Mr. Speaker, I want to cite our rules, under 23(k), “uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create a disorder” and (m), “introduces any matter in debate that offends the practices and precedents of this Assembly.”

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity after the debate in the House yesterday to review Hansard, in specific, Mr. Hawkins’s Member’s statement and the subsequent question, the entire tone of which, I

believe, contravenes those two clauses that

I mentioned.

Specifically, on page 7 of unedited Hansard, Mr. Hawkins, in speaking about his concerns about the college programs in Fort Smith, says, and I quote: “How can we expect people to attend these courses and gain qualifications when they’re not welcome in this community?”

Mr. Speaker, the use of sweeping generalizations — inaccurate sweeping generalizations — I think, are contravening the intent of these two clauses. I’d further like to quote page 29 of unedited Hansard. Mr. Hawkins says: “I think that if students feel intimidated throughout the community, the community doesn’t want them.” He further goes on to say: “As I said earlier today — and I’ll reference again that people don’t want to go there….”

Mr. Speaker, the Member has specific concerns, which is fair enough, but to denigrate and condemn the whole community as a result of some isolated incidents when there have been thousands of graduates, I think, is contrary to what’s intended.

Finally, I’d like to reference the fact that he named a person in this House as the president of the college who is not here to defend himself, nor are the people of Fort Smith. So I rise to defend the practice of not naming people.

And he goes on, on page 28, to say: “I mean, why doesn’t he say to me that the president is reviewing the effectiveness of the campus in Fort Smith — by the way, where he lives and runs the program. Wow, I’m sure that will be independent.” This brings into question the integrity and ability of the president of the college, once again in a forum where he’s not here to defend himself.

So on those points, those are my points of order. I would look forward to your ruling.