I tried, Mr. Chairman, to explain to some of my colleagues, some of the problems that are inherent every time we introduce an amendment. When you're introducing an amendment or any changes, I think you have to reflect on the positive things that have already happened. I've looked at the amendment and I want to advise the honourable Members that right now, we have in existence a certification program for aboriginal language specialist teachers. In fact, Mr. Chairman, some of the individuals involved in the teacher education program are involved in this area of speciality. The other point is, approximately 25 per cent of teachers are aboriginal teachers and, right now, about 180 aboriginal students are enrolled in training and it is our expectation that by the year 2000, we will have 50 per cent aboriginal teachers.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a reflection of the fact that already, in some regions, over 50 per cent of our teachers are of aboriginal descent. In many ways, there is a suggestion that, somehow, we shouldn't consider these skills. The other thing that we have to understand is future sections to this legislation. District authorities and divisional councils can now employ individuals to provide cultural instruction at their direction. At the direction of the standing committee, we agreed that we needed to recognize and honour elders with honorary certificates. This amendment puts aboriginal official languages into a class separate from English and French, which makes it appear to be a second-class program. The fact is, our official languages legislation is recognized in this legislation, and the interpretation that is given is that all languages in our official languages legislation are equal, and they must be respected as such. The amendment changes that whole idea. In fact, it does something that many past Members argued against -- including, in fact, some Members who are now sitting in this Assembly --which was the fact that French was being imposed upon in 1984. I remember those arguments very clearly.
One individual by the name of Mr. Patterson was quite vehement about the tact that he could not see how French language programming and services could be considered without considering first aboriginal languages, aboriginal languages being more equal than others. Yet, the fact is, many Members who were here at that time --and there are probably just a few of us left --went on to consider it and, in particular, Charter requirements.
The other point is, we need to have the same quality and standards in all language programs across our system. I think we have to consider that. The other thing is, we do not want and have tried not to set up barriers to aboriginal languages or languages of instruction. We want to encourage them. That is the whole basis on which we tried not to divide aboriginal languages and French and English. Rather, we have tried to treat them all as equal, without one language being less.
I recognize the intent Well, I shouldn't say I recognize; I don't recognize the intent of the amendment. It, in fact, puts into place the idea --maybe not intentionally --that aboriginal languages are of lesser status than English and French. I recall this argument quite clearly in 1984 and I recalled it after. That is my reading of what the amendment would do. It was our intention, through the legislation that was proposed, to try to ensure the quality of all of those languages. The other thing is, right now, it is our intention to ensure the certification of all teachers, rather than saying we will divide people into categories of teachers. In that sense, we're concerned about the amendment and I would have to say that at this particular juncture, I couldn't support it.