We propose to examine herein the position of the French and the English in the hierarchy of the economic structure. Not occupation as such, but positions of control are the centre of interest. Something of what we have in mind is indicated in the following quotation: “[Since] economic activity is quite as much organized through systems of administrative or canalizing controls as it is by the market, it is impossible to outline the structure of American economy without covering the structure of such controls. … In the conduct of economic activity the controls exercised by individuals or groups arise from three main sources: possession of one or more of the factors of production, possession of liquid assets, and position in relation to a functioning organization.”

It is common knowledge among the residents of Quebec that the English exercise a greater share of financial control than their proportion of the population would warrant. The English and French are quite conscious of this difference and each have their accepted clichés for describing or explaining it. As yet no detailed analysis has been made of the measure of this financial control or of the ways in which it has been exercised. Nor has any previous study shown just how important the ethnic factor is in the structure of financial control. In this study our analysis is confined to Montreal.

The presence in Canada of substantial minorities of Oriental race interests us both as citizens and as social scientists. Even those who believe that the task of good citizenship has been made harder by immigration from Asia must recognize that the interest of Canada to the social scientist has been enhanced.

The racial minorities are three in number and are very unequal in importance. There are about 25,000 persons of Japanese race in Canada, of whom 23,000 live in the province of British Columbia. The Chinese are somewhat more numerous in Canada, although there are only 21,769 in British Columbia. There are very few East Indians and it is significant that the Special Committee on Orientals in British Columbia which reported in December, 1940, treated “Orientals” and “Persons of Japanese and Chinese racial origins” as interchangeable terms.

The figures cited concern race (as determined by paternal descent) and do not indicate nationality or culture. Of the 23,000 persons of Japanese race in Canada approximately 2,400 are naturalized Canadians, and 13,400 Canadians by birth. This leaves an alien group of 7,200 but it must not be overlooked that many of those who are Canadians by birth may claim Japanese nationality by descent, or may have Japanese nationality imposed upon them because their parents have registered their births at the consulates. It is probable that almost all the Canadian-born are more Canadian than Japanese in culture, and this is true of some of the immigrants from Japan who entered Canada at early ages. Not many Chinese are Canadian either by birth or naturalization. For the former the figure is 900, for the latter 200. Of the East Indians probably none are aliens.

We may begin by stating three fundamental factors which in their interrelationship and when set into our scheme of economic competition are the basis of the minority group status of the Japanese immigrants in America. It is also these three factors which serve to relate the American-born Japanese to the present world crisis.

To be considered first is the factor of race. It has been used as a discriminating category for land ownership, for naturalization, and for regulating immigration. In 1913 California passed the first of the anti-alien land laws, prohibiting aliens ineligible for citizenship from owning land. Other states followed later with similar laws. In 1922 the United States Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that members of the “Mongolian race or the Malay race” could not be naturalized. The final legal disability placed upon the Japanese on a basis of race was denying them the right of any further immigration. This was established by the National Immigration Act of 1924, often called the “Exclusion Act.” Other groups face social problems because of discrimination based upon racial features, but in the case of the Japanese, when race is combined with the other two factors, it gains unique significance.

The second factor of fundamental importance is that of the Japanese ethnic heritage, of which a central point of concern was the Japanese family system. As early as 1900 the Americans in San Francisco were demanding exclusion, but then the immigrants were mainly single males, as the sex ratio of 2,369.9 males for every hundred females shows, but by 1910 this had dropped to 694.1.

Upper Canada acquired a wheat-growing reputation during the 1830's comparable to that of the Genesee Valley or of Ohio. At that time, it was remarked, “the great and almost sole object of serious interest to the Canadian farmer was to grow wheat as largely, and to repeat the crop as frequently, as any decent return could be obtained.” Nor was this unreasonable. Lord Durham was informed that “in Upper Canada, the whole of the great peninsula between Lakes Erie and Huron, comprising nearly half the available land of the province, consists of gently-undulating alluvial soil, and with a smaller proportion of inferior land than probably any other tract of similar extent in that part of North America, is generally considered the best grain country on that continent.” The red and white winter wheats grown in Upper Canada in a favourable season, when exported to Great Britain, were “spoken of by millers as a grain of superior quality” and “brought the highest prices the markets would afford.” Finally, the merchants in many places were accustomed to pay cash for wheat, while they would receive other products only in trade. When he had a steady market, the wheat farmer had cause for thanksgiving; but all too often he lacked it.

The ordinary market for the surplus wheat and flour of the Canadas was the United Kingdom, but the amounts exported fluctuated widely from one year to the next. Poor crops or good crops, increases in acreage, and especially the capricious Corn Laws, were the determining factors.

During the last two decades, considerable progress has been made in the measurement of national income, while the measurement of national wealth has lagged. This situation contrasts with the fact that it was wealth rather than income in which economists were first interested. The late Lord Stamp read a paper to a meeting of the Royal Statistical Society in 1919, in which he discussed the wealth and income of the chief powers of the world. In this paper he considered some eighteen countries for which there were eighteen estimates of national wealth, but only ten of these countries had estimates of national income. Professor Bye, in the second volume of the National Bureau of Economic Research series entitled Conference on Research in National Income and Wealth, goes back even farther to show this change in interest. It may be pointed out that Adam Smith called his famous book The Wealth of Nations.

Only since the last war has great progress been made in the measurement of national income. The increase in accuracy of the estimates has brought about an increase in their use until now they serve as legitimate bases for all sorts of comparisons. They stand in somewhat the same position as population estimates, as fundamental points of reference. This development is one of foremost importance in the social sciences. There seems to be little question that adequate measurements of income are more useful than equally adequate estimates of wealth. The former is a measurement of the effectiveness of the working of the economy. The latter is but one of the factors in its working.