Automotive
Should I buy a new car or a used car?
This is a question a lot of people ask themselves, and you should when looking
to purchase a new vehicle at a dealership. Your vehicle has been a part of your
life and holds a certain value whether its monetary or sentimental. There are
advantages and disadvantages when making this decision and it is different for
each situation.
Advantages:
• Don’t have to sell privately
• Tax savings passed on to the new vehicle purchase
• Don’t have to wait for a buyer and can drive away in
your new vehicle sooner
• Proper paperwork and process including paying out
your current vehicle lien
• Carrying over a balance of previous loan
Disadvantages:
• Accepting less money for the vehicle than you could
potentially sell it for yourself
• Feeling uncertain that you are getting the best value
• Having to trust what the Salesperson is telling you
When you trade the vehicle in you don’t have to sell the car privately with
people coming to test drive it that you possibly don’t know which can have
risk – your Insurance coverage and theirs, their driving record or habits, theft
along with marketing and advertising the vehicle yourself. For consumers who
want to sell privately we recommend having an AMVIC Inspection, repair any
safety items, have the car detailed and provide a Carproof TM report for potential
buyers. To help consumers better understand the dealership process we need
to complete all these to prepare the vehicle for sale, pay to advertise the vehicle,
pay commission to a salesperson for selling the car and lastly making some
profit for the business.
If you are looking to sell your car privately we can assist you with that process
too, we offer a variety of inspections with detailing services and will assist on
the ad write up. We hope this information was useful and if you have any
further questions that we can help with please don’t hesitate to contact me at
the dealership 403.343.6633
Automotive
Canada’s EV experiment has FAILED
By Dan McTeague
The government’s attempt to force Canadians to buy EVs by gambling away billions of tax dollars and imposing an EV mandate has been an abject failure.
GM and Stellantis are the latest companies to back track on their EV plans in Canada despite receiving billions in handouts from Canadian taxpayers.
Dan McTeague explains in his latest video.
Automotive
Carney’s Budget Risks Another Costly EV Bet
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
GM’s Ontario EV plant was sold as a green success story. Instead it collapsed under subsidies, layoffs and unsold vans
Every age invents new names for old mistakes. In ours, they’re sold as investments. Before the Carney government unveils its November budget promising another future paid for in advance, Canadians should remember Ingersoll, Ont., one of the last places a prime minister tried to buy tomorrow.
Eager to transform the economy, in December 2022, former prime minister Justin Trudeau promised that government backing would help General Motors turn its Ingersoll plant into a beacon of green industry. “By 2025 it will be producing 50,000 electric vehicles per year,” he declared: 137 vehicles daily, six every hour. What sounded like renewal became an expensive demonstration of how progressive governments peddle rampant spending as sound strategy.
The plan began with $259 million from Ottawa and another $259 million from Ontario: over half a billion to switch from Equinox production to BrightDrop electric delivery vans. The promise was thousands of “good, middle-class jobs.”
The assembly plant employed 2,000 workers before retooling. Today, fewer than 700 remain; a two-thirds collapse. With $518 million in public funds and only 3,500 vans built in 2024, taxpayers paid $148,000 per vehicle. The subsidy works out to over half a million dollars per remaining worker. Two out of every three employees from Trudeau’s photo-op are now unemployed.
The failure was entirely predictable. Demand for EVs never met the government’s plan. Parking lots filled with unsold inventory. GM did the rational thing: slowed production, cut staff and left. The Canadian taxpayer was left to pay the bill.
This reveals the weakness of Ottawa’s industrial policy. Instead of creating conditions for enterprise, such as reliable energy, stable regulation, and moderate taxes, progressive governments spend to gain applause. They judge success by the number of jobs announced, yet those jobs vanish once the cameras leave.
Politicians keep writing cheques to industry. Each administration claims to be more strategic, yet the pattern persists. No country ever bought its way into competitiveness.
Trudeau “bet big on electric vehicles,” but betting with other people’s money isn’t vision; it’s gambling. The wager wasn’t on technology but narrative, the naive idea that moral intention could replace market reality. The result? Fewer jobs, unwanted products and claims of success that convinced no one.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has mastered the same rhetorical sleight of hand. Spending becomes “investment,” programs become “platforms.” He promises to “catalyze unprecedented investments” while announcing fiscal restraint: investing more while spending less. His $13-billion federal housing agency is billed as a future investment, though it’s immediate public spending under a moral banner.
“We can build big. Build bold. Build now,” Carney declared, promising infrastructure to “reduce our vulnerabilities.” The cadence of certainty masks the absence of limits. Announcing “investment” becomes synonymous with action itself; ambition replaces accountability.
The structure mirrors the Ingersoll case: promise vast returns from state-directed spending, redefine subsidy as vision, rely on tomorrow to conceal today’s bill. “Investment” has become the language of evasion, entitlement and false pride.
As Carney prepares his first budget, Canadians should remember what happened when their last leader tried to buy a future with lavish “investment.”
A free economy doesn’t need bribery to breathe. It requires the discipline of risk and liberty to fail without dragging a country down. Ingersoll wasn’t undone by technology but by ideological conceit. Prosperity cannot be decreed and markets cannot be commanded into obedience.
Every age invents new names for old mistakes. Ours keeps making the same ones. Entitled hubris knows no bounds.
Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
-
Business2 days agoCarney government should retire misleading ‘G7’ talking point on economic growth
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoBizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves
-
Alberta2 days agoCanada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoPro-freedom group warns Liberal bill could secretly cut off Canadians’ internet access
-
Daily Caller2 days agoNigeria Would Welcome US Intervention In Massacre Of Christians By Islamic Terror Groups
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoA Story So Good Not Even The Elbows Up Crew Could Ruin It
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV experiment has FAILED
-
Business1 day agoCarney government’s first budget should signal end to crippling ‘climate’ policies




