This is The Globe's daily politics newsletter. Sign up to get it by e-mail each morning.

POLITICS BRIEFING

By John Ibbitson (@JohnIbbitson)

Story continues below advertisement

With Brad Wall now comfortably re-elected, speculation will once again turn to whether Saskatchewan's premier might jump ship and run for the federal Conservative leadership. But he won't, because he doesn't speak French, making Mr. Wall the latest example of the bilingualism paradox.

A paradox encompasses two mutually exclusive propositions that are nonetheless both true. Federal bilingualism is such a paradox.

It is right and proper that senior federal politicians and public servants must speak both English and French. English-speakers need only ask themselves how they would feel about a unilingual French cabinet minister or Supreme Court judge to understand that truth. Canada is a bilingual country. Ottawa must be bilingual. Case closed.

But the bilingualism requirement is also exclusionary, which government hiring practises should not be. Because only 17.5 per cent of Canadians are bilingual, it effectively prohibits four out of five of us from advancing in the federal public service or in federal politics. It discriminates against Western Canadians, people from Southern Ontario, Quebeckers who don't live near the Ontario or New Brunswick borders (those two "bilingualism belts" are where most bilingual Canadians are to be found) and most Atlantic Canadians.

It similarly discriminates against most immigrants, who come from China, India, the Philippines and other countries where French isn't spoken.

Such observations often provoke a retort from Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages. But as Mr. Fraser himself recently observed: "Canada is a country with two unilingual majorities: Some 60 per cent of Francophones do not speak English, and some 90 per cent of Anglophones do not speak French." Almost 50 years of official bilingualism haven't changed that reality, and the next 50 years are unlikely to change it either.

The bilingual paradox inhibits the ability of political parties to renew. Mr. Wall and entrepreneur Kevin O'Leary have both been touted as possible leaders for the Conservative Party, but both have no hope of leading that party, because both are unilingual and Canada's prime minister simply must be bilingual.

Story continues below advertisement

And the lost opportunities extend far beyond these two. We may never know what potential prime minister was lost to the country when, years ago, she decided not to run for Parliament because her second language is Mandarin, not French.

And please, let's dispense with the idea that Mr. Wall or anyone like him could "pick up" French if they wanted to lead the Conservative Party. Middle-aged learners, unless they inherently gifted, do not "pick up" a second language well enough to joust in the House of Commons or take part in a national leaders' debate. Stéphane Dion's English is actually quite good – certainly better than Mr. Wall's French would ever be – yet many English Canadians considered it inadequate when he was Liberal leader.

Brad Wall is a popular and effective premier who will never become prime minister because he can't speak French. That's the price of the paradox. And there really isn't anything anyone can do about it.

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS MORNING

By Chris Hannay (@channay)

> NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has got to go, says the leader of a major union. "I met Tom and had dinner with him, and I basically told him I don't have an argument as to why you should remain as leader of the party, much less leading the party in terms of the 2019 election," Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff told The Globe.

Story continues below advertisement

> Former Harper cabinet ministers Kellie Leitch and Maxime Bernier are poised to officially enter the race for the next leader of the Conservative party, the Toronto Star is reporting. Former finance minister Joe Oliver, on the other hand, has been named chair of the advisory board of an investment bank.

> The federal government should give Bombardier some kind of aid, says the CEO of Air Canada. "For important global champions like an aerospace leader – like they are – to succeed, they do require some level of support from the government. When you look at what's gone on with respect to Airbus in France and Germany, with respect to Boeing in the United States, with respect to Embraer in Brazil, each of those manufacturers have received support at the right times from their respective governments," Calin Rovinescu said.

> Speaking of Bombardier, Industry Canada spent almost $500,000 to pay Deloitte for a market assessment of the aircraft manufacturer.

> The release of the Panama Papers is putting pressure on the federal government to start estimating just how much money it loses every year from tax evasion. Meanwhile, the chair of the finance committee says a long-promised review of the tax code should be handed off to an independent group of experts – not MPs.

> And the organization representing refugee sponsors is telling groups frustrated by not yet receiving families from Syria to chill. "We have the time and the space and the energy to temper our own senses of anger and entitlement because what really matters is the people whose lives are hanging in the balance on the other side of the world. … I'm having a problem with some of our First World senses of entitlement to all of this," said Scott McLeod of the Canadian Refugee Sponsorship Agreement Holders Association.

SECUREDROP

Story continues below advertisement

Did you know you can share information with Globe journalists with much more security and anonymity than traditional means? Read more about SecureDrop and encrypted communication.

WHAT EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT

"Promised outlays for youth employment got shortchanged in other areas of the budget as well. For a prime minister representing generational change, it's odd, especially given the Liberals' willingness to spend, spend, spend and to go into big, big and bigger deficits. Retreating on the EI-reduction plan is not such a big deal in itself. But the frequency with which pledges are being cast aside is a legitimate cause for concern. Trudeau team members surely don't need to be reminded of the importance of maintaining the public trust. If they don't keep their word, they'll lose it." – Lawrence Martin.

Gwyn Morgan (Globe and Mail): "Running up the national debt in the face of these realities means handing the next generation a massive debt burden." (for subscribers)

Emmett Macfarlane (National Post): "Appointments to Canada's highest court have historically been conducted entirely behind-the-scenes, with the public's only knowledge of an appointment coming when it is announced. Given the importance of the [Supreme] Court as a governing institution, especially in light of its policy-making power under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the opacity of the process is unacceptable in the modern era."

Chantal Hébert (Toronto Star): "For anyone who believes or simply hopes against hope that governing parties need not to be ushered off to opposition limbo to clean up their ethical act, the first half of the mandates of Quebec's Philippe Couillard and Ontario's Kathleen Wynne offer cautionary tales."

Story continues below advertisement

Welcome to the Globe Politics newsletter! Let us know what you think.