year have coincided with a depression in price. If we leave out of consider¬
ation the sharp " squeeze " in 1910, it will be seen that, with the exception of one
year (1911), the price that has met the Canadian peak is the lowest of the year. In
the first half of 1911, other countries, Russia and Australia, dumped unusually heavy
loads on a market that was weak because there had been two large world's crops in
successive years. Canada dumped her crop, as usual, a few months later, but, although
it was the largest Canadian crop in volume up to that time, it was probably the poorest
in quality, only about 41 per cent beijig of contract grade. Its real weight could not,
therefore, be great in a market for contract grade wheat. It found a depression in
price, but not in this one case the lowest of the year.
If the eye now follows the smaller peaks in the month of May, which peaks con¬
sist of the total in store in April plus the deliveries in May, the combined volume
hitting the market, in a slanting direction as it were, in May and June, it will be
observed that these peaks also, in every case except 1909, find a declining market.
In no case has any large volume of the Canadian crop met a relatively high price.
Other countries selling when Canada does are, of course, subject to the same price
basis, but a study of the peaks marketed by all other large exporting countries within
the above period shows that no other country has marketed so large a proportion of its
crop when prices are low as has Canada.
Is this correspondence between the Canadian peaks and price depressions a mere
coincidence, and chargeable to temporary bad luck, or is it in the nature of direct
cause and effect? Has Canada, on account of financial, or transportation, or other
GEORGIAN BAY BANAL COMMISSION
57
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
local conditions, merely happened to market a large part of its crop when the world's
basis of price must necessarily be low? It would not, perhaps, be surprising if prices
in the consuming markets of Europe were regularly lowest in September, October,
November, and December, bèeause the greater part of the world's wheat is raised in
the Northern Hemisphere and is intrinsically cheapest in those months, and, moreover,
Europe's position as a purchaser should at that time be strategically strongest, since
she is then secure of many months' supplies, if need be, in her own newly harvested
domestic crop. But the records do not show any tendency to extreme weakness in
prices at that period of the year, at least in the last three months, previous to 1909.
An examination of Liverpool prices from 1909 back to 1898 fails to discover a single
year in which the low point was reached in October, in November, or in December.
The minimum price is found three times in September when the winter wheat sup¬
plies of the Northern Hemisphere are most abundant; twice in January, twice in
March, twice in April, once in June, and once in July. On the other hand, the high
points during the eleven years previous to 1909 occur once in October, twice in Decem¬
ber, once in January, twice in May, twice in June, twice in August, and once in
September.
"Western Canada, since 1909, has marketed an important quantity of contract
grade wheat in October, November, and December, and this is the only part of the
world which marketed a large exportable surplus of that grade of wheat in those
months, a quantity which was much greater than the current requirements of the United
Kingdom, and at times perhaps than the current requirements of all Europe for wheat
of that quality, unless at bargain prices, and Western Canada has, since 1909, found
a tendency to an extreme weakness in prices where weakness apparently did not
previously tend to show itself. These facts justify serious consideration of the hypo¬
thesis of direct cause and effect. In the commercial world even a temporary over-
supply tends to break prices.
Beturning to diagram 13, the eye should now follow the Winnipeg price-line.
It will be noted that the Winnipeg prices are never relatively high except when the
quantities on the market are small. As soon as volume appears at the terminals,
prices tend to go on an export basis, that is, a spread from the Liverpool price
appears sufficient to permit of export to Europe. Just this would be expected to be
the case. The only points calling for- special explanation in the Winnipeg line are
the extreme spreads in the autumns of 1912 and 1913. These are the periods of the
greatest excess of Canadian marketings when compared with the current requirements
of the United Kingdom. Any excess must inevitably begin to feel strongly the
competition of inferior wheats, and, if it is to be sold, must tend to approach the price
level of these wheats until it becomes a bargain; or, if it is not to be sold, it must
decline to a point at which it can safely bear all carrying charges to some future
month. In Western Canada this future month is generally May, and the market
estimates the carrying charges at Ai cents to 5| cents. Further, a surplus always
tends to set the conditions for the total supply, and an excess at Fort William and
Port Arthur must tend to bring down the price of the whole quantity marketed at
the same time to the basis on which the excess can be negotiated.
If the figure at the base of the diagram (fig. 3) be now studied in connection
with the Winnipeg price-line, it will be seen how large a proportion of each year's
crop moves out of the elevators at the lowest price of the year. Take, for example,
the crop grown in 1913, which was shipped east in the twelve months beginning with
September, 1913, and ending with August, 1914. During the first four months of
this crop year, 71-55 per cent of the whole year's surplus was shipped east at the
lowest prices of the year. As a considerable part of the subsequent May shipment
peak was "hedged" during these months on the basis of current prices plus carry¬
ing charges, this quantity should really be added to the autumn peak to represent
the full proportion of the crop which Western Canada let go on the depression which
58
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V.-A. 1916
coincided with, or was caused by, its excessive deliveries on the primary market in
the last quarter of the year.
Conditions Affecting Cost.—Whether or not the system of marketing in one oi
two extreme peaks causes lower prices for wheat, it is certain that it tends in some
respects to create higher costs. These higher costs may fall upon the producers of
wheat, or they may appear to be widely distributed, but any avoidable coéts are unne¬
cessary limitations.
Diagram 14 represents in freight cars the monthly quantities of wheat delivered
from the interior to the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur for the
crop year 1913-14. The very large equipment of rolling stock required to move the
October shipments, and the small demand during most of the rest of the year, are
strikingly evident. In October, 1913, there was delivered at the terminals, 37,546,215
bushels of wheat, and therefore rolling stock sufficient for that purpose was in exist¬
ence, and a corresponding number of locomotives, and there were all the double tracks
and sidings and sorting yards necessary to handle traffic, of that magnitude. These
things, being in existence, represent a capital investment that calls for twelve months'
interest every year. The last string of cars, marked ".average," if steadily employed,
could have carried all of the wheat in the same twelve months. So far as wheat is
concerned, there was really required, under theoretically perfect transportation con¬
ditions, a capital investment in railway facilities equal only to the " average " train,
which is less than one-third the size of the actual October train. If all grains were
taken instead of wheat alone, each of the trams would be longer, but the proportions
would not greatly differ. In Canada there is no big load of other traffic with an
opposite seasonal distribution, and the " average " train could carry back from the
head of the lakes to Winnipeg and the west the maximum load of the present west¬
bound traffic. There is no intention of suggesting perfectly equal monthly shipments
of grain as practicable, or even desirable, but there is no escaping the conclusion that
present methods create an extra cost in fixed charges which must somehow be met.
The irregularity of the employment of labour in connection with grain traffic is
another aspect of this same matter. Diagram 15 shows the maximum number of men
employed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company each month of the above crop
year on grain traffic on the Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba divisions, the last
named embracing the lines to Fort William. The men counted were the engineers,
firemen, brakemen, and conductors engaged on grain trains, and the yardmen employed
because of grain traffic. Exactly the same conditions prevail on the other railways.
In the operating departments of the railways there is no compensating demand for
labour in the slack grain months. Employment of labour in this manner, apart from
its serious sociological bearing, must tend to add to costs.
One further point may be emphasized, in diagram 16, and that is the nature of
the demand under the present system for lake vessels to carry the wheat from Fort
William and Port Arthur. This part of the subject has already been dealt with from
a somewhat different point of view in discussing traffic conditions in the Lake
Superior trade. Shippers of wheat in October, 1913, chartered almost three times the
number of vessels that would have been required to move the whole year's load if it
had been evenly distributed over the same navigation months. In the inserted figure
in this diagram the inevitable consequence of such methods appears in freight rates.
Froih September the rates moved upward to a high point in December, the two weeks,
of open navigation in which month generally witness the most active demand of the
season, and fell again toward the low point as traffic declined. The greater-part of
the shipments bore the higher rates.
Tendencies toward excessive costs must be «provided against as carefully as ten¬
dencies toward inequitable depressions in price, if the production of, and therefore
the traffic in, wheat is to measure up to estimates based on the fertility of the soil
and the capacity of the world's consuming markets.
FREIGHT CARS ENGAGED IN WHEAT TRAFFIC.
SEPTEMBER
18.075 473 BUS®
30.946,217 BUS
DECEMBER
17.883.688 BUS.1
JANUARY
3.309.258 BUS.
FEBRUARY M 1
1.184.374 BUS.^™4™
MARCH
2.895,669 BUS.
APRIL
5.011.571 BUS.1
g 937 203 BUS ^^PPP^^P^^^^^^^PPPPPP^^^^^
5.021.318 BUS.
MOVEMENT OF WESTERN CANADIAN WHEAT e
TO TERMINAL ELEVATORS FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR
AUGUST ipwpzj CROP YEAR 1913-1914
1,411.972 BUS.™wg—^
AVERAGE COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DEMAND ON R0LLIN6 STOCK
I>
3
O
1,144767 EACH CAR REPRESENTING 1.000,000 BUSHELS OF WHEAT
Diagram No. 15.
LABOUR EMPLOYED IN GRAIN TRAFFIC
SEPTEMBER
5251
OCTOBER
6618
NOVEMBER
6360
DECEMBER
4967
JANUARY
3372
FEBRUARY
2631
MARCH
2524
APRIL
2768
MAY
2702
HMH
WWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWW4
wwwww
WWHW
WWWW
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
Ji9i8E W1WIM TRAINMEN AND YARDMEN
EMPLOYED ON GRAIN TRAINS
ON THE MANITOBA, SASKATCHEWAN
1059 AND ALBERTA DIVISIONS
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
OB ''' mi IN EACH MONTH OF THE CROP YEAR
A102U3ST .1.1^1 1913-1914
WW
NOTE.- EACH FIGURE IN DIAGRAM REPRESENTS 250 MEN
LAKE VESSELS ENGAGED IN WHEAT TRAFFIC.
SEPTEMBER
5,466.217 BUS —
38,(^2^212^BUS. f ^ 0 A-afe ,!■■.■■ .I.,.,.,.
29,941X29^ BUS ^ hfll h ^ h A—
DECEMBER
18.671,984 BUS.
PART MONTH
APRIL -to w J> u. -n h
4.243.443 BUS.
■ PART MONTH
MAY ^ j ') |-| |j| I '! -1! h ^ ^—*i
14,328.451 BUS. imm ■■■■ 1 ^
JUNE J
5.454.470 BUS. »"™
.•aa.
JULY
6654.694 BOS aP^
AUGUST
1.914.247 BUS
AVERAGE
13.855,224 BUS
LAKE RATE ON WHEAT. FROM FORT WILUAM AND PORT ARTHUR (BUFFALO BASIS )
1913
1914
yv
J
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
MOVEMENT BY LAKE OF WESTERN CANADIAN WHEAT
FROM TERMINAL ELEVATORS. FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR.
CROP YEAR 1913-14
COMPARISON OF MONTHLY DEMAND ON LAXE STEAMERS.
■EACH STEAMER REPRESENTING 2.000.000 BUSHELS OF WHEAT
62
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
THE ROUTING OF EXPORT WHEAT.
From Fort William and Port Arthur wheat for export to Europe is distributed
over many routes to the seaboard, and is shipped from some seven or eight different
ocean ports. A part of the wheat follows Canadian routes to Canadian oeean ports,
and part is diverted at some stage of its journey eastward to United States routes and
to United States oeean ports. It is clearly necessary to examine the distribution of
export shipments under normal conditions in order, if possible, to discover the deter¬
mining causes. Unless the real causes, under present conditions, of the diversion of
so much Canadian wheat to United States ports are recognized, it cannot be confi¬
dently assented that any particular change in conditions will materially alter the
situation. - i
What, in the first place, are the facts concerning the present diversion and distri¬
bution of export wheat shipments? In diagram 17 are presented the facts for the
calendar year, 1913. In this diagram the movement of Canadian wheat from the head
of the Great Lakes to the seaboard is traced in solid black lines, drawn to a scale of
width in accordance with the number of bushels passing over each part of the route.
In the tables of figures inserted in the diagram will be found the principal .quantities.
Some Western Canadian wheat is forwarded each year by rail to Duluth-Superior for
shipment from that point. Passing down the lakes this comparatively narrow stream
joins the broad stream from Fort William and Port Arthur, and the combined total
flows eastward through the 'St. Marys river. A tiny rivulet then diverges to Chicago
and a little later a substantial stream moves toward Georgian bay and is divided up
among many ports. The main stream, however, continues south through lake Huron,
losing a little to Goderich, a little to Port Huron, and a trifling amount to Detroit.
In its passage through lake Erie a very small quantity branches off to Toledo and
another to Port Stanley, and quantities of some importance to Fairport and Erie.
The chief body of the remaining stream flows straight to Buffalo, the balance swerving"
northward to be divided between the Port Colborne elevators, from which it is later
transhipped, and the all water route to Kingston, Prescott, and Montreal. In the
diagram all receipts at Canadian lake ports as well as those at Port Huron are carried
through at full width to Montreal, and the export wheat which could be traced as having
been shipped all rail in that year is also indicated as arriving at Montreal. It will be
observed that the .receipts thus shown for Montreal are greater than the wheat exports
that passed on through that point. The difference would represent the amount of
Western Canadian wheat which was retained in Ontario and in Quebec for milling
purposes, or remained in various public elevators. Of the United States ports of
export, Portland is represented as being supplied through Montreal, and Bpston, New
York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore through Buffalo, Erie, Fairport, and TolecL
Boston at times Teceives Canadian grain by way of Montreal. The width of the line
of receipts at Buffalo is a little greater than the line of shipments passing on through
Buffalo, for the reason that some Canadian wheat remained in winter storage in vessels
lying in Buffalo harbour, and did not pass on within the calendar year.
To arrive at the total proportion which went out through United States ocean ports,
the shipments to Portland must be added to the quantities which were diverted from
the head of the lakes to United States routes, and which are brought together into one
stream east of Buffalo in order that their comparative magnitude ' may be seen. 1
round figures two-thirds of the Canadian export wheat in the calendar year 1913 was
STATEMENT OF DISTRIBUTION
THROUGH OCEAN PORTS OF EXPORT
Canadian Ports
Montreal-
26.834.373
Bushels
St John - • ■
- 7.666998
Halifax •
554.712
Total--
-.35056083
United States Ports
Portland
... 0223463
Bushels
Boston
• 14.334932
New York • -.
..22.616305
Philadelphia ■ •
-12797.843
Baltimore
.12690009
Total-
..70663.152
STATEMENT OF DISTRIBUTION TO INTERIOR PORTS
From Fori William and Porl Arthur via Great Lakes 130.181,954 Bushels
•• Dulutti . .... 7.830740 ••
Total .138012694
Bushels
Bushels
374967
To Detroit
....16000
.. Depot Harbour
.296 3915
.. Toledo
.. 950525
. .77 7 4.110
.. 340302
«Tiffin
.. . JL639728
,5J98205
. .. 630000
. 7.628624
.. Collingwood ..
.... 337.869
.. Port Colbome
20806527
. ... 110600
54643639
.. Goderich . ...
.. .6608685
.. Kingston.direct by water
. 1.972473
.. Porl Huron
. . .3992.437
.. Prescott, » « ..
.. 8Q059
.. Point Edward
386142
.. Montreal. .. - ..
11.550887
Total Canadian Ports 65209.097 Bushels
Total United States Ports .72603597
Total Canadian and United States Ports 138612694
By all rail for Export via Canadian Pacific Ry, L03Q000
64
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
shipped through United States ocean ports, and one-third through the Canadian ocean
ports. Quantities and proportions differ in different years, but a considerable diversion
to United States routes appears to be the normal condition, although the normal pro¬
portion so diverted could be determined only after further examination of the facts.
Yearly total figures, such as represented in the above diagram, do not often supply
sufficient material for a study of causes. To secure the necessary material there were
taken, from the original records at Fort William, Port Arthur, and Duhifh, particulars
of every shipment of Canadian grain, and from the files of ships' manifests at
Montreal, St. John, and Halifax the name of every vessel loading Canadian grain,
distinguished as liner or tramp, with the date of loading, the quantity of each kind of
grain carried and the port to which it cleared ; and through the courtesy of the Depart¬
ment of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and1 Domestic Commerce, at Washington, a
competent statistician compiled, from the original records there, monthly details of the
movement of Canadian products, in bond, through the United States ocean ports.
This material covers the three calendar years 1911, 1912, and 1913.
Causes of Diversion.—Diversion may have been due to one or more of many
causes: the physical inability of Canadian routes to handle more traffic; the superior
speed or certainty of other routes; relative freight rates; financial;»or other private
business considerations, or personal preferences on the part of the shippers ; conditions
of ocean transportation. It will, therefore, be important to examine, in more detail
the movement of Canadian export wheat.
Diagram 1'3, which contains three figures, represents the manner in which Cana¬
dian export wheat leaves Canada month by month, by being shipped from Cana¬
dian ocean ports and being diverted to United States routes. The quantities shown
as diverted to the United States do not always pass through United States ocean ports
in the same months in which they are diverted from Canada; and this diagram, there¬
fore, is not a direcf comparison, by months, of ocean shipments, but only of shipments
from Canada. - '
Fig. 1 shows the total shipments from Canada, the solid black portions of the
monthly columns being the shipments from Canadian ocean ports, which are called
direct exports," and the balance of the columns the quantities diverted to United
States routes, called " indirect exports)."- In figs. 2 and 3 these direct and indirect
exports are shown separately.1
If fig. 2 is examined, it will be noted that it possesses some general regularity of
form. In the months of December, January, February, March, and April the port
of Montreal is closed, and the exports during these months are through the ports of
St. John and Halifax, and are substantially equal in amount. In the month of May
export from Montreal begins and continues until the end of November. During
these months the exports are much greater in quantity ; and if an imaginary line be
drawn from the tops of the May columns to those of the November columns the idea
is suggested that the almost rectangular figures thus formed represent in some way the
capacity, or the usefulness, of the Montreal route, under the conditions that prevailed
in each of the three years under review. Montreal does not export the same amount
each month, the most marked departure from substantial evenness being found in the
months of September and October in the years 1912 and 1913. That less wheat was
shipped in these months was not due to there being no Canadian wheat for export, as
appears from fig. 1. A study of Canada's total exports of all goods month by month
discloses the tendency to crowd all exports upon the last third of the year. In Sep¬
tember, October, and November the vessels arriving at Montreal are offered more
cheèse, apples and higher class goods than in the earlier months of the season, and the
irregularity in the shipments of wheat may be due to the irregular offerings of
i Appendix, Table 29, p. 115, Statistics, 1909-13.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
65
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
other freight, which carried! somewhat higher rates and would be given the preference
accordingly. The increased shipments in the month of November, when large quantities
of other freight are still offering, may, perhaps, be explained by the higher freight
rates obtainable for wheat in that month, which may have made it profitable for
vessels to go to the expense of increasing their freight accommodation, which could
be done in combination liners, for example, by fitting steerage quarters for package
freight, thus leaving more space in the holds for wheat. It is not intended at this
stage to assume any definite explanations, but only to point out the approach to regu¬
larity of form in the direct exports of Canadian wheat, in order that the entirely dif¬
ferent character of the indirect shipments (fig. 3) may be observed.
The only regularity about the traffic diversion to United States routes is the fact
that these routes carry the two peaks Western Canada thrusts forward. The first sug¬
gestion from this diagram, as a whole, is that the Canadian ports do a certain more or
le?s regular business, and the United States routes carry the peaks of the loads. It
is clear that the United States routes are not always competitors of the Canadian
routes with the same effectiveness. From the relative quantities in the month of
November, 1913, as shown in fig. 1, it cannot, for "example, be inferred that the United
States routes can always successfully compete with anything like the proportionate
results there shown, for in the month of August, 1913, Montreal took nearly all the
wheat offered, and in many other months it secured by far the larger quantities.
Montreal exported more Canadian wheat than any other single port, New York com¬
ing second, Boston third, Philadelphia fourth, Baltimore fifth, Portland sixth, and
St. John seventh.
The eloeing of navigation on the St. Lawrence in the winter months is a physical
limitation on the Canadian routes, which may well have some effect on total yearly
quantities shipped. During the period of open navigation, however, there is no climatic
cause of diversion and shipments through Montreal may, therefore, be more particu¬
larly studied. That Montreal's proportion of the total export shipments of Canadian
wheat in 1911, 1912, and 1913 was not larger cannot be satisfactorily accounted for,
either by the physical shortcomings of the routes to Montreal from the interior, or by
the inadequacy of the equipment on them. The St. Lawrence and Welland canals have
never carried more than a moderate fraction of the traffic that could be passed through
them ; and, as we have seen, many Canadian vessels of " canal size " spend most of the
season in the open lake trade, so that no continued shortage ox vessels suitable for the
all-water route could have been experienced. With regard to the lake-and-rail routes
Jo Montreal, the capacity of the water section, could, of course, be limited only by the
number of vessels available. Canadian vessels in those years carried all the Canadian
coasting traffic in wheat, supplying Canadian millers1 as well as export requirements;
they were not, on the average, fully loaded eastbound, as has been shown ; and they were
left free to carry some cargoes to United States ports, that is, to participate in the
diversion. In October, 1913, there was loaded into Canadian vessels at Fort William
and Port Arthur 14,020,901 bushels of wheat, and in the following month 13,126,533
bushels of wheat: the greatest month's export of wheat through Canadian ports was
in the month of May, 1913, when the quantity was only 5,243,408 bushels; so that
Canadian vessels on the lakes have loaded in each of two consecutive months over 2%"
times the quantity of Canadian wheat that Canadian ocean ports have Aver shipped
in a month. Even if Canadian lake tonnage had been deficient, more Canadian wheat
might have been shipped in United States vessels to such a point as Port Huron, from
which Canadian rail lines could have carried it to Montreal ; or to Buffalo, from which
Canadian, or United States, vessels could have carried it by water to Montreal; and
again more Canadian wheat might have been directed from the interior to Duluth-
Superior where it could have taken United States vessels to Canadian ports. No ques-
19b—5
Diagram No. 18.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPORTS OF CANADIAN WHEAT
SOLID BLACK EXPORTS THROUGH CANADIAN OCEAN/ORTS
HATCHED QUANTITIES DIVERTED TO UNITED STATES ROUTES
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
67
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
tion can be raised about the ability of the rail lines across southern Ontario to handle
in a season more ex-lake traffic than they have ever yet received.
Nor is any easy explanation found in freight rates. It would appear that the
Canadian wheat that was diverted to United States ocean ports paid higher rates to
the seaboard than did the wheat shipped to Montreal. An examination of regular and
special tariffs for several years has failed to discover any period in which United
States routes to the seaboard for Canadian wheat were allowed to have an advantage
in freight rates over Canadian routes.
Montreal in 1914, with no corresponding increase in handling plant, exported 82
per cent more wheat than in 1913, or 38 per cent more of all grains, the greater part
being United States products. Montreal's mechanical equipment could have handled
more wheat than it did in 1911, 1912, and 1913, if more wheat had been offered.
Whatever may be the need of increased handling facilities at Montreal, of an
enlarged fleet on the lakes and of better service on the railways, it would appear that
present deficiencies in these respects do not completely explain why it was, for example,
that only one-third of Canadian export wheat in 1913 passed through Canadian ocean
ports.
Before attempting to estimate the diverting power of other possible causes, it may
he well to inquire first into the conditions of transportation on the ocean. The exporter
of wheat wishes to ship wheat to Europe. If he cannot ship right through to Europe
in time to fulfil a contract offered him and at a total cost for the whole journey that
will leave him a satisfactory net price, he will not ship at all. He may have prefer¬
ences as to routes and ports, but he must at any given time choose the through route
and the combined through rate that will enable him to do business. If the explanation
of his routing of Canadian export wheat does not readily appear in local conditions
between Fort William and Port Arthur and the seaboard, the final stage of the through
route must be examined.
As in the ease of traffic on the lakes, there should he some understanding of the
types of vessels, of their distribution, of load factors, of freight rates, and perhaps of
various incidental costs and charges.
Liners and tramps.—In 1912, the overseas commerce of the world was conducted
by more than 25,000 steamers, of which 1,555 were " liners " and 23,500 " tramps."
Vessels engaged in regular-line service, that is, vessels upon a fixed route and with a
definite schedule of sailing dates, are known as " liners." The " tramps " are free
to sail anywhere in search of à profitable cargo, and to be chartered by the highest
bidders in the great shipping exchanges of the world. The 25,000 ocean carriers in
1912 were owned by approximately 4,200 different companies, firms, and individuals,
and the 1,565 liners by 108 different companies.1
The functions performed by these two general classes of ocean carriers differ in
many important respects. Tramps cannot perform as satisfactorily as liners many of
the services required in modern commerce, but with respect to such traffic --t.
the two classes are directly competitive.
i Investigation of Shipping Combinations, evidence before the Committee of the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, 62nd Congress, Hearings, Volume 2, p. 1372.
19b—5J
68
INTERIM REPORT OR THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
In diagram 19 the relative quantities of Canadian wheat carried by liners and
by tramps from Montreal in the years 1911, 1912, and 1913 are indicated. The
figures are as follows:—
Diagram No. 19.
EXPORTS OF CANADIAN WHEAT FROM PORT OF MONTREAL
ALSO
Freight Rates to LiverpooLand Cargo Insurance
Navigation Seasons l9il.lS!2,i9!3
Hatched Monthly Quantities Shipped by LINERS
Solid Black -...TRAMPS
Canadian Wheat Shipped from Montreal .by Liners and by Tramps.
Compiled direct from Ships' Manifests.
Month.
1911.
i 1912.
1913.
Liners.
Tramps.
Liners.
Tramps.
Liners.
Tramps.
Bush.
2,709,058
1,928,485
1.879,246
2,865,266
2,167,813
2,341,751
3,102,492
Bush.
Bush.
3,553,283
3,619,841
2,775,194
3,553,768
1,983,463
2,284,683
4,534,723
Bush.
27,036
380,296
Bush.
4,348,493
3,633,585
3,199,444
3,279,110
1,775,171
3,357,505
4,446,642
Bush.
528,337
1,429,635
704,622
939,727
122,284
69,818
July
September
November
Total
16,294,141
22,304,955
407,332
24,039,950
3,794,423
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
69
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b .
It will be noted that tramps carried no Canadian wbeat from Montreal in the
year 1911 ; that they carried a little in May and J une, 1912 ; and that in 1913' they
carried an appreciable quantity in several months of the season. Of the total wheat
exports for the three years, tramps carried 5-66 per cent. In 1913 the percentage was
13-63, and in the month of June in that year they carried 28-23 per cent of the
monthly total. It is evident that tramps proved in those years only a small and
irregular factor in the wheat trade.
In the same diagram there is indicated the range, from lowest to highest, of 'ocean
freight rates on wheat, month by month, from Montreal^to Liverpool,1 which may be
taken as representative of freight rates to Europe. In 1911, freight rates were the
lowest of the period. In that year there were no tramps. In May and June, 1912,
the range had moved higher, and there were one or two tramps. In 1913 there was
a distinct and sustained elevation of rates for the greater part of the season, and there"
were many tramps. In October and November, 1912, on the other hand, some rates
were very high and yet no tramp cargoes are reported. All that can be said, therefore,
from this examination of shipments in relation to freight rates, is that in 1911, 1912,
and 1913 no tramp vessel took from Montreal a cargo of Canadian wheat except when
freight rates were comparatively high, but that tramps were not attracted on every
occasion on which the rates were high.
• Merely incidentally, there are also introduced in diagram 19, lines indicating
cargo insurance out of Montreal,2 drawn to the same scale as the freight rates. Wheat
is assumed to have been worth $1 per bushel at the seaboard, and a rate of 25 cents
per $100, for example, to have been equivalent to a charge of one-quarter cent per
bushel. Whatever may be the effect of relative insurance rates on the diversion of
wheat traffic, it is perfectly clear that cargo insurance cannot be the immediate cause
of this diversion. There are big forces of some kind swinging freight rates up and
down, in comparison with which cargo insurance is a very small factor.
The next question that may naturally arise is as to the part played by tramp
vessels in the grain traffic of those North Atlantic ports of ,the United States which
attract so much Canadian wheat; The following are the figures for the four years,
1910-13, of the tramp cargoes of grain of all kinds loaded at Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore:— /
Year.
Boston.
New York.
Philadel¬
phia.
t/j i 'h
• ,
' KIIM
Baltimore.
1910
1
11
1911... - . .
4
14
17
1912. .
24
36
58
1913.
20
34
129
It is obvious that it was not the large numbers of tramp vessels in the grain trade
out of Boston and New York that can explain the diversion of Canadian wheat to
those ports. In 1903, Boston loaded two tramp cargoes of grain, but apparently no
more from, that time to the end of 1913. In 1903, New York recorded eleven tramp
grain cargoes, but from 1903 to 1911 not a single tramp cargo is recorded. According
to records since 1878, Baltimore has loaded tramps every year, and Philadelphia every
year but one, 1904; but on the average more tramps were loaded at Baltimore than at
Philadelphia. In the appendix3 will be found figures covering this whole period, which
indicates that, since 1900 and up to the beginning of the war, tramp vessels were but
1 Appendix, Table 30, p. 116, Statistics, 1909-14.
2 Appendix, Table 31, p. 116, Statistics, 1911-14.
3 Appendix, Table 36, p. 127, Statistics, 1878-1915.
70
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. '.916
a small factor in the North Atlantic grain trade. The liners evidently dominate the
wheat exports.
iOicean Freight Bates on Wheat.—It will be desirable at this point to take a some¬
what wider survey of the problem and inquire whether the changes in ocean freight
rates just noted in the Montreal-Liverpool route, and which would seem to have been
under the influence of powerful forces, are local in character, or peculiar to the Cana¬
dian port or even to the North Atlantic trade. Material for this survey has been
obtained through the courtesy of Broomhall's Corn Trade News, at Liverpool, and
Comtelburo's Daily Freight Register, at London. Mr. Broomhall was asked particu¬
larly for rates to Liverpool, which is the leading port of the United Kingdom for
liners, the quotations to cover liner, or " berth," rates as well as tramp rates, and from
his records furnished current rates, not necessarily confined to Liverpool rates, quoted
on the first business day of each week, from January, 1909, until December, 1914,
from the following ports: from New York, in the United States; from Odessa, the
principal Black Sea port of Russia; from Karachi, the leading grain port of India;
from the River Plate, down River, in the Argentine ; and from Australia. The Baltic
Exchange in London is the greatest charter market in the world for tramp vessels, and
quotations from the Daily Freight Register are exclusively tramp rates and are in the-
form of high and low rates per month to the United Kingdom from the same ports,
but including also tramp rates from Canadian Atlantic ports. The tramp rates from
New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are generally the same, or rather tramps are
generally chartered to load "Atlantic Range," that is, with the option to the shipper
to select any one of several ports on the North Atlantic coast of the United States
which have come by the custom of the trade to be placed upon the same basis, and
this has some interesting consequences. Tramp rates from the Daily Freight Register
are therefore " Atlantic Range " rates rather than New York rates.
These two eets of quotations have been charted in diagram 20.1 Ocean freight
rates are, of course, almost always quoted in shillings and pence and the unit of
weight is sometimes the quarter (eight bushels), and sometimes the ton, and there are
several different kinds of tons, according to the usage of each trade. For the purpose
of this diagram the quotations received as above have been reduced to the common
basis of cents per bushel of 60 pounds.
To fig. 1 have been added the freight rates from Montreal to Liverpool, which
were used in diagram 19. These Montreal rates are represented in their range from
high to low per month and therefore are in a different form from the other rate lines,
which are based on a single quotation per week, but if the general trend of the Mont¬
real ratés be followed, comparisons can be made without difficulty.
Points to be noted in this diagram are :—
1. The remarkable parallelism of the main rate lines. By looking at the figures as
a whole this fact can be clearly seen, and the point should be carefully noted." If the
Argentine rate line be temporarily disregarded and attention fixed on the rate O--- of
Australia, Karachi, Odessa, and New York, the tendency is clearly apparent for these
lines to maintain approximately the same proportionate distance from each other
throughout the whole period. Marked temporary fluctuations occur in the. individual
lines, which may not instantly show themselves in the other lines, but there are few
cases in which an important upward or downward movement in any one line does not
stand in relation to a somewhat corresponding movement in the other lines within a
period of two or three months.
2. That the spaces separating these main rate lines seem to bear some relation to
the differences-in distance from the United Kingdom. Odessa is 400 or 500 miles
i Appendix, Tables 32-33, pp. 117 to 124, Statistics, 1909-14.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
71
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
more distant than New York; Karachi is almost twice as far from the United Kingdom
as is New York; and the shortest route from any important Australian port is about
three and a third times as long as the route from New York, though some routes from
Australia by way of the Cape are about four and a third times the length of the route
from New York.
3. That the New York and Montreal rates are, on the whole, the lowest rates to
the United Kingdom enjoyed by any of the ports, and, except at one or two period5
the range of the rates from Montreal does not differ widely from the range of rates
from New York. No exact comparison can be made between the Montreal Line a5 "
the New York line because the former moves sharply between the highest and the
lowest rates in each month while the latter flows between specific rates taken once a
week. A study in detail of the relation between Montreal and New York rates would
require more- material than is supplied in this diagram.
4. That on two or three occasions Montreal rates appear relatively high or
relatively low, but that Montreal rates are, on the whole, clearly subject to the same
general forces as operate on other rates. It was in the first half of the navigation
season of 1913 that Montreal rates were highest, relatively, being then higher than
Odessa" rates and as high as some Argentine rates. It was in this period Montreal
had the greatest number of tramps shown in diagram 19. Montreal rates were not
relatively high in October and November, 1912, although actually higher than in 1913,
and there were no tramps. In the beginning of the season of 1912, when the range
was much lower, Montreal rates were relatively high when compared with New York
and Odessa and there were one or two tramps. It is possible, therefore, to amplify the
inference from diagram 19 by stating that in the period examined tramps entered the
Montreal wheat trade only when rates were relatively high.
5. That the tramp rates in fig. 2 tend to be higher than the rates in fig. 1.
This is the case with every individual rate line. Some allowance must be made for
the difference in the way the rates are quoted for these two figures, but as it is not
understood that Liverpool regularly enjoys, under equal' conditions, more favourable
rates than other leading ports of the United Kingdom, it is probable that the liner
rates included in figure 1 give to that figure a lower range than is found (in the
exclusively tramp rates in fig. 2. In other words, it is probable that tramps enter
every wheat trade, as well 'as the Montreal trade, when rates are comparatively high.
Among the details that may be noted under this heading is that New York and
Montreal do not seem to have the lowest rates in fig. 2 as regularly as in fig. 1, the
advantage often resting with Odessa. New York and Montreal seem to have paid
relatively more for their tramps than for their liners. The merely occasional character
of tramp business with Montreal is shown by the scattered quotations. The New
York, or more correctly the "Atlantic Range" tramp rate line lis 'also very much
broken. It is suggested by fig. 2, therefore, that the tramp is a much more permanent
factor in all the other trades than it is in the North Atlantic trade.
The Argentine rates cover a wider range in the period than any other rates. At
the beginning of January, 1909, they held almost exactly their proper position in rela¬
tion to distances, but for the following years they remained relatively low, while in
1912 and during, parts1 of 1913 and 1914 they appear to have been unduly high. The
somewhat erratic character of the Argentine rate line need not necessarily disturb
such inferences as seem) indicated by the general relationship between the other rate
lines. One great trunk line of ocean travel from the United Kingdom and Northern
Europe sweeps across the North Atlantic to the United States and Canada, while the
other great trunk line sweeps through the Mediterranean, with branches to the innumer¬
able ports there and on the Black Sea, and on through the .Suez canal to the Indian
ocean where it divides, one branch going to India and the Far East and the other to
Australia. On account of the magnitude of the trade tributary to these two great
trunk linesl and to the variety of traffic and the number of ports, particularly on the
72
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Mediterranean and Far Eastern trunk line, it might be natural to expect that traffic
conditions, and therefore freight rates, would tend to be somewhat more stable than
in the case of the minor traffic route through the South Atlantic ocean. Moreover,
Suez Canal tolls, which during this period averaged about $1.25 per registered ton
(Suez measurement), would prevent extreme reductions in rates from India and
Australia, for this fixed charge, being on vessel capacity, would become relatively
heavier as rates declined or vessels were less fully loaded. When traffic increased and
vessels became relatively scarce, as they did in 1912, and when these world conditions
cbincided with some relative decrease in imports by the Argentine, it might be expected
that rates in the South Atlantic trade would sharply rise. On the average for the
whole period, however, the Argentine rates preserved about their relative place on the
scale.
Competition on the ocean.—If it be assumed that the law of supply and demand
has almost free, and even uncompromising, play upon the ocean, then it would be
expected that there would be wide and sometimes rapid changes in rates; low rates
in dull times such as preceded 1912 ; high rates when the pressure of traffic increases,
and the supply of vessels becomes relatively or abstolutely reduced, both of which con¬
ditions occurred in 1912. If, now, it be further assumed that there is effective com¬
petition among the 23,500 tramps, and, in certain classes of goods and under certain
conditions, between the tramp9 and the 1,555 liners, and also more or less active com¬
petition among the liners themstelves, then it would be expected that any tendency in
rates would be quickly communicated to every ocean trade, and, whether rates were
high or low, that in every trade, as soon as the machinery of competition could operatei
rates would tend to be adjusted to a common basis of earning value to the vessels, that
is, so adjusted that vessels in one trade could not earn much more than vessels in any
of the other trades. This would mean an adjustment bearing some relation to distance,
but modified by time, load factor, and incidental costs.
Whatever may be the correct conclusions upon the general theory of ocean rates,
the facts regarding wheat rates for six yearsl are as set forth in diagram 20. It has
never been found practicable to effectively organize the 4,100 owners of tramp vessels
foi the fixing of rates. Competitive bidding is provided for in tramp markets at
leading centers throughout the world and these centers are in constant cable com¬
munication with each other. Wheat is an entirely suitable cargo for tramps. It is
also highly desired by liners to supplement other freight. Liners on the North Atlantic,
before the days of freight conferences, occasionally carried parcels of wheat for noth¬
ing, and even purchased wheat when ballast was needed. Under conference conditions
a minimum rate of 3 cents per bushel has been agreed upon, but even then a liner is
free to carry upl to 96,000 bushels at a lower rate on any trip when more ballast is
required.
A combination liner, that is a vessel fitted to carry both passengers and freight,
is probably, when on a good trade route, the most successful type of ocean carrier.
Having some passengers, and some high-class freight, the combination liner, when it
wants wheat, can afford to carry it at a rate the tramp cannot meet. A large propor¬
tion of the comparatively few combination liners in the world are in the North Atlantic
trade, which is pre-eminently the liner trade. These liners take what wheat they want
before the tramps can get a chance at it. To do this they must, as a general rule, keep
their rates on wheat within the minimum fixed by the worldwide tramp competition,
and within that limit they may be expected to demand on every shipment as high a rate
as possible. Competition among the liners themselves must also be a factor of some
importance..
Effects on Canadian Wheat Exports.—Eeturning, now, to the distribution of Cana¬
dian wheat exports as between Canadian and United States ocean ports, it may be
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
73
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
suggested that the facts clearly indicate that the liners in the Montreal trade first take
what Canadian wheat they want; that the liners at Boston, Mew York, Philadelphia, and
Baltimore have the second call on the business ; and that when the liners are satisfied
the tramps enter the trade and they enter it first at Baltimore and Philadelphia, and
when the rates become relatively high they go to Montreal.
Pig. 2 of diagram 19, with its regularity of form, represents the capacity for wheat
of the liners in the Montreal trade during the summer, and those in the St. John and
Halifax trades in the winter. With liners, the capacity for wheat is, under ordinary
conditions, the amount of cargo space not engaged for higher class goods. In the
latter part of the season better-paying freight offers more freely and less space is left
for wheat, but if the rates on wheat go up sufficiently the liners may enlarge their
accommodation for freight. That the liners in the Montreal trade have the first call
on the business is indicated, not merely by the comparative regularity of their takings,
but by the fact that they sometimes take nearly all the wheat offering. So long as the
Montreal liners will carry wheat across the Atlantic at rates not exceeding those of the
liners from Mew York or other United States ports, the through Canadian route should
be cheaper than the through routes by way of the United States, because the rates on
Canadian wheat from the interior to Montreal are generally, if not always, lower than
to the United States ports. Whether costs per unit of cargo on the Montreal route
jufetify as favourable a rate as from Mew York may later be inquired into, as may also
the practical effects on rates of the provision inserted in the contracts between certain
liner companies and the Dominion Government in connection with the granting of sub¬
sidies, to the effect that rates from Montreal must not exceed rates from Mew York. At
this point, however, it is sufficient to say that the Montreal liners seem to have the
first choice of Canadian export wheat. Their immediate competitors are the liners at
United States ports.
When the Canadian liners have no more space they care to devote to wheat at
current rates, the competition for the balance is between the liners along the United
States coast and the enormous fleet of tramps scattered throughout the world. If the
United States liners desire more cargo they can secure what they want of the Canadian
surplus wheat by making rates slightly below the basis fixed by general tramp compe¬
tition. As Europe buys only so much wheat for delivery each month, there is not
always serious conflict between seaboard shipments of Canadian and United States
wheat, because if more Canadian wheat has been purchased for shipment in a certain
month it is probable that less United States wheat will be pressing for export at that
time. A glance back at the wheat lines running to Boston, New York, Philadelphia
and Baltimore, in diagram 18, suggests that these lines are in proportion to the liner
capacities at these various ports and do not represent any wild scramble for business.
After the liners along the North Atlantic have engaged to carry all the Canadian
wheat they are prepared to take within the rates fixed by tramp competition, what
remains over of the wheat must seek tramp vessels and offer rates to attract them.
Charter rates from Atlantic range ports are regularly lower than from Montreal or
from ports on the gulf of Mexico, and reasons could be advanced why they might be
expected to be somewhat lower. Whenever tramp rates from Atlantic Bange ports
are lower than from other ports accessible to Canadian wheat, then the tramps will
probably first enter the trade at Baltimore and Philadelphia, for the reason that these
two ports, with the sanction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, enjoy a differ¬
ential on 'ex-lake grain of three-tenths of a cent per bushel over Mew York and Boston,
and if a shipper can engage a tramp at Baltimore or Philadelphia for the same rates
as from Mew York or Boston, he can save three-tenths of a cent per bushel by shipping
from the former ports. On all rail shipments from or through Chicago, Baltimore
enjoys a slightly higher differential than Philadelphia, and it may be for this reason
Baltimore stands first in tramp shipments of grain. Tramp vessels may occasionally
be in such positions that they are willing to report at Montreal on favourable terms
74
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
as compared with any other North Atlantic port, but as a general rule rates offered
for tramps from Montreal must be relatively high.
The above general interpretation of the facts adduced is offered only as a tentative
working hypothesis. Yery many more facts and conditions must be taken into con¬
sideration. Liners sail from United States ports to many ports not reached by liners
from Canadian ports and some shipments may not be open to competition by Canadian
liners. Again, wheat merchants in the United States buy Canadian wheat on the
depressions in price accompanying extreme marketings and help to carry over the
excess. The peaks shown in diagram 18 as diverted to the United States, appear in
reduced form in the shipments from United States ocean ports, the balance being
spread over several months to meet the conditions of European demand. In so far
as individuals, whether merchants of the United States or of Canada, may choose to
finance and to hold this excess in the United States, there is brought into play a divert¬
ing force of a different kind from those just considered. The whole appearance of the
facts so far assembled suggests, however, that general transportation conditions on the
ocean are among the fundamental causes of wheat diversion and that these other
influences and motives may be only modifying factors.
But why are there not more liners in the Canadian trade? If the large surplus
of Canadian wheat and other products which now seeks other ports of export could be
carried to Montreal at least as cheaply, and generally more cheaply, why have not
more vessels entered the regular trade between Canada and Europe? The distance on
the Montreal route is rather shorter than on other routes and the time cannot be
longer; what, then, of the load factor?
Load factor on the North Atlantic.—The importance of load factor in the trans¬
portation problem has already been discussed (p. 25). Liners are vessels committed
to particular routes, and, in order that they may be able to command their share of
competitive traffic, they must so arrange their load factor that they can afford to meet
the rates of liners on alternative routes, and also the rates fixed by tramps on the basis
of world-wide supply and demand.
To satisfy the conditions in any trade there must be vessels enough available to
carry the peak of the load, but it may not be possible to keep regularly on any route
liners enough for this purpose. With traffic irregularly offered the season's load factor
might be so unfavourable and costs per. unit of cargo so high, that competitive rates
could not be met.
Canada's total exports to Europe of all classes of goods increased, with irregular
monthly fluctuations, to a great peak in the autumn months, while the imports from
Europe are pretty regularly distributed throughout the whole year. • Measured by
value, Canada, in the calendar year 1913, exported to Europe, in January, February,
March, and April, goods to the value of $43,146,701; in May, June, July, and August,
goods to the value of $69,838,920; and in September, October, November and
December, goods to the value of $124,894,678.1
On the other hand, Canada imported from the United Kingdom, from which the
greater part of its European imports come, in the first four months of the same year
goods to the value of $46,646,995 ; in the second four months, goods to the value of
$51,840,477 ; and in the last four months, goods to the value of $42,035,837.1 The
goods shipped to Europe are largely natural products of great bulk in proportion to
value, while the goods imported from Europe, being chiefly finished products, occupy
comparatively little cargo space. If the Canadian routes were to be supplied with liners
capable of handling Canada's total trade with Europe, these liners must be numerous
enough tc carry thç maximum shipments in any month, and in that case would have
1 Compiled from records of the Customs Department.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
75
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
extremely light cargoes eastbound during most of the rest of the year and westbound
per aps not enough cargo for ballast at any time. No account is here taken of the
passenger business and of mail or other subsidies, which must affect the ability of
liners to successfully handle somewhat irregular freight loads.
Under these conditions of Canadian trade with Europe, what load factor did the
vessels on the Montreal route work out in the season of 1913? There was unloaded at
Montreal in that season from all European countries 73'3,001 tons of freight, and there
was loaded at Montreal for Europe, in liners and in tramps, 1,647,115 tons of cargo,
giving a ratio of 2''23 eastbound to 1 westbound.1
_ Facts are not accessible to show the exact load factor on each of the competing
Lnited States routes. Although the quantity of freight to be moved inward, and the
quantity to be moved outward, must primarily determine the distribution of shipping,
statistics of tons in and tons out are obtainable for very few ocean ports in the world.
National revenues are collected on values and port dues on registered tonnage, and
there are records of the numbers and sizes of vessels and how much their cargoes would
probably sell for, hut little to show how full the vessels were, in or out. In the absence
of published statistics for the United States one or two statements from, authoritative
sources may be cited. In his work on "The Ocean Carrier" (p. 41), Prof. J. Russell
Smith, of the University of Pennsylvania, a recognized authority on transportation,
says :—
North America sends across the North Atlantic more than twice as many
tons of freight as Europe sends back.
In his evidence at Washington in January, 1913, before the Committee on the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries (Investigation of Shipping Combinations, Hearings,
vol. 1, p. 610), Mr. Franklin, Vice-president of the International Mercantile Marine
Company, quoted figures with respect to the Atlantic Transport Line, running
between London and United States ports, showing cargo space not filled in the year
1912. These figures show that on the average the vessels of the Atlantic Transport
Line brought to the United States on each trip 5,100 tons of cargo, and took back to
London 10,784 tons, or a ratio of 2-11 to 1. The following direct question and
answer are recorded:—
Mr. Hardy.—So that you export somewhere between two and three times
what you import, is that the fact?
Mr. Franklin.—That is right.
These statements are in general accordance with the load factor existing in the
Montreal trade, and theoretically it might be expected that substantially the same
load factor would be found at all principal North Atlantic ports. Sailing eastbound,
a vesçel cannot carry more than a full load, or say a load of 100, and a large part of
the bulk freight from North America can move as easily through one port as another
and at only slight differences in cost. Large quantities of United States grain can
without any difficulty be brought to Montreal and Canadian grain to the Atlantic
Range ports of the United States. Under these conditions, why would a line company
keep a vessel on the Montreal route, or the New York route, or any one route, if it
could secure on that route an inward load of only a little less than 50, when an
inward load of perhaps 75, or even 60, could be obtained upon another route? The
vessel with the regular inward load of 75 could make sufficient concessions in rates
to attract to any North Atlantic ports all the cargo it could carry eastboumd. Under
free competition vessels would at once be diverted from the less profitable to the
more profitable route until an equilibrium was established ; and no agreements or under¬
standings could long prevent an adjustment in some manner. Conditions change
every season, and the whole subject is complicated by passenger traffic, subsidies, port
i compiled from records of the Customs Department.
76
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
differentials, general railway interests, and innumerable other matters. It is not im¬
probable, however, that among the liners load factor tends to be equalized all along the
North Atlantic coast.
What inward cargo was eecured by the vessels on the .Canadian routes? In the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1914, Canada imported from Europe goods to the value
of $181,762,545. Of this total, goods to the value of $169,527,341 arrived at Canadian
ocean ports, and goods to the value of $12,235,204 arrived in transit through the
United States.1 That is to say, 93-27 per cent of Canada's purchaser in Europe
came directly to Canadian ocean ports. In the same year, Montreal received from all
countries goods to the value of $6,331,989 in transit to the United States on through
bills of lading, and Canada exported to the United States " goods not the produce ol
Canada," that is, goods imported from other countries but not on through bills of
lading, to the value of $13,575,474.2 It is hardly practicable to determine how
much of this freight, of a total value of $19,907,463, handled en route to United States
points, came from Europe, but making reasonable allowance it is evident that the
freight carried inward from Europe by vessels sailing to Canadian ports must have
been practically equal to all freight from Europe that was destined to Canada, and on
the Montreal route this gave an inward load of a little less than 50 in comparison with
the outward load of 100.
If Canadian ports receive practically all the freight belonging to Canada, and if
Montreal receives its full share, what would happen if vessels enough were intro¬
duced into the Montreal trade to carry all the Canadian wheat exports? If in 1913
this has meant, a doubling of the total number of vessels between that port and Europe,
would each vessel have had an inward load of only 25 against its outward load of
100, or is there any way in which more intransit freight for other countries could
have been securedé If this latter had not been found practicable, then presumably
the vessels in the Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore trades would have
retained an inward load of approximately 50. Could such a condition have been
maintained, and how would the cost have been distributed?
Canada has never yet been able to secure at Canadian ports enough vessels to
carry all the Canadian exports; that is, no measures so far taken to that end have
been sufficient to seriously disturb the simple economic balance of the load factor along
the North Atlantic coast. In so far as the proposed Georgian Bay canal would be
expected to very greatly increase the proportion of Canadian exports through Cana¬
dian ocean ports, it will clearly be necessary to arrive at some estimate of the per¬
manent counteracting force of the general load factor, or at least of the cost involved
in maintaining an ocean service on a less favourable economic basis than that pre¬
vailing on competing routes.
Canada's position in relation to the problem of ocean transportation is different
from that of any other country at the present time, for no other country has access
to so many ports in a foreign country that can be reached almost as conveniently and
as cheaply as its own ports, and no other country, except the United States, is served
by an ocean trade in which there are so many liners, which, therefore, dominate its
export traffic.
1 Trade and Commerce Report, 1914-15, Part I, p. 46.
2 Report of the Department of Customs, Trade and Navigation, 1914.
DIAGRAM N? 21
OCEAN FREIGHT RATES ON WHEAT. SEPT.to DEC. l9l5.to UNITED KINGDOM
FROM CHIEF EXPORTING COUNTRIES
d
I
3
0
It1
Q. 80
111 70
0
Ausr
RALIA
,
"yT
>
^NEW
fORK
..
//
?
/
KARA(
Ml
-L.
80
70
60
50
a
A
/V
\
V
A—
/v/
V
AUSTR
\ /
/
V
V
-
A .
\/
V-
.—'
^—
« '
V
<
y
ji——
sep. 19
sep. 26
oct. 3
oct. 10
oct. 17
oct. 24
oct. 31
nov. 7
nov 14
nov. 21
nov. 2a
dec 5
dec 12
dec 19
dec 26
weeks commencing
40 ill
I
30 D
0
» f
70 |
0
60
50
40
30
25
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
77
OCEAN FREIGHT RATES IN 1915.
It has not been found possible to complete for this report a comparative examin¬
ation of the movements of traffic and the courses of prices and of freight rates under
the abnormal conditions of 1914 and 1915. A few facts concerning ocean freight rates
on wheat in the last four months of 1915 may, however, be briefly considered by way
of supplement to the general survey of ocean rates for the six years immediately pre¬
ceding the war. i | ]
In diagram 21 are shown the movements of wheat rates in the principal ocean
trades between September 19 and December 31, 1915.1 In fig. 1 rates on the first day
of each week have been furnished, as in the case of diagram 20, by Broomhall's Corn
Trade News, and for fig. 2 the high and low tramp rates per week by Comtelburo's
Daily Freight Register. As Montreal rates seem to have kept within the limits of the
New York rates during all this period, only the latter are quoted.
It will be noted that the whole range of rates is extremely high. For the greater
part of the period liner rates in the New York trade were 40 cents, and at one time
touched 42 cents per bushel. Such rates were never before reached under modern
conditions. In 1910 the average wheat rate from New York was 3-18 cents per bushel,
and for the five years 1909 to 1913 the average was 4-83 cents per bushel.
Rates in the North Atlantic trade had witnessed a spectacular rise which cul¬
minated in the week of September 26 in a final leap of 10 cents per bushel. In its
course the New York rate line had crossed the Karachi line, although the Karachi
route is twice as long, and about October 10 the New York rate was higher than the
Argentine rate, while the Australia rate was comparatively very little higher. At this
period North Atlantic rates were not only unprecedentedly high in themselves, but
were relatively higher, when compared with other rates, than at any previous time.
The diagram shows by what stages the rates, thus thrown into confusion by the up¬
heaval in the North Atlantic trade, began to readjust themselves. It will be observed
that this readjustment was by way of a rise in the other rates and not by a drop in
the New York rate, and that the readjustment was not quite accomplished up to the
end of December, chiefly because the Australia rate had not continued its rise. Were
these developments in accordance with the laws and tendencies suggested as generaliz¬
ations from the facts of normal times or to what extent had new forces been
introduced ?
During the progress of the war so many vessels had been requisitioned for military
purposes, and so many interned and destroyed, that the world's mercantile fleet of ocean
carriers had suffered a material reduction. Overseas trade had also at first been
seriously affected, but the war soon created a large trade of its own and with an
improvement in general commerce the demand for tonnage had become very insistent.
There followed an uncompromising application of the law of supply and demand.
In the autumn of 1915, the United States and Canada were the only important
sources of wheat supply for Europe. Southern Russia and Roumania were still blocked
at the Dardanelles, and Northern Russia could send out only very small quantities
through Archangel; the Government of India was in control of the supplies in that
country and was conserving the surplus; Australia, owing to the partial crop failure in
1914 and pending the harvesting of the new crop, had nothing to export; and the
Argentine had already disposed of the greater part of its 1914-15 surplus. Demand for
cargo space for wheat thus became extraordinarily active in the North Atlantic trade.
l Appendix, Table 34, p. 125,' Statistics.
78
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
GEORGE V, A. 1916
So much space had never before been needed in that trade, for North America was
called upon to furnish nearly all the import requirements of Europe. The first effects
on rates were therefore found in the North Atlantic trade. At the new high level of
rates the North Atlantic trade attracted vessels enough to continue to ship each week
ample supplies according to the estimated average weekly needs of importing countries,
but as rates did not weaken there was apparently no large surplus of vessels available.
India shipped no wheat at all during this period but made small shipments of
barley. The Argentine shipped some wheat and a good deal of corn, and Australi;
was waiting for the new crop. There was no pressure in these trades, at least for
prompt shipment. India's harvest was some months distant, but it soon became
necessary for Australia and the Argentine to engage tonnage for the movement of the
new wheat crop, which would be ready for market in December and January. In
Australia, in view of the alarming conditions in the freight market and in order to
eliminate the element of local competition, the Government assumed the exclusive
management of export shipments and it was reported that certain firms of ship brokers
had been commissioned to engage up to 1,800,000 tons of freight room for wheat. In
the Argentine the business was left in private hands.
In the regular line trade with the Argentine and with Australia were many vessels,
and other vessels would from time to time sail for the South Atlantic or for the Ear
East with special outward cargoes, but the capacity of these vessels would not be
adequate to move the quantities for which shipment was desired, and to obtain
additional vessels meant offering rates equally profitable with those prevailing in the
North Atlantic trade. The United States and Canada had enormous surpluses, and
could continue to employ shipping. By the time its new crop was ready the Argentine
had bid fully the equivalent of the New York rates, but the Australian Government bad
fixed an arbitrary limit of 95 shillings ' per ton (about 61 cents per bushel), beyond
which it would not authorize a contract. Under these conditions, Australia could not
expect to divert free tonnage from the other trades, but might secure such vessels as
had other business in the Far East.
In 1910, when the average New York-Liverpool "berth" rate on wheat was 3i-18
cents, the 'average Hiver Plate-Liverpool rate was 5-78 cents, or a ratio of 1 to 1-82.
If the New York rate of 40 cents per bushel be multiplied by 1-82, the result is 72-80
cents. Compared with the average New York rate for the whole five years, 1909-13, of
4-83 cents per bushel, the average Argentine rate was 8-60 cents, giving an average
ratio of 1 to 1-78. The distance is about 1 to 2, but modified by time and load factor.
The ratio between the average New York and Australia rates for the same five years
was 1 to 3-46, the distance on the Australia route being 3>J to 4J times as great as on
the New York route, the shorter Australia routes being subject to Suez Canal tolls and
delays. The Karachi route is about twice as long as the New York route, but its
average rate for the five years was about 2-41 times) the New York rate, perhaps influ¬
enced by the passage through the Suez canal. The Odessa route is only about 15 per
cent longer than the New York route, and its average rate was about 1-23 times the
New York rate. These calculations are based on the Liverpool quotations, and can be
accepted only as a rough and ready measure of comparative rates. The tramp rates
cannot be satisfactorily averaged because in Some trades quotations are so scattered,
but it would appear that on the whole the New York basis was relatively higher than
with liner rates, while, compared with the other trades, Odessa and Karachi had
relatively lower tramp rates than liner rates. Contrary to conditions "before the war,
tramp rates in the New York trade in September, October, and November, 1915, were
rather lower than liner rates, but the ranks of the liners had been thinned by requisi¬
tioning and interment, and in the enlarged trade they had become a much smaller
factor than formerly and, moreover, the great quantities of higher-class! freight offer¬
ing made it less necessary to underbid the tramps for wheat.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
79
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Estimating from tlie experience of the above five years, it would be necessary for
Australia to offer a rate of approximately $1.35 per bushel in order to attract vessels
that could find employment in the New York trade at 40 cents per bushel, or in the
Argentine trade at about 70 cents per bushel. Such a rate would, however, be absolutely
prohibitive under competitive conditions; and yet it would be relatively not as high a
rate as Australia paid in 1910, when the average rate was only 14-13 cents per bushel.
The conditions in 1915 thus bring out clearly one practical bearing of competitive
ocean freight rates on international trade, which might not strike the attention in
normal times. Rates tend to rise with the pressure of demand, and competition then
tends to adjust rates in every trade to the same basis of earning value to the vessJel,
but as rates go up the spread widens in direct ratio, and it is the spread which makes
the trading margin for one country as against another. When the New York rate is
4 cents per bushel, the Argentine rate 7 cents per bushel and the Australian rate
13 cents per bushel, North American wheat at the seaboard has a spread of 3 cents per
bushel over Argentine wheat in the same position, and 9 cents per bushel over Australian
wheat; but when the basis for New York has moved to 40 cents per bushel the
spreads have become respectively 30 cents per bushel and 90 cents per bushel. Vessels
earn no more in the long-voyage trades than in the short route across the North
Atlantic, and there is no discriminaton, but North America has been established in an
almost impregnable trading position. If, under these conditions, Europe must have
wheat from these three countries, North America can sell its surplus at a handsome
profit before the Argentine can get cost and before Australia can export at all. The
laws of supply and demand and of competition operate in commerce as well as in
transportation. High ocean freight rates confer a temporary commercial advantage
on countries served by short-voyage trades, but ultimately the injurious! effects of exces¬
sive rates must, of course, tend to react even on the countries at first benefited.
Western Canadian wheat fields are further from the ocean than the Argentine
wheat fields, and although interior transportation costs per mile in Canada are more
favourable, the Argentine is in a good competitive position when the spread in ocean
rates is only from 3 to 6 centsl per bushel, but when the spread is 30 cents per bushel,
Western Canada can obtain a good price for its wheat, can absorb the costs of all-rail
transportation in the winter months and then can undersell Argentine wheat in Europe
even in the very months in which Argentine wheat is intrinsically cheapest. Australian
wheat fields are much more convenient to the ocean than those of Western Canada,
and when ocean rates are only from 10 to 12 cents per bushel higher than the New
York rates, Australian hard1 wheat can compete with -Canadian hard wheat in the
markets of the United Kingdom, but when very much greater spreads appear, this
becomes impracticable. Even the arbitrary maximum rate of 61 cents per bushel fixed
by the Australian Government in October, 1915, left a spread of about 20 cents per
bushel, which is much greater than the difference in interior costs; and it will be
instructive to learn how much wheat could be exported from Australia at a rate not
half as profitable to the vessels as the rates prevailing in other trades, and whether
compensation was obtained from rates on other goods inward or outward. Australia
might, of course, be relieved from the dilemma thus created by war conditions through
the extension of control by the governments of Europe over ocean traffic and shipping
during the continuance of the war.
It is evident that not only do the general conditions of ocean transportation
largely determine the distribution of international commerce, but that in the one par¬
ticular of a change in the basis of freight rates, and even when there is no discrimina¬
tion for or against any route, a factor exists of such varying power that it may seem
to produce different kinds of effects according to the degree to which rates are raised
or lowered.
80
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
BANK RETUKNS IN CANADA.
Trade and traffic must be financed, and therefore bank resources and methods,
rates of interest, and rates and facilities in connection with international exchange,
are fundamental conditions of production, commerce and transportation. Financial
conditions may assist or check development and influence the direction it takes, and
may be among the causes of the distribution and diversion of traffic. For these
reasons, financial facts should be examined together with all other underlying facts,
and with equal care. At this stage only a few of the main features of the resources
and business of the chartered banks of Canada will be presented.
To what extent do the Canadian chartered banks assist in the financing of ordinary
business in Canada? What proportion of their resources do they devote to this
purpose? How is the load they carry in this respect distributed throughout the year?
As safe and convenient depositories, banks gives service to the public, but their great
service to business is in the advances they make to facilitiate the turn-over of busi¬
ness. Most of the advances for commercial business purposes appear in the accounts
as "Current loans and discounts in Canada." This class of loans only will be con¬
sidered, in its relation to other important banking facts; although it should be borne
in mind that the banks, also make other loans in Canada, such as loans to Govern¬
ments, and "Call and short" loans on the security of stock, debentures and bonds,
which are not all in connection with Stock Exchange business, but are often the form in
which advances are made for commercial business. Call loans and loans to Govern¬
ments are not relatively very large and the totals do not widely fluctuate.
In accordance with the Bank Act, the chartered banks submit to the Minister of
Finance statements covering the condition of their principal accounts at the end of
each month. These monthly returns contain all the main items of a balance sheet
which are of direct concern to the public. The assets statement gives the measure of
the total resources of the banks and sets forth what they have done with these resources,
whether they have loaned them to clients, invested them in securities or buildings, or
hold them in their vaults in the form of coin or Dominion notes. The liabilities state¬
ment shows where the banks have obtained these resources, whether from shareholders,
from depositors, from their power to issue banks notes, or from miscellaneous sources.
In diagram 22, fig. 1, the important items of these monthly returns bearing on the
financing of general business in Canada are presented for the six years 1909 to 1914.
This diagram gives amounts in dollars, while diagram 23 gives the relations in per¬
centage of these amounts to the total resources of the banks in each month.1
Line, No. 1 in fig. 1, diagram 22, represents the total assets of the banks at the
end of each month, that is, the total resources of the banks. The ability of the banks
to give service must "bear a direct relation to their total resources, varying as these
resources vary. From the beginning of 1909 to the middle of 1913, the total resources
of the Canadian chartered banks steadily increased, but in a slightly waving line,
indicating small relative expansions in resources about the months of May and June
and somewhat more marked expansions in October and November, the latter partly
accoiuinted for by the exercise of the power to issue excess currency at that time.
Whether or not the increase in the resources of the banks kept pace with the increase
in general trade and therefore with the need for banking accommodation will not here
be inquired into; but it is clear that the resources actually in hand at any particular
time will set the limits within which service can be performed.
i Appendix, Table 37-38, pp. 128-133, Statistics, 1909-15.
DIAGRAM N°22
MONTHLY RETURNS OF CANADIAN CHARTERED BANKS
1909 TO 1914
FIG. 1, CURRENT LOANS IN CANADA,AND OTHER PRINCIPAL BANKING ACCOUNTS.
Jan'FgtjMaMpr^MajJui JuÏÏAuft'SeplOcTÎWw D«
1500
1000
500
CO
o
FIG. 2. BANK CLEARINGS IN COMPARISON WITH DEPOSITS AND CURRENT LOANS.
1000
1000
^ JarFeirtfaAprMnJuvIul Ata&pOcrNovDtc Ja-iFtb'MaiiAprWiÀluiilul AutiSinOctiNojDw ):
1913
1914
IGEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
81
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Line No. 2 indicates total liabilities other than liabilities to shareholders. Line
No. 2, therefore, divides the total resources of the banks into two parts. From the
base of the figure to this line is the part of the total resources derived from depositors
and other creditors, and created by the exercise of the power to issue bank notes. This
is by far the greater part of the banks' resources. Between line No. 2 and line No. 1
is the part supplied by the shareholders in the form of paid-up capital, reserve accounts
and profit and loss balances. It is the irregularities in line No. 2 that cause the
irregularities in line No. 1; that is, it is the variations particularly in the deposits and
bank note circulation that occasion the fluctuations in the line of total resources, the
amounts belonging to shareholders remaining fairly constant but showing a steady
increase.
Certain particulars are given separately in the remaining lines. Starting at the
base of the figure, the red line, line No. 8, gives the greatest amount of bank notes in
circulation at any time during each month. The power to issue bank notes is limited
to the amount of paid-up capital, plus any amounts deposited in the Central Gold
Keserves, but provision is made in the Bank Act for the issue of additional bank notes
during the usual season of moving the crop to an amount not exceeding 15 per cent
of the combined unimpaired paid-up capital and rest funds of the banks, and certain
further extensions of this power were granted as temporary war measures. Bank
notes are issued only as there is a demand for a circulating medium of this kind, and
it will be noted that, except in the autumn months, the demand has not led to the con¬
tinuous1 full exercise of the powers of the banks in this respect.
Line No. 7, representing paid-up capital, is practically a straight line with a slight
steady rise. The paid-up capital forms only a small part of the total resources of the
banks. The "rest or reserve" funds of the banks have grown more rapidly than the
paid-up capital until they are almost equal to the latter in amount. The rest funds
added to the paid-up capital give the total fixed contribution of the shareholders to the
resources of tfie banks, and these combined rest funds and paid-up capital accounts
are indicated in line No. 6. It is the amounts represented by line No. 6, plus profit
and loss balances, that make up the spread between line No. 1 and line No. 2.
Canadian chartered banks do not confine their business to Canada, but participate
in the international operations of Canadian trade and Canadian finance, and through
their own branches or through agencies they receive deposits and make loans in other
countries. Loans and deposits elsewhere than in Canada are included in the totals of
the assets and liabilities, and will later be referred to, but in this diagram only deposits
in Canada and current loans in Canada are given.
Deposits by the public are of two kinds, those payable after notice or on a fixed
day, commonly called "savings department" deposits, and those payable on demand,
which ordinarily earn no interest but form the funds against which bank cheques are
issued. Banks must be prepared to meet instantly all demands upon them, and cannot,
therefore, loan out or invest for fixed terms all the funds held by them, but must keen
in cash and immediately realizable securities such amounts as may be necessary to
meet any probable demands. As a basis for making current loans, savings deposits
can be counted upon in a different way from demand deposits. For this reason savings
deposits in Canada are shown separately in the broken yellow line, line No. 5. It will
be noted that deposits of this kind increased throughout the period without any very
marked variations. If demand deposits' are added to savings deposits, the result 1°
shown in line No. 3, which gives the total deposits by the public in Canada.
Coming now to line No. 4, we have the amounts advanced each month in the form
of current loans and discounts in Canada. These amounts, as already pointed out, do
not include call loans in Canada or loans to Canadian Governments, and, of course,
do not include loans made elsewhere than in Canada. It will be noted :
19b—6
82
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
1. That line No. 4 moves steadily upward from February, 1909, to September,
1913. The total of current loans increased year by year and almost month by month.
Indeed, in the above fifty "live months there were only seven occasions on which the
current loans in any month were not greater than those of the preceding month. So
even an expansion of business is rather remarkable. It is clear that there is nothing
erratic in this part of the banks' business. So far as totals are concerned, there was no
withdrawing of resources from loans in one year or in one part of the year, and no
sudden expansions at any time. Total loans were not reduced in the summer months
to accumulate resources for the autumn, for summer loans were in each year greater
than the spring loans' had been, and the loans each autumn were greater than the loans
in the summer, while the loans the following spring were greater than in the previous
autumn. Loans expanded as total resources increased, but obviously at a slightly
mbre rapid rate.
2. That current loans in Canada, which are made for fixed terms, were greater
than the deposits in Canada placed in the banks for fixed terms, or subject to notice,
and that the current loans increased faster than the savings deposits.
3. That after September, 1913, loans were actually reduced in amount, when the
reaction in business had set in, and that the trend of the line became downward.
Business in Canada rapidly expanded from 1909 to midsummer, 1913, but varied
in activity and volume at different periods of the year. Bank loans had no important
seasonal variations. The service rendered by anything depends, however, upon how
often it is used in a given time. If business in Canada were turned over only once a
year, and if bank loans were all for twelve month periods; then only one service in a
year would be performed by the resources devoted to bank loans; but if business were
turned over twice a year and loans averaged six months, then the effectiveness of the
loans would be double, and use every three months would quadruple the service. While
no facts have been obtained to show the average time of turn-overs in general business
in Canada, nor the average term of current loans, there can he found in the records
of bank clearings evidence as to seasonal activity in the use of such hanking resources
as were at the disposal of individuals. Most business payments are made by cheques
drawn on demand deposit accounts, which accounts are partly at least the product of
bank loans. If a cheque passes from a client of one bank to another client of the same
hank the exchange is adjusted within that bank without any public record; hut if the
exchange takes place between clients of different banks then the adjustment is made
through the clearing house and the totals' so adjusted at the various clearing house
centres are regularly published. Clearing house returns are, therefore, the records of
the amounts that change banks from time to time.
In fig. 2 of diagram 22 the monthly totals of bank clearings in Canada are
shown,1 the solid black line giving the total clearings in each month for .all Canada,
the dotted black line indicating the proportion of the clearings in eastern Canada and
the broken line the proportion in western Canada, including Fort William after the
organization, of the clearing house there in 1911. The lines of total deposits, demand
deposits and current loans in Canada are added to this figure so that comparisons of
amounts involved can be made. It will be noted that bank clearings' show a wide range
of fluctuations, but that each year has the same characteristics, an increase in May
and July and a much greater increase in October and November. There are some
differences between eastern and western clearings. In the last quarter of the year,
from 1909 to 1913, bank clearings were more than double the amount of the demand
deposits. If it could be assumed that only cheques on demand deposit accounts, and
hank notes withdrawn from such accounts, were cleared, then in the last three months
of the year all the amounts in all demand deposit accounts in Canada changed banks
i Appendix, TaMe 39, p. 134, Statistics, 1909-15.
DIAGRAM N2 23
PRINCIPAL BANKING ACCOUNTS
AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL RESOURCES
1909 to 1915
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
83
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
every two weeks. On several occasions an amount equal, or almost equal, to the total
of current loans was exchanged between banks in a month. This is great activity ; and
it takes no account of the very large aggregate of adjustments made within individual
banks which do not appear in the clearings. There is evidently business pressure twice
a year which is met by the frequency of the turn-over of the banking resources at the
disposal of individuals, but the total of the resources the banks afford to individuals
does not greatly vary. Perhaps, so rapid a turn-over in the autumn is undesirable and
implies undue strain, or perhaps only at that time is the financial machinery working
to full efficiency.
Further interesting light is thrown on current loans in Canada when percentages
are examined. In diagram 22 the current loan line, line Ho. 4, is one of the most reg¬
ular, but in diagram 23, where the various accounts are represented in percentages of the
total resources, it becomes the most irregular of all the lines. Bank deposits and other
funds fluctuated, but the loans were very steadily maintained and therefore the per¬
centage relation showed marked changes. Then it is manifest that between 1909 and
September, 1913, the banks put out in current loans an increasing percentage of their
resources each year. Current loans in Canada expanded relatively faster than any
other items in the accounts. The contraction, after September, 1913, is very strik¬
ing in the percentage line. But perhaps the most interesting: of all the points
in connection with this line is that it plainly shows that the peak load is encountered
by the hanks, not in the autumn, but in the spring months. In every year this is
true. With the aid of a little greater hank note circulation, then required, with slightly
greater deposits and with greater activity in the turn-over, the banks can handle the
rush of the autumn business and the moving of the crops with a smaller relative dead
load than falls upon them when the activity of settlement declines after the turn of
the year and it becomes necessary to carry over for several months what was not
liquidated in the autumn. If, according to sound banking practice, there is only a
certain percentage of resources which can safely be devoted to current loans, then it is
clear that, as business ifc at present organized in Canada, a strain tends to fall upon
the banks between January and May. This is a very important fact.
If it should be decided, for example, that it would be in the interests of the country
that a larger proportion of the wheat should be held over so that excessive autumn
marketings could be avoided, the question would arise whether with the present bank¬
ing resources it would be practicable to carry a much heavier load from January to
May, and this would lead to such other questions as to how banking resources could
be increased, or how the business system could be altered to better distribute the load
and to produce more frequent turn-overs and particularly in the spring months. How
far does pressure from the necessity of securing liquidation at least once within the
year account for the dumping in the autumn of many products, including wheat?
Do Canadian banks devote a proper proportion of their resources to current loans
in Canada? Could still further assistance be rendered in this way, consistently with
sound bankingi and the preservation of the absolute essentials of safety and of cash
and liquid reserves against every probable demand?
Could banking resources be increased out of local financial supplies? Banks
mobilize the financial resources of a country. Have Canadian chartered banks satis¬
factorily performed this function, that is, are the banking resources as large as the
conditions in Canada make practicable? Individual banks can be judged only accord¬
ing to their efforts to increase their own resources, and according to the use they make
of such resources as they have. If more resources are needed, a problem would exist
which might not involve special responsibility on the part of any individual bank,
nor would responsibility necessarily fall solely on the banks collectively. If present
banking resources are not adequate to the needs of Canadian business, would if be
wiser to seek temporary additional resources to meet the times of pressure, or to
19b—fij
Diagram No. 24.
CALL LOANS. CURRENT
ELSEWHERE THAN IN CAN/
TOTAL RESOURCES
Htttouii pL^1 llhn1''' jTlTflïïf
LOANS AND DEPOSITS
\DA, AS PERCENTAGES OF
OF CANADIAN BANKS
"o 1915
L|_
90 h
ilii
-| 1
—'Mill r PI rtT°
:
so Î -4 4
— T —r^rl r1" 80
i _l x. x
T_
- —îîi+5Ïf--ï---
1
j ^-J—L—
70 t — ...±- — ...
1_ III -r- ' , 1 ,• ' 1 -70
60 ttt-
t lt.±t± 4x| 60
y \—
ff. - -r-
xU- 1 h i M h i h 1 ^
— —L- rn
<
L___ ^
j-
L 1-
2 50 r y ------
m... .x 5o z
uj
u1
o - r - - —
u
U
y
£l
I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: a
40 4 — —
— - -1 t t 40
30 —
— - - 30
- -- - --
10-^ffF t ::::::
-—10
1909 ISO 1911 19
llaSl5s[S[iiiIaiialLllfiiiiS ÎS^ËSMiiSli ®
i BR- 1914 95
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
85
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
increase the permanent resources which would then become a permanent annual charge
upon the country? Or to what extent should both means be adopted?
Or should a complete, or a partial, solution of any difficulty that may exist be
sought in changes in business methods and in the speeding up of the financial machin¬
ery? If the business system of the coutry is such that long terms of credit are
granted and if, because of so much one-crop farming, many series of outstanding
credits can be liquidated only once a year, then the same total of financial resources
will accomplish much less than under a system of more frequent settlements. Again,
if settlements are evenly distributed throughout the year instead of being crowded on
midsummer and the autumn, the same amount of resources will do more work.
These questions are merely mentioned here as among the more obvious points sug¬
gested for consideration by the facts submitted.
With regard to the other lines in diagram 23, a few observations may he made.
Line Ho. 1, total assets, or total resources, is, of course, a straight line at 100 per cent.
From the beginning of 1910 to the end of the first quarter of 1915, the total liabilities
line adhered closely to the level of 84 per cent. Whether or not the contributions of
shareholders are as large as they should be, it is evident that during this period they
increased proportionately as fast as the deposits and other resources of the hanks.
In 1909, during the recovery from the depression of 1907-8, deposits increased faster
than capital and rest accounts, and again in 1915 the growing accumulations of
public money in the banks, gave to the line showing liabilities to the public an upward
turn.
Total deposits in Canada, line Ho. 3, varied only a little in percentage during the
whole period, but formed a bigger percentage of the banks' resources in 1911 and
1912 than in other years. Lines Hos. 5 and 6 show separately savings deposits and
demand deposits. It will be noticed that these two lines tend to approach each other
from 1909 to the end of 1913. Savings deposits did not hold the same rate of increase
as other bank funds, while demand deposits improved their percentage. Relatively
more funds were kept in the open active accounts during 1911, 1912, and 1913. With
the contraction of business, in the second half of 1913, savings deposits began to show
a relative increase until the revival of business in the second half of 1915. It will
be observed that the fluctuations in these lines occur at different times of the year,
increases in demand deposits occurring at those periods which, as indicated by the
bank' clearings, are the periods of greatest activity in making settlements. Savings
deposits stand relatively highest at the beginning of each year. Has this any connec¬
tion with the fact that the banks are able, or are willing, at that time to place a some¬
what larger proportion of their funds in current loans?
Line Ho. 7 gives the maximum bank note circulation in percentage of the total
resources. Apparently from 6^ per cent to 8 per cent of the resources of the banks is
required to be in the form of a circulating medium.
Diagram 24 is added to show in its relative proportions the ordinary banking
business done abroad by Canadian chartered banks. Call loans and current loans are
placed and deposits are accepted by Canadian banks " elsewhere than in Canada."
In diagram 24 these accounts are represented in their percentage relation to the total
resources of the banks. Obviously the business done abroad is comparatively small.
Canadian banks derived about G per cent of their total resources from deposits, and
placed about 3 per cent of their resources in current loans, elsewhere than in Canada.
But the banks also placed call loans abroad varying from almost 12 per cent to less
thari 5 per cent of their total resources. The net amount of resources employed
abroad, subtracting the deposits from the call and current loans, therefore varied
from almost 9 per cent to less than 2 per cent. Different banks engage in this busi¬
ness in widely differing degrees, hut only totals can here be considered. Call loans
abroad show the highest percentages in 1909 and 1910, when business in Canada had
not fully recovered from a general depression. The percentage increased again in
86
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
the early part of 1914 during another general depression. Larger percentages were
carried abroad in the middle of the year than in either the spring or the autumn.
Funds were' evidently withdrawn from abroad in preparation for the moving of the
crop, but it is interesting to note that the extreme withdrawals are in most years in
the month of January, in preparation, apparently, for the peak load of current loans
in Canada. After the outbreak of the war in 1914 these loans were sharply reduced.
Banks explain call loans abroad as a desirable investment for funds that must be
kept as immediately realizable reserves.
A study of the principles and the policy of banking cannot be undertaken as
being within the scope of the special problems referred to the Georgian Bay Canal
Commission, and this outline sketch of certain banking conditions has been intro¬
duced principally to suggest that, in connection with these special problems, discus¬
sion should recognize that there are elementary facts in finance, and that the problem
of finance is inseparable from the problems of development and of distribution.
6 GEORGE V
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
A. 1916
APPENDIX.
FREIGHT TRAFFIC TO AND FROM LAKE SUPERIOR1.
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Total Freiglit Traffic.
Table No. X.
Direction.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
A mount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Eastbound
Westbound
36,429,399
17,047,817
68 13
31-87
55,377,687
17,094,y89
76-42
23-58
59,205,853
20,512,491
74-27
25-73
39,470,663
15,899,271
71-29
28-71
56,369,242
14,921,062
79-07
20-93
Total ...
53,477,218
72,472,676
79,718,344
55,369,934
71,290,304
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Origin of Freight Traffic.
From Canadian Ports.
Table No. 2.
Direction.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Eastbound
Westbound
Total
2,934,669
717,493
8-05
4-20
4,026,348
855,689
7-27
5-05
6,103,847
771,410
10-30
327
4,078,546
549,062
10-33
3 45
6,283,998
451,553
11-14
302
3,652,162
4,882,037
6,875,2)7
4,627,608
6,735,551
From United States Ports.
Eastbound
Westbound
33,494,730
16,330,324
91-95
95-80
51,351,339
16,239,300
92 73
94 95
'53,102,006
19;741,081
89 70
96 73
35,392,117
15,350,209
89 67
96 ' 5 i
50,085,244
14,469,509
88 86
96-98
Total
49,825,054
67,590,639
*
72,S43,087
50,742,326
64,554,753
Percentages are as to total freight traffic eastbound or westbound.
iTables 1 to 17 compiled for this report from tables in Annual Statistical Reports of Lake
Commerce passing- through canals at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario. (Prepared under
direction of Lieut.-Col. Mason M. Patrick, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army.)
88
Table No. 3.
INTERIM REPORT OP TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Destination of Freight Traffic.
To Canadian Ports.
Direction.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914-
1915.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Eastbound
Westbound....
2,175,461
5,087,637
5-97
29-84
3,129,937
4,971,517
8-97
29-08
3,619,636
5,954,388
611
29-02
3,423,211
3,196,756
8-67
20-10
2,937,056
2,761,722
5*21
18-51
7,263,098
8,101,454
9,574,024
6,619,967
5,698,778
To United States Ports.
Eastbound ....
Westbound
34,253,938
11,960,180
94 03
70-16
52,247,750
12,123,472
9103
70 92
55,586,217
14,558,103
93 89
70-98
36,047.452
12,702,515
91-33
75-90
53,432,186
12,159,340
94-79
81-49
46,214,118
64,371,222
70,144,320
48,749,967
65,591,526
Percentages are as to total traffic eastbound or westbound.
Sault Ste Marie Canals.—Total Freight Traffic by Lake Districts and by Nationality
of Vessels.
prom lake superior eastbound to
Table No. 4.
Freight Carried
by Vessels.
Lake Michigan.
Lake Huron.
Lake Erie.
Lake Ontario.
Total.
Tons.
Per
cent.
Tons.
Per
cent.
Tons.
Per
cent.
Tons.
Per
cent.
Tons.
Per
cent.
1911.
Canadian
U.S. A
14,506
4,203,576
■68
12-24
1,155,815
343,294
-54-90
1-00
228,318
29,736,083
10 84
86-63
706,581
41,226
33 56
•12
2.105,220
34,324,179
5-77
94-23
4,248,082
11-57
1,499,109
4 11
29,964,401
82-25
747,807
2-07
36,429,399
1912.
Canadian
U.S. A
Total
6,758
7,106,943
•24
13 50
1,656,347
598,355
59-77
113
375,307
44,743,139
13-54
85-05
732,415
158,423
26-43
•30
2,770,827
52,606,860
500
95 00
7,113,701
12-85
2,254,702
4-07
45,118,446
81-47
890,838
1-61
55,377,687
1913.
Canadian
U.S. A
Total ...
15,794
6,360,741
•46
11-39
1,820,349
625,596
53 69
1-12
804,353
48,622,748
2373
87 11
749,364
206,908
22-10
■37
1-61
3,389,860
55,815,993
5-72
94-28
6,376,535
10-77
2,445,945
413
49,427,101
83 -48
956,272
59,205,853
GEORGIAN BAY CAW AL COMMISSION 89
Sessional paper no. 19b
From Lake Superior Eastbound to—Concluded.
Freight Carried
by Vessels.
Lake Michigan.
Lake Huron.
Lake Erie.
Lake Ontario.
Total.
Tons.
Per
cent.
Tons.
Per
cent.
Tons.
Per
cent.
Tons.
Per
cent.
Tons.
Per
cent.
1914.
39,459
4,173,762
1-22
1151
1,625,024
260,485
50-46
•71
1,033,637
31,720,742
32-09
87-50
522,216
95,338
16 21
■26
3,220,336
36,250,327
8-15
9185
U.S. A
Total-. ...
4,213,221
10 67
1,885,509
4-78
32,754,379
82 98
617,554
1-57
39,470,663
1915.
Canadian ..
U.S. A
Total ....
60,728
6,571,906
1-96
12-33
1,618,197
415,616
52-64
■78
1,119,241
40,205,318
36 40
86-80
279,415
98,821
900
•09
3,077,581
53,291,661
545
94-55
6,632,634
11-77
2,033,813
3-61
47,324,559
83-95
378,236
■67
56,369,242
To Lake Superior westbound From
1911.
25,830
265,074
1-69
1-70
314,264
128,613
20-57
•82
785,746
15,112,219
51-43
97-37
401,904
14,167
26-30
09
1,527,744
15,520,073
896
9104
U.S. A
290 904
1-71
442,877
2-60
15,897,965
93-25
416,071
2-45
17,047,817
1912.
Canadian
U.S. A
31,085
310,562
2-52
1-95
350,100
120,979
28-38
-76
304,395
15,311,519
29 54
96-53
487,907
118,442
39-55
•74
1,233,487
15,861,502
721
92-79
341,047
2-00
471,079
2-76
15,675,914
91-68
606,349
3-55
17,094,989
1913.
Canadian
U.S. A
Total
33,980
293,565
2-21
1 '54
345,854
94,091
22 46
•49
735,200
18,561,905
47'74
97 83
424,705
23,191
27-58
14
1,539,739
18,972,752
7-50
92-50
327,545
1-59
439,945
214
19,297,105
9107
447,896
220
20,512,491
1914.
Canadian .. -.
U.S. A
201
250,237
02
1-76
304,688
123,212
18 13
•87
1,178,355
13,824,836
70 11
97 23
91-36
197,359
20,383
11-74
•14
1,680,603
14,218,668
10-57
89-43
250,438
1-57
427,900
269
15,003,191
217,742
1-38
15,899,271
1915.
Canadian ..
U.S. A
6,312
268,778
•47
1 98
268,701
290,749
20 13
2-14
913,255
13,005,567
68-39
95 73
147,044
20,656
1101
•15
1,335,312
13,585,750
8-95
9105
275,090
1-84
559450
374
13,918,S22
93-18
167,700
1-24
14,921,062
90 INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND TOTABS COMBINED.
Freight Carried
by Vessels.
Lake Michigan.
Lake Huron and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Erie.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Grand Total.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amonnt
(tons).
Per
cent.
1911.
40,336
4,468,647
11
8-96
1,470,079
471,907
40-5
- -93
1,014,064
44,848,302
279
89-00
1,108,485
55,393
30-4
1-11
3,632,964
49,844,249
6-79
93-21
U.S. A
Total
4,508,983
8'42
1,941,986
363
45,862,366
85-77
1,133,878
2-17
53,477,213
,
1912.
Canadian
U.S. A
Total ....
37,843
7,417,505
•94
10-85
2,006,447
719,334
501
105
739,702
60,054,658
18-4
87-7
1,220,322
276,865
30-5
■4
4,004,314
68,468,362
552
94-48
7,455,348
10 30
2,725,781
376
60,794,360
83 84
1,497,187
207
72,472,676
1913.
Canadian ,. .
U.S.A
Total
49,774
6,654,306
1-01
890
2,166,203
719,687
439
■96
1,539,553
67,184,653
3125
898
1,174,069
230,099
23-8
•31
4,929,599
74,788,745
6-18
93-82
6,704,080
840
2,885,890
362
68,724,206
86-20
1,404,168
1-76
79,718,344
1914.
Canadian
U.S.A
Total
39,660
4,423,999
■81
885
1,929,712
383,697
39 35
•77
2,211,992
45,545,578
45-08
91-00
719,5,5
115,721
14-69
•23
4,900,939
50,468,995
S-86
91-14
4,463,659
8-36
2,313,409
4-16
47,757,570
85-97
835,298
1-51
55,369,934
1915.
Canadian
U.S.A
67,040
6,840,684
1-52
10 22
1,886,898
706,365
42-80
105
2,032,496
59,210,885
46 00
88-54
426,459
119,477
9-67
18
4,412,893
66,877,411
619
93-80
6,907,724
969
2,593,263
364
61,243,381
85-90
545,936
•76
71,290,304
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 91
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Sault Ste Marie Canals.—Freight Traffic of Canadian Origin.
By Lake districts.
Table No. 5.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and Kiver
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
1911.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
666,696
385,296
22-71
53 68
1,259,548
17,187
42-91
2-49
980,509
315,010
33 42
43 92
27,961
■98
2,934,669
717,493
Combined total
1,051,992
28-82
1,276,735
34-92
1,295,519
35-50
27,961
•76
3,652,162
1912.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
682,150
486,276
16 95
56 82
1,909,037
21,367
47 41
250
1,405,850
348,046
34-90
40-68
29,311
■74
4,026,348
855,689
Combined total
1,168,426
23 94
1,930,404
39 54
1,753,896
35-91
29,311
•61
4,882,037
1913.
Eastbound to
713,169
394,148
11 68
5109
3,298,667
23,867
'54-04
309
2,007,980
353,395
32-89
45 81
84,031
1-38
6,103,847
771,410
Combined total
1,107,317
16 10
3,322,534
48 33
2,361,375
34 34
84,031
1-22
6,875,257
1914.
Eastbound to
Westbound from..
Combined total
508,044
186,926
12-44
34 04
1,960,720
57,048
48 09
10 36
1,549,777
305 088
38-02
55-60
60,005
1-47
4,078,546
549,062
694,970
15 02
2,017,768
43 61
1,854,865
40 08
60,005
1-29
4,627,608
1915.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
Combined total
264,361
141,020
421
3123
4,264,658
41,710
67 86
924
1,627,706
268,823
25 90
59-53
127,273
2-03
6,283,998
451,553
405,381
602
4,306,368
63 92
1,896,529
28-17
127,273
1-89
6,735,551
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Canadian Freight traffic to Canadian Ports.
By lake districts.
Table No. 6.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
19X1.
666,696
375,326
37'68
55'05
173,525
17,187
980
252
929,856
289,543
52-52
42 43
*
1,770,077
682,056
Westbound from
1,042,022
42'51
190,712
7-78
1,219,399
49 71
2,452,133
1912.
682,150
474,182
29-31
58-21
346,971
19,017
14-88
2-33
1,299,829
321,710
55 81
39 46
2,328,950
814,909
Westbound from
Combined total
1,156,332
36 79
365,988
10-61
1,621,539
51-60
3,143,859
1913.
713,169
388,666
23 29
52 93
694,592
21,867
■22-68
2-97
1,654,098
323,700
54 02
44 08
3,061,859
734,233
Combined tolal
1,101,835
29 02
716,459
18-87
1,977,798
52-10
3,796,092
1914.
508,044
185,447
17-61
35-02
869,363
49,998
30 11
9 44
1,508,564
294,029
52 28
55-54
2,885,971
529,474
Westbound from ....
693,491
20 29
919,361
26-91
1,802,593
52-80
3,415,445
1915.
264,361
120,808
10-30
28 32
845,823
41,710
32-95
976
1,456,847
264,614
56-75
6192
2,567,031
427,132
Westbound from
Combined total
385,169
12-86
887,533
29-62
1,721,461
57-52
2,994,163
^GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 93
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Canadian Traffic to United States Ports.
By lake districts.
Table No. 7.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Ton3.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
1911.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
9,970
28-18
1,086,023
93 25
50,653
25,467
435
71-82
27,916
2-40
1,164,592
35,437
Combined total
9,970
8-84
1,086,023
90 52
76,120
632
27,916
2-32
1,200,029
1912.
Eastbound to
12,094
29 62
1,562,066
2,350
92 02
576
106,021
26,336
6-25
64 62
29,311
1-73
1,697,398
40,780
Combined total
12,094
■70
1,564,416
90 00
132,357
7-62
29,311
1-68
1,738,178
1913.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
Combined total
5,482
14-74
2,604,875
2,000
85 60
5-38
■ 353,882
29,695
11-63
79-87
84,031
276
3,041,988
37,177
5,482
•17
2,606,875
84-63
383,577
12-46
84,031
2'73
3,079,165
1914.
Eastbound to
Westbound from . ..
Combined total
1,479
7-55
1,091,357
7,050
91 51
36 00
41,213
11,059
3-46
56-45
60,005
503
1,192,575
19,588
1,479
•12
1,098,407
90-62
52,272
4-31
65,005
495
1,212,163
1915.
Eastbound to
20,212
82 76
3,418,835
91-98
170,859
4,209
4-60
17-24
127,273
342
3,716,967
24,421
Combined total
20,212
•54
3,418,835
9138
175,068
4-68
127,273
3-40
3,741,388
94 INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Freight, Traffic of United States Origin.
By Lake districts.
Table No. 8.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
1911.
Eastbound to
Westbound from ,
Combined total..
81,111
30,775
■24
19
28.704,853
15,880,778
85 80
97'25
518,600
127,867
1-55
■78
4,190,166
290,904
12 51
1'78
33,494,730
16,330,324
111,886
•22
44,585,631
89'48
646,467
1-30
4,481,070
900
49,825,054
1912.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
Combined total
208,CS8
120,073
■41
"74
43,209,409
15,654,547
84-15
96-38
848,852
123,033
1-65
•76
7,084,390
341,647
13'80
2-12
51,351,339
16,239,300
328,761
•49
58,863,956
87 09
971,885
1-44
7,426,037
10 98
67,590,639
' 1913.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
Combined total
243,103
53,748
■46
•27
46,128,434
19,273,238
86'86
97'63
437,965
86,550
•82
•43
6,292,504
327,545
11-85
1-66
53,102,006
19,741,081
296,851
■41
65,401,672
89 78
524,515
•72
6,620,049
90S
72,843,087
1914.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
Combined total
109,510
30,816
■31
■20
30,793,659
14,946,143
87 00
97\37
335,732
122,812
•95
■80
4,153,216
250,438
11-74
1-63
35,392,117
15,350,209
140,326
■27
45,739,802
90 15
458,544
'90
4,403,654
8-68
50,742,326
1915.
Eastbound to
Westbound from . ...
Combined total
113,875
26,680
•27
•18
43,059,901
13,877,112
85-92
95-91
406,107
290,627
•81
201
6,505,361
275,090
13-00
1 90
50,085,244
14,469,509
140,555
•22
56,937,013
88-18
696,734
1-08
6,780,451
10 52
64,554,753
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 95
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—United States Freight Traffic to Canadian Ports.
By lake Districts.
Table No. 9.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total.
Tons.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
1911.
Eastbound to
47,130
19,428
11-62
•44
17,540
4,294,606
4-33
97-48
-340,714
1,642
84 05
■04
405,384
4,405,581
Westbound from
89,405
2-04
Combined total
66,558
1-38
4,312,146
89 63
342,356
7-12
89,405
1-87
4,810,965
1912.
Eastbound to
166,517
19,499
20 '78
■47
41,950
4,001,149
524
96 25
592,520
16,781
73-98
■40
800,987
4,156,608
Westbound from
Combined total
119,179
2-88
186,016
375
4,043,099
81-55
609,301
12 29
119,179
2-41
4,957,595
1913.
Eastbound to
196,495
43,374
35 23
■83
95,548
5,097,086
17-13
97 64
265,734
3,694
47-64
■07
557,777
5,220,155
76,001
1-46
Combined total
239,869
4-15
5,192,634
89-87
269,428
4-66
76,001
1-31
5,777,932
1914.
t
65,689
10,433
12-22
•39
220,573
2,651,504
41-00
99 41
250,978
46-73
537,240
2,667,282
5,341
■20
Combined total
76,122
238
2,872,077
89-67
250,978
7-83
5,341
■17
3,204,522
1915.
«
76,583
6,024
20 69
■26
99,786
2,322,228
26-97
99-47
193.656
26
52-34
-co
370025
2,334,590
6,312
•27
Combined total
82,607
3 05
2,422,014
89-56
193,682
7-16
6,312
■23
2,704,615
96 INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—United States Freight Traffic to United States Ports.
by Lake districts.
Table No. 10.
Direction.
Lake Ontario
and River
St. Lawrence.
Lake Erie.
Lake Huron
and
Georgian Bay.
Lake Michigan.
Total
Tons.
Total
Tons.
*
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
Total
Tons.
Per
cent.
1911.
Eastbound to
Westbound from
Combined total
33,981
11,347
•10
•99
28,687,313
11,586,172
86-70
97-17
177,886
126,225
•54
1-06
4,190,166
200,999
12 66
1-68
33,089,346
11,924,743
45,32»
10
40,273,485
89-48
304,111
•67
4,391,165
975
45,014,089
1912.
42,171
100,574
■08
•83
43,167,459
11,653,398
85-40
96-45
256,332
106,252
■51
■88
7,084,390
222,468
14 01
1-84
50,550,352
12,082,692
Westbound from
Combined total
142,745
■23
54,820,857
87-53
362,584
■58
7,306,858
11 66
62,633,044
1913.
46,608
10,374
■08
■07
46,032,886
14,176,152
87-61
97'62
172,231
82,856
■33
•57
6,292,504
251,544
U'97
173
52,544,229
14,520,926
Westbound from ...
Combined total
56,982
08
60,209,03S
8978
255,087
■38
6,544,048
975
67,065,155
1914.
43,821
20,383
■13
16
30,573,086
12,294,639
87 69
96 85
84,754
122,812
■24
•97
4,153,216
245,093
11-94
1-90
34,854,877
12,682,927
Westbound from....
Combined total
64,204
•14
42,867,725
90'18
207,566
•43
4,398,309
9-25
47,537,804
*
1915.
37,292
20,656
•07
■17
42,960,115
11,554,884
86-42
95 23
212,451
290,601
■42
2-39
6,505,361
268,778
13 09
2-21
49,715,219
12,134,919
W estboundT rom
Combined total
57,948
■09
54,514,999
88-15
503,052
•81
6,774,139
10 95
61,850,138
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 97
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Sault Ste Marie Canals.—Classification and valuation of Vessels.
_ „ Canadian Vessels.
Table No. 11.
1
Class.
No.
V aluation.
Tonna&e.
Passengers
Carried.
Registered.
Freight,
Short Tons.
1911.
120
4
$
12,105,500
106,000
132,020
3,554
3,602,717
18,730
11,517
52,326
Unregistered
124
12,211,500
135,574
3,632,964
52,326
United States Vessels.
536
105
104,892,500
4,443,500
1,407,820
148,374
45,977,416
3,847,757
19,079
27,625
Total
641
109,336,000
1,556,194
49,844,252
27,025
Canadian Vessels.
1912.
129
5
12,799,500
128,000
139,157
3,452
3,965,564
5,378
33,372
45,614
134
12,927,500
142,609
4,004,314
45,614
United States Vessels.
Steamers
606
113
120,307,800
5,311,000
1,636,725
162,325
64,042,749
4,286,900
138,713
68,468,362
21,263
Total
719
125,618,800
1,799,050.
21,263
Canadian Vessels.
1913.
Steamers
141
3
15,155,700
140,000
167,381
3,177
4,816,355
4,013
109,231
47,825
Total '.
144
15,295,700
170,558
4,929,599
47,825
United States Vessels.
Steamers
Sailing*
Unregistered
Total.
594
114
708
122,418,500
4,707,000
127,125,500
1,644,084
163,328
1,807,412
70,357,467
4,256,809
174,469
74,788,715
19b—7
98 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Canadian Vessels.
Class.
No.
Valuation.
Toni
Registered.
178,686
8,828
iage.
Freight,
Short Tons.
Passengers
Carried.
1914.
Steamers
140
49
16,678,700
742,000
4,839,953
13,485
47,501
31,105
Total
189
17,420,700
187,514
4,900,939
31,105
United States Vessels.
Steamers
529
95
113,076,500
4,134,500
1,484,611
131,652
47,223,513
3,208,262
37,220
~ 28,696
Total
624
117,211,000
1,616,263
50,46S,995
28,696
Canadian Vessels.
'1915.
Steamers
135
25
15,624,000
312,500
165,877
6,812
4,311,847
41,606
59,440
26,922
Total
160
15,936,700
172,689
4,412,893
26,992
United States Vessels.
Steamers
553
93
118,987,200
4,485,500
1,584,750
132.50S
62,786,967
4,049,450
40,994
23,344
Total
646
123,472,700
1,717,258
66,877,411
' 23,344
Sault Ste. Marie Canals—Freight Tons Carried per Registered Ton.
Canadian Vessels Carried.
Table No. 12.
Direction.
1911.
1912.
1913,
1914.
1915.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tods).
Per
cent.
Eastbound ....
Westbound....
Total
1,833,736
716,747
6f 48
99-89
2,345,989
855,689
58-23
100 00
3,165,610
761,535
51-86
98-71
3,037,729
541,612
74' 48
9S65
2,875,217
451,431
45-75
99 97
2,550,483
69 83
3,201,678
65-58
3,927,145
57-11
3,579,341
77 34
3,326,648
49-39
United States Vessels Carried.
Eastbound ....
Westbound
Total....
1,100,933
746
37 52
•11
1,680,359
41-77
2,938,237
9,875
48-14
1.-29
1,040,817
7,450
25-52
1-35
3,408.781
122
54-25
03
1,101,679
30-17
1,680,359
34-42
2,948,112
42 89
1,048,267
22-66
3,408,903
50-61
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 99'
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Sault Ste Marie Canals.—Freight Traffic of Canadian Destination, by Nationality
of Vessels.
„ , Canadian Vessels Carried.
Table No. 13.
Direction.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per¬
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Eastbound
Westbound....
Total
2,041,561
1,493,053
93-84
29 34
2,758,788
1,192,707
87-98
23-78
3.286,109
1(512,437
90-78
25-40
3.068,578
1,668,465
89 66
52 19
3,769,395
1,311,013
95-74
47-47
3,534,614
48.66
3,946,495
48-71
4,798,546
50-12
4,737,043
71-58
5,080,408
.
75-84
United States Ve?sels Carried.
Eastbound
133,900
6-16
376,149
12 02
333,527
9-22
354,633
10-34
167,661
4-26
Westbound....
3,594,584
70-66
3,778,810
76 22
4,441,951
74-60
1,528,291
47-81
1,450,709
.52-53
Total....
3,728,484
51-34
4,154,959
51-29
4,775,478
49-88
1,832,924
28-42
1,618,370
24-16
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Freight Traffic of -United States Origin—By Nationality
of Vessels.
Canadian Vessels Carried.
Table No. 14.
Direction.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Eastbound
Westbound. ...
Total
271,484
810,997
■81
4-96
421,838
377,798
■82
232
224,250
778,204
•42
3-94
182,607
1,138,991
•51
7'42
202,364
883,881
■40
611
1,082,481
•a
323
802,636
1-45
1,002,454
1-37
1,321,598
373
1,086,245
1-68
United States Vessels Carried.
Eastbound... .
Westbound. ...
Total
33,223,274
15,519,327
99-19
95 04
50.926.501
15.861.502
99-18
97-68
52,877,756
18,962,877
99 58
96-06
35,209,510
14,211,218
'99-49
92-58
49,882,880
13,585,628
99 60
93 89
48,742,601
96-77
66,788,003
98 55
71,840,633
98 63
49,420,728
96-27
63,468,508
98-32
19b—74
100 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Freight Traffic of United States Destination—By
Nationality of Vessels.
Canadian Vessels Carried.
Table No. 15.
Direction.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Amount
(tons).
Per
cent.
Eastbound ....
Westbound....
Total
63,659
34,691
•18
•29
17,039
40,780
03
■34
103,751
27,302
•19
•19
151,758
12,138
•42
09
308,186
24,299
-58
19
98,350
•21
57,819
'09
131,053
19
163,896
•33
332,485
•51
United States Vessels Carried.
Eastbound ....
Westbound.. .
Total
34,190,279
11,925,489
99'82
99 71
52,230,711
12,082,692
99 97
99-66
55,482,446
14,013,267
99 81
99-31
35,895,694
12,690,377
99-58
99 91
53,124,000
12,135,041
99 42
99-81
46,115,768
99 79
64,313,403
99-91
69,495,713
99-81
48,586,071
97-67
65,259,041
99-49
'GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Freight Tons Carried per Kegistered Ton.
Table No. 16.
101
Month.
April
May
J une
July
August....
September.
October
November.
December..
1911.
Total.
April.
May
June
July
August
September.
October..
November..
December..
1912.
Total.
April.
May
June ..
July . ..
August....
September
October
November .
December.
1913.
Total.
A pril.
May
June
July
August....
September
October
November .
December..
1914.
Total.
April.
May
June
July
August
September..
October
November..
December..
1915
Total.
Eastbound.
Net
Registered
Tonnage
of Vessels.
Freight
Carried
Short Tons.
216,018
2,408,625
2,914,976
3,262,949
3,382,151
3,120,495
3,062,995
2,152,552
258,290
20,779,051
55,860
3,758,720
4,247,134
4,091,320
4,073,468
4,151,534
4,294,946
3,182,738
442,840
28,298,560
568,591
4,116,487
4,301,178
4,379,149
4,036,966
4,073,226
4,233,721
2,868,919
489,014
29,067,251
226,114
2,789,627
3,213,291
3,333,918
3,426,486
3,209,040
2,940,072
1,476,520
215,945
20,831,013
561,ISP
2,918,587
3,262,900
3,859,021
4,158,002
4,394,749
4,562,819
3,675,081
923,P"
FreightTons
Carried per
Registered
Ton.
370,325
4,161,108
5,092,698
5,675,619
5,800,836
5,529,610
5,600,512
3,762,116
436,575
36,429,399
97,094
7,031,058
8,201,233
7,936,644
8,049,598
8,287,804
8,641,087
6,260,820
862,349
55,377,687
1,098,123
8,332,
8,855,821
9,107,569
8,263,273
8,348,801
8,675,590
5,574,135
950,363
59,205,853
406,003
5,099,157
6,091,146
6,343,379
6,360,454
6,368,408
5,730,018
2,677,685
394,413
39,470,663
28,316,208
1,090,077
5,675,537
6,240,518
7,466,597
8,249,237
9,017,771
9,399,436
7,418,067
1,812,002
56,369,242
1*71
1-73
1'75
174
1*71
1-77
.1*83
1-75
1-69
1-75
1-74
1-87
1-93
1*94
1*98
2'00
201
1 '97
1*95
1*95
203
1-89
1-94
1-94
1-91
1-93
1-98
2-05
2-06
2-01
1-96
Westbound".
Net
Registered
Tonnage
of Vessels.
Freight
Carried
Short Tons.
487,772
2,502,437
2,945,640
3,277,371
3,394,544
3,055,829
3,108,146
1,934,479
173,214
20,874,437
144,069
4,013,643
4,176,487
4,143,834
4,191,522
4,079,413
4,281,514
3,003,166
404,599
28,438,247
948,742
4,069,577
4,339,264
4,317,853
3,996,387
4,051,030
4,300,612
2,641,354
257,645
28,922,464
365,424
2,966,266
3,451,843
3,452,307
3,373.469
3,193,963
2,898,613
1,321,896
131,545
21,155,326
672,665
3,127,659
3,268,301
3,849,602
4,12,5,472
4,380,860
4,720,441
3,390,905
547,034
Freight Tons
Carried per
Registered
Ton.
422,262
1,963,910
2,383,389
2,870,200
2,747,976
2,420,234
2,321,060
1,673,933
244,853
17,047,817
69,824
1,905,635
2,545,926
2,844,660
2,803,254
2,169,978
2,075,704
2,136,499
543,509
17,094,9
807,432
3,044,017
3,257,792
3,170,552
3,226,169
2,561,564
2,243,684
1,871,042
330,236
20,512,491
368,517
2,388,959
2,496,935
2,486,877
2,574,532
2,049,308
2,009,987
1,366,683
157,473
15,899,271
■78
■81
■88
■81
•79
■75
•87
•41
■81
•48
•48
■61
•69
■67
■53
■48
•71
1'34
■60
■85
■74
■75
•73
•80
■63
'52
•70
1-28
■70
101
■80
•72
•72
•76
•69
■69
103
1'20
28,082,939
344,658
1,673,029
2,120,314
2.252,640
2,291,544
1,961,680
2.158,415
1,750,364
368,418
14,921,062
•75
■51
•53
•64
•58
•55
■45
•46
■51
•67
102
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1*16
Sault Ste. Marie Canals.—Classification of Commodities.
Tablh No. 17.
Eastbound.
Commodity.
Iron ore
Wheat
Grain (including
flour)
Lumber
Gen e r a 1 mer-
chandise
Copper
Building sto n e,
pig iron, etc...
Total
1911.
Tons
30,715,477
2,911,257
1,557,145
907,428
157,174
132,481
45,437
36,429,399
Per
cent.
12
1912.
Tons.
46,293,423
5,222,594
2,365,606
1,112,131
238,865
116,954
28,114
35,377,687
Per
cent.
83
59
9
43
4
27
2
01
43
21
05
1913.
Tons.
48,076,977
6,144,645
3,488,147
97S,697
403,068
85,378
28,941
59,205,853
Per
cent.
81
20
10
37
5
89
1
65
69
14
04
1914.
Tons.
31,410,069
4,508,524
2,440,861
754,882
246,184
91,764
18,379
39,470,663
Per
cent.
1915.
Tons.
Per
cent.
45.212,104
7,664,447
2,197,015
789,476
332,164
156,436
17,600
56,369,242
80 21
13-60
3-90
1-40
03
Westbound.
Coal, soft.....,
13,272,667
77-85
12,789,109
74-81
15,878,364
77-47
12,246,716
77-03
Coal, hard
2,060,209
12-OS
2,142,485
12-53
2,744,574
13 37
2,240,505
14-09
Gen e r a 1 mer-
chandise
1,228,744
7-21
1,425,918
834
1,367,792
6-66
1,071,120
673
Manf. iron
372,174
2-18
629,060
367
380,152
1-85
221,304
1-39
Salt
98,229
•57
98,415
•57
10S,997
■53
115,864
•72
Iron ore, etc
15,794
■09
10,002
•05
32,612
■15
3,762
■02
Total
17,047,817
17,094,989
20,512,491
15,899,271
11,326,328
2,030,730
1,263,234
194,181
104,572
2,017
14,921,062
75-91
13-61
8 46
1-30
■70
■01
Statement showing the Number, and Gross Tonnage, of Vessels Registered in Great Britain and Canada engaged in the Carriage
of Passengers and Freight on the Great Lakes and connecting waters, the River St. Lawrence between Kingston and
Montreal, the Rideau Canal, and the Ottawa River between Ottawa and Montreal.
Table No. 18.
en
m
co
22
o
z
>
r-
■u
>
■V
m
J3
z
o
co
tr
Year.
1899-00.
1900-01.
1901-02
1902-03.
1903-04
1904-05
1905-06.
1906-07
1907-08.
1908-09.
1909-10.
1910-11
1911-12.
1912-13.
1913-14
Under 100 Tons.
No.
Gross
Tons.
100
100
88
96
101
91
88
80
80
61
73.
65
69
54
46
3.5971
3,988
3,278
3,608
4,328
3,851
3,626
3,238
3,228
2,710
3,816
3,267
3,714
2,781
2,305
100 to 249 Tons.
No.
47
49
48
45
49
47
53
47
50
39
48
50
44
48
43
Gross
Tons.
7,318
7,639
7,911
7,292
7,869
8,025
9,067
8,207
8,707
6,514
8,628
8.789
7,727
8,274
7,441
250 to 499 Tons.
No.
34
29
35
33
35
38
36
30
34
34
38
41
34
32
30
Gross
Tons.
12,076
10,391
12,698
12,251
12,102
13,746
12,787
10,658
11,950
12,102
13,470
14,524
12,205
.10,940
10,372
500 to 999 Tons.
No.
35
36
36
38
35
42
33
29
28
29
29
28
26
29
22
Gross
Tons.
26,777
27,361
27,277
28,646
26,209
30.325
24,390
21,282
20,645
21,369
20,919
20,005
18.326
19,841
15,930
1,000 to 1,999 Tons,
No.
21
19
19
20
20
38
45
32
48
56
67
60
64
65
75
Gross
Tons.
29,193
26,910
26,941
28,804
28,618
58,723
67,810
47,562
74,549
90,644
91,296
95,602
103,656
119,773
118,056
Over 2,000 Tons.
No.
9
14
12
15
15
21
28
38
37
40
45
49
Gross
Tons.
Total.
No.
11,963
17,319
20,649
23,008
37,760
32,970
39,945
44,380
64,597
87,629
112,417
116,211
118,163
134,201
156,072
242
240
234
241
254
268
270
233
261
247
283
281
277
273
265
Gross
Tons.
90,924
93,638
98,754
103,609
116,886
147,640
157,625
135,327
183,676
220,968
250,546
258,398
263,792
295,810
310,176
©
tsi
o
Ss
S
i».
sa{
bs
t».
H
g
tel
fcs
o
o
Si
S
"-1
5a
Oa
M
O
te!
* Figures cover only nine months owing to change in fiscal year to end March 31, instead of June 30.
Compiled from the reports of the Board of Steamboat Inspection!
104 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Statement Showing the Quantity of Coal Delivered at Fort William and Port Arthur
by Months, Navigation Seasons 1911-13.
Tablb No. 19.
Month.
Carried by Vessels.
1911.
1912.
1913.
Tons.
8,205
35,488
Tons.
Tons.
16,465
103,684
United States
Total ;
43,693
120,149
114,914
278,400
10,280
327,812
79,613
592,578
United States
Total
393,314
338,092
672,191
124,954
309,879
39,370
348,193
G6,837
573,039
United States
Total. ..
434,833
387,563
639,876
127,333
379,101
65,749
467,189
92,218
586,571
United States
Total
506,434
532,938
678,789
98,794
459,718
56,674
408,332
109,742
538,458
United States
Total
558,512
465,006
648,200
77,188
479,311
48,788
314,692
155,923
424,766
October
United States
Total
556,499
363,480
580,689
56,007
538,203
34,883
357,203
54,916
421,763
November
December
United States
Total
Canadian
United States
Total
594,210
392,086
476,679
22.0S6
343,246
40,453
374,595
30,520
285,351
365,332
415,048
315,871
8,159
75,389
22,329
176,965
2,518
83,286
Total
United States
Total
83,557
199,294
85,804
637,640,
2,898,744
318,526
2,774,981
608,752
3,609,496
United States
Total
3,536,384
3,093,507
4,218,248
Specially compiled for this report from official records at the above ports.
'GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
105
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Statement Showing Monthly Quantities of Coal Carried into Fort William and Port
Arthur, by Vessels which took Grain as Immediate Keturn Cargo, or
Carried Coal as Immediate Return Cargo to Grain.
Table No. 20.
Month.
Carried by Vessels.
' 1911,
1912.
1913.
April
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
19,875
6,095
May >
United States
Total
23,831
23,831
25,970
52,114
17,139
1,540
34,561
46,582
57,946
June
July'.
United States
Total
Canadian
United States
Total
Canadian
United States
Total
69,253
36,101
104,528
15,250
13,887
25,430
18,340
49,265
20,953
29,137
43,770
70,218
47,037
19,453
3,223
2,958
60,294
22,808
66,490
6,181
83,102
24,832
12,844
5,947
16,414
40,351
Total
37,676
22,361
„ 40,351
31,898
13,217
4,660
88,582
49.152
United States
Total
45,115
4,660
137,734
14,023
53,756
10,571
29,373
40,684
70,048
November
United States
Total
Canadian
United States
Total
67,779
39,944
110,732
, 12,033
98,777
35,833
82,621
41,722
110,676
110,810
118,454
152,398
22,329
152,690
2,518
59,735
United States
Total
71,979
71,979
175,019
62,253
197,187
324,883
109,533
336,957
389,873
397,413
United States
Total
522,070
446,490
787,286
Specially compiled for this report from official records at the above ports.
106
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEOFTGE V, A. 1916
Traffic to and from Lake Michigan.
Chicago Lake Shipments of Flour and Grain, to Canadian Ports, 1911-14, Inclusive.
Tablk No. 21.
From Chicago to
Flour.
Wheat.
Corn.
1911.
Depot Harbour ...
Midland
Tiffin
Collingwood
Meaford
Kingston >
Montreal
Other Canadian Ports.
Totals.
1912.
Depot Harbour
Midland
Tiffin
Collingwood
Meaford
Kingston .. . .
Montreal
Other Canadian Ports.
Totals.
1913.
Depot Harbour
Midland
Tiffin...
Collingwood
Port Colborne
Kingston
Prescott
Montreal
Other Canadian Ports.
Totals.
1914.
Depot Harbour
Midland
Tiffin
Collingwood
Port McNieol
Port Colborne
Prescott
Montreal
Other Canadian Ports.
Totals
Brl.
49,330
49,330
47,810
200
7,000
55,010
78,000
78,000
21.000
1,000
1,000
23,000
Bush.
75,000
230,900
95,000
784,700
Bush.
1,105,000
3,312,700
2,768,000
1,263,700
1,379,200
274,500
3,152,900
2,123,000
1,185,600
15,379,000
466,200
80,000
86,000
506,000
75,000
870,100
1,181,300
722,800
2,661,400
555,000
248,000
73,900
876,800
1,213,200
7,189,300
32,000
58,000
266,000
656,000
1,609j 000
1,537,000
1,520,000
2,351,000
3,432,000
184,000
695,000
45,000
55,000
2,621,000
9,819,000
5,843,000
601,000
2,223,000
138,000
2,366,000
11,286,000
4,792,000
1,578,000
724,000
484,000
2,841,000
61,000
598,000
586,000
20,000
55,000
27,249,000
6,947,000
Compiled from the Chicago Board of Trade Reports.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION 107
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Shipments by Lake from Chicago, which Passed Through Canada in Transit to United
States Points.
Table No. 22.
Year.
Flour.
Wheat.
Corn.
Oats.
1909
Brl.
25,404
13,921
18,333
23,003
15,367
17,489
Bush.
1,188,470
116,000
305,897
546,162
89,500
2,175,559
Bush.
5,758,425
7,965,900
9,163,195
5,712,464
8,573,538
5,632,636
Bush.
1910
1911
1,683,210
3,904,745
2,162,471
3,076,636
3,847,181
1912
1913
1914
Compiled from the Chicago Board of Trade Reports.
108 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Future Development of Traffic.—Wheat and Flour.
Statement Showing the average Weekly Shipments of World's Wheat and Flour
Averaged for Nine Years, 1905-13.
Table No. 23.
(000 omitted.)
Jan. 1
„ 8
m 15.
„ 22.
I, 29.
Feb. 5.
„ 12.
„ 19.
,i 26
Mar. 5.
I, 12.
it 19.
m 26.
Apr. 2.
„ 9
„ 16.
„ 23.
„ 30.
May 7 .
,i 14..
„ 21 .
„ 28..
June 4
„ 11.
„ 18.
„ 25.
July 2.
„ 9.
„ 16.
I, 23.
„ 30.
Aug. 6..
„ 13..
m 20..
„ 27..
Sept. 3.
„ 10.
„ 17.
H 24.
Oct. 1.
,i 15.
„ 22
„ 29.
Nov. 5.
m 12..
h 19.
m 26.
Dec. 3.
„ 10
ii 17..
H 24.
Week of
To all
Destinations.
Bush,
8,600
8,608
8,728
9,200
10,944
11,416
11,296
11,232
10,976
11,544
11,128
10,664
10,888
10,736
11,296
10,328
10,536
10,112
10.608
11,384
11,952
11,624
11,528
11,648
10,400
9,896
10,032
9,616
8,040
8,248
8,528
9,648
9,192
9,816
11,168
11,312
11,640
12,264
12,248
13,136
13,016
12,504
12,360
11,944
13,000
12,984
11,936
11,440
10,920
10,688
9,544
9,688
To Europe.
Bush.
7,240
7,384
7,592
7,840
9,464
9,800
9,840
9,696
9,536
9,944
9,696
9,072
9,280
v 9,248
9,712
8,976
9,168
8,648
9,112
9,992
9,800
10,368
10,296
10,144
9,080
8,656
8,616
8,128
6,760
7,024
7,456
8,2S0
7,896
8,784
9,856
9,856
10,424
11,128
10,688
11,560
11,392
11,008
10,920
11,702
11,048
11,472
10,336
10,112
9,408
9,160
8,040
8,088
To
United
Kingdom.
Bush.
3,648
3,640
4,096
4,248
4,864
4,912
4,840
4,920
4,896
5,168
4,760
4,592
4,456
4,384
4,178
3.656
4,072
3,400
3,788
4,376
4,440
4,944
4,888
4,584
3,824
3,880
4,304
3,856
3,264
3,720
3,920
4,192
3,552
3,672
4,104
3,784
3,208
4,128
3,968
4,096
4,576
4,120
4,160
4,416
4,016
4,443
4,280
4,208
3,816
3,936
3,832
3,816
Ci mpiled from Broomhall's Com Trade Year Book.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 109
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Statement Showing Weekly Shipments of Wheat and Flour Averaged for Nine Years,
1905-13, from Chief Exporting Countries.
Table No. 24. (000 omitted )
Week of
Canada
and
United States
to World. -
Jan. 1.
" 8
„ 15.
22.
„ 29.
Feb. 5.
M 12.
„ 19.
„ 26.
Mar. 5.
„ 12.
,, 19.
m 26.
Apr. 2.
M 9.
M 16.
i, 23.
m 30.
May 7.
, M. 14.
M 21.
» 28.
June 4
,i 11.
18.
m 25.
July 2.
„ 16.
m 23.
H 30.
Aug. 7.
m 14.
h 21.
I, 28.
Sept. 4.
h 11.
h 18.
H 25.
Oct. 2.
" 9.
,i 16.
m 23.
» 30.
Nov. 6.
" 13.
» 20.
» 27.
Dec. 4.
„ 11.
.■ 18.
H 25.
Bush.
3,808
3,896
3,568
3,224
3,216
3,104
2,888
2,696
2,760
2,832
2,344
2,376
2,216
2,608
2,528
2.288
2,240
2,264
2,344
3,448
3,736
3,936
3,520
3,320
2,720"
2,376
2,408
2,344
1,840
2,320
2,448
3,240
3,280
3,552
3,872
3,744
3,056
3,888
4,432
4,944
4,712
5,096
4,880
5,040
5,624
5,144
5,216
4,864
4,848
4,952
4,624
4,312
Russia
to
World.
Bush.
1,672
1,568
1,416
1,704
1,256
1,042
1,664
1,592
1,520
1,728
1,576
'1,656
1,592
1,704
1,856
2,248
2,360
2,504
2,618
3,000
2,960
2,752
2,888
3.264
2,680
2,712
2,776
2,640
2,088
1,792
2,008
1,712
1,808
2,504
2,712
3,280
3,808
4,320
3,896
3,968
4.368
3,560
3,632
3,552
3,760
4,168
3,640
3,336
2,944
2,664
2,024
2,304
Balkan
States
to Europe.
Bush.
1,168
1,088
976
648
760
696
832
792
520
712
712
584
632
664
952
744
760
784
1,008
888
784
688
720
784
928
i 784
608
544
528
304
632
904
1,048
1,480
1,776
1,808
2,384
2,040
1,840
1,944
1,920
1,912
1,856
1,480
1,640
1,608
1,248
1,464
1,456
1,704
1,440
1,560
India
to
Europe.
Bush.
728
552
664
432
576
400
432
312
432
456
428
336
496
456
392
408
544
448
648
656
920
1,256
1,408
1,280
1,512
1.544
1,784
1,788
1,536
1,592
1,400
1,392
1,160
936
1,056
848
616
664
744
688
568
. 536
640
456
608
672
464
544
536
. 352
368
400
Argentine
to
Europe.
Bush.
320
360
664
1,280
2,288
2,888
3,376
3,704
3,872
3,704
4,312
3,752
4,016
3,552
3,648
3,320
3,104
2,936
2,824
2,496
2,544
1,976
1,904
1,976
1,736
1,720
1,344
1,336
1,248
1,224
1,2Tb
1,384
944
736
704
552
640
480
424
552
480
448
376
496
280
584
424
448
416
280
264
232
Average 1st 3 mos
h 2nd 3 m
n 3rd 3 h
h 4th 3 h
38,928
37,328
40,424
64,256
19,986
33,576
35,344
43,920
10,120
10,488
15,896
21,232
6,144
11,472
15,536
6,832
34,536
33,736
12,232
5,280
Compiled from Broomhall's Corn Trade Year Book.
110
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Monthly Quantities of "Wheat Received at and Shipped from Fort William and Port
Arthur, January, 1909, to August, 1915, inclusive.
Table No. 25.
Month.
Receipts.
Shipments
by Lake and
by Rail.
1909.
Bush.
2,909,514
1,593,744
3,446,330
3,871,656
1,615,988
590,691
1,458,528
171,938
11,115,607
17,042,687
15,095,051
6,817,184
Bush.
2,873,362
1,427,385
1,735,859
1,628,287
6,586,366
2,702,797
1,795,137
1,010,307
5,281,626
15,500,307
16,375,476
9,283,825
September
65,728,918
66,200,734
1910.
2,652,432
1,717,366
2,770,873
4,185,470
4,493,260
2,155,166
2,755,079
1,485,426
8,466,582
18,604,400
13,340,056
6,143,821
1,895,385
1.204,073
1,489,426
6,208,050
5,648,301
3,522,210
2,478,500
3,379,145
4,284,320
10,467,600
16,682,031
3,862,892
November
68,769,931
•61,121,933
1911.
January...
989,719
995,592
4,198,047
5,167,792
3-,517,136
3,508,156
4,460,816
1,739.754
5,674j 405
19,320,428
19,941,556
16,446,798
1,358,602
806,908
2,062,170
5,579,410
8,746,679
2,609,013
3,767,454
5,079,380
4,360,252
14,780,210
22,315,785
8,367,629
March
June
August
September
October
November
December
Total
84,960,199
79,833,492
« 1912.
January - .....
February
6,876,994
6,693,341
5,828,737
2,674,869
9,652,818
6,637,726
5,394,792
3,050,275
2,743,428
19,586,631
27,583,511
14,975,147
5,161,375
4,499,309
4,613,266
2,261,341
18,778,167
9,644,435
7,269,612
4,881,793
• 2,893,813
12,663,182
29,387,576
12,952,924
March
May
August
September
October
November
December
Total
111,698,269
115,006,793
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
11t
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Monthly Quantities of Wheat Received at and Shipped from Fort William and Port
Arthur, January, 1909, to August, 1915, inclusive—Continued.
Table No. 25.—Con.
Month.
1913.
January...
February..
March
Apri'
May
June
July
August....
September.
October
November
December.,
Total.
January..
February.
March ...
April
May
June
July
1914.
August....
September.
October
November.
December..
Total.
January..
February.
March
April
May
June
July
August...
1915.
Total (for 8 mos. ) .
Receipts.
Bush.
12,105,146
4,064,093
2,370,233
2,690,930
10,199,180
5,545,303
4,346,576
1,284,579
18,075,473
37,546,215
30,946,217
17,883,688
147,057,633
3,309,258
1,184,374
2,895,669
5,011,571
5,937,263
5,021,318
5,515,187
1,410,972
26,392,140
11,608,678
8,888,394
4,168,141
81,342,965
1,641,914
2,544,505
4,565,436
6,215,271
4,381,037
2,496,906
2,086,084
727,100
24,658,253
Compiled from the Reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Part V, Grain
Statistics.
112 INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Maximum Quantity of Wheat in store, monthly, at Terminal Elevators, Fort
William and Port Arthur, 1909-15.
Table No. 26.
1909.
Bush.
4,369,130
4,535,489
6,245,959
8,489,328
3,518,949
1,406,842
1,060,231
788,406
4,867,714
7,807,724
7,189,463
3,996,998
1910.
Bush.
4,728,965
5,329,575
6,384,702
7,276,657
5,178,804
3,990,190
3,173,436
3,022,870
5,561,358
8,163,409
9,226,951
6,781,018
1911.
Bush.
6,918,390
6,425,975
8,705,499
11,200,031
6,585,605
3,864,206
4,553,699
3,920,920
3,075,576
6,133,461
10,191,442
11,065,583
1912.
Bush.
12,651,178
14,712,854
16,300,046
16,323,082
16,222,406
6,341,868
5,031,034
4,162,174
2,313,952
9,264,860
10,433,177
9,484,031
1913.
Bush.
18,743,042
20,365,134
21,003,967
22,578,571
10,555,192
7,056,343
5,578,374
2,336,528
7,127,194
10,913,404
13,084,142
11,611,142
1914.
Bush.
14,688,105
14,966,286
15,989,234
18,954,534
12,246,979
4,240,807
3,599,772
1,806,111
14,347,902
17,206,128
10,094,264
4,533,340
Compiled from the Weekly Bulletins, Department of Trade and Commerce.
Includes winter storage afloat.
Monthly Shipments of World's Wheat and Flour to United Kingdom 1909 to 1914.
Table No. 27. (.000 emitted.)
Month.
January...
February .
March....
April....
May
June
July
August
September
Octobpr..
November
December.
1909.
Bush.
20,594
20,882
19,741
11,162
19,817
16,030
13,912
17,110
18,096
18,547
19,950
20,890
1910.
Bush.
22,885
19,994
20,844
21,670
21,106
14,276
14;145
18,306
18,212
21,026
20,071
15,618
1911.
Bush.
14,024
15,842
20,282
16,065
21,112
19,340
19,089
17,552
15,489
19,928
19,587
17,339
1912.
Bush.
15,059
13,852
22,166
20,425
22,013
22,929
19,545
18,571
20,486
22,921
20,984
15 276
1913.
Bush.
20,660
19,248
21,705
17,058
24,748
22,780
18,254
18,481
15,697
19,075
16,918
17,386
Compiled from weekly statements in Broomhall's Corn Trade Tear Book, quantities in over¬
lapping weeks toeing distributed according to number of days in each month.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 113
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Prices of Contract Grade Wheat—Liverpool Corn Exchange and Cash No. 1 Northern
Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
High and Low per month January, 1909, to August, 1914 (in cents per bushel).
Table No. 28.
Month.
Li verpool.
High.
Low.
Winnipeg.
High.
Low.
January...
February.
March
April
May
June.
July
August ...
September.
October
November.
December..
January...
February..
March
April
May
June
July
August....
September.
October ...
November.
December .
January..
February.
March ...
April
June
July
August
September.
October
"November.
December..
1909.
1910.
1911.
1912.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July.
August
September....
October
November
December
19b—8
111
118
119
132
133
134
138
120
112
114
117
119
121
120
119
115
105
97
110
112
109
107
102
99
108
111
115
121
126
128
134
109
108
108
111
116
116'84
116 1
115'94
104 ~
90
94
105
102
101
97
96
103 5
100-94
101'84
97-8
97 5
94-5
993
942
101-4
98-4
100 2
97-2
102 44
98 54
105 6
101-4
108-6
103-8
108 6
105 6
105-6
100-8
106-8
103 2
1110
106-2
115-2
110-4
120
114-6
123
118-2
118-2
111-6
113-4
111-6
110-5
108-L
110 54
105'71
111-6
108'7i
115-5
110 7
109 8
103 5
106-94
103 8
97
984
99|
105
1044
109J
108
107
1054
92|
874
82
1004
107
114J
1201
126
119
97
944
944
95s
944
1014
10l|
1024
98?
864
87|
101
101 î
97Ï
9l|
884
894
92
8S
883
87s
934
95|
954
96"
981
974
97
93
93§
961
97?
99?
102?
IO34
1054
1044
89
88
784
114
INTERIM REPORT OF TËE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Prices of Contract Grade Wheat—Liverpool Corn Exchange and Cash No. 1 Northern
Winnipeg Grain Exchange—Continued.
Table No. 28—Con.
January...
February..
March
April
May .. .
June
July . . s
August ...
September.
October
November.
December .
January...
February..
March ....
April
May
June ...
July
August
September.
October
November.
December..
Month.
1913.
1914.
Liverpool.
High.
108
108
110
112
111
108
108
103
104
102
103
101
■n
6
4
14
H
104'7
106-6J
106-2
103-8
105
105-3
100 8
1236
1314
124-2
Low.
106-6
106-64
106-94
106-5
107-4
106-5
105 0
101-54
101-4"
97-5
999
97-64
102-44
103-34
103 8
101-54
102-14
95-7
97-34
108
117-6
116 4
Winnipeg.
High.
Liverpool quotations supplied through the courtesy of G. J. S. Broomhall.
Winnipeg quotations from Annual Reports Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 115
SESSIONAL PAPER No, 19b
The Routing of Export Traffic and Ocean Freight Rates.
Statement showing Direct and Indirect Exports of Canadian Wheat, by months,
1911-13.
TABLE No. 29.
Month.
Direct.
Indirect.
Total.
Exported
direct from
Canadian
North Atlantic
Ports. 1
Diverted to United .States
export routes from 2
Pt. Arthur and
Ft, William.
Duluth
Exported from
Portland, Me.8
1911.
January
Bush.
1,065,922
1,074,881
1,566,219
Bush.
Bush.
Bush.
351,910
478,843
1,052.708
773,882
Bush.
1,417,832
1,553,724
2.618.927
4,120,706
7,310,256
2,546,336
3.085.928
3,550,653
3,417,569
11,928,026
14,381,917
15,380,542
February ..-
1,048,761
2,770,723
1,928,485
1,879,246
2,365,266
2,167,843
2,341,751
3,070,363
1,199,894
2,298,063
4,507,533
537,851
1,010,616
1,185,387
■956,983
8,615,020
11,175,554
3,477,797
32,000
80,000
196,066
292,743
971,255
56,000
November
80,000
702,851
22,479,354
33,764,804
1,628,064
3,440,194
61,312,416
1911.
1,638,810
1,326,324
1,325,371
1,617,692
3,892,351
4,001,137
2,850,194
3,601,416
1,983,463
2,284,683
4,352,707
1,382,327
828,170
950,239
1,213,285
1,162,120
238,094
2,466,980
2,276,563
2,538,656
5,914,675
19,522,659
7,289,297
4,729,604
4,416,744
2,385,694
8,911,539
18,253,073
9,023,289
3,134,863
3,151,457
179,209
190,504
148,713
57,000
304,903
181,104
108,447
12,240,757
3,108,951
1,688,906
666,615
345,231
6,321,953
13,679,262
6,201,135
40,000
1,331,380
Total
1913.
30,256,475
44,252,810
7,456,200
5,763,288
87,728,773
- .1,607,374
1,614,626
1,325,224
985,927
5,243,408
5,235,482
4,133,389
4,343,468
1,943,270
3,502,308
4,678,607
1,443,000
1,074,865
1,137,760
1,197,134
1,164,198
463,837
71,851
2,682,239
2,752,386
2,522,358
11,410,960
12.581,477
6,784,756
4,894,4u0
4,388,709
7,910,544
22,321,067
27,840,307
10,993,940
April
8,074,767
4,990,261
1,196,475
451,664
31,073
5,767,537
18,068,521
22,013,586
7,997,726
1,186,068
1,883,971
280,948
309,347
14,168
199,737
159,748
178,000
June
September
590,490
970,114
1,553,214
Total
36,056,083
68,591,610
4,211,987
8,223,463
117,083,143
1 Compiled direct from the ships' manifests.
2 Compiled direct from official records at the lake ports.
3 Compiled from United States records, through the courtesy of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic
Commerce, Department of Commerce, Washington.
19b—8J
116 INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Ocean Freight Rates on Heavy Grain Between Montreal and Liverpool.
Table No. 30. (Cents per bushel. )
Month.
1909.
High. Low.
1910.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
High. Low.
High. Low.
High. Low.
High, Low.
High. Low.
May
J une
July
August ;
September
October
November
4'75
3'75 —3 00
3 00 -2'25
4H25—3 00
5'25
6 00 —4'50
5'625
3'375
3'75 3 125
3'375—2'50
3-375—1-50
4-125—2-25
5-25.-3-75
5-25 —3-375
;
4-125—3-75
4-125—3-75
4-125-3-75
5-25 —3-75
5-25
6-187-4-125
6 75 —4-125
7-50—4-50
7-50—6 00
8-25—4-50
8-25—4-50
7-50-4-875
12-75—7-50
12-75-7-50
9-75—7-50
9-00-7 50
9-00—8-25
7 50—6-75
8-25—5-25
7 -50—6 75
9-00—6-00
4-875—3-75
6 00 —4 50
7'50 —4-50
7 50 —4-50
8-25 -6-375
9-00 —6-75
15-00 —8 625
Compiled from The Montreal Board of Trade Report.
Rates of Insurance on Grain Shipped from Montreal to Liverpool, by Steamers of
Regular Lines Loading General Cargo. (Rates per $100 value of cargo).
Table No. 31. '
Year.
May 1
to
Aug. 1.
Aug. 2
to
Aug. 31.
Sept. 1
to
Sept. 10.
Sept. 11
to
Sept. 15.
Sept. 16
to
Sept. 25.
Sept. 26
to
Sept. 30.
Oct. 1
to
Oct. 10.
Oct. 11
to
Oct. 15.
Oct. 16
to
Oct. 26.
Oct. 27
to
Ocfc 30.
Oct. 31
to
Nov. 10.
Nov. 11
to
Nov. 15.
Nov. 16
to
Close.
Cts.
Cts.
Cts.
Cts.
Ots.
Cts.
Cts.
Cts.
Cts.
Cts.
Cts.
Cts.
Cts.
1911
25
25
25
25
25
35
35
45
45
574
574
674
674
1912
25
25
25
25
27 *
274
30
30
374
374
25
40
40
45
1913
20
20
20
20
20
20
224
224
25
35
35
40
1914
20
25
28
28
28
28
30
30
30
30
44
44
50
■GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 117
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Ocean Freight Rates on Wheat from Ports Named to United Kingdom, 1909-14.
Table No. 32.
Week
New York.
Odessa.
Karachi.
River Plate
down River.
Sailer
Australia.
1909.
Cents.
Cents.
' Cents.
Cents. ^
Cents.
1st -.
315
3'37
802
815
13'96
2nd
315
3'69
8'02
815
14 12
3rd
363
3 69
8'74
7'66
13'96
4th
363
3'85
8'74
7'66
13'96
Sth ..
315
3'85
8'87
7'83
13'96
6th
315
401
8'87
7'83
13-96
7th
3 15
401
8'87 ■
7'50
13'96
8th
3-15
401
8'87
7'50
13'96
9th
3'15
401
8'87
7'02
13'96
10th
3' 15
417
8'87
6'18
13 96
11th
315
417
8'87
5'61
13'96
12th
315
3'85
8'87
5'37
12'84
13th
315
3'85
8'87
6'35
12'84
14th
3-15
3'85
8'87
6'86
13 16
15th
315
3'85
8'87
7'50
13 16
16th
315
4'43
8 87
8'80
13 16
17th
3'15
3'85
8'87
913
Nom.
18th
3 15
3'85
8'87
8'46
Nom.
19th
3-15
401
8'87
8'46
Nom.
20th
3-15
417
8'87
8'80
Nom.
21st
315
3'85
8'87
8'80
Nom.
22nd <
315
4'01
10'33
8'80
Nom.
23rd
315
3'85
10'33
814
Nom.
24th
315
3'85
10'33
8'31
Nom.
25th
3-15
3'69
10 33
7'98
Nom.
26th
3 15
3'69
10 16
7'83
Nom.
27th -
3-15
385
10 16
7'83
Nom.
28th
3-15
417
9'63
7'34
Nom.
29th
3 15
4'17
8'87
5'86
1P76
30th -
315
5T3
8'87
4'88
14'7€
31st
3-15
5'77
8'87
4'88
14 76
32nd
315
5'77
8'87
4'88
14.76
33rd
3 15
513
8'87
4'72
15-98
34th
3'15
4 97
8 87
4'72
15-08
35th
3 15
4'81
8'87
5'22
15-08
36th
3-15
513
8 87
4'88
1508
37th
315
5 13
8'87
5'05
15 08
38th
315
513
8'87
5 05
15-08
39th
315
5'29
8'87
4'56
15-08
40th
315
5 29
11 06
4'56
15 08
41st
4-11
5'29
11-42
4'56
15 08
42nd
4 11
5'45
11-42
4'72
1492
43rd
4 11
513
11 06
5'21
14-92
44th
4 65
417
11'06
5'54
14-92
45th "
465
3'85
11 06
5'54
14-92
46th
5 13
4'33
11'06
5'86
14-92
47th
5'13
4'81
10'70
6'86
14-92
48th
513
4 81
10'70
6'86
14 92
49th :
4'92
4'49
10'70
6'86
1476
50th
411
5 13
10'70
6'52
14 76
411
5'45
10 70
6'86
14-76
52nd
411
5'45
11 06
6'86
14 76
118 INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Ocean Freight Eates on. Wheat from Ports Named to United Kingdom, 1909-14—Con.
Table No. 32. Con.
Week
New York.
Odessa.
Karachi.
River Plate
down River.
Sailor
Australia.
1910.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
1st
4 11
5'45
11 05
6-86
14-76
2nd
411
5'45
11 05
669
14 76
3rd
4-11
5'29
11 05
669
1476
4th
411
4'97
11-05
652
14 76
5th
2 56
4SI
11 05
6-52
14 76
6th
256
5 13
11 42
602
14 76
7th
256
4'81
11 05
Nom.
14-76
8th
2o8
4'8i
10'70
506
14 12
9th
2 OS
4'81
10'70
5-06
14 12
10th
256
4T7
10'70
473
14 12
11th
2-56
4 49
10'70
4'73
14-12
12th
2 56
5'60
10'70
473
13 32
13th
2'66
5'77
10'70
473
13 32
14th
2'56
5'60
10'53
5-22
13 32
15th
3-21
5 93
11'05
4 88
13-32
16th
3'21
5'60
H'05
4-88
13 32
17th
2'56
5'29
11 05
4-88
13 32
18th
2'56
5'29
10'70
4-88
13 32
19th
2'56
5'29
10'53
3-91
13 32
20th
3'21
4'49
10'53
4-24
13-32
21st
3'21
4'49
10 15
424
13 32
32nd
2'56
417
10 63
5-21
13 32
23rd
2'56
417
8'56
4-88
13 32
24th
2'56
401
8'56
472
13.32
25th
2'56
401
8'20
4-88
13 32
26th
2'56
401
7T3
488
13 32
27th
2 56
4'49
7'85
4-88
13 32
28th
3'21
4'97
8'56
4-88
13 32
29th
2'56
4'65
9 26
618
1332
30th
2 56
4'81
9'62
618
13 96
31st
2'56
4'97
9'98
7-17
13 96
32nd
2'56
5T3
9'98
652
14-28
33rd
3'21
5 13
9'98
618
14'28
34th
3 '21
5'77
10'70
686
14 28
35th 1
3'21
609
10 70
686
14 28
36th
3'21
6'42
10 70
6-86
14-28
37th
3'21
7'06
10'70
702
14'28
38th
3'21
7'38
11'42
7 02
14-28
39th
3'21
7'22
11-42
7 02
14-28
40tfci
417
7'06
12 12
734
14 92
41st
4'17
7'38
1212
7 16
14 92
42nd
417
7 06
1212
7 02
14-92
43rd
4T7
6'42
12-12
618
14 92
44th
417
5'45
11-42
602
14 92
45th
417
4'81
11-42
586
14 92
46th
3'69
5'29
11-42
5-86
14-92
47th
3'69
5'45
11-42
602
14-92
48th
3'69
609
11-05
602
14 92
49th
3 21
5'29
11-42
6 09
1476
50th
4'65
5'45
11-42
6-86
1476
51st
4 17
5'45
11-42
717
14 76
52nd
417
5'60
11-42
750
14 76
>GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 119
SESSIONAL PAPER No, 19b
Ocean Freight Rates on Wheat from Ports Named to United Kingdom, 1909-14—Con.
Table No. 32 —Con.
Week.
New York.
Odessa.
Karachi.
River Plate
down River.
Sailer
Australia.
1911.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
1st
4-11
5'77
11-42
7-84
14-76
2nd
4-11
5'60
11-42
6-52
15 08
3rd
411
5'77
11'42
6-02
15-40
4th
411
5 60
11'42
618
15-24
5th
465
, 5'77
11-42
6-52
15-24
6th ....
4 11
5'45
11-78
• 5-86
15-24
7th
4T1
5'45
11 78
586
15-89
8th
4 11
5'77
11-42
602
15-89
9th
4-11
513
11-42
5-86
15 56
10th
4 11
4'81
11-42
602
15-89
11th
411
4 81
11-42
602
15 40
12th
3 63
5'45
11-05
618
15-40
13th
363
513
10 70
6-52
15-40
14th
315
5'13
10 70
6-25
15 08
15th :
265
5'13
10-70
625
15-08
16th
3-15
5'93
10 70
652
13-96
17 th
3 15
5'45
11-42
652
13-96
18th
2 88
5'93
11-78
652
14 60
19th
315
5'93
12 12
618
14-60
20th
2-88
5'45
12 12
618
15-56
21st .-.
315
5'45
12-12
586
15-56
22nd
3-15
5'13
12 12
5-53
16-05
23rd
315
4'49
11-05
5-21
16 05
24th
315
4'17
11-05
4-87
16 05
25th
315
4T7
11-70
487
16 05
26th
2'56
4'65
11-70
4-56
16-05
27th
3 15
5'45
11-70
4-56
16-05
28th
315
513
1105
4-56
16-05
29th
3'63
5'93
11-05
4 56
16-05
30th
3'63
5'93
1105
4'56
46 05
31st
363
5'93
11-42
456
16 05
32nd
4 11
5'93
11-42
456
16 05
33rd
4 11
5'93
11-42
4 56
16 05
34th
411
5'45
11-42
5'54
16 05
35th
411
5'45
11-42
554
16 05
36th
513
5 45
11-42
5-54
16 05
37th
492
5'45
11-42
5'54
16-05
"8th
4'92
5'77
11-83
554
16 05
39th
4'65
609
11-83
5-51
16-05
40th
4 11
6'42
11-83
554
16 05
41st
5'66
6'42
11-83
554
16-05
42nd
6 15
6'75
1212
554
16 69
43rd
5'66
6'75
1212
5-54
16-69
44th
6 15
6'42
12 12
5-54
1669
45th
615
6'42
12-66
5 54
16-69
615
6 '42
12-49
5'54
16-69
47th
5'66
6'42
12-49
554
16-69
48 th
6'15
7'86
12 49
6-18
16-69
49th
6T5
7'38
12 12
652
1G-69
711
7'38
1212
6-52
16-69
7T1
7'38
12 12
652
16-69
52nd
6'64
7'38
1212
7-17
1669
120 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Ocean Freight Rates on Wheat from Ports Named to United Kingdom, 1909-14—Con.
Table N :>. 32.— Con.
Week.
Now York.
Odessa.
Karachi.
Ri ver Plate
down River.
Sailer
Australia.
1912.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
1st
664
7'06
12T2
0-52
16 69
2nd
6'64
6'91
12'49
6-52
17-35
3rd
711
7'22
13 19
652
18 15
4th
615
6'75
13'53
Nom.
18-47
5th..
6'15
6'42
13 53
Nom.
1847
6th
8'13
6'59
13'53
10 01
- 18-47
7th
813
6'91
13-53
10 01
19 11
8th
7.11
6'91
13 53
1109
19 11
9th
8'13
6 59
13 53
Nom.
19 11
10th
7'59
6 59
13 53
11-42
19 11
11th
7'59
6'59
13-53
11-42
19-11
12th
7'59
706
13-53
12 37
19 11
13th
813
706
13 53
12-71
19-11
14th
813
706
14-98
16 60
19-11
15th
7'59
706
15 70
16-60
19-11
16th
7'59
7'70
15 70
16-92
18 79
17th
711
7'70
16-05
17-91
18-79
18th
6'64
7'70
15-32
17'61
18-79
19th
6T5
8'98
14 27
18 27
18-79
20th
5'66
898
14-27
19-55
18 79
21st
5'66
8'98
14 98
20 41
20 06
22nd
5'66
7'70
14-62
18-26
18-63
23rd
5'66
7'38
13 52
16-92
20-06
24th
4'11
6'42
12 49
11-72
20-06
25th
513
6'42
13-19
12 71
20 06
26th
513
6'42
13-52
12 05
20-06
27th
513
6'42
13 52
1108
18-15
28th
513
6'42
13 52
11-08
18 15
29th
5 13
6 42
13 52
11-08
18-15
30th
411
6'42
13 52
12-33
18-15
31st
4'11
760
13 52
11-72
18 15
32nd
411
7'70
14-98
12 71
18-15
33rd
6'15
7'86
14 98
13-69
17 35
34th
6-1.5
7'38
14 62
18-60
17 35
35th
813
7'54
14-62
14-67
Nom.
36th
8 13
802
14 62
15 00
Nom.
37 th
9T4
8'66
15 70
16-60
Nom.
3Sth
10 11
11-23
16 05
20 02
Nom.
39th
1011
10'59
16 05
18-10
Nom.
40th
10'64
10'27
16 05
19-55
Nom.
41st
9'63
10'27
16 05
19-55
Nom.
42nd
10 75
12'84
16 40
15 99
Nom.
43rd
10'64
14 12
16-76
15-99
Nom.
44th
11-12
14'76
16-76
16-48
Nom.
45th
11 12
11-87
16-76
16-61
Nom.
46th...
11 12
9 63
15 32
15-98
Nom.
47 th
10'64
802
14-98
14 33
Nom.
48th
10 11
706
14-28
18-42
Nom.
49th
lO'll
6'91
13 90
12 71
Nom.
50th
9'63
6'75
13-52
12 71
23 59
51st
9'14
609
12 83
12-38
22 79
52nd
914
6 09
12-49
12-08
22 79
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION 121
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Ocean Freight Kates on Wheat from Ports Named to United Kingdom, 1909-14—Con.
Table No. 32 —Con.
Week.
New York.
Odessa.
Karachi.
River Plate
down River.
Sailer
Australia.
1913.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
1st
6
93
6
09
12 83
14-50
23 91
2nd
6
93
8
02
13'91
14 68
23 91
-3rd
6
93
8
02
13 53
14-68
24-55
4th
8
13
7
06
13
53
14-68
2391
5th
6
15
6
75
13
53
15-48
23-91
6th
6
15
6
09
13
53
15-63
23-75
7th
5
66
5
77
13
53
17-29
23 11
8th
6
31
5
77
13
53
16 30
21-66
9th
6
85
6
09
13
53
15 30
21-66
10th
6
15
5
77
12
83
13-52
*23 43
11th .. ..
6
15
5
45
12
49
12-87
22-78
12th
6
15
5
45
12
49
12.38
22-78
13th
;
5
66
5
60
11
05
13 36
22-46
14th
6
15
5
60
11
05
13-36
20-86
15th
6
15
6
09
11
42
11-72
20-86
16 th
6
15
5
77
11
42
12-06
20-86
17th
7
11
6
09
11
77
11-40
20-54
18th
7
11
6
09
11
77
10 10
20-86
19th
i
11
5
93
12
49
9-77
20-22
20th
7
11
5
45
12
49
9 44
20-22
21st
6
64
5
45
12
12
976
20 06
22nd
6
64
5
13
12
49
9-44
20-06
23rd
6
15
4
49
11
76
8-62
20-54
24th
5
66
4
49
11
42
8-62
20-22
25 th
4
65
5
45
11
42
944
20-22
26th
-
4
65
5
45
11
76
944
20-22
27 th
4
65
5
45
11
76
10 13
20 22
28th
4
65
6
09
12
49
10 75
20 06
29th
4
65
6
09
12
49
10 10
19-58
30th
4
65
6
09
13
42
10 42
19 58
31st
4
65
7
06
13
42
10-42
19-58
32nd
4
65
7
54
13
19
12 05
19 58
33rd
5
88
8
02
12
12
11-09
19-58
34th
5
13
8
50
11
72
11-72
*20-22
35th
4
66
7
85
12
10
10-43
19-28
36th ...
4
12
8
35
12
10
9-78
19 28
37th
4
12
8
19
12
10
864
19-28
38th
5
67
7
85
12
86
8 15
19-60
39th
5
67
8
03
12
50
7'84
19 60
40th
5
83
7
39
12
50
7-17
I9 60
41st
5
67
6
42
11
43
6 "86
19-60
42nd....
6
16
5
94
11
43
6-86
19-60
43rd
4
66
5
94
10
70
6-52
20-25
44th
4
66
5
30
Nom.
6-52
20-25
45th
0
16
5
30
Nom.
619
19 92
46th
5
14
5
46
Nom.
587
19-28
47th
4
66
6
32
Nom.
5-87
1992
48th
4
12
5
67
10
70
6-52
19-28
49th
4
66
5
30
10
70
652
19 76
50th
1
12
4
82
10
36
7-18
I9 60
51st
4
12
4
50
10
36
685
19-44
52nd
5
14
4
50
10
36
6-52
19-28
* The rates shown from the 10th to the 31th week are steamer rates.
122 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Ocean Freight Rates on Wheat from Ports Named to United Kingdom, 1909-14— Con.
Table No. 32—Con.
Week.
New York.
Odessa.
Karachi.
River Plate
down River.
Sailer
Australia.
1914.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
Cents.
514
417
10-00
652
19-28
2nd
5T4
4-17
10 00
686
19-28
3rd
4T2
401
964
619
■ 18-67
4'12
4-01
9-64
5-54
17-68
5th
4T2
401
927
4-88
17-68
4T2
401
927
473
15 26
7th
391
4-17
9-27
488
14-46
8 th
3 91
466
927
619
14 46
9th
316
4 5(1,
9-27
619
15 02
10th
316
4-82
9-27
619
14 14
11th
2-89
482
9-27
619
14-14
12th
289
4-82
8-20
587
13 82
13th
316
482
8-20
686
13-50
14th
391
4 82
7 85
7-67
13-50
15th
3 91
4' 66 ■
7-85
7-51
14 14
16th ■
391
4-17
643
686
1317
17th.
316
4-17
6-43
686
13.34
18th
3' 16
4-50
6-43
587
13 66
19th
316
' 482
750
5-87
13 50
20th
316
489
927
Nom.
13 82
21st '
316
5-14
963
Nom.
13-82
22nd
316
4-50
9-63
Nom.
13 82
23rd
391
4 33
963
Nom.
13 82
24th
316
4-33
963
Nom.
1334
25th
4 12
4 66
963
Nom.
12-21
26th
514
4 33
8 92
619
12 21
27th
5 14
8-66
6-19
12 21
28th
514
4-50
866
652
11-89
29th
514
4-98
866
6.52
11-57
30th
567
5-14
785
Nom.
11-57
31st
567
785
8-81
Nom.
32nd
Nom.
33rd
Nom. .
i No definite quotations available owing to the war.
34th
Nom.
)
35th
11-78
7-84
36th
12-60
12 85 k
12 12
12 12
12 12
12-12
12 12
11-60
11-78
Nom.
12 12
11 78
11-62
Nom.
Nom.
Nom.
Nom.
6-86
7-51
815
Nom.
Nom.
Nom.
Nom.
Nom.
17-30
17 30
17 30
1792
1990
19 90
21-20
24 59
32 35
38th
616
39th
8-14
8-14
8T4
814
3'35
10 66
1312
13-12
13 12
14-35
14-63
16 23
18-16
43rd
47th
48th
49th
50th
( Calculated in cents per bushel from quotations furnished through thecourtesy of G. J.S. Broomhall).
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 123
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Tramp Charter Rates on Wheat from Ports named to United Kingdom, high and low,
per month, 1909-14, as reported at London.
Table No. 33.
Month.
1909.
January
February ..
March
April
May
June
July
August
September..
October ...
November .
December..
1910.
January
February ..
March
April
May
June
July
Angust
September..
October...
November .
December .
Montreal.
5-06-4.87
4-87
6-00
6-37
4-87-4-6
1911.
January... .
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September .
October ...
November .
December..
1919.
January ...
February ..
March
April
May
J une
July. ...
August
September..
October . .
November .
December .
New York
and
Philadel¬
phia.
3-75
5-25
5-25
5-25- 4-87
9-00-8-62
6-00- 5-62
6-37- 6-00
7-31
7-12- 6-37
7-12
6-18
■37- 6-00
JP62
6-37
6-75
8-25- 8-06
9-00- 8-
9-75- 9-37
8-62
8-25
9-00- 7-87
9-00
9-75- 8-25
12-00-10-50
12-75-11-25
12-00-10-87
10-50- 9-00
Lorenzo.
10-62-
Kb 62-
Kb 08-
11-52-
11-52-
10-98-
Kb 17-
7-92-
9-72-
9-54-
10-to¬
ll-07-
8-64-
8-28-
8-10-
6-84-
7-54-
7 • 54-
Kb 08-
10-44-
9-99-
9-99-
Kb 08-
Kb 08-
9-35
8-46
7-20
8-82
8-64
8-82
7-00
5-
6-
5-76
7-20
8-46
9-36- 6-66
7-20- 6-48
7-56- 6-48
7-74- 7-65
7-92- 7-74
7-56- 7-29
6-12
9-36- 7-02
10-44- 7-02
10-44- 9-72
11-52-10-62
11-16-10-17
12-96-11-52
14-76-12-24
20-16-13-50
22-32-17-28
23-76-15-12
19-08-12-96
15-12-11-28
15-44-14-76
23-58-16-20
21-60-17-28
19-08-15-12
16-92-12-28
3-92-3-75
4-65-3-92
4-08-3-92
4-08
5-71—4-73
5-
5-55
4-57
5-22-4-82
5-71-5-06
5-06-4-73
5-55-4-57
5-55-5-39
5-55-3-92
4-
5-22-4-41
6-37-4-90
7-51-6-20
7-51-7-18
6-04-5-22
6-01-5-39
5-88-5-55
5-55-5-22
5-55-4-90
5-96-5-22
5-88-5-55
4-41
6-20-5-55
6-53-5-55
6-04-5-55
6-86-6-20
7-59-6-53
7-35-6-86
-51- 6-53
■00- 6-37
7
11
15
9
6-
8-49
8-49
53- 6-20
6-53
84- 7-18
59-11-43
02-12-41
80- 6-53
69- 6-53
Karachi.
10-00
11-40-10-80
11-80-11-20
11-80-10-40
11-20-10-80
12-00
12-60-12-20
12-10-11-60
12-80-11-80
13-20-12-40
12-80-12-00
12-00-11-20
12-60-11-60
11-60-10-80
9-20- 7-70
12-00- 8
12-40-10-80
14-00-12-00
13-60-12-80
12-90-12-00
13-20-12-40
13-20-12-
12-60-12-
12-40-12-
13-20-12-
14-50-12-
12-80-11-
13-40-12-
13
13-60-12
14-40-13-
14-30-13
14-60-13-
16-20-14-80
16-00-15-40
16-00-14-40
19-00-16-80
17-60-15-60
16-20-14-20
17-20-15-80
17-20-16-00
19-00-16-40
20-00-18-30
18-80-15-20
15-20-13-20
Australia.
17-64
17-28
17-64-16-56
18-54-18-36
19-80-18-36
19.80-19-40
19-62-18-72
19-44-18-72
16-74-15-30
16-20-14-76
16-20-15-84
K5-20
17-28-15-30
18-00-16-56
17-64-16-56
19-26-18-72
18-72-18-36
19-44
44-19-08
07-18-00
44-17-82
17-28
08-17-28
72-16-56
17-62
■44-18-36
■16-18-72
■26-19-08
•60-20-70
23-04-22-32
24-30-22-68
22-50-21-60
21-60-20-70
23-40-20-70
28-80
33-30-28-80
31-14-30-60
124 INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Tramp Charter Rates on Wheat from Ports named to United Kingdom, high and low,
per month, 1909-14, as reported at London.—Continued.
Table No. 33—Con.
Month.
1913.
January.. .
February ..
March
April
May
J une
July
August
September..
October ...
November .
December ..
1914.
January....
February ..
March
April
May
June
July
August
September.
October....
November .
December..
Montreal.
9-37
8-
9-00- 8-25
7-50
9-00- 8-25
9-00- 8-25
8-25- 7-50
5-62
6-37- 5-62
7-50- 5-62
8-25- 6-75
6-37
9-75- 5-62
11-25- 9-00
17-25-15-00
New York
and
Philadel¬
phia.
10-50- 9-00
9-75- 9-00
9-37- 7-87
8-12- 7-87
8-25
8-25- 7-12
8-43- 7-87
7-50
7-12- 6-00
6-00- 5-62
5-62- 5-25
5-25
4-50
6-00- 5-81
6-7V'5-87
10-87- 7-12
7-50- 5-25
8-25- 7-50
18-00-12-75
15-00-14-25
San
Lorenzo.
18-72-16-56
20-16-17-28
17-64-14-04
16-92-12-96
14-22-11-34
12-60-11-64
14-40-11-16
15-12-12-24
13-32-10-
11-88- 9-09
11-16- 7-92
11-52- 8-64
11-16- 7-20
10-08- 7-20
10-40- 7-
10-98- 9-00
9-36- 6-93
10-40- 8-10
10-40- 8-10
14-40-10-98
15-66- 8-64
21-24-13-68
22-68-18-36
39-96-22-68
Odessa.
8-16-7-51
7-18- 6-
6-53- 5-53
6-04- 5-
6-04- 5.-53
5-53- 5-
7-02- 5-
8-16- 7-02
8-33- 7-35
7-35- 5-22
5-53- 5-08
5-53- 4-41
4-24- 3-92
4-57- 3-92
4-90- 4-57
4-41- 3-92
5-22- 4-08
4-90- 3-92
5-71- 4-08
War.
Karachi.
16-50-14-80
16-00-15-20
14-60-13-60
14-80-13-20
14-S0-13-20
14-00-13-00
15-20-13-20
15-30-14-40
15-00-13-60
13-20-12-00
10-80
12-00-11-10
11-60-10-40
11-60- 8
10-60- 7
11-60- 8
11-20-10-
10-10- 8-
14-80-13
14-80-13
13-60-13
13-60-13
16
Crop failure.
(Calculated in cents per bushel from quotations furnished through courtesy of Comtelburo Daily Freight
Register).
I GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 125
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Ocean Freight Eates on "Wheat from Ports Named to United Kingdom, September to
December, 1915. (In cents per bushel.)
Table No. 34
Week.
New York.
Karachi.
Hiver Plate
(down river.)
Australia.
28
29-2
35-9
45-0
„ 26
30
29-2
34 0
45-0
Oct. 3
40
30-3
44-1
48-2
„ 10
40
30-3
39-4
48-2
.. 17
40
30-3
42-5
54-7
„ 24
40
30-9
47-2
61-1
„ 31
40
41-0
52-4
61-1
Nov. 7
40
42-8
55-5
61-1
„ 14
42
44-6
55-5
61-1
21
40
46-4
55-5
61-1
„ 28
38
48-2
57-2
61-1
Dec. 5
38
50-0
71-8
61-1
„ 12
38
50-0
73-4
61-1
„ 19
40
57 -A
76-8
61-1
„ 26
40
57-1
76-8
61-1
(Calculated in cents per bushel from quotations furnished through the courtesy of G. J. S.
Broomhall.)
126
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Tramp "Charter Rates on Wheat from Ports named to United Gingdom, high and
low per month, September to December, 1915. (In cents per bushel.)
Table No. 35.
Week.
Montreal.
New York,
Philadelphia.
San Lorenzo.
Karachi.
Australia.
Sept. 19
26
30-7
28-5
36-9
28-6
48-2
33-2
31-7-30-2
41-8-37-0
28-6
48-2
Oct. 3
37-7-33-2
37-0-31-7
43-1
29-3
54-7
10
37-0
37-0-34-7
44-2-41-8
30-3
54-7
17
36-2
35-4
45-1-41-8
35-8-34-0
57-9
24
37-0-35-4
54.7.44.i
36-8-35-8
61-1-55-4
31
39-0-37-4
39-5-37-4
40-5-39-0
39-0
40-5-37-4
40-5-39-8
40-5
40-5
56-3-49-8
56-3-51-4
53-4
57-9-54-7
63-5-56-3
73-9-62-6
75-5-70-7
77-1-70-7
42-9-41-0
46-5-43-8
46-5
53-6
50-0
51-9
53-6
64-3
61-1
61-1
61-1
61-1
61-1
61-1
61-1
61-1
Not. 7
14
21
28
Dec. 5
12
19
(Calculated in cents per bushel from quotations furnished through the courtesy of
Comtelburo. )
•GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 127
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Number of Full Grain Cargoes Loaded at Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and
New York.
Table No. 36.
Year.
Philadelphia.
Baltimore.
Boston.
New York.
1878
13
47
50
22
7
46
47
49
53
89
3
18
146
58
200
30
13
12
72
175
' 243
158
179
59
8
18
37
96
106
67
98
152
170
121
180
84
43
107
126
108
160
64
34
14
110
277
284
161
110
101
18
31
4
27
31
31
5
11
11
17
58
129
156
145
29
64
84
55
39
24
47
28 ,
84
115
21
23
42
187
114
86
33
73
74
163
269
61
41
11
5
11
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887 '
1888
1890
1891
1892
1893 '
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
2
1899
2
6
2
8
2
1900
1901
1902 •
1903
1904.
1905 .
18
44
32
42
13
1
14
36
34
29
33
1906
1907
1908
1909.
1910.
1911
4
24
20
74
86
1912
1913...
1914
Furnished by Frank B. Neall, Manager Consolidated News, Statistics,, and Transportation
Bureau, Philadelphia, as shown by records of Peter Wright and Sons, etc.
NOTE.—April 3, 1915—For a number of years there were no oats shipped in full cargoes
from United States, say until about 1890. During a considerable portion of the period, records
were only kept of shipments of Wheat and Corn in full cargoes, and subsequently, oats were
added. No records for many years were kept of shipments from Philadelphia of Bye, Barley
and Flaxseed. The foregoing is probably as correct a statement of number of vessels loading
full cargoes of grain at the respective ports as it is practicable to prepare, and they embrace
substance of statements furnished at various Differential Hearings and also in connection with
Advisory Board of 1881, and prior to that time, Statistics that' were periodically submitted to
Penna. R. R. and used by that company in their negotiations and current arrangements with
the other Trunk Line Railroads, all of which were compiled by Peter Wright & Sons,
Philadelphia.
128
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. '916
Bank Returns in Canada.
Statement Showing Total Assets, Current Loans in Canada, Current Loans Elsewhere
than in Canada, Call and Short Loans Elsewhere than in Canada, With
Percentage of Same as to Assets.
Table No. 37.
Assets.
Total.
990.
1,018,:
1,025,'
1,044,'
1,053.
1,055
1,079,:
1,107
1,133,'
1,155.
1,157.
870,666
340,614
390,211
015,613
020,533
271,919
889,054
284,640
371,570
,986,560
865,400
783,629
1,149,
1,148,
1,185,:
1,182.
1,205,
1,230,
1,210,
1,223,
1,256,
1,260,
1,253,
1,229,
364,437
314,380
370,171
850,969
991,218
825,305
854,680
449,771
059,591
755,709
801,121
790,859
1,211,
1,221,
1,243,
1.246,
1,270,
1,302,
1,316,
1,322,
1,342,
1,381.
1,389;
1,390,
259,062
704,694
233,782
746,415
914,407
131,
101,042
162,028
917,913
280,989
053,388
069,518
1,363,535,778
1,383,835.613
1,414,858,991
1,439,425,966
1,474,715,460
1,490,443,071
1,496,623,543
1,501,817,795
1,509,255,749
1,521,105,096
1,519,087,516
1,526,081,158
Current Loans in
Canada.
Total.
511,363,250
507,349,748
520,109,936
524,168,988
528,313,141
535,212,269
539,821,041
543,154.663
560,206,621
579,837,956
590,291,944
592,741,812
590,984,344
602,454,539
624,550,051
638,247,238
643,246,518
649,145,920
653,008,336
657,813,770
668,976,522
679,820,039
677,617,478
677,064,829
682,506,695
689,234,781
710,604,072
712,032,758
708,093,677
717,869,386
723,765,358
734,683,962
749,007,607
768,492,008
770,356,419
774,909,172
775,972,243
793,853,541
815,948,308
833,242,621
837,282,550
848,940,089
852,256,651
852,045,624
859,341.193
879,676,655
874,721,593
881,331,981
Percent¬
age.
52-02
51-22
51-07
51-13
50-60
50-81
51-12
50-32
50 58
5113
51-07
51-10
51-41
52-46
52-70
54-00
53 33
52-74
53-92
53-76
53-25
53-88
54 04
55-05
56 34
56-41
57-06
67 14
55 71
55 13
54-99
55-56
55 78
55-63
55-45
55-74
56 90
57-36
57-74
57-88
56-77
56 95
56 94
56-73
56-93
57-83
57-51
57-75
Current Loans Else¬
where than in
Canada.
Total.
30,586,081
35,055,266
34,915,132
35,874,530
34,487,649
33,403,171
32,753,385
30,661,437
32,981,183
37,311,103
35,358,214
40,072,793
37,865,549
42,403,784
40,719,679
38,636,636
38,014.462
38,171,443
40,267,390
38,609,568
40,190,240
41,269,126
42,396,585
40,400,839
38,362,549
37,699,221
35,512,495
33,783,963
33,918,314
3.3,557,617
32,890,114
33,689,196
35,587,127
36,962,543
38,991,698
37,970,839
37,118,081
35,946,476
34,209,383
31,469,847
33,478,564
34,254,568
35,741,998
37,846,222
39,440,472
41,300,588
40,925,744
40,990,126
Percent¬
age.
329
3-70
3-43
327
315
310
333
3-15
3-20
327
338
3-26
2-72
2-60
2-41
215
2-27
2-30
2 39
2-52
261
2'71
2-69
2-68
Call and Short Loans
Elsewhere Than in
Canada.
Total.
92,532,507
101,443,902
117,850,605
114,493,570
124,877,955
115,254,868
114,685,53:
120,659,509
131,634,384
129,964,353
134,836,591
138,505,379
127,934,880
120,374,681
130,194,540
122,359,531
125,480,266
130,173,902
102,436,037
100,447,288
103,534,884
103,279,774
96,404,136
90,710,437
83,796,665
85,420,046
85,250,789
84,535,658
88,745,080
97,865,400
104,009,030
101,713,820
83,517,076
88,722,640
87,489,665
92,106,695
80,871,118
88,589,472
94,667,027
103,558,392
115,832,736
120,569,812
117,961,437
114,847,864
112,767,036
101,186,983
101,812,858
105,952,101
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION 129
SESSIONAL PAPËR No. 19b
Statement Showing Total Assets, Current Loans in Canada, Current Loans Elsewhere
than in Canada, Call and Short Loans Elsewhere than in Canada, With
Percentage of Same as to Assets—Con.
Table No. 37 (Con.)
Assets.
Total.
1,485,457,458
1,491,553,448
1,514,512,523
1,527,088,246
1,521,841,373
1,521,354,957
1,519,517,013
1,526,196,397
1,554,082,031
1,575,550,1
1,572,706,191
1,551,263,432
1,499,392,966
1,535,980,490
1,546,622,640
1,557,828,425
1,545,890,003
1,575,307,596
1,568,174,983
1,566,058,430
1,577,927,202
1,577,919,069
1,561,458,119
1,555,556,815
1,521,319,168
1,525,052,085
1,545,723,564
1,564,103,718
1,568,792,400
1,574,210,941
1,558,870,279
1,585,338,230
1,616,241,728
1,657,256,962
1,702,194,396
1,737,992,244
Current Loans i
Canada.
Total.
874,705,616
882,112,726
890,513,446
898,964,181
898,959,650
899,260,009
901,550,453
899,132,894
903,717,013
900,159,736
865,888,832
852,906,548
840,883,750
842,084,073
855,381,265
865,873,876
872,152,263
875,536,999
876,570,959
876,238,633
870,853,494
863,939,928
836,975,275
824,291,325
806,071,716
810,073,111
810,366,332
805,963,211
804,579,549
806,823,970
802,378,963
804,363,465
815,015,088
826,467,984
818,227,113
806,395,975
Percent¬
age.
58 '88
59 14
58-87
58 86
59-07
59-10
59-33
58-91
58-15
57-18
55 05
55 00
52-98
53 11
52-42
51-52
5128
51.25
5147
50 73
50 42
49 86
48 09
46 39
Current Loans Else¬
where Than in
.Canada.
Total.
40,098,146
37,673,798
38,277,672
36,310,033
37,691,786
36,894,681
42,960,513
46,339,928
46,402,913
58,171,884
55,819,280
58,305,388
56,051,465
56,052,837
53,279,411
54,362,513
51,812,875
46,186,854
48,013,052
47,314,832
41,347,231
42,040,716
42,966,275
43,413,760
43,987,270
43,661,379
41,745,737
37,705,039
36,375,658
39,273,120
41,784,633
44,968,445
49,147,877
49,612,9s5
53,240,955
58,479,739
Percent¬
age.
Call and Short Loans
Elsewhere Than in
Canada.
Total.
Percent¬
age.
92,387,847
95,229,407
109,227,927
103,212,185
96,151,209
89,363,520
89,266,235
90,041,292
86,639,411
93,346,810
122,380,863
115,984,680
103,776,770
141,143,442
145,218,223
139,937,027
129,897,328
137,120,167
125,545,287
96,495,473
89,521,589
81,201,671
74,459,643
85,012,964
85,796,641
89,890,982
101,938,685
121,522,971
136,098,835
124,604,875
117,821,174
120,607,677
135,108,412
120,681,624
135,530,562
137,157,869
•22
•38
•22
■76
■32
87
87
90
■58
■92
•78
47
564
5-89
6-60
7-77
867
7-92
7~50
7-61
8-36
7-28
7-96
789
Compiled from the return made to the Minister of Finance.
Note.—Current loans in Canada include loans to cities, towns, municipalities and school districts.
19b—9
130 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Statement showing Total Liabilities to the Public, Demand Deposits, Notice Deposits,
with Percentage of same as to Assets, also Capital paid-up, and
Table No. 38.
Month.
Liabilities, other than
to Shareholder s.
Deposits (Canada.)
Deposits
Payable on Demand
in Canada. 1
Total.
Percent¬
age of '
Resources.
Total.
Percent¬
age of
Resources.
Total.
Percent¬
age of
Resources.
1909.
$
«
$
•January
802,163,124
8161
636,456,997
64-87
193,286,465
19-67
February
810,614,036
81-85
634,359,076
64 03
192,968,536
19-48
March
833,461,485
81-84
646,470,868
63-45
200,843,984
19-65
April
841,095,530
82 05
659,489,753
64 10
207,039,031
20 20
May
861,029,144
82 47
670,515,411
64 19
216,916,294
20-77
•June
870,192,322
82-61
681,658,944
64-67
226,480,468
21-45
July
872,752,042
82 65
688,893,569
65'28
222,555,749
2108
August 4.
893,718,708
82 71
700,989,497
64-93
228,397,679
21-15
September
920,677,323
83-14
714,070,851
64-40
239,967,052
21-60
October
945,899,101
83-41
731,806,093
64 60
250,968,487
22 15
November
968,603,603
83-79
757,539,626
65-60
264,285,803
22 90
December
970,976,157
83 80
760,350,411
65-75
261,268,387
22 60
1910.
J anuary
962,026,478
8370
746,631,589
65-00
238,423,785
20 76
February
959,197,201
83 53
744,005,720
64 80
236,697,987
20 61
March
995,789,764
84-17
762,834,288
64 35
247,562,171
20-87
April
993,105,845
83 95
768,173.252
64 94
246,747,180
20-85
May
1.015,631,890
84-21
781,332,614
64"78
256,651,635
21-25
June
1,010,324,464
84-52
797.849,593
64-82
263,417,539
21*40-
July
1,017,868,152
84-06
790,022,893
65-24
251,638,522
20 79
August
1,029,291,389
84 13
801,970,624
65 63
256,613,172
20-95
September
1,060,372,049
84 42
819,160,128
65-21
273,529,461
21-65
October
1,063,182,955
84-32
829,855,337
65-81
280,838,612
22 28
November
1,057,264,492
84 32
840,872,860
67-06
289,759,025
23 09
December
1,036,075,636
84-24
825,131,405
67-09
280,910,695
22-86
1911.
January.
1,015,674,786
83-85
819,852,959
67 68
270,178,480
22 31
February
1,024,214,806
83 83
819,784,876
67-10
268,360,50?
2199
March
1,043,363,178
83-91
831,'204,258
66 85
278,171,792
22 34
April
1,046,500,776
83-93
837,787,299
67-19
281,964,369
22-62
May
1,070,651,050
84-24
560,993,354
67-74
298.784,206
23 50
June
1,101,875,234
84-62
874,672,408
67-17
309,804,854
23 79
July
1,111,465,564
84 45
887,763,215
67 34
316,973,780
24 03
August
1,113,599,921
S4-22
886,852,624
67-08
311,111,668
23-55
September
1,132,237,607
84-31
891,175,938
66 36
313,534,893
23-34
October
1,104,586,063
84 31
918,404,607
66-49
331,953,562
24*05
November
1,173,438,296
84-47
930,054,407
66-99
341,712,265
24 63
December
1,174,323,431
84 47
926,089,625
66 62
335,020,693
24-11
1912.
January
1,143,068,583
83-87
913,784,136
G7 01
316,936,962
23*25
February
1,160,516,994
83-86
921,405,082
66-58
321,152,954
23 21
March
1,188,720,177
84-01
937.941,170
66-22
331,896,238
23*42
April
1,211,160,889
84 14
960,735,531
66 74
345,365,183
23 98
May
1,247,306,724
84 57
1,002,247,501
67 96
376,953,217
25 56
•J une
1,262,641,353
84-71
1,004,817,876
67-41
373,500,189
25*06
July
1,264,541,837
84 49
.1,012,604,839
67 65
372,012,494
24-85
August
1,266,956,660
84-36
1,004,239,021
66 86
360,575,425
24 02
September.
1,272,617,505
84 32
1,014,905,569
67 24
374,368,917
24*78
October
1,283,211,402
84-36
1,023,912,500
07-31
383,814,572
25 20
November
1,287,099,051
84 76
1,012,640,075
67 62
376,829,372
24-80
December
1,292,451,137
84 09
1,012,418,589
66 34
379,777,219
24-88
'GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION 131
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Total Deposits in Canada, Deposits Elsewhere than in Canada, Notes in Circulation,
amount of Rest or Reserved Eund, 1909 to 1915.
Deposits
Payable on Notice
in Canada.
Total.
Percent¬
age of
Resources.
443,170,532
448,390,540
445,626,884
450,450,722
453,599,117
455,178,470
466,337,816
472,591,818
474,103,799
480,837,606
493,253,S23
499,082,024
508,207,804
507,307,733
515,272,117
521,427,072
524,680,979
534,432,054
538,384,371
545,357,451'
545,630,667
549,016,725
551,113,835
544,220,710
549,774,479
1851,424,37"
553,032,466
555,822,930
562,209,148
564,867,554
570,789,435
575,740,956
577,591,046
586,451,045
588,942.142
591,068,932
596,847,174
600,252,128
606,044,932
615,370,348
025.294.344
631,317,687
640.592.345
643,663,596
640,536,652
.640,097,928
635,810,703
637.041.346
■20
'55
•80
•90
■42
22
20
78
80
42-45
42 70
43 15
45 37
45 11
44'51
44 58
44 24
43-38
43 31
43-53
43-02
42 44
42-39
42-51
43
43
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
41
41
Deposits elsewhere
than in Canada.
Total.
Percent¬
age of
Resources.
56,593,146
65,333,99c
73,951,501
73,578,818
76,409,638
69,249,984
64,515,365
70,807,662
76,556.786
75,544,887
71,835,583
75,0S8,498
83,368,219
73,944,685
85,948,201
76,600,041
80,489.233
85,017,152
75,275,300
78,S15,399
87,392,099
74,355,783
69,561,539
70,574,871
66,106,224
68,296,f 58
72,052,067
69,062,268
69,442,818
77,721,948
73,120,807
71,840,723
78,887,510
73,489,197
73,264,439
80,606,925
77,049.762
81,397,599
84,737,024
85,679,238
77,874,540
82,067,093
77,838,807
78,147,556
81,953,710
78,518,407
81,338,648
87,050,132
7 25
G"44
7-25
648
6 68'
6-90
622
645
6-92
5-90
5-55
574
Notes in Circulation.
Total.
Percent¬
age of
Resources.
73,420,881
68,061,816
70,831,560
73,392,140
70,894,967
72,162,542
73,731,353
74,328,748
81,760,000
90,729,430
92,223,169
89,506,794
80,974,584
75,782,649
80,901,913
82,101,100
81,419,561
81,538,916
84,009,142
84,684,449
89,916,207
96,950,510
99,22S,604
94,783,437
86,301,933
81,577,448
85,779,995
89,796,521
87,034,175
90,202,838
93,273,205
94,334,041
99,768,830
107,408,361
111,943,580
110,209,196
101,466,102
93,259,141
97,653,360
101,857,750
100,557,161
103,295,602-
105,1S8,187
104,399,647
106,875,414
113,530,301
119,856,647
120,035,377
/ ' 48
6 87
95
15
78
84
98
712
667
6 90
7-21
6-85
6-93
709
7-12
7 42
7-78
806
7 94
Capital
Paid Up.
Amount of
Rest or
Reserve Fund
Total.
96,536,987
96,160,555
97,011,614
97,149,528
97,334,478
97,436,424
97,487,871
97,540,424
97,596,901
97,842,330
98,046,270
97,80S,617
97,936,700
97,773,850
97,831,709
97,917,434
98,315,012
9S,728,342
98,803,464
99,199,870
99,490,249
99,G42,053
100,140,477
99,676,093
100,243,974
100,451,997
100,441,842
100,648,717
100,892,791
101,065,306
102,626,496
103,716,960
104,392,280
106,163,549
107,472,558
107,994,604
109,418,334
110,448,244
111.172.899
112.038.900
112,339,939
112,588,537
113,410,732
114,098,525
113,694,638
114,134,182
114.514,475
114,881,914
19b—9J
132 INTERTM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Statement showing Total Liabilities to the Public, Demand Deposits, Notice Deposits,
with Percentage of same as to assets, also Capital paid-up and
Table No. 38—Con.
Month.
1913.
January..
February . .
March
April
May
J une
July
August...
September.
October...
November.
December..
1914.
January...
February ..
March
April
May
June
July
August
September..
October ...
November.
December..
1915.
January...
Fe ruary..
March
April
May ....
June
July
August....
September .
October....
November.
December..
Liabilities.
Total.
1,247,586,414
1,252,269,981
1,272,238,689
1,285,071.059
1,281,729,097
1,280,170,221
1,275,297,267
1,279,611,609
1,306,715,560
1,328,497,371
1,330,526,282
1,308,756,866
1,255,440,559
1.289,216,072
1,299,017,586
1,311,668,6
1,301,012,035
1,330,488,767
1,323,252,452
1,317,169,146
1,328,255,074
1,328,854,020
1,320,307,465
1,314,646,254
1,278,492,520
1,281,079,445
1,300,863,637
1,321,638,542
1,327,453,565
4,332,398,402
1,316,311,503
1,340,101,608
1,369,362,811
1,413,362,832
1,463,200,922
1,499,283,690
Percent¬
age of
Resources,
83 98
83 95
84-00
84-15
84 22
84 14
83 92
83-77
84 08
84-31
84-60
84 36
83-72
83 93
83 99
84 19
84 15
84-45
84-31
84-10
84 17
84 21
8442
84-51
84-03
84 00
84 15
84 49
84 61
84-63
84-44
84-53
84 72
85-23
85-95
86-26
Deposits (Canada.)
Total.
989,519,020
980,129,348
988,191,367
996,500,282
994,915,245
985,698,897
977,932,584
977,351,772
1,002,987,098
1,011,367,714
1,010,289,196
1,006,067,835
974,947,294
978,443,725
991,734,246
1,004,195,216
1,004,694,241
1,018,656,459
1,018,068,176
998,383,569
1,006,685,707
1,008,539,512
1,016,879,005
1,012,739,990
996,877,212
1,002,503,792
1,016,390,076
1,033,401,061
1,039,237,406
1,032,818,783
1,032,681,934
1,026,602,800
1,052,655,131
1,093,379,043
1,120,954,457
1,144,680.651
Percent¬
age of
Resources,
66 61
65 71
65 24
65 11
65 37
64 79
64-32
64 03
64 53
64 19
64-23
64-88
65-02
63 65
64 05
64 46
65 06
64 66
64-96
63-75
63 79
63 91
65-12
65 10
65-52
Deposits
Payable on Demand
in Canada.
Total.
354,518,964
349,661,830
357,756,659
365,340,002
364,159,642
362,769,928
356,585,196
358,321,925
381,737,513
389,856,507
384,486,046
381,375,509
339,811,339
337,516,595
345,590,642
350,515,993
340,748,488
355,006,229
346,854,051
338,984,418
348,284,206
34S,732,830
350,884,153
349,909,953
329,916,730
331,415,179
339,514,286
347,325,937
347,346,119
349,057,351
340,950,215
334,022,174
359,315,280
392.042,193
406,735,171
423,690,384
Compiled from the return made to the Minister of Finance.
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
133
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Total Deposits in Canada, Deposits Elsewhere than in Canada, Notes in Circulation,
amount of Rest or Reserved Fund, 1909 to 1915—Continued.
Deposits
Payable on Notice
in Canada.
Deposits elsewhere
than in Canada.
Notes in Circulation.
Capital
Paid Up.
Amount of
Rest or
Reserve Fund
Percent¬
Percent¬
Percent¬
•
Total.
age of
Total.
age of
Total.
age of
Total.
Total.
Resources.
Resources.
Resources.
$
635,000,056
630,467,518
630,434,708
631,160,280
630.755.603
622,928,966
621,347,388
619,032,847
621,249,585
621,511,207
625.803.150
624,692,326
635,135,955
640,927,130
646.143.604
653,679,223
663,945,753
663,650,230
671,214,125
659.399.151
658,401,501
659,806,682
665,994,»52
662,830,037
666,960,482
671,088,613
676,875,790
686,075,124
691,891,287
683,761,432
691,731,719
692,580,626
693,339,851
701,336,850
714,219,286
720,990,267
42 74
42-28
4101
41-24
4147
40 97
40-86
40 56
39-97
39 44
39 79
40-28
42-34
41-6S
41-72
41'95
42 96
42-12
42 85
42 13
4175
41-81
42-65
42 62
43-85
44-01
44-79
43 85
44-07
43 42
44-37
43 68
42 87
42 30
4196
4147
$
83,284,404
91,868,886
97,869,303
103,925,361
97,935,216
104,289,782
86,600,194
97,003.605
95,941^227
100,892,180
. 107,323,009
103,403,085
95,342,345
119,556,649
114,523,736
113,403,809
95,392,439
103,061,603
95,873,092
95,754,821
100,981,564
90,866,894
91,278,495
98,901,413
91,807,007
92,1392,034
97,737,998
104,210,620
96,912,047
112,242,501
98,762,226
128,109,996
128,271,771
111,236,315
132,029.108
134,650,183
5-61
615
0 45
6-80
644
6-86
5-70
6 36
617
6-41
682
6-07
6-36
779
741
7-35
6-16
654
611
6-12
6-40
576
' 5-84
636
6'04
604
6-32
6-68
6-1S
713
633
8'0S
7-94
6-71
7-76
775
$
109,777,660
101,211,345
107,525.837
105,954,440
104,967,124
108,122,567
109,178,424
109,453,210
114,032,133
124,201,527
126,839,620
122,235,196
111,134,172
99,862,232
100,601,004
103.303,092
99,890,163
101,180,667
103,238,177
115,304,287
124,618,121
128,451,315
124,620,870
117,154,696
107,476,S52
99,037,728
100,764,5S4
103,842,430
102,072.374
103,166,744
104,166,355
102,866,674
108,917,398
123,204,784
130,400,298
132,680,244
7-39
6-79
7-11
6-94
690
7-12
713
7-18
734
7-89
8-06
7-88
7-41
6-49
6 51
664
6-46
6-42
6-58
746
790
814
7'98
767
7 06
6-49
6-52
6-64
6-51
6-55
669
649
6-74
7'44
7'66
764
$
115,327,032
115,820,316
116,316,456
115,799,217
115,969,433
1.16,191,087
116,520,153
116,818,251
116,981,209
117,341,476
117,678,123
114,809,297
114,936,258
115,084,818
115,133,697
115,173,655
114,783,483
114,811,775
114,833,877
114,837,227
114,843,582
114,852,645
113,909,750
113,916,913
113,975,538
113,976,736
113,978,472
113,980,036
113,982,653
113,984,389
113,984,389
113,984,747
113,984,870
113,986,106
113,987,275
113,987,577
$
107,200,548
107,514,405
107,903,491
108,414,337
108,691,230
108,732,561
108,959,833
109,194,211
109,358,445
109,624,776
111,850,862
112,118,016
112,401,141
112,679,074
112,706,350
113,287,200
113,346,113
113,368,898
113,381,526
113,382,911
113,385,761
113,392,374
113,165,307
113,070,859
113,227,654
113,227,654
113,227,654
113,327,654
113,060,988
113.060,998
113,060,988
113,060,988
113,061,008
112,752,333
112,718,473
112,457,333
134 INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Eastern and "Western Bank Clearings with totals, Monthly, 1909-1914.
Table No. 39.
Eastern.
Western.
Total.
$
239,606,342
259,753,562
289,951,960
293,443,439
309,958,662
343,319,204
349,626,140
298,763,506
307,399,643
373,277,342
39L,546,831
394,266,656
$
81,512,373
71,098,926
86,340,911
90,427,717
92,715,975
90; 535,251
92,178,175
90,243,636
108,274,360
153,471,420
179,143,595
158,099,724
$
381,118,715
330,852,488
376,292,871
383,871,156
402,674,637
433,854,458
441,804,315
389,007,142
415,674,003
526,748,762
570,690,426
552,366,380
3,910,913,287
1,294,042,066
5,204,955,353
363,658,646
303,515,224
352,281,034
352,753,090
340,981,682
360,519,902
385,619,367
343,372,614
357,222,421 -
382,828,641
407,158,793
392,106,004
124,627,291
104,532,814
121,929,385
139,424,845
137,214,852
140,642,031
151,488,523
143,241,669
152,102,127
182,668,334
222,295,039
192,497,259
488,285,937
408,048,038
474,210,419
492,177,935
478,196,534
501,161,933
537,107,890
486,614,283
509,324,548
565,496,975
029,453,832
584,603,263
4,342,017,418
1,812,664,169
v 6,154,681,587
377,573,374
337,572,293
401,883.033
381,001,669
437,800,429
415,747,349
430,725,854
401,164,613
375,801,529
437,309,128
501,413,874
459,501,575
155,6S6,098
140,849,180
175,269,849
174,686,406
205,485,478
189,171,071
195,428,724
197,964,309
192,346,146
245,114,502 -
298,078,438
263,793,286
533.259.472
478.421.473
577,152,882
555,688,075
643,285,907
604,918,420
626,154,578
599,128,922
568,147,675
682,423,630
799,492,312
723,294,861
4,957,494,720
2,433,873,487
7,391,368,207
454,316,984
397,646,030
419,131,027
466,234,690
531,959,082
506,752,061
550,128,979
495,813,807
458,089,177
562,489,293
527,676,001
510,259,503
230,638,523
217,165,784 '
236,277,773
248,484,560
287,570,552
262,767,151
256,728,804
254,354,262
250,009,323
316,428,931
373,270,404
330,006,063
684,955,507
614,811,814
655,408,800
714,719,250
819,529,634
769,519,212
806,857,783
750,168,069
708,098,500
878,918,224
900,946,405
840,265,566
5,889,496,634
3,263,702,130
9,144,198,764
January ..
February..
March....
April
May
June
J uly
August
September.
October
November.
December..
January...
February..
Match
April
May..
J une
July
August..-..
September
October
November.
December .
Mon'th.
1909.
Total.
1910.
Total.
1911.
January...
February..
March
April
May
June ...
July
August
September.
October
November..
December..
January ...
February..
March
April
May
June
July ••...
August
September.
October
November..
December..
Total.
1912.
Total.
iGEORGIAN BAY
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Eastern and Western Bank Clearings
Table No. 39—Con
Month.
1913.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December .
Total
1914.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December ...4.,., ......
Total
AL COMMISSION 135
ith totals, Monthly, 1909-1914—Con.
t ■
Eastern.
Western.
Total.
8
522,463,601
435,771,068
442,471,124
494,439,341
510,480,620
489,890,202
500,949,016
459,060,464
484,720,425
547,317,112
504,153,162
531,323,326
$
281,901,550
239,131,746
231,600,270
262,239,392
290,054,322
257,432,455
261,749,660
226,327,898
- 256,586,153
345,327,235
359,126,147
317,682,997
S
804,365,151
674,902,814
674,071,394
756,678,736
800,534,942
747,322,657
762,698,676
685,388,362
741,306,578
892,644,347
863,279,309
849,006,323
5,923,039,464
3,329,159,825
9,252,199,289
479,841,159
432,560,521
444,785,233
475,784,670
484,478,220
487,919,461
514,017,293
402,101,973
416,456,742
462,470,392
418,818,249
424,219,175
232,559,837
175,410,386
199,793,884
208,952,437
230,630,412
226,777,166
223,949,051
181,841,139
218,224,358
260,750,788
238,355,709
199,455,600
712,400,996
607,970,907
644,579,117
684,737,107
715,108,632
714,696,627
767,966,344
583,943,112
634,681,100
723,221,180
657,173,958
623,674,775
5,473,453,088
2,596,700,767
' 8.070,153,855
Compiled from the Clearing House returns.
136
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
PRECIS INDEX OF HANSARD DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND
THE SENATE ON THE GEORGIAN BAY SHIP CAN AI, 1902-13.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, "HANSARD DEBATES."
(Compiled for the Georgian Bay Canal Commission, by Henri Boy, Librarian of the
Department of the Secretary of State.)
1912-13.
Question by Mr. Murphy.—P. 1154, Dee. 16, 1912.
Bill 45, Mr. White (Renfrew).—P. 1266, Dec. 17, 1912; 2nd reading, p. 1448, Jan. 14,
1913.
Bill 45, Debates on 3rd reading.—Tbe amendment is to increase the bonding power
from $100,000,000 to $175,000,000, p. 2591, February 3, 1913.
Resolution by E. B. Devlin.—P. 2622, Feb. 3, 1913; p. 3074, Feb. 11, 1913; Senate
amendments.—P. 3741, Feb. 20, 1913.
1911-12.
Question by Mr. Lemieux.—P. 544, Nov. 29, 1911.
Bill 30, Mr. White (Renfrew).—1st reading, p. 795, Dec. 5, 1911; 2nd reading, p. 1122,
Jan. 12, 1912; 3rd reading, p. 4699, March 8, 1912.
Questions by Mr. Devlin on Government Policy.—P. 3060, Feb. 14, 1912; p. 1970, Jan.
26, 1912; p. 6785, April 1, 1912.
^Question by Mr. Murphy, French River, vote of $100,000.—See p. 6657, March 29, 1912.
Question by Mr. Devlin.—P. 6729, March 30, 1912.
1910-11.
Mr. German (Welland).—Reads part of a Globe article, asks if $3,000,000 is to be
placed in the estimates, p. 2261.
Hon. G. P. Graham.—Would not be disappointed to see both the Georgian Bay and
Welland canals started, p. 2261.
Enquiry by G. V. White.—Calls attention to an item in the Montreal Star and Ottawà
Citizen; reads it, p. 2004-5.
Question by Hon. F. D. Monk.—If Americans will be entitled to its use, and answered
by Hon. Aylesworth, p. 7804.
1909-10.
Bill 58, ilr. McGivern.—1st reading, p. 1099; 2nd reading, p. 1333; 3rd readings and
committee, p. 2253.
Mr. White.—Debates re construction, and giving statistics of water development of
waterways in Europe, etc., etc.
Mr. White.-—Inquiries, p. 6616, re Return.
Mr. Pugsley.—Laid on table Return to an order dated Feb. 14, 1910; moved by Mr.
White, p. 8734.
•1909.
Final Report, with plans, estimates of cost, and fifty-six plates.
Statement of Mr. Graham re Enlargements of Welland canal, p. 6415.
Inquiries as to government knowledge of a round-robin promulgated by lobbyists
for a guarantee of the company's bonds, page 6415.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
137
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
1907-8.
Bill 47, Mr. Stewart—1st reading, p. 891 ; 2nd reading, p. 1059; committee, pp. 3622,
3794, 4230,- 3rd reading, p. 4230.
Graham, Geo. P.—Beads clause in Bill safeguarding the rights of the Government,
p. 3802.
Haggart, John.—Provisions for safeguarding the Government, pp. 3803-4. Personnel
of the company promoting their charter, p. 3804. Canals built by companies,
p. 3805.
Lancaster E. A.—Should have full information as to cost of work done by company
before granting a renewal of charter, p. 3802. Not sure it would be the best
thing in the interest of the country, p. 5239. Splendid system of canals in
operation, except in depth and size of locks, p. 5240. Beads a memorandum
from the St. Catharines Board of Trade, p. 5241. Not in favour of involving
the couhtry in such enormous expenditures, p. 5242.
Lennox, H.—Inquiries as to the amount expended by company up to the present time,
p. 3794.
Monk, F. D.—A gigantic work ; should be no further delay, p. 3794. Sooner or later
this work must be undertaken by the Government, p. 3798 Failure of the
Government to declare their policy should not interfere with extension of a
charter of a pfivate company, p. 3799.
Beid/ J. D.—For amount expended, Government should have all necessary informa¬
tion, p. 3798. Deepen Welland canal, p. 3801.
Sproule, T. S.—Only partial report presented to Parliament, p. 3794. Too important
an undertaking to be in hands of a private corporation. Experience with the
Chignecto Ship Canal Company, p. 3795. Not business-like for both the
Government and the Company to be doing practically the same work, p. 3799.
Stewart, B.—Has no further information, p. 3794.
Wright, A. A. (South Benfrew).—Company and Government schemes entirely
different propositions, p. 3795. Canada first in regard to natural waterways.
Great canals now under construction, p. 5228. The rapid increase in traffic
through canals, p. 5229. Freight through the St. Lawrence, and our sources
of freight, but only one grand system of through canals, p. 5231. Fort
William 800 miles nearer Liverpool than by the Erie-canal, p. 5232. Besults
of Dr. Haanel's experiments. Process in use at Welland, p. 5233. Quofes
Mr. Butler on the Georgian Bay canal. Beads a letter from Mr. Beford, pp.
5234-5-6-7. Bésumé of the advantages and benefits of the work, p. 5238.
Hope the report will justify the Government in commencing operations at
an early day, p. 5239.
Motion by C. A. McCool.—For copy of all plans and reports in the possession of the
Government in connection with the building of the Georgian Bay canal, p.
1941.
Brabazon, G. B.—The scheme has been mooted for fifty years, and never any great
objection to it, p. 1997. We want the cheapest and shortest waterway, and
this we have at our very door, p. 1998. Evidence before the British Chamber
of Commerce. Quotes J. F. Hill, p. 1999. The Ottawa valley possesses
under wealth. The Ottawa river pre-eminently one of the water-powers, p.
2000. The British Iron Mines, the Calumet Island Galena deposits and the
Temiskaming district, p. 2001. Pulpwood alone should furnish an immense
quantity of traffic, p. 2002. Nova Scotia coal vessels could ascend this water¬
way, p. 2003. Hopes to hear a declaration of policy from the Government,
p. 2004. Hopes the Government will undertake it in its entirety, and not
do it by piecemeal, p. 2005.
138
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Caron, J. B. T.—The effect of canal transportation on freight rates, p. 2005. When¬
ever canals have come into competition with railroads they have proved
better controllers of rates, p. 2006. The estimates cost a little under
$100,000,000, p. 2007. A comparison pf distances. Hon. Mr. Stevens on
the New York project, p. 2008. Has shown the Americans are averse to
allowing the Canadian Government to build this canal, p. 2009. President
Roosevelt's address to the Waterways. Commission, p. 2010. Let us approach
it as a work for the general advantage of Canada, p. 2011. Canada must
have adequate waterways for harbours and commodious terminals, p. 2012.
Devlin, E. B. (Wright).—More done in the last few hours to urge the construction
of the canal than since-he has been in the House, p. 2012. The Government
has done, and will do, more to provide transportation facilities in Canada, p.
2013. It will benefit the whole Dominion because it will facilitate and
cheapen the transport of grain, p. 2014. Quotes the report of the Royal
Commission on Transportation, p. 2015. The movement of grain and flour
in the season of 1906, p. 2016. The question of rail and water rates, p.
2017. Urges the immediate construction of the canal, p. 2018.
Logan, H. J.—The question of transportation goes to the very root of our national
life, p. 1992. Sir Wm. Van Home, Walter Stanley, and Curtis Clarke
quoted, p. 1993. A number of reasons why this great work should be under¬
taken, p. 1994. Would extend to Ontario the chance of using Nova Scotia
coal, p. 1995. A comparison of rates, would not" have to break bulk, p. 1996.
Is in favour of the project if it can be completed for a reasonable amount,
p. 1997.
McCool, C. A.—Importance of proceeding with both the Ottawa and Erench River
waters. Champlain route, p. 1941. History of canal works on the route,
p. 1942. Recent surveys by Fraser, Wisner,, and the Government. Opinions
of eminent men, p. 1943. Quotes the Globe and.the Toronto News, p. 1944.
Quotes J. J. Hill. Nature goodness to Canada, p. 1945. Distances on the
canal the question of time, p. 1946. Calculations based on a 22-foot water¬
way, p. 1947. The watershed entirely within Canadian territory, p. 1948.
Address of the President of the Grain Produce Exchange of Winnipeg, p.
1949. Settlement of the country as facilities are provided, p. 1950. Quotes
Mr. Bosworth before the Railway Commission, p. 1951. The history of the
lake trade from Chicago shows a tendency to cheapen the rates, p. 1952.
Quotes J. E. Hanrahan at the Memphis Deep Waterways Convention, p.
1953. Jas. E. Walsh on the transportation problem, p. 1954. A very strong
argument in favour of this project, p. 1955. Shipments of wheat and
- receipts in 1906 at Montreal, p. 1956. Increase in railway mileage and
equipment since 1903, p. 1957. The building up of the American North¬
west very largely the result of water transportation, p. 1958. The immense
water-power lying dormant along the route. What they could produce,
p. 1959. Electrical smelting, "A Review of Cobalt Shipments," p. 1960.
Impetus to mining industries by transportation justifying the development
of cheap electrical power, p. 1961. Quotes " Industrial Canada," p. 1911-2-
3-4-5. A despatch to the Globe from Montreal, p. 1966. This is an addi¬
tional argument in favour of building this waterway, p. 1967. An appeal
to the House to lose no more time in starting this great work, p. 1968. The
entire scheme will be ready before the close of the session, p. 1969. Trusts
that immediate action will be taken to start this great work, p. 1970.
Watson, R. J".—Politics should not be considered in the discussion of this great
waterway, "p. 1982. The question not one of local but of national import-
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
139
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
ance,- p. 1984. Quotes Alexander Mackenzie and Sir John A. Macdonald
p. 1985. J. J. Hill called it the greatest boon from a commercial standpoint
that could be conferred, p. 1986. The canal wiil. cheapen the freight on
wheat. Trade will see the shortest and cheapest route, p. 1987. The dis¬
trict rich in mineral and forest wealth. The # construction an enormous
benefit to Canada, p. 1988. If the whole work cannot be undertaken, make
a start in the upper end, p. 1989. Description of the route and distance, p.
1990. Not very familiar with the lower end of the country, p. 1991. It is
the necessary link to complete the cheapest and nearest possible highway,
p. 1992.
■White, G. N.—Last year presented some reasons why the great work shojuld be
undertaken, p. 1970. Expenditure, revenue, and traffic to Canadian canals,
p. 1971-2. Traffic through St. Mary's Falls canal and the Canadian Sault,
p. 1973-4. One of the greatest national projects proposed for many years,
p. 1975. Some advantages of thins route shown by the engineers, p. 1976.
The length of the season of navigation, p. 1977. Quotes a letter of Tarte to
the Premier on the French River route, p. 1978-9-'30. Quotes Laurier on
the motion of Thomas Murray in 1903, p. 1980-1. Regrettable such delay has
occurred in the preparation of the final report, p. 1982.
Pugsley, Hon. Vm:—Presents a report of estimated expenses prepared by A. St.
Laurent, p. 12053.
Bergeron, J. G. H.—Asks that report be printed and copies distributed—large
demand, p. 12836.
Pugsley, Hon. Wm.—Will take six weeks to print report, p. 12836-7.
Haggart, Hon. John.—AsHs' when surveys will be brought down, that French River
section come at once, p. 1740.
Pugsley, Hon. Wm.—French River practically complete, p. 1740.
1906-07.
No debates.
1906.
No debates.
Transportation Commission Report, see year 1906, p. 2038.
1905.
No debates.
1904.
No debates.
1903.
Mr. Thos. Murray (Pontiac).—Motion for copies of engineers' reports, plans, esti¬
mates, etc., survey made on French river and lake Nipissing, p. 1299.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.—P. 1303.
Charlton, John.—P. 1305.
Wright, A. A.—P. 1306.*
Tarte, Hon. J. I.—P. 1309.
Haggart, Hon. John.—P. 1311.
Sproule, T. S.—P. 1314.
Belcourt, N. A.—P. 1318.
Mackie, Thos.—P. 1321.
140
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Transportation Facilities (Government Policy).
Mr. Borden.—P. 3432, moved for Committee of Supply.
Debates.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.—P. 3438.
Sproule, Mr.—P. 3442.
Haggart, Hon. J.—P. 3444.
Tarte, Hon. J. I.—P. 3451.
Hughes, Mr. (Victoria).—P. 3456.
Charlton, Mr.—P. 3459.
Deputy Speaker.—Irregularity of debates/pp. 3470, 3499.
Casgrain, Mr.—P. 3471.
Oliver, Mr.—P. 3479.
Bickerdike, Mr.—P. 3483.
Kemp, Mr.—P. 3486.
Osler, Mr.—P. 3490.
Pringle, Mr.—P. 3493.
Bell, Mr.—P. 3497.
Clare, Mr.—P. 3505.
"Transportation."—Port Colborne, p. 3024; St. Lawrence, p. 3365; Northwest Terri¬
tories, p. 2424.
Policy (re Speech from Throne), p. 6404.
1906.
Debates on "Boyal Commission on Transportation."
(Commission appointed 19th May, 190S. Reported in 1906.)
Bennett, W. II. (East Simcoe).—Motion. Question has been before the country for
past twenty years; is of great importance, p. 2038. Embraces movement of
grain from west, quotes receipts of grain at Buffalo by decades from 1846 to
1896. American system of railroading has been successful in promoting trade
from west to east, p. 2039. While progressing in matter of railways, the
people of Canada have not failed to also emulate the United States in develop¬
ment of rail transportation, p. 2040. There is a gfreat handicap upon Cana¬
dian vessels in competing with those owned by Americans, p. 2041. Govern¬
ment have not taken hold of problem in manner which they should; a purely
Canadian policy would have been the best policy in interests of Dominion,
p. 2042, Canadian Pacific Railway have to-day practically in course of con¬
struction a line from Victoria Harbour to Peterborough. Quotes evidence
of Sir Thomas Shaughnessy before Railway Commission, p. 2043. Also
C. M. Plays, pp. 2044-5. Also opinion expressed by commission as to making
a national port of Midland, p. 2045. Canada Atlantic railway was never built
as a first-class railway system. Grand Trunk Company propose concentrating
business of Grand Trunk Pacific at Midland, p. 2046. If Government owned
lake-front property, all railroads could come to Midland and have benefit of
conditions prevailing, p. 2047. Means a great deal to Toronto to have
national port at Midland, p. 2048. Export grain trade at Montreal has dimin¬
ished nearly 10,000,000 bushels from years 1901 to 1904, despite expenditure of
millions on port. Quotes report of Ottawa Journal, April 21 re "Wolvin
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
141
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Line," p. 2049. Proper way to carry grain is by largest vessels on Great Lakes,
and thus get advantage of water competition with railway system; question
is : shall grain go by way of Buffalo 'or by way of Canada, p. 2050.—Distance
from any point west of Great Lakes to Buffalo is a slower and longer running
distance than distance to port of Midland; out of vast expenditure each year
not a dollar is spent on work that will be available in future development of
transportation system, p. 2051. Quotes report'of Governor Simcoe made in
year 1794 to Lords of Trade, p. 2052. Government should bring down a broad
comprehensive plan at earliest possible moment, and concentrate efforts at
some point on Georgian bay; Canada should make grasp for American trade
on Great Lakes, p. 2053.
Devlin, E. B.—The transportation question is of such vital importance that it demands
noil-partisan treatment. Canada is today making greater progress than the
United States. When the three great transcontinental railways are com¬
pleted, Canadian trade will demand, as a necessity, additional channels of
transportation, p. 3309. Mr. Schell (Glengarry) should have stated all the
facts in connection with Georgian Bay canal. Quotes Mr. Sharley's report of
the Ottawa and French River Navigation project. Canada has today a guar¬
antee of immense and hitherto unthought of commercial prosperity, which
justifies us in expending money on works which will prove a rich asset to the
nation, p. 3310. Quotes rates on wheat via the Canadian Pacific railway dur¬
ing 1905 from principal wheat-shipping stations in the West to Fort William;
rate by water is much less than that by rail, p. 3311. Quotes number of
bushels that went forward from Fort William from 1899 to 1905. Quotes
report made to Bureau of Statistics by Mr. Geo. G. Tunell, of Chicago, on
Lake Commerce, dated February 3, 1898, p. 3312. Reads a report taken from
Engineering News of New York, published March 5, 1903, pp. 3313-4. Will
excel any country in matter of transportation, p. 3314.
Hall, R. R.—Quotes statement of Transportation Commission on pages 22 and 19 of
report, p. 2053. Quotes Hon. R. L. Borden's speech at Peterborough, October
4, 1904, wishes to impress the importance of Trent Canal Waterway System,
p. 2054. Quotes Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, p. 2055. Whole
Trent Canal Waterway system is very near completion, p. 2056. Many local
advantages which could be derived from construction of canal, county of
Peterborough would save, in coal alone, about $90,000 a year, p. 2057. Mid¬
land is the point where grain might be economically brought with view to tak¬
ing it to the ocean ports, and Trent waterway affords cheap barge transporta¬
tion between Midland and Montreal, p. 2058. Quotes statement prepared by
L. Richards, traffic manager of American Cereal Company, p. 2059. Rates
made by Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway from Midland
to Montreal are made to compete as far as possible with carriage of grain
from Buffalo to New York, p. 2060. Cost of Trent canal per mile when com¬
pleted will be about $47,169. Cost of keeping canal in repair is nothing com¬
pared with cost of maintaining and operating a railway line, p. 2061. Com¬
pares American freight rates with Canadian, p. 2062. If canal were built the
milling industry along Trent canal would be stimulated, and water-powers
will be developed, p. 2063. Of utmost importance to Canada that raw material
which is produced should as far as possible be sent out to foreign markets in
its manufactured state, pp. 2064-5. Rates charged by ocean vessels on flour
do not handicap Canadian mills in favour of English mills as much as is sup¬
posed, p. 2066. In 1905 there was shipped from Canada only $5,890,258 worth
of flour to Great Britain, Africa, West Indies, Newfoundland, Australia, and
different countries of Europe. The Government of the state of New York
142
INTERIM REPORT OF TEE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
are expending upwards $100,000,000 in improving and deepening the Erie
canal, p. 3279. Quotes Canadian freight information furnished by H. W.
Richardson, of Kingston, grain dealer ; also S. A. Thompson, of Duluth, Minn.,
furnished to Committee on Rivers and Harbours at Washington on April 11,
1898, pp. 3280-1. "A ship canal through Canadian territory would destroy
America^ supremacy upon the Great Lakes." No canals can he built in the
United States to compete with canals which may he constructed on Canadian
territory, p. 3282. It is because the Germans have been so thoroughly alive
to the importance of canal navigation and' the improvement of their water¬
ways that they have been able to make such an excellent showing in the
financial and commercial world. There is no investment that this country
could make better than to expend a large amount in improvement of water¬
ways, p. 3282. If the United States could stand the enormous drains on her
resources of forty-five years ago, we in Canada, who propose to make this
century the century of Canada, could well afford to increase the national debt
by upwards of $100,000,000 or $200,000,000, p. 3284.
Hughes, S.—Compliments Mr. Hall for facts and figures on transportation. Explains
Opposition leader's absence during discussion, p. 3285. Quotes citation from '
speech of leader of Opposition. Not one Liberal in that whole region was
committed to Trent canal prior to 1896, and not one of them has been com¬
mitted to it for some time, p. 3286. Mr. Hall who ought to know something
about route, knew personally so little about construction of work that he had
to quote from report of the Deputy Minister in order to place the facts before
the House, p. 3287. Endorse the proposition of Mr. Clements (West Kent) for
the construction of a waterway to connect lake St. Clair with lake Erie in
order to facilitate transport of grain by that route; will endorse any reason¬
able proposition for development of other waterways, p. 3288.
Hyman, Hon. Chas.—Asks Mr. Bennett if he speaks by book when he says that Cana¬
dian Pacific Railway have in course of construction a line from Victoria Har¬
bour to Peterborough, p. 2043.
Paterson, Hon. Wm.—Asks distance. from Midland to Port Hope, p. 2046.
Schell, J. T. (Glengarry).—The question most concerned in the method of trans¬
porting the produce of the western part of the country to the sea-board. The
reason of the appointment of the Transportation Commission was to dis¬
cover by which route our produce could reach tide-water the cheapest, and
whether we can take it there cheaper than it can be taken through American
ports, p. 3294. Traces development of railroads from 1873. It has taken
over twenty years to wear out the old rolling stock, to relay the rails, to
build new rolling stock and to put the roads in a position to handle freight
so as to compete with the canal system. The St. Lawrence and Erie canals
are practically put out of business by railroads, p. 3295. It is a question
as to the amount of money we shall spend in developing our water routes
as against railroad carriage, p. 3296. Quotes rates on wheat prevalent on
certain railroads, p. 3297. Quotes rates on wheat prevalent on lakes. Shall
it be the Trent Valley canal or the railways or the Georgian Bay canal that
shall carry our produce from Georgian bay to tide-water, p. 3298. Are we
going to build the Georgian Bay canal at a cost of from $100,000,000 to
$120,000,000, p. 3299. If the Government propose to expend that large
amount on the Georgian Bay canal, I say, halt! give it as a bonus to the
railways until our system is a little better developed. Quotes statement
from Trade and Commerce Department dealing with year 1904-5. Exports
of wheat from the United States are growing less each year; quotes exports
of domestic wheat from the United States through port of New York from
GEORGIAN BAY BANAL COMMISSION
143
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
• 1902 to 1905. Quotes exports of wheat from all other ports of United
States, p. 3300. Quotes amount of foreign wheat exported from the port
of New Yotk from 1902 to 1905. We must equip Port Colborne to make
it equal to Buffalo. Whenever a small vessel going through the St. Law¬
rence canals takes its load from the Upper Lakes the freight is costing con¬
siderably more than it should if the grain were' carried on a large vessel to
Port Colborne and then transhipped into vessels of proper size on the
Welland canal, p. 3301. Within recent years there have been as much as
10,000,000 bushels of American corn carried out through Canadian ports to
Montreal. If the port of Port Colborne elevators are properly constructed
and Montreal harbour properly equipped, that will be the largest corn-
carrying route this continent has seen, p. 3302. We ought not to build the
Georgian Bay canal; good railway rates more effective and more important
p. 3303. Believes the Grand Trunk Pacific will carry grain all through the
winter and deliver it at a profitable rate at the port of St. John. Hopes
Halifax in the not distant future will be port for Northwest; has not a word
to say against building of Trent Valley canal, p. 3304. Bail carriage has
to-day entirely superseded any canal traffic that there is on the continent
of America- Comparison of Canadian railways and canals with German
railways and canals is absurd. In this country and in the United States,
scientific minds have devoted themselves in lowering the freight rates on
railways, p. 3305. With heavier equipment on railways, present rates will
be cut nearly in two; railroad authorities state that difference between cost
of hauling on a 1 per cent grade or three-ten or four-ten per cent grade is
equal to 'forty per cent. This country would not be warranted in building
Georgian Bay canal because of what lies in the future, p. 3306. Jim Hill
wants canal because it will benefit Jim Hill, p. 3307. The more prosperous
the West is, and the cheaper the western farmers can get their products to
the markets of the world, the more prosperous and progressive will be the
commercial life of Canada generally, p. 3308.
Watson, B. J. (Parry Sound).—There should be no arguments at all on question of
transportation, p. 3288. Depot Harbour is one of the best harbours on Georgian
bay, and the railway line going out of Depot Harbour is not sufficient to
afford accommodation necessary for a large grain traffic. Does not think
House ought to adopt report of Transportation Commission in its entirety, p.
3289. Quotes twelve ports chosen by commission as national ports. Points
out some details of programme recommended by Transportation Commission.
Would accomplish purpose of House much better to consider question in a
smaller committee, p. 3290. The relative failure of the St. Lawrence canal
route is due to the fact that the ocean terminus of that route—Montreal
harbour—has never been adapted to handle a large traffic coming to it from
the Upper Lakes. Is it not a fact that during the summer a large quantity
of freight destined for Europe passes through Montreal and reaches its desti¬
nation by way of Boston and Portland, p. 3291. The Transportation Com¬
mission has virtually submitted for the consideration of the Government (4)
four Canadian routes by which the products of the West can reach ocean
navigation, p. 3292. The Government deserves great credit for the steps they
have taken in having a complete and thorough survey made for the great
project of the Georgian Bay canal; refers to the three great railways of
Canada, p. 3293.
1902.
Transportation facilities in Committee of Supply, p. 579.
Pointe au Baril route in Committee of Supply, p. 4640.
144
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Fish Hatcheries in Committee of Supply, p. 4959.
Georgian Bay surveys, etc., Committee of Supply, p. 4298.
1901 and 1900.
No debates.
THE SENATE " DEBATES."
1900, 1901, 1902.
No Debates.
1903.
Landry, Hon.—Inquiry, p. 234.
Soott, Hon.—Answer, p. 234. New Dominion Syndicate of London, Eng., for
Government aid at a depth of 14 feet. Government guarantee interest of
2J per cent on $25,000,000 of the company's bonds for twenty-five years.
1904.
No Debates.
1905.
Ke Survey, p. 19. No Debates.
1906.
No Debates.
1906-07.
Georgian Bay Exploration Commission Report of Inquiry, Mr. Bernier, p. 587.
Reply, Mr. Scott, p. 588.
1907-08.
Inquiry by Mr. Bernier, p. 61. Reply, Mr. Scott, p. 62.
Hon. Mr. Casgrain.—Motion re importance to Canada of the early construction of
the Georgian Bay canal, p. 247.
Hon. Mr. Belcourt.—P. 430.
Hon. Mr. Sullivan.—P. 488.
Hon. Mr. Power.—P. 495.
Hon. Mr. Owens.—P. 497.
Hon. Mr. Bernier.—P. 680.
Hon. Mr. Ross (Halifax).—P. 681.
Hon. Mr. Wood.—P. 725.
Hon. Mr. McMullen.—P. 782.
Hon. Mr. Cloran.—P. 819.
Hon. Mr. Edwards.—P. 865.
Hon. Mr. Beique.—P. 869.
Hon. Mr. deBouciierville.—P. 870.
Hon. Mr. Casgrain.—P. -871.
1909.
Hon. deBoucherville.—Inquiry. Reply, Sir R. Cartwright, p. 665.
No Debates.
1909-10, 1910-11, 1911-12, 1912-13.
6 GEORGE V SESSIONAL PAPER-No. 19b A. 1916
INDEX
Page
Australia—
Wheat and flour exports 50,109
Wheat rates from 70-72,77-79
Other references 56
Argentine—
Wheat and flour exports . 50,109
Wheat rates from River Plate (down river) 70-72,77-79
Atlantic Range Rates 70-71, 73, 75
Balkan States—
Wheat and flour exports.. .. 50,109
Wheat rates from Odessa 70-72,77-79
Baltic Exchange—
As charter market.. : 70
Bank returns in Canada SO-86, 128-135
Baltimore—
•Canadian wheat shipped through 62-63
Inland differential rates 1 73
Tramp cargoes of grain 69,127
Boston—
Canadian wheat shipped through . : 62-63
Inland differential rates 73
Tramp cargoes of grain 69,127
Broomhall, G. J. S.—
Wheat Shipments 46,108-109,112
Wheat prices . 113-114
Ocean freight rates 7 117-122, 125
Buffalo—
Canadian wheat traffic through . . .62-63, 65
Chicago—
Receipts of Canadian wheat 62-63
Shipments to Canadian ports 39-43,106-107
Traffic of, hy lakes 39-42
Coal—
Delivered at Fort William-Port Arthur 104-105
Relation to grain traffic . 34-35
Port of Chicago , 39
Through Sault Ste. Marie Canals 37-3S
Other references ' 12, 14
Copper ore.. 37,102
Canada—
United States and, wheat and flour exports. . . 50,109
Cars—
Use of railway in wheat traffic 58
Comteliburo's Daily Freight Register—
Ocean rates.. : •-7 Q*. 77,123, 124,126
19b—10
146
GEORGIAN BAT CANAL COMMISSION
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Paoe
Collingwood—
Grain receipts from Chicago 39,106
Canadian wheat traffic through 63
Detroit—
Canadian wheat receipts at 62-C3
River traffic 13
Depot Harbour—
Grain receipts from Chicago 39,100
Canadian wheat traffic through 1 03
Duluth-Superior—
Freight tonnage by lake 39
Canadian wheat shipped through 63-05,115
Brie—
Canadian wheat traffic through 62-63
Freight Traffic v. Traffic.
Falrport—
Canadian wheat traffic through 62-63
Flour v. Wheat.
Fort William-Port Arthur—
As primary market 52
Relation to shipments to United Kingdom 53-58
Coal delivered at 104-105
Export routes from 62-76
Monthly wheat receipts and amounts in store 52,110-112
Monthly wheat shipments from 29,110-111
Monthly diversion to United States of Canadian wheat from 115
Vessels carrying grain from 33-35
Franklin, P. A S., cited 75
Georgian Bay Canal-
Commission— \
Commission appointing Commissioners 5-7
Scope of inquiry 5-6
Scope of Interim Report 9-12
Report of Engineers 1 9
Discussions in Parliament 134-136
Godefich—
Canadian wheat traffic through 63
Grain (v. also Wheat)—
Shipments from Fort William-Port Arthur 29-55
Vessels carrying from Fort William-Port Arthur 33-34
Relation to coal traffic 34-35
From Chicago by rail and by lake / 42
Grain and flour, through Sault Ste. Marie canals 37-38
" " Port of Chicago 39
Halifax—
Canadian wheat shipped from 63-65
India—
Wheat/and flour exports 50,109
Wheat rates from Karachi . .70-72, 77-79
Insurance—
Cargo insurance—Montreal to Liverpool 69,116
INDEX
147
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Page
Iron ore—
Through Sault Ste. Marie canals 37,102
Receipts at Chicago . 39
Future development of traffic 44
Manufactured, through Sault Ste. Marie canals V 37-38,102
Karachi—•
Ocean rates on wheat from 70-72, 77-79, 116-126
Kingston—
Grain receipts from Chicago .... ..' £9,106
Canadian wheat traffic through .. ... . 62-63
Lake Superior— ,
Freight traffic to and from L3-38, 87-105
Lake Michigan—
Traffic to and from. . . 39-42
Lakes, Great—
Distribution of traffic by lake districts v. Traffic and Vessels.
Labour—-
Employed in grain traffic. . 58
Liners v. Vessels. • „
Liverpool—
Corn Exchange prices 53, 55-58, 113-114
Ocean rates on wheat to 69-71,77-79,116-126
Cargo insurance, Montreal to 69,116
Load Factor—
In Lake Superior trade.. 26-35
Of Canadian and United States vessels 30-33
On North Atlantic 74-76
Lumber—
Through Sault Ste. Marie canals 37,102
Meaford—
Grain receipts from Chicago. . .... .> .. I?®
Canadian wheat traffic through 63
Merchandise, General—
In Lake Superior trade 37-38,10'2
Port of Chicago 39
Midland—-
Grain receipts from Chicago . . • •' 39,106
Canadian wheat traffic through 63
Montreal—
Cargo insurance to Liverpool . 69,116
Canadian wheat traffic to 62-63
Canadian wheat exports . 64-68
Canadian wheat shipments by liners and tramps 6S-69
Grain receipts from Chicago . . 39-40,106
Traffic with Europe 75-76
Neall, Frank L.—
Tramp cargoes from North Atlantic sports ' 127
New York—
Canadian wheat shipped through 62-63
Inland differential rates. . N 73
Tramp cargoes of grain from. . . 69,127
Odessa—-
Ocean rates on wheat from * 70-72, 77-79^ 116-124
148 GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
6 GEÔRGE V, A. 1916
Page
Parliament—
Discussions re Georgian Bay Canal 136-144
Passenger Traffic v. Traffic.
Patrick, Lieut.-Col. Mason M., cited—
Statistics of lake commerce • •* 13 -87
Philadelphia—
Canadian wheat shipped through 62-63
Inland different'al rates 73
Tramp cargoes of grain .* 69,127
Port Arthur v. Fort William-Port Arthur.
Port Colborne—
Grain receipts from Chicago 39,106
Canadian wheat traffic through 62-63
Point Edward—
Canadian wheat traffic through 63
Port. Huron—
Canadian wheat traffic through 62-63,65
Portland—
Canadian wheat shipped through 62-63, 115
Port McNicoll—
Grain receipts from Chicago . 106
Canadian wheat traffic through • 63
Port Stanley— \
Canadian wheat traffic through 62-63
Prescott—
Grain receipts from Chicago 39,106
Canadian wheat traffic through 62-63
Railways—
In competition with lake from Chicago 42
Use of oars in wheat traffic 58
Labour employed in grain traffic 58
Rates, Freight—■
Do not always explain traffic movement 12
Transportation costs as economic basis 25
To .seaboard 67,79
Lake, on wheat .* 5 S
Ocean, on wheat ; ..69,70-74,77-79, 116-126
Report, Interim—
Nature and scope of 9-12
*
River Plate (down river) —
Ocean rates on wheat from , .. . .70-72, 77-79
Russia— v.
Wheat and flour exports 50,109
Wheat rates from Odessa 70-72, 77-79, 116-124
Other references 56
Salt-
Through Sault Ste. Marie canals 37,102
To Chicago by rail and by lake 42
San Lorenzo v. River Plate.
INDEX
149
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 19b
Page
S anil t Ste. Marie Canals—
Traffic through 13-38, 87-102
Canadian and United States vessels through 22
Smith, Prof. J.- Russel, cited . .. .. 75
St. John—
Canadian wheat shipped from . . . 63-65
Suez Canal—
Traffic, 1913 : t .< 13
Tiffin—
Grain receipts from Chicago 39,106
Canadian wheat traffic through 63
Toledo—
Canadian wheat traffic through . 62-63
Traffic—
Freight—
Diversion to United States routes .. ..64-76, 115
Competition.. .., 30-34
Future development of i 44-62,108-114
In transit through Canada 40
Load factor and transportation costs l.. ..25,26-35,30-33, 74-76
Ocean, to and from Europe 74-76
Quantity makes transportation problem 11
Rates do not always explain movement 12
To and from Lake Superior through Sault Ste. Marie canal. 13-38, 87-105
Totals and eastbound and westbound 13, 87
By National origin and destination 13-14,87-88
By lake districts 14-19,88-96
By nationality of vessels 22-24, 88-90, 98-100,104-105
By principal commodities 36-38, 102
Monthly distribution * . . .62-64,115
To and from Lake Michigan (Chicago) 39-42, 106-107
Routing of export wheat 62-64, 115
Causes of diversion 64
Relation to financial conditions 80
Wheat v. Wheat.
Passenger.
Through Sault Ste. Marie canals 22
Tramps v. Vessels.
United Kingdom—
r; Wheat and flour shipments to. 48,53-55,108,112
As market for Canadian wheat and flour 53, 57
Ocean rates on wheat to 69, 70-74, 77-79, 116-126
United States—
And Canada, wheat and flour exports ,. 50, 109
Wheat rates from Atlantic ports 70-72,117-125
I
Vessels—
Lake— ^
Classification and valuation of 97-98
Carrying grain from Fort William-Port Arthur 33-34, 58
Canadian and United States through Sault Ste. Marie canal 22
Competition on Great Lakes . . . 30-34
Development of Canadian carriers 20,103
In foreign trade, Chicago District 40
Load factor of Ca'nadian and United States 3O-33
Traffic by nationality of 22-24,88-90, 98-100, 104-105
150
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMMISSION
6 GEORGE V, A. 1916
Page
Ocean—
Liners and tramps in ocean grain traffic 67-74
Tramp grain cargoes from United States Atlantic ports ' 127
Load factor on North Atlantic 74-76
Wheat—
Cost, conditions affecting 58-62
Prices, tendencies affecting 51-58
At Liverpool and at Winnipeg 53, 55-58, 113-114
Production, average world 4 46
Of European importing countries 46
Rates, Ocean 69,70-74,77-79, 116-126
Lake 58
Supply, sources of, United States and Canada, Russia, Balkan States, India, the
Argentine, Australia 50,109
Traffic, future development of Canadian 44-62,108-114
World's shipments (wheat and flour) 46-51,108-109
Distribution throughout the year 48
Shipments to Europe (wheat and flour) 45-51,108-109
To Continent (wheat and flour) 48,108-109
To United Kingdom (wheat and flour) 48,108-109, 112
Through Sault Ste. Marie canals 63,102
To Port William-Port Arthur from interior 52,58,110-111
Prom Port William-Port Arthur 55, 5S, 63, 65, 110-111, 115
Prom Duluth, Canadian 63,115
Export routes and causes 62, 76,115
From Chicago, eastbound, by rail and by lake 42
To Canadian ports 39-40, 106
In transit 40,107
Winnipeg Grain Exchange—
Wheat prices 52, 55-58,113-114