There you go.
So, basically, when you ask which situation would be changed, the answer is unilingualism. I will never be convinced that unilingualism is an essential feature of the Supreme Court of Canada. Believe you me, a Supreme Court judge will never be convinced of that either.
If there were a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, I am convinced that it would declare, as I did—I can say that with no pretension because, in any event, my analysis was based on the judgment of the Supreme Court itself—that making bilingualism a requirement on the Supreme Court does not require a constitutional amendment.
Second, as for the rest, judges have to understand oral and written language. Must they then, on top of that, be able to speak in French? I can say that it would be desirable. However, if that were to become a political obstacle, a deal-breaker, an amendment to section 16 of the Official Languages Act could, at very least, represent a compromise.