Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Ms. d'Entremont and Mr. Wagg, and thank you for accepting our invitation. We're fortunate to have your expertise. You've shed considerable light on our concerns. We've heard many things about this matter and heard from many witnesses on the subject.
I don't want to go into the details of your report. I understand the problem: it's, first, the fact that there has been manipulation, but that's less significant than the lack of material in French for students wishing to prepare for the exam.
I'm a bit like St. Thomas here. I refer you, more precisely, to the first question you asked in your investigation. In question 1, you ask this:
In what ways did the NANB ensure that the French version of the exam:
b. conformed...
d. was adapted to the terminology of the field in the New Brunswick context?
Here's why I'm asking you this question.
When I studied law, we compared identical fields of law in France and Canada. I'll never forget it. I read a text in French, and, to me, it was Chinese. And yet it concerned a similar situation. The terminology didn't take differences into account. A text may mean the same thing in a specific context in Paris, but the wording will be different if you come from French Canada.
Is it possible this aspect had an impact on the exam?