Mr. Chair, I think, looking at it by way of the usage over a period of time, like you say, five years is usually the life of the product where you basically have to rip it up and redo the whole thing again. I’m just wondering if that’s something that’s the problem with chipseal, it has a short duration of usage and then you basically have to redo it again. I think it’s something that we should be looking at like a product that can possibly double the lifecycle of chipseal, but more importantly, look at other products. You touched on it when you said it’s the cheapest way of applying, but that’s what happens when you go cheap, you have to redo it every five years and it’s going to cost you to continue to resurface all our highways using that type of product.

Again, I think that we should be opened minded to the other different types of products and I think that’s something we should be looking at. Have we been in consultation with our jurisdictions, say northern B.C. or the Yukon or northern Quebec or other places that have tried different types of products? I’d just like to know if we are open minded to looking at other products and try to get more of the lifecycle costs out of the project than simply having to replace chipseal every five years.