My Province, Manitoba, Is Getting There

“The Manitoba NDP is pitching a plan to encourage people to ditch their fossil-fuel burning vehicles and switch to electric.
 
The plan was included in the opposition NDP’s alternative throne speech, released Friday ahead of the Progressive Conservative government’s throne speech, which Lt.-Gov. Janice Filmon is expected to read on Tuesday.
 
The NDP plan includes a zero-interest, government-backed loan for the purchase of electric vehicles, which would be paid back over the life of the vehicle. Under the plan, the province would pool revenue from its upcoming carbon tax, which would then be doled out to Manitobans as repayable loans.”
 
See Manitoba NDP floats idea of loans to help switch to electric vehicles
Manitoba is blessed with an abundance of renewable energy resources: wind, solar, hydro, forestry and crops. Unfortunately there is still a $billion or so spent every year for petroleum which is simply burned for heat. Many homes are still heated by oil fired furnaces and most automobiles are ICEd (Internal Combustion Engined), so we can do more.

The government of Manitoba has made plans for a modest tax on carbon but it’s not enough according to the New Democratic Party. They want to increase the tax and put the returns towards interest-free loans for purchasers of EVs. That would be good as I soon will be one… The federal government is requiring a tax on carbon but is allowing the provinces to configure it to suit their situations. I think Manitoba should tax my wife’s use of the SUV more… She needs to think electrically. 😉 I’m already there.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to My Province, Manitoba, Is Getting There

  1. oiaohm says:

    http://www.evshop.com.au/
    Deaf Spy depending on where you are you have places like ev shop. They are normally second hand ICE engine cars where something was wrong with the engine so like 2 to 5 years old before conversion. They have been stripped of the ICE engine and converted to full EV with regenerative braking and standard batteries. These over the long term can work out way cheaper because battery pack replacement/repair cost is way cheaper. Why is it way cheaper because if you order the right things you battery pack is repairable because is like VRUZEND kit because the batteries were never welded in but bolted in. The reality normally less than 10 percent of the battery cells is in fact dead and need replacing when the range decreases to not usable in an EV.

    So a cars that leave factory as a EV at this stage a lot of them are quite over priced particularly thinking they are designed for full battery replacement instead of designed with a repairable battery.

    So there are non luxurious model of EVs Deaf Spy prior life they were ICE engines in them so they don’t have the cool look at me I am driving an EV and they are one of the few forms of EV that does in fact recover the 10000 dollar of increase cost up front over time. Mostly instead of like leaf that needing like a $5500 battery replacement to restore range the conversion would be needing $500 dollars in cells replaced with $600 dollars in labor this makes your fuel savings higher than your battery cost by large margin.

    Working around electric forklift conversions I got to know about these groups doing car conversions as well. The difference between a conversion made EV with a repairable battery pack and non repairable battery pack in cost conversion is a wacky 150 dollars cheaper to the repairable.

    Deaf Spy I guess you never considered that a non luxurious model EV would have started life with a IC engine under the bonnet. Also you would not have looked at conversion made EV with repairable battery pack as they have very different cost figures to your out of factory built as EV with the welded assembled and hard to repair battery packs. This is why when I looked at the solo the first thing I looked at was could standard kit batteries be used in its mountings without having to change anything.

  2. Deaf Spy says:

    In the meanwhile, let’s see how Robert will prove that: “EVs are not expensive to buy unless it’s a luxurious model.”

  3. oiaohm says:

    http://www.acpi.info/
    There were 5 companies that started Acpi. Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, Phoenix, and Toshiba.
    2 of those companies got caught in Anti-trust investigations that is Intel and Microsoft.
    Robert, chooses to use Linux. He also chooses NOT to use Intel due to some monopoly conspiracy with Microsoft.
    Problem is this is not conspiracy when it documented fact. Also the intel ME cpu running a customized version of minix that if breached can control your complete over the internet is also kind of a problem with going with Intel. The amd psp chip is not much better.

    Uhhh, I know critical thinking is not your forte, but as you say and if that were the case, how pray tell is Robert using Linux right now? Robert, you, I or anyone else is not relegated to one OS or another.

    Please note Linux not any OS. Linux has had support from Intel, HP… and other vendors and developer reverse engineering the ACPI mess. Open source operating systems have shown more resistance to this kind of attack than closed source ones.

    Intel has provided reference implementation. Its interesting when you see that freebsd uses reference ACPI and Linux kernel uses highly modified version. Even the the open source you can see particular open source operating systems have issues dealing with the ACPI mess.

    Please note I said restricted choices. Not that we were to one OS choice. With the mess of ACPI it is possible to by a laptop that the only reason it fails to work with Linux and freebsd is one of the ACPI extensions so the laptop goes to sleep mode random-ally.

    Microsoft in the emails like
    http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf
    is very clear that their objective was to nuke us to only have 1 operating system. They failed to achieve this absolutely with the ACPI attempt. Also since Microsoft have not stopped attempting different things to make any other OS entering the market have issues with battery or compatibility or something else so that customers would have restricted choices.

    If Linux did not have the resources it has it would have gone by by like many other operating systems.

    Grece really you don’t have any critical thinking that email from bill gates should be alarm bells. Then the fact new Microsoft certified stuff fails to standard test suites. At this point anyone with critical thinking knows there is a trust problem. The fact Intel was caught with their hands in doing the same things.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp.
    There are many court cases the discovery in these cases brought out Intel working with Microsoft in some areas to eliminate OS competition as well as deals with vendors. Yes some of the Intel deals for Intel only chips was discount Microsoft licensing as well if they did not sell any other operating system.

    Grece maybe Robert knows the history of the different court cases of Anti-trust and you are clueless as normal.

  4. Grece says:

    Robert is not free to choose whatever OS because Microsoft by their actions in fact restricted the choices.

    Uhhh, I know critical thinking is not your forte, but as you say and if that were the case, how pray tell is Robert using Linux right now? Robert, you, I or anyone else is not relegated to one OS or another.

    Robert, chooses to use Linux. He also chooses NOT to use Intel due to some monopoly conspiracy with Microsoft.

    You should rethink what you wrote and hit the lamp post tonight.

  5. oiaohm says:

    As I said idiot, Robert is free to choose whatever OS he likes, he is just a cheap miser that refuses to pay for anything.
    Grece you idiot did you not read. Robert is not free to choose whatever OS because Microsoft by their actions in fact restricted the choices.

    So the pool of operating system Robert has to choose from has been insanely restricted by what Microsoft got away with. The fragmentation between ACPI and device tree and random vendor made up nightmares all comes from Microsoft adding not properly documented extensions to ACPI. This is just one of many things Microsoft did that has reduced the number of operating systems we have to choose from.

    Microsoft has not stopped either lets take exfat on sdxc. So now you have issue reading particular memory cards if you are attempting to make an competing OS. If there is a place to attempt perform anti-trust actions to reduce the ability for others to make operating systems expect to see Microsoft there attempting something.

  6. Grece says:

    As I said idiot, Robert is free to choose whatever OS he likes, he is just a cheap miser that refuses to pay for anything.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Grece free to use what ever OS you like got to be kidding me right.

    Linux kernel has to pretend its windows at times so bios/efi firmware works correctly. There is a reason behind this.
    http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf
    In 1999 as stated here Microsoft stated they wanted to make ACPI extended to be Microsoft particular and poorly documented for everyone else.

    2008 the foxconn case it comes out in public that Foxconn had used Microsoft firmware test suite and reference firmware that gave any OS claiming to be anything other than Windows ACPI functions that cannot work.

    Also in Microsoft documentation you find it pointing to ACPI 5.0 site instead of https://acpica.org/ that has the current version and a test suite. There has been a public test-suite since 2013. Horrible enough you can buy a brand new computer run the ACPI official test suite and find it broken out the box. Then you do that on many machines and you find they are all broken the same way. Then you go and talk to motherboard makers about it and you find out that they respond with alter your OS to match Windows behavior because they had to so they got Microsoft Windows certification from Microsoft.

    Grece like it or not Microsoft is documented as repeatably attempting to abuse their position to control the market. Yes stuffed up ACPI really does a number on battery life. You have to remember before 2013 there was no public test suite for ACPI.

    ACPI, Opengl and may other low level things operating systems need have been lacking public test suites to confirm work correct. By Microsoft emails the missing test suites has been exactly how Microsoft want it to make it hard for any competitor. These things have lead to the death of a lot of closed source operating systems due to lack of hardware support. Open source operating systems have been a lot more resilient against it.

    From my point of view Microsoft has already been subsidized due to all this anti-trust behavior they were allowed to get away with and how much competition was exterminated because of it. Of course there other parties who make hardware who should be gone after for going along with anti-trust behavior.

  8. Grece says:

    A monopoly?

    Microsoft isn’t a monopoly Robert, you are free to use whatever OS you want. There is NOTHING stopping you from using any form of IT at all. Stating that Microsoft is a monopoly is just silly.

    Tell me, what makes Microsoft have this alleged monopoly anyways?

  9. Grece wrote, “I think Microsoft should be subsidized Robert.”

    No one is talking about subsidizing a monopoly here. There are plenty of competitors in EV-land and they can all get a share of the subsidies. Some places went a bit far and had a subsidy specifically for “luxury” EVs, like Tesla, but that’s unusual. Usually it’s $x off the price or forgiveness for purchase taxes or $x or a cheap loan for installation of a charging station. Sometimes the subsidy goes to the seller and sometimes to the buyer. Sometimes it happens at the time of delivery and other times at tax-time. It’s all good. I think it would be smart if Canada and the provinces decided to forgive sales taxes on EVs starting in 2018 when I will buy mine. That would pay for the charging station and installation. The goal is not to enrich businesses making/selling EVs but to speed up the transition to electric transportation.

    Back in the day when Winnipeg was moving away from horse-drawn vehicles, Winnipeg Hydro and Winnipeg Transit were together as Winnipeg Electric and electric streetcars were installed. Both started as private enterprises but eventually were taken over by the city of Winnipeg. Such utilities cannot operate without some level of integration with government simply because you cannot easily have multiple businesses running electric lines overhead or in the streets. Are they subsidizing electric vehicles? At times, but EVs do run economically and they do raise revenue in public transit. Subsidizing personal EVs is not much different and reflects the growth in the size of the city and the number and length of commutes. When I was a kid, one could walk from downtown to the suburbs in 30 minutes. Now it takes a few hours. It makes sense to either subsidize mass transit or personal EVs or both to permit labour and customers and businesses to get together.

  10. Grece says:

    I think Microsoft should be subsidized Robert.

    Just think, a good change does more good done sooner. One can argue about the cost/benefit, but Windows just works, no more tripping over the command line and attempting to purchase theoretical weenie boards.

    It makes sense to me and would do no harm unless Linux is your business and you refuse to diversify. Move on.

  11. Grece wrote, “The imperfections, however, are typically short-term issues (e.g., electric cars) that the marketplace will address—if allowed.”

    I agree subsidies will eventually be removed but there’s nothing wrong with using the accelerator after a change in direction is decided. A good change does more good done sooner. One can argue about the cost/benefit. In Manitoba we import ~$1billion in petroleum annually but are self-sufficient in electricity. It would be a positive effect to reduce consumption of petroleum by subsidizing EVs. An EV can easily save $1500/a on fuel. A one-time subsidy of $1500 could save $30K on petroleum enough to make the next EV $free or to invest in other parts of the economy. It makes sense to me and would do no harm unless fuel is your business and you refuse to diversify. Move on.

  12. Grece says:

    I love how Fifi states there is no one here by that name, but then goes on to respond back anyways.

  13. Deaf Spy says:

    Go back under the lamppost, Fifi. Robert knows what I am talking about.

  14. Grece says:

    Government subsidies hurt the economy Robert.

    They distort economic activity as policymakers justify subsidies by arguing that they are needed to fix alleged imperfections in the marketplace. The imperfections, however, are typically short-term issues (e.g., electric cars) that the marketplace will address—if allowed.

    When the government subsidizes businesses, it weakens profit-and-loss signals in the economy and undermines market-based entrepreneurship.

  15. oiaohm says:

    Except that they are. I already showed you the numbers.
    Except as normal DeafSpy you have not. Instead you go around claiming stuff without in fact presenting the data.

    Also all new safety features have appears in luxurious models first and worked way down. Changing to a drive train to reduced toxin danger to driver would be a safety feature.

  16. oiaohm says:

    Now, Fifi, don’t be afraid to demonstrate your fine google-searching skills and pour us with irrelevant links.
    Deaf Spy there is no fifi here. The reality is a simple google search on if price effected if people smoke or not would have lead you to enough research papers to kill a cat saying it does.

    The reality is Deaf Spy is too much if a idiot even to do a basic google search to check if there is any counter information.

    I find it funny how you are irrelevant links then change you method. So the linked are not irrelevant its just that you don’t want to admit you were wrong. So you name call to feel better and avoid having to admit you are wrong. About time you face self in mirror Deaf Spy wait having to face self in mirror and waking up what bit of crap you are might causes you to kill self.

  17. Deaf Spy says:

    Again, EVs are not expensive to buy unless it’s a luxurious model.

    Except that they are. I already showed you the numbers.

  18. Deaf Spy wrote, “You get money from everyone to let hipsters (who have money, to start with) be able to purchase expensive toys cheaper. This is outright vile.”

    People who own cars obviously have money. EVs cost less to operate so people who own EVs can be quite frugal. I expect EVs will last longer than ICEd vehicles too simply because there are fewer moving parts. The average age of Leaf buyers is decreasing and more women are buying them. Biggest factor was a drop in price as Nissan moved production from Japan to USA, freight, I guess.

    Again, EVs are not expensive to buy unless it’s a luxurious model. The commuter’s car will be a similar price to an ICEd vehicle and costing less to drive. The subsidy is an encouragement, not a requirement. I would buy a Solo EV even if there is no subsidy except cheap electrical power. It’s just a better way to get from A to B.

  19. Deaf Spy says:

    Hard night under the lamppost again, wasn’t it, Fifi?

    I have only one word for Robert and you: Laki.

    Now, Fifi, don’t be afraid to demonstrate your fine google-searching skills and pour us with irrelevant links.

    P.S. Failing to understand what a luxury product is, is, well, ignorance. Might be also stupidity. 🙂

  20. oiaohm says:

    It helped nothing. I don’t know a single smoker who stopped because of pricey cigarettes. Smokers quit because they are convinced so for healthy reasons.
    http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_A2-06_Final_Report.pdf
    http://voxeu.org/article/do-higher-cigarette-prices-deter-smoking
    Deaf Spy there are studies all over the world that say that price is in fact a factor for those not highly addicted yet to cigarettes to quit. This are most likely people who you would most likely never think had been smokers.

    Basically here is DeafSpy going off with another made up arguement not based on fact. Fossil fuel taxes are most likely going to be the same. So when person need to buy replacement car then they will come more consider.

    And, comparing tobacco to ICEs is a demonstration of economic ignorance.
    This shows your medical ignorance.
    http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/10/18/the-link-between-air-pollution-and-cancer/

    Air pollution from ICE and other fossil fuels creates almost all the same cancers as tobacco at lower rates. Lung cancer in the UK 8 out of 10 are from tobacco the other 2 are from Air pollution this includes stuff coming out of ICE doing start stop. Air pollution explained why you would have from time to time people with cancers like exposure to smoking yet never smoked and lived somewhere where no one smoked. These places in Australia where stuff like this happen person was driving 300-400kms to get supplies so that was there equal to smoking exposure.

    Deaf Spy basically please do some research before commenting again so you are not doing another clueless moron post.

    Fossil fuel has been an easy power source but it comes with a hell of a price that we mostly did not identify due to how common smoking was and as smoking is coming less common the price of fossil fuels is starting to come displayed in medical data of people treated.

  21. Deaf Spy says:

    Governments are just giving EVs a little push and that’s no great harm.

    Of course it is a great harm. You get money from everyone to let hipsters (who have money, to start with) be able to purchase expensive toys cheaper. This is outright vile.

    Taxing tobacco helped. So will taxing ICEs.

    It helped nothing. I don’t know a single smoker who stopped because of pricey cigarettes. Smokers quit because they are convinced so for healthy reasons.

    And, comparing tobacco to ICEs is a demonstration of economic ignorance.

  22. Grece says:

    They want to increase the tax and put the returns towards interest-free loans for purchasers of EVs.

    That being the case, it sure won’t be Solo’s they will be purchasing.

  23. oiaohm says:

    http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions

    Kurkosdr Cargo ships we can fairly much leave to their own devices. From 2007 to 2012 they have in fact reduced their emissions 10 percent and working on reducing that more. Moved more cargo emitted CO2 and toxic chemicals. Rail is doing ok could do better. Road transport is in the sticks. Air transport is complete mess.

    If you don’t want a London-style housing crisis, you ‘d better wish people have access to affordable cars and that the authorities are not hostile towards private cars, so people can afford to live in exurbia.
    Kurkosdr why did London turn on cars/trucks.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/china-smog-deaths-2016-12?IR=T
    You don’t want to end up here were over 1/3 of your countries death trace to your usage of fossil fuels. So you can forget Co2 as the only problem. As smoking numbers have reduced the items that can be blamed on second hand smoke has not reduce as fast as the smoking rate because those are coming from fossil fuel usage as well.

    If using fossil fuels only emitted Co2 and H20 that would be one thing problem is they admit toxic by products as well that have quite a cost on health. So it does not take genius to work out that in countries where the government is footing the medical bill that they will turn on items using fossil fuel sooner or latter to attempt to save on the medical bill. It basically makes government economical sense to be hard on fossil fuel due to how much work people miss due to illness that trace to fossil fuel toxic chemical exposure.

    Even with those outlandish assumptions, you are looking at an impact of around 8 percentage points.
    But it would be a reduction in exposure of children who body are less able to cope with the toxic parts from fossil fuel by over 95 percent. Yes the early exposure does show up in the latter life as forms of cancer. So its not the cut in Co2 that should be driving this. The cut in long term medical bill and expanding number of years of productive work the population can perform.

  24. Ivan says:

    Well then, at least the incoming ISIS fighters will increase your tax base.

  25. kurkosdr wrote, “It’s about restricting access to cars for people, which means restricting access to suburbia and exurbia, which means people are less likely to become property owners and think of stop being part of the electoral clientele of the liberals and socialists.”

    Nonsense. EV-ness is not about left or right. It’s about efficiency and health. No one wants to breathe automobile-exhaust. It’s also totally unnecessary. Further, for the same use of energy an EV can go 3-5 times further. Going electric makes sense to everyone who thinks about it.

    EVs will come down in price as the cost of batteries continues to fall. That’s a good thing, right? Technology and mass-production work. Instead of producing ICEs the world can produce batteries and motors and get better results. The market would adopt EVs eventually. Governments are just giving EVs a little push and that’s no great harm. Drivers are supposed to watch the road ahead instead of getting into trouble. It’s the same with governments. If someone knows a bad result will happen with a continuation of current operations it makes sense to change. Taxing tobacco helped. So will taxing ICEs.

  26. kurkosdr says:

    Canada says 27% and most of it is avoidable by using EVs.

    You are aware that “transportation” includes everything from cargo ships to trains to airplanes, right?

    In fact, the numbers you provide say that all “road going transportation” is 27*0.69=18.63 percentage points. And that includes trucks, buses, post office vans, everything.

    But anyway, let’s assume that only 2 precentage points are not private cars.

    Also let’s assume that half of the Canada’s cars are made electric overnight, and that they are charged exclusively from renewables and nuclear.

    Even with those outlandish assumptions, you are looking at an impact of around 8 percentage points.

    8, freaking, percent.

    You want to make ICE’d cars unaffordable to a great deal of people for a measly 8% reduction in CO2 emissions, miracle case scenario.

    And YOU might have the money to buy an electric car and maintain access to your suburban/exurbian home, but other drivers may not and may only be able to afford an Aveo.

    I ‘ll be clear to you Pog: The reason liberal and socialist politicians are hostile towards affordable ICE’d cars is not because of the 8% gain in CO2 emissions (miracle case scenario again). It’s about restricting access to cars for people, which means restricting access to suburbia and exurbia, which means people are less likely to become property owners and think of stop being part of the electoral clientele of the liberals and socialists.

    Liberals and socialists hate a strong middle class with property that isn’t so dependent on the government.

  27. “you totally screwed the middle class to achieve it.”

    I’m definitely middle class and I will benefit enormously by going electric. Our home is electric and we’ve saved $thousands because of geothermal heat and passive solar heating besides. When I was a kid we used wood heat to great benefit. The first home TLW and I built used wood heat too. There’s just no need to use petroleum for heating. Don’t think locally and everything becomes clear. With a grid those with abundant renewable energy can supply those with fewer local resources.

  28. Canada says 27% and most of it is avoidable by using EVs.

    “The transportation sector in Canada is a significant emitter of GHGs. According to Environment Canada, in 2007 transportation was responsible for 27% (200,000 kt of CO2 eq) of the total GHG emissions (747,000 kt of CO2 eq). Road transportation accounted for 69% (137,000 kt of CO2 eq) of the GHG emissions within the sector.”

  29. Kurkosdr says:

    In the short term, some people will be harmed by carbon taxes etc. but in the long term their descendants might actually be able to survive.

    Ah, the illusion that electric cars will save the planet. You sir, are being fed a steady diet of liberal green propaganda (which serves as an excuse for the government to implement a heavily dirigiste policy and for them to sink their hand on your pocket).

    Homework for Pog:

    1) Find out what percentage of CO2 emissions come from the tailpipes of private cars.

    2) Find out what percentage of those CO2 emissions come from cars in Africa or Middle East, Mongolia or Russia, where cars are replaced very slowly.

    Even in a hypothetical future where everybody in the first world got an electric car tomorrow, and 100% of the electricity they consume comes from renewables or nuclear, there, there is your gain.

    And you totally screwed the middle class to achieve it.

    Let me put this in terms you understand: If you don’t want a London-style housing crisis, you ‘d better wish people have access to affordable cars and that the authorities are not hostile towards private cars, so people can afford to live in exurbia.

    I know, this is small print for the Pogs of this world who are mentally stuck in the intellectual level needed to understand Saturday morning cartoons with characters called “Gaia” and the like. Because this is the narrative you are being essentially fed.

  30. Kurkosdr wrote, “Screwing the little guy who wants to buy a cheap Aveo or i10 to get to work because his house or place of employment is not covered by public transportation, yesss!”

    In the short term, some people will be harmed by carbon taxes etc. but in the long term their descendants might actually be able to survive. Life is about taking care of descendants, eh? What’s the point of leaving them a cinder in space? Folks who live in cities will be the first to benefit from electrified transportation, then commuters and finally, everyone else. One of the roles of government is to help society make hard choices like going to war or saving the planet. The latter shouldn’t be hard but some people don’t think very well. People survived millions of years before petroleum. They can survive after petroleum too. We’ve figured out better ways of doing things like the invention of electrification, electronics, computers, radio, writing, etc.

  31. oiaohm says:

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2000-a-year-the-environmental-cost-of-your-petrol-car-30821/
    Kurkosdr there is a harder question here. Should people driving electrics be picking up the medical costs that normal fuel burning are causing in general taxation?

    Interesting enough Grece I have pointed out the nightmares of coal before. But even a electric car powered by coal power station has a lower number of medical issues caused than a fuel powered car driving in a city. Start stop is a real killer for making pollution numbers from fossil fuels engines worse as they don’t get to remain at optimal burning temperature .

    There also an issue having enough air to dilute the fumes before they come into contact with humans.

    Sorry Grece there is medical data telling us we need to be way more careful how we use fossil fuels and what ones we use particularly if we want to make living to 100 years old common.

    So there does need to be so much taxation on fossil fuels to cover the future medical costs from exposure to the fumes in countries that have government funded medical.

  32. Kurkosdr says:

    Yeah, eliminate the price gap between “ICE’d” and electric cars by making “ICE’d” cars artificially more expensive through taxation.

    Screwing the little guy who wants to buy a cheap Aveo or i10 to get to work because his house or place of employment is not covered by public transportation, yesss!

  33. Grece says:

    Only a fool, would openly enjoin increased taxation. How about you send 100% of your pension checks to the government of Manitoba Robert.

    It’s the least you could do.

    While doing that, sell said SUV, and turn off your electric and heat as well. It it uses that EVIL fossil fuels.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *