Good.
Professor Chipeur, I am a bit confused also on one question that I think Mr. Rankin asked you.
With respect to the issue of the Carter case that you cited several times with respect to costs that were awarded by the court under Carter, under paragraph 140, I think you said, they awarded costs against the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia. The court set a four-pronged task that was incredibly limiting in terms that it had to be an incredible public policy issue that benefits all of society, and the case can never have been litigated otherwise, etc., and you would only find this out at the end of the case, meaning that you'd have to go before a judge on this incredibly unusual case to award costs.
I don't quite understand how you are arguing that this is a substitute for court challenges that allows a case to go forward from the beginning, as opposed to waiting until the end to get these very unusual costs. Could you just explain that?