“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”
This quote from famed writer F. Scott Fitzgerald came to mind this week with the resignation of Air Canada’s CEO.
Michael Rosseau resigned after delivering a condolence message in English following an airport crash that killed two Air Canada pilots, one of whom was a francophone.
It is true that Rosseau needed to go. But it also true that Canada’s leaders should not be punished for lacking fluency in both official languages.
In Rosseau’s case, resignation was appropriate because of the circumstances surrounding his remarks.
Five years earlier, Rosseau had kicked off a maelstrom for delivering a speech in Montreal that was almost entirely in English. In response to the backlash, Rosseau had committed to learning French. Clearly, he had failed to deliver on this promise.
Somehow, that 2021 incident had also failed to impress upon him the necessity of delivering important corporate messages in both languages. It’s astonishing that he did not foresee the need to deliver this particular message in both languages.
In short, Rosseau made errors of leadership, and resigning is both the necessary and honourable way to take responsibility.
But Rosseau’s resignation does not mean all of Canada’s corporate leaders should be expected to be proficient in both languages — as some of our political leaders suggested this week.
On the sidelines of a G7 meeting in France, Foreign Minister Anita Anand said that Canada’s corporate leaders should be bilingual.
“Canada is a bilingual country,” Anand said. “Le Canada est un pays bilingue.”
“And we continue to advocate for the leaders of our country to be able to speak both official languages, including in the corporate sector,” she added.
Such statements reflect an unfortunate Liberal predilection for insisting upon bilingualism only when it suits them.
The most egregious example of this is then-prime minister Justin Trudeau’s appointment of Mary Simon as governor general in 2021.
Simon, a ceremonial figurehead, speaks her native Inuktitut and English, but cannot speak French.
In 2025, Simon’s office disclosed that the government had spent more than $52,000 on 324 hours of private lessons for Simon. As French media reported at the time, Simon had made little observable progress from all this effort, and struggled to say even a few dozen words in French at a short ceremony.
Similarly, Carney’s French is at best passable. He participated in the official French-language debate during the election, but declined to participate in a second one, citing the dubious reason that the Green Party was not included.
Unfortunately, the Liberals’ selective insistence on bilingualism is not limited to ceremonial and political roles.
In 2023, the Trudeau Liberals passed a law requiring all Supreme Court judges to be capable of understanding court proceedings in either official language without the assistance of an interpreter.
This significantly reduces the pool of candidates who can be appointed to some of Canada’s most consequential legal posts.
“In the context of Western Canada in particular, the pool of fully bilingual, highly qualified, highly talented candidates is very thin,” University of Alberta law professor Steven Penney told Canadian Affairs in August 2023, when Ottawa was seeking to fill the Western Canada vacancy on the Supreme Court.
“So you’re looking at trade-offs. You’re potentially foregoing having the most meritorious candidates being selected to the court.”
As Penney noted then, what the Supreme Court really needed was a justice with deep expertise in criminal law. About two-thirds of the cases the Supreme Court hears concern criminal law, and the court had lacked since 2022 a judge with a deep criminal law background.
“Having one or more judges with that criminal background is an important attribute that will improve the criminal jurisprudence for the court,” said Penney.
Given the stakes, isn’t it obviously preferable to prioritize qualifications such as subject-matter expertise over bilingualism? Especially when interpreters are available to translate for judges as required.
The same principles apply to corporate leadership. Yes, bilingualism is a nice to have. But is it as important as qualities such as industry expertise, management abilities or financial acumen?
The other point to bear in mind is that individuals from many parts of Canada have few — if any — opportunities to learn French, never mind become proficient in it.
Skeptical? Consider that French is not a mandatory subject in schools in Alberta, B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Research also shows humans’ ability to learn new languages drops off significantly after they turn 10, and even further after they turn 18.
It would be an error to preclude bright minds from holding top positions simply because they have not had the opportunities to learn Canada’s second official language. Carney of all people should understand this.
Of course it would be nice to live in a country where everyone speaks both languages. But we must distinguish between nice to haves and need to haves.
Until we plan to make French and English mandatory throughout all schools, all school levels, and all provinces, it is unrealistic, unfair and detrimental to Canada to expect people from all parts of the country to be fluent in both languages.
Yes. There are translators who could enable judges to comprehend the issues. The ability to speak “French” is difficult to define: standard, educated Québec French? New Brunswick French? Parisian French? Le français que l’on parle à Gravelbourg, en la Saskatchewan? If a lawyer uses one, but I comprehend a different one, I still need la traduction.
After spending a whole summer in Québec, committed to smoothing out my French, I could not find opportunities to practice: some of my French Saskatchewan friends were shy about speaking with me, because my French was too educated, and I didn’t speak le joual.
Well stated. If not taught throughout school as compulsory fluent to graduate,across Canada in a standard dialect of French, then it should not be a priority skill needed for hiring or firing. Quebec and education for English proficiency inside their province must be standardized.
Excuses, excuses, excuses! Stop finding excuses and just do it. Or may be you just don’t want to? Or you don’t care? In any case, I’m not doing biseness with you. See, … you don’t care.
Insisting on having French as a second language is no different than the erroneous notion of hiring based on certain percentages of various groups. When the best qualified , regardless of race or creed, is not able to be hired because of such imposed restraint then we are poorer for it
As long as Canada is officially a bilingual country, it is the right of all citizens to have bilingual representation. Why are there people who do not or do not want to or cannot put in the effort of speaking the second language feel they can prioritize their bias? Speaking the other official language goes way beyond the spoken words; it is understanding and accepting the rights of the other culture with whom we share the land.🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁
If you truly conceptualize language learning as an act of cultural understanding, respect, and recognition of rights, then allow me to suggest that you start learning Cree, Innu, Atikamekw, Anicinabemowin, Naskapi, Mi’kmaq, and Anishinaabemowin. Statistics Canada tells me these are the indigenous languages most commonly spoken in Quebec. I can think of no Canadians more deserving of respect, rights recognition, and reconciliation than our first people.
Or, you could simply accept that rights recognition, respect, and understanding can, and should, be learned and encouraged in our public sphere whether or not we share a common language.
I couldn’t agree more. The proportion of bilingual English-French speakers in Canada is roughly 18%, and this has held steady over the last three census reports. By comparison, the number of bilingual speakers in Canada who speak a second language other than English or French is 12.7%. While it’s important to recognize our bilingual heritage, to insist that the only people who have skills and knowledge worthwhile to the project that is Canada is to exclude 4 of every 5 Canadians from a role in public life. It is to ignore that our society has become much more diverse than it was 100 years ago. Most importantly, it continues to structurally exclude people with indigenous heritage.
Language learning, as an adult, is a time-consuming and arduous process and there is an opportunity cost to devoting those cognitive resources to that, rather than anything else. While bilingualism may feel important and necessary in Eastern Canada, given your closer economic and geographical ties to Quebec, I can tell you that it is a skill that feels entirely unnecessary in the western provinces. French is not spoken in our public spaces, nor taught in our schools. The most French that a western Canadian will encounter is on the back of a soup can.
If we are serious about building an inclusive society where people can succeed on the basis of merit, while still recognizing our heritage, I would suggest we ask that Canadians speak one of our two official languages with fluency, while ensuring that communications that concern Canadians are available in all relevant languages. There are excellent and professional options available for language translation, and there is no shame in using them.