 Today, I have a distinct pleasure of interviewing both Terry Lynch from Save Canadian Mining and Power Nickel and Peter Clausi from CBLT and Silver Bullet Mines. How are you both today? Doing great. Thanks. Now, we are behind in having this very important discussion because IROC recently put out an announcement that the online community has been a Twitter about whether or not this is as significant as some people think and have translated. As I mentioned to you at the onset of this interview, I think you're both doing a public service by explaining to everybody what this actually means. So, Terry, if you don't mind, is this or is this not as big a news as some say that it is around short selling? I would say it has the potential to be big news. It really is just a clarification. This was, in theory, already the law and the problem was it wasn't well understood by the major investment banks and so they didn't adhere to the practices. So now, I think IROC has clarified this once and for all and has clearly moved the liability away from them and onto the people that don't follow the rules. Okay. Let's be clear. IROC is the Gary Betman of the Canadian securities industry. IROC's not here to protect you, they're not here to protect you, they're not here to protect the average investor. IROC protects the investment houses, they don't really care about you and me. What the guidance says from the middle of August is you investment house, if you're going to short a stock, which is still allowed, you have to have a reasonable expectation that your client will be able to fill that short in T plus two and if there's no reasonable expectation, then you the investment house are on the hook to make good for that short. It's always been the law. The guidance is nothing. It's Gary Betman sticking up for all the owners in the NHL. It's a nothing statement. In and of itself, I tend to agree with Peter, however, what it does firmly do is it does, because you remember, you know, Macmillan Bench had that conference on the shorting and other issues on the OSC. And Scotia Catholic came out afterwards saying, no, that's not the case. You know, these things were were legal. So now now it's got finally a clarification from at this point, the highest regulatory body in the land that says, you know, short selling, naked short selling is illegal in my mind, it's always been legal. But now they've clearly said, and here they've narrowly defined it. I'm going to argue with you. OK, that's not what it says. It says the house is on the hook for naked short selling. They do not make it unlawful. Illegal means it's criminal code. Unlawful means it's contrary to regulation. What they do is they put the hook into the house. You can still naked short sell, but the house is on the hook. So in your mind, the house is on the hook for what? I mean, they have to complete the trade with. We have to cover the ultimately, whether it's a day, a week, a month, a year. The house has to cover the short ultimately. Right. So so the point is the liability is now transferred to the house. Clear. Yes. Yes. So that's my that's my point that was not clear before. So now that and so now in my mind, in industry's perspective, well, if we want to make something of this, what we have to do now is bring hard factual evidence to the table, stuff that we could take to court and prosecute on and basically say to the investment houses, look, here's what we have found in our discovery that you have allowed this to happen under your watch, where you are liable and either need to change your ways or will prosecute you in court and will take this evidence to Iraq and expect them to act accordingly. So right. So now I think that Gauntlet has been thrown down to industry, to the power nickels of the world, to the silver company, as an example, for us to gather evidence if we can to prove that, in fact, malfeasance is being happening to our stocks and many in the sector. So, you know, I think that's the opportunity. Now, what we do with it is is up to the companies and up to some, you know, some new new approaches. I think this this problem. Right. So to torture the metaphor. Iraq is Gary Betten. There's an NHL franchise that's doing things poorly. And that franchise's fans are going to sue Batman to punish the franchise. That's, in essence, what you're asking for. And I'm going to bet you a thousand ounces of silver. That ain't going to happen. I don't think it's the fans, you know, in that analogy. Really, I don't I mean, if you if you look at look at the companies now, now, for example, you know, we're we're well along the path of this, because, you know, power nickels have been gathering evidence that that will be factual and hard data, virtually impossible to deny in our view. And we'll be taking that to the compliance departments of these investment banks in short order and we'll be saying, hey, here's what's happening in this brokerage arm of your your your bank. And they're they're doing these illegal, you know, acts. And here's evidence of it. And we get this evidence now every two weeks. And in two weeks, if it's still there, we're going to sue them. And we're going to take it to Iraq. But we're saying, hey, we're trying to we're not we don't want enemies in the investment, no public company with a rational mind would want that because they ought to re control the investors. What we want to say is, guys, here's a heads up. You've been playing the short game for a long time. That game's coming to an end. You need to get to the long game and either you get to that. And certainly on our stock, you're going to get to it quickly because we're going to we're going to prosecute or we're going to we're going to we're going to make noise and you're going to want to get off of our train. And that and individual companies are going to have to do that. And there's a pathway we think that that could be done and we'll see, but that'll be our approach. Yeah, the guidance from Iraq from the middle of August uses the word reasonable. The House has to have a reasonable expectation of covering the short. What's reasonable? We're going to write you back, Terry, and they're going to go, ah, we reasonably believe they were going to cover the short. They didn't. Oh, well. No, but the point is if they if they haven't, you know, what we'll be able to do is by, you know, collecting his data they're going to say, well, in fact, the short hasn't been covered. So you're on the hook to cover the short. You had this reasonable expectation. They're going to do it. They didn't as it turns out. Now who's on the hook? Well, Iraq has said you're on the hook. So you need to cover. We don't really give a shit who covers. You know, we need somebody to cover to go legitimately get stock and cover and close the trade. Because if they do that, then good things will happen to a whole sea of mining stocks and other stocks. I applaud your enthusiasm. I support your positive attitude towards this, but I will buy you a steak dinner at highs if it happens. That guidance is awful and it needs to be rewritten. OK, thank you, Peter. And thank you, Terry. I've heard both of what you're saying. However, what I want to know is how many people, you know, this isn't going to mean anything until we see some people being prosecuted. Terry, I know you're an expert on this. How many people are actually using this tool to prosecute? Do you have any stats or have they made this available to investors? Nobody has used this at this point in time. I don't think, you know, because it's just a fresh guidance. So there's been no real attempt at this point. I think attempts are, you know, now, you know, I know we are gathering evidence to to use this clarification to hopefully drive change in our particular stock. And if it works, then obviously we'll be communicating the tactics we used through the Save Canadian Mining Community and encouraging our friends and partners in that initiative to follow the same tactics and hopefully have the same results. And, you know, we'll see the evidence will be, you know, rapidly rising stops, you know, and cover it. So we'll see you in the next few months on that. And I'll tell you right now, we would love to support you. I'm sure there's people listening to this that would like to support you, Terry. So if they go to your Save Canadian Mining, they can receive more information. Yeah, we're, you know, Save Canadian Mining is, you know, been dormant a little bit for the last while as we're, you know, prosecuting our own businesses. But it's going to start to push out this fall now that Iraq has come out and we think we've got some new strategies that could be effective for our following growth. And we'll sort of start to push that information out as we receive it. And hopefully it'll help the whole community. And Peter, I happen to agree with you. This thing needs to be rewritten. I mean, I'm a publisher. I've read this a few times. I had to call you and Terry to find out what this even meant. How do we get them to rewrite this? I mean, when do we get Iraq to understand that it does matter that they write things in a way that we all can understand? And if they're going to use the term reasonable, it should be defined. What the heck that means? Yeah, your question is the right question. I don't have an answer for you. Iraq doesn't care. They don't care about me. They don't care about you. They don't care about anybody watching this video. Iraq cares about the brokerage firms. That's who it's protecting. And that guy from August 17th, I think it was, is an awful document for the average shareholder, but it protects the house. The house can now go, it was reasonable. We believe they were going to cover the short. Oh, it's reasonable. It's not my fault. It's a horrible document. It does not ban naked short selling. It doesn't. But it does put the liability on the house, which we can for the press. And I think this is the first time it's been squarely put on their blocks where they can't deny it. And then once you've got evidence that, in fact, they're not, you know, acting on the reasonable evidence to close their short position, then they're prosecutable. And then Iraq will have to end. You know, that's that's that's my perspective. And then how do you get the change? Well, our view of safety and money was you had to start with the biggest, you know, regulatory body internally in the country. That's Ontario Securities Commission. Right. So to get the Ontario Securities Commission to move, you need to start with the Ontario government, because it's a political issue. So that's why we've been lobbying the the Ford government to make the changes. There are several changes that they came out of that task force that we we think would be helpful. We think it's high time for review of the tick test officially. And those are things that we could, you know, push on the government as reasonable, reasonable measures to take to look after an investment public who is also the electing public. So you would think the government officials who want to get behind this one, because really those are the guys that are voting for the their, you know, their their their next term in office. Right. But you and I donate five hundred dollars to a political party. Right. The houses donate how much to a political party? Yeah, there's no question that they are there. They are the big seat of the table. I don't care about us. But you and me are irrelevant to Iraq. I agree. Iraq is, you know, there would be polite with us as they were with State of Kennedy. Mine, but until we, you know, we sort of pressed the case with the the Ontario government and God, you know, the, you know, the data they've actually shared with us, they were, you know, they were just slow, very slow. But, you know, I think now it's on us, collectively as a community to press the case with the government before government to start with, because you can't win if you don't have Ontario. You know, so you've got to get Ontario on side first. If you get Ontario on side, Quebec and D.C. and Alberta will come on side because it's good for investors. And ultimately, if the big guy stepped up Ontario, then the others will play ball. And so our efforts have to be, I think, you know, given it's a it's a volunteer thing has to be focused on the Ontario side of things. And and I believe, you know, I'm hearing good things from the back channels that that they're more open to being proactive this time around. So let's hope and oddly, New Brunswick. New Brunswick is the most vicious securities commission in Canada. And I mean that in the kindest way possible. They've got like six reporting issuers, but but they're very, very diligent in protecting their new Brunswick investors. So we need them on side too. OK, that sounds good. You know, the I mean, but I mean, that that is the way forward. That's the way to prosecute it is to get get the securities commissions on side and to get them on side, you got to get the governments on side. And for those of you as confused by this conversation as I am, we're going to draw diagrams. We're also going to follow up columns on this very timely matter that impacts us all because the rules need to be transparent for all of us to thrive as a whole. Thank you, both gentlemen, for your commitment to our markets. Cheers, guys.