Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a bit confused here with respect to this particular section. I read that to be an incidental thing, so that in case you're down in a hospital, in case you're down to get your truck, in case you're down for a meeting somewhere in the city or in Ottawa, that you make sure you're not stupidly penalized for having a cigarette in your pocket when you're coming from another jurisdiction to the territories. But, this amendment is not incidental any more. It is an actual measure. At one carton a week, it doesn't take five weeks to come up to the Northwest Territories. Do you need that many cigarettes en route?

The idea of the original section was not to bring in cigarettes for the purpose of smoking them in the territories, but to make sure that when you're travelling you are not out of cigarettes from point A to point B in different jurisdictions. I don't see this as in the same spirit or intent of the original section. I don't know if I'm understanding it, but I see that this has changed the whole intent of the bill. I don't know how this can be an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Arvaluk is correct. I'll go back to what I said earlier, and that is this section of the bill we have proposed where you can have one carton of cigarettes applies where you are going to the United States, or are coming from the United States or if you're coming from the United Kingdom or Europe, and I'm not too sure about Japan, Mr. Chairman. It is generally a carton of cigarettes that you're allowed to carry over an international border.

Mr. Arvaluk is correct that, in addition to us lining up with Canada Customs and whatever other customs are out there, this deals with the nuisance factor of being able to transport cigarettes and move from one jurisdiction in Canada to this jurisdiction and not be caught with cigarettes that are marked for sale in another province or territory and not being able to explain it. That's the reason. It is to comply to Canada Customs and to allow those travellers who travel around -- not excessively, but at least six times a year -- the privilege of being able to transport their own cigarettes either from here to somewhere else or, more importantly, from somewhere else to here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect to the Member who moved this amendment, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I see it as defeating the purpose of the bill. If you allow people to bring in 1,000 cigarettes three times a year, that is 3,000 cigarettes. Even if a person smokes around ten cigarettes a day, that is 300 days of free smoking without paying taxes to the territorial government and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

We should encourage people to pay the tax in the Northwest Territories. We should encourage our people to buy their cigarettes in the Northwest Territories. Any place else, a carton of cigarettes is a lot of cigarettes to bring back, anyway. I know that in my riding the majority of the people I represent don't have the luxury of going south either. We don't have that luxury. I know civil servants get their way south paid once a year but the majority of my people don't work for the government and they don't go south for holidays or to buy cigarettes.

This would make a loophole in this legislation and it is basically a loophole for the elite, the people who can afford to go south and the people who can afford to pay taxes in the Northwest Territories. It would make it a loophole so that they could get cigarettes cheaper. I won't support this amendment and I would encourage Members not to support this amendment.

---Applause

We all know who smokes, and I'm one of them. I smoke heavily. I'll pay the taxes in the Northwest Territories, just like all the other Members in this House should as well who smoke. Thank you.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order, I do want to ask, Mr. Chairman, if the matter of a Member withdrawing a motion once debate has begun is, in fact, in order. I'm not certain that that is a practice that is normal. So, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if you might review that particular matter and determine whether the rules do allow for the removal of a motion once debate has begun.

I will call the House back to order. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Whitford.

Thank you, Mr. Whitford. In reviewing Beauchesne's, there are some areas that I agree are grey areas. Therefore, I would like to recess for 15 minutes to ensure time for the Clerk to review the definition. The definition is difficult to interpret, so the Clerk will review the parliamentary dictionary to get a better definition. I will bring back a ruling in 15 minutes. We will recess until then. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Speaker's Ruling

I will call the House back to order. In consideration of Mr. Nerysoo's point of order, first of all, I want to indicate to Members that, in the past, there have been a number of times where amendments have been put forth when bills were being presented to this House, along with amendments to particular motions in this House, debate has been pursued, and at the last minute amendments have been withdrawn. I have considered there may have been precedence set with regard to this in the past.

However, I also recognize that never at any point has a Member called a point of order on these proceedings. Therefore, there was no need for a ruling. I feel since there has been a point of order, the chair should address the issue. Looking at Beauchesne's 696, under withdrawal of amendments, it indicates, "After the question on an amendment has been proposed from the chair, that amendment can be withdrawn only with unanimous consent at the request of the Member who moved it."

The chair had some problems with the definition of a "question" because when we put forth a motion, and I indicate to the motion that question is being called, do we determine whether "question" as being when the motion is being called for a vote or is it the issue being put forth on the floor of the House? This is why we wanted to take a break.

In reviewing the parliamentary dictionary, "question" is interpreted as a matter which is to be or is being determined by the House, or a committee. A question may not be debated until it has been proposed from the chair, until it has been read or stated to the House or committee by the Speaker or the chairman. Generally speaking, a question is founded on a motion moved by a Member. Once an individual or a Member puts forth a motion that is considered and interpreted as a question.

Therefore, under rule 696, I have to indicate to this House that Mr. Nerysoo does have a point of order. It is only with unanimous consent at the request of the Member who moved it that we can withdraw this motion to amend Bill 19. I will place you back into committee of the whole with Mr. Whitford in the chair.