“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.
