As opposed to using words when we're making a speech, when we're using words in law, they have a different context. The courts will say, when they're interpreting the rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec, that the law has introduced a new word. The legislator has a purpose or an intent of saying that French is the common language of Quebec. As such, I cannot imagine the courts would give it no significance.
For example, when an English-speaking Quebecker goes to court and argues that.... For example, a company has set up a rule that you can only speak French in the company. If two English-speaking Quebeckers want to speak English, they would say it's blocking their freedom of expression. The court—especially if it was in the government, and if it was the government that passed that law—may interpret that by saying, “But French is the common language”.
When you look at the right to speak English, we balance that with French being the common language of Quebec. This assumes that two Quebeckers, even if they're two English-speaking people, should be speaking French to each other in a public setting. At least, that's how I would see it.
I also wonder if this could not also affect indigenous languages in Quebec. If we say that French is the common language of Quebec, what about on indigenous reserves? What about in indigenous communities? I would have a concern that the court would believe that the legislator has now changed its philosophy and wants the court to look at something new when they're balancing the rights of French, English and indigenous languages.
Would that be a fair assumption, even though we have no idea how it will eventually turn out?