Thanks for that response. It seems that I’ve been misinterpreting some of the responses I’ve been hearing, and hearing responses to questions that I didn’t think I’d been asking, so I’m going to seek some clarification here. When I was talking about inspectors earlier, I was talking about inspectors of resource developments, which I believe is different than, say, the Recreational Leasing Policy inspectors but maybe not. When I was talking about variances, I am talking about the experience of inspecting, for example, diamond mines. When there are clearly some that have a whole lot of variances and others that respond immediately to variances and have few variances, those were not being taken to court to be dealt with. I hear now the Minister and the deputy minister saying, as I said before, there are 12 cases taken to court, and now I’m being led to understand that those 12 cases are illegal occupancy cases rather than mineral development inspections or whatever. I don’t know. Do I need to start at the beginning again here or does the Minister understand where I’m at? In terms of inspections of mineral developments, have we taken variances to court? I guess I will start over.