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.

Mr. Miltenberger has risen on a point of order under rule 23(k) and (m). To the point of order, I’ll allow some debate. To the point of order, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I’ll thank the Member from Thebacha for bringing forward the concern. If he felt there was an issue, I appreciate him bringing it and highlighting it as an issue.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I have to cite a book called Beauchesne’s, which this Assembly is very familiar with. It talks about tone and intent. I’m bringing forward the tone and intent and concerns of my constituents who sent family members to that community.

Mr. Speaker, on page 28 of yesterday’s Hansard I explicitly qualified my comments by stating that there was no mal-intention intended with respect to my remarks that called into question the independence of an internal conduct review. I was stating and simply seeking an independent examination.

Furthermore, I questioned that the independence of a review conducted internally by a senior member

embedded within an organization can hardly be called independent or showing objectivity. One with a vested interest in a program or review hardly seems fair.

Mr. Speaker, I did not specifically name that person — I named the position that they represent all along. This is something we witness time and time again when a Crown corporation and other departments are placed under scrutiny of independent lenses. This ensures confidence in the outcomes of public and elected officials to determine a course of action with an independent review.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I further comment that the Member’s point of view was not raised in a timely fashion — from my point of view, given his presence in this House — because he is a very capable Minister and a Member with long-standing presence. I would assert that, on page 97 of Beauchesne’s, attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment — namely, the moment it occurred.

Mr.

Speaker, I will recognize officially that the

Member may have had some concern with the tone. It is a tone, and I will pass on an apology for the tone. However, I was bringing concerns directly brought forward by my constituents — a number of constituents, Mr. Speaker. I will close with that at this time.

Am I to take it from that that you’re withdrawing your remarks from yesterday?

To the point of order. Seeing no more proponents on the point of order, I will take it under advisement and come back with a ruling at a later date.

Item 2, Ministers’ statements. Mr. Bob McLeod.