I will start by answering your last question. I'm not prepared to make bilingualism an essential criterion for employment in the public service without having some guarantee that every Canadian could have fair access to high-quality training in a second language.
I'm not talking only about anglophone provinces. According to the Public Service Commission of Canada, for the first time, there is now an increase in the need for English-language training for new francophone public servants who are entering the public service and who do not have the English-language skills they need. So this is valid for both sides of the linguistic divide.
Learning a language at an early age is certainly easier. However, this requires a series of incentives. I think that the federal government can be an incentive-maker for universities and it can communicate that message. If second-language learning is valued by universities, that will encourage high school students to learn it too.
I would have something else to add. I often talk about inconsistencies. The fact that universities often don't make a distinction between students who've gone through a basic French program and those who've been in immersion, with exceptions such as the specific programs discussed here, there is some inconsistency; they only take into account the grades. I've talked to high school students whose teachers had encouraged them to choose the core French program exam rather than the immersion because it was easier.
You'll ace it.
So universities that don't make a distinction between a high-quality program and a less demanding program are thus encouraging mediocrity.