A look at the form of proxy filed on SEDAR, clearly shows that a majority voting policy has not been implimented by management. The policy; Majority Voting Policy, enables shareholders to vote "for" or "against" directors, without this policy in place, shareholders may only vote "for" or "withhold" their vote on Directors. In the "withhold" scenario, a director can never be replaced by your votes, so even if a director receives 50 million votes as "withholds", and receive 1 vote "for", they still remain in office and are voting in legally.

By having a "Majority Voting Policy" in place, the shareholders have full rights that enable them to vote "for" or "against", and can remove directors by voting more shares "against", than "for".

Under current and the last several years of circumstance, it is very clear that by management not implimenting the "Majority Voting Policy", that they are attempting to further entrench management and have no regard for shareholders best interests. This apparent selfish act can be connected to breach of fudiciary duty as well, to the respect that managements interests are put above shareholders best interests. Also, an abuse of power seems it is displayed.This type of act is contrary to several TSX Policies as well as certain securitiy provisions and perhaps even business acts, enacted or implimented to secure shareholder protection.

The TSX as well as any global securities commission has the power and the right to step in here under the upholding of integrity in the markets, among other suitable avenues.

Lets see what they do. :)

thank you

rick