Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I usually agree with my colleague, Mr. Zoe, on most things but I have to respectfully differ with him on this amendment today. Mr. Chairman, to me this is somewhat comparable to the exemption in the Liquor Act which allows a person travelling to take a bottle of spirits of a modest size without paying the duty. I think it's okay to be able to bring in a carton of cigarettes. To me, that analogous to a bottle of spirits.

However, when we're going into five cartons, to me that's more like smuggling and less like personal use. It's a sizeable quantity. It's more than what would fit in one's suitcase or one's carry on baggage, I would think. I also agree with Mr. Morin that this is already a privilege for those few who are privileged to travel. They are probably people who could more easily afford to pay the tax than the average constituents who don't get to go to Montreal once a year, let alone three or six times a year.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is a point of principle here. I believe this amendment will actually encourage people to do their shopping in the south. In fact, I think this Assembly should be encouraging people to shop in the north, even if it is for the evil weed. I think, in the spirit of buy north, we should limit the amount that could be exempted. There is something more reasonable. I think the present proposed provision is more reasonable and more appropriate to the kind of incidental use Mr. Arvaluk spoke of. Thank you.