Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting when someone goes to the rule books, whether it is Marleau and Montpetit, Beauchesne's or the House Standing Orders, and recites something that says that a person should not read from a prepared text.
One thing that always has to be taken into consideration is the tradition of the chamber. From my perspective, I would love to see a debate where there are no prepared speeches, where members stand up and say what they really think and maybe put a little more passion in what they are thinking. I am all for that. I would not have a problem with that, and I would encourage it.
In terms of traditions, from what I have witnessed over the last number of months, 90% of speeches seem to be of a prepared nature. We have found that there is even greater latitude provided for newer members, who are afforded the opportunity to read their speeches virtually verbatim.
I would encourage members to tell us what they really think and push the speeches to the side; in my opinion, it quite often leads to a more interesting debate.
I would suggest that in fact there is no point of order and that we should allow questions and answers.