Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, just getting back to my original point, I’d just like to read out what the existing legislation reads. It says, “No person shall operate on a highway a vehicle with any light reflective device that is obstructed, cracked or in other condition that unduly dismisses the effectiveness of the light of the reflective device.” I mean, that is exactly what you’re talking about. That, I support. But what I don’t like is when you basically amend this thing in light. I mean, if somebody is obstructing a light by putting 100-mile-an-hour tape and you can’t see the signal light, I can understand that you should pull them over. But I think it’s important that the changes that you’re making in which basically by putting the changes in there, it’s exactly dealing with the point I was making earlier. This only applies to highways where there are mud conditions, dirt conditions, in regard to gravel highways. And what, basically, you stipulate in your agreement that, you know, by changing the word of obstruction by adding snow, ice, dirt or mud, applies to those road conditions, but what you’re already saying that the intent of the legislation is already there. So I would just like to know why do you have to change it so that the legislation will impose an effect on one section of residents who mostly live on highway roads or even winter roads or whatnot, but on paved highways this is not really an issue. It’s an issue for communities which basically have gravel-based highways or even the winter roads.

Again, I’d just like to get an understanding of what’s the significance of the change and why is existing legislation, as it’s worded right now, not working.