Jungle makes a good point.
I would like to query one issue, however. If there is a predominance of French-Canadians at the top levels, why is that the case?
I raise this issue since I was always led to believe that historically, Quebec (in particular) and French-Canadians (in general) were under-represented in the recruit population for NCMs and officers.
It is interesting that a group that is under-represented at the beginning of the career path would be over-represented at the end of it. This suggests that French-Canadians make better soldiers, that anglo-Canadians are more easily enticed away from the military, or that systemic aspects of the promotions system cause anglos to be selected out.
I would suggest the last given the focus on bilingualism as a key element of promotion. Simply put, it is almost a necessity for an officer (and possibly NCMs) to be bilingual to achieve high rank. The bulk of truly bilingual personnel are first-language French. This leads to the over-representation.
I would also suggest that this focus is over-emphasized. Bilingualism at high ranks is important for a political purpose, but not an operational one. This is particularly true for anglos learning French, since most multilingual operations are, by SOP, conducted in English (This is true in Canada and NATO as a whole. We do not need a repeat of RV89 and its bilingual radio comms.) Bilingualism would be more operationally important at low ranks - when communications are often terse, garbled, and time is of the essence.
Insisting on bilingualism at the top seems misguided, except on the political "spin" level. More opportunites may occur for bilingual discussion at higher ranks (i.e., above unit, or possibly brigade, level), but there is usually more time to resolve issues.
In my experience, bilingualism does not seem so essential to an officer‘s performance at higher rank that it should be used as a nearly certain barrier to promotion. I do accept (reluctantly) the political realities that lead to promotions boards awarding points for language achievements, but it seems that these points are disproportionate to leadership abilities, education and training, course performance, PERs, etc.
It is anecdotal and hearsay, but I know of one senior officer who was just below the cut on the promotion to a more senior rank. He was unilingual anglo, or barely functional French. A French-Canadian officer retired - and the person promoted was the top-listed French-Canadian -- who was several positions below the anglo officer. Worse, the slowdown in career paths then hit this officer‘s MOC the next year, and his promotion only came several years later.
I would welcome comment from senior officers who believe they have greater need for bilingual capability now than they did as platoon leaders. In particular, I would seek the view of anglo officers needing French, since it seems far more diffcult for anglos to acquire French. My follow-up question for them would be "Is the second language skill of such general importance that it is essential for every officer, or only particular to certain positions such that a language specialty qualification would suffice?".
None of the above should be taken as a negative statement about French-Canadian soldiers, their capabilities, etc. We‘ve all met good and bad soldiers and officers of both languages.
Nor is it to suggest that all training be conducted in English. Training in our first language ensures the best learning. The point is simply to query whether the extensive effort towards bilingualism, and particularly anglo bilingualism, is misguided.
Thoughts?
Fred 
)...
