Bridge, you have much more trust in the OSC's ability to move quickly and decisively than I do. I know of no case where a regulator has stepped in like that. I think that the point is made that if there are unscrupulous things going on, they are very difficult to detect.
If you were still holding your UUU shares, you would vote through a transfer agent who would then aggregate and communicate a number to UUU. You would not show up at a ballot box with your share certificates to prove your ownership and voting rights. The difference between those two ownerships (actual tangible shares vs. rights) is what is being identified in the study. That is a pretty murky world, as the study points out. Regulators are just too slow to identify and deal with this stuff.
In the US, it has taken lawsuits to expose it when it has occurred down there. In the meantime, the big players continually accused the plaintiffs of seeing things that just were not there.
If this type of thing is in play here, I doubt the regulators will ever shine a light on it. And for shareholders to ignore it is something that they do at their own peril. As Canadians, we get pretty upset when there are accusations of vote rigging in government elections and we demand proper controls to ensure that each voter can only vote once. Yet in proxy votes, where our money is invested, we put our heads in the sand. A very odd phenomenon.
The rise in the short position defies all logic, yet it continues. Somebody is playing at something. The fact that there is potential for abuse of short selling is just that--fact. It also a fact that it is difficult to detect this behavior by simply making inquiries. The real question here is: why is there such a rise in the short position under these circumstances?