Putting words into politician's mouths

Bit of a tempest in a teapot during the Tuesday sitting of Canada's Senate. One enterprising Tory Senator noticed that some of his Liberal colleagues had read speeches in to the Senate support of legislation that were nearly identical to speeches previously read in the House of Commons - a transgression of Senate rules. A short debate ensued about creativity and propriety ensued, but I found this excerpt from Senator Anne cools' argument on the issue interesting:

    "There is now arising in many parliamentary quarters great concern about the number of speeches — especially canned speeches — that are being written by other people for members. It is a huge concern.

    I expect, as a member of Parliament and a senator here, that if a senator rises and speaks, he owns that which he is saying — in other words, that speech is a product of his or her efforts. We must discern exactly what the parliamentary position is on these practices that have grown like Topsy, where it is immediately evident that those speeches were written in distant places because most often they do not even reflect the language of Parliament. Quite often, the grammatical structure is in the passive tense.

    ...This is a broad question. It has a larger consequence than we comprehend. What it means is that government, by having thousands of people churning out these speeches, can be making in each chamber many speeches in a day. This means, of course, that the natural proceedings in Parliament are not moving along at a very natural pace.

    ... I would submit to honourable senators that the government, with all its resources and all its speech writers grinding them out and holding them in cans, can load and weight the system in its favour." (Senate Hansard)

Hey, all you government communicators! Isn't it nice to be appreciated?

In