Opinion
Budget 2019 – Poor wording requires 2 ex-spouses within 5 years for Home Buyers Plan

This is one of those rare times I hope I am wrong in my interpretation, and look forward to being proven wrong by my professional colleagues.
On March 19, 2019 the federal government tabled its election-year budget. One of the newest and strangest provisions is the ability for people going through a separation or divorce to potentially have access to their RRSP under the Home Buyers Plan.
Now in my article and podcast entitled: “Escape Room – The NEW Small Business Tax Game – Family Edition” with respect to the Tax On Split Income (TOSI) rules, I made a tongue in cheek argument that people will be better off if they split, because then the TOSI rules wonāt apply.
In keeping with the divorce theme, beginning in the year of hindsight, 2020, the federal government is giving you an incentive to split up and get your own place.
However, there are a few hoops:
On page 402 of the budget, under new paragraph 146.01(2.1)(a), at the time of your RRSP withdrawal under the Home Buyers Plan, you must make sure that:
- – the home you are buying is not the current home you are living in and you are disposing of the interest in the current home within two years; or
- – you are buying out your former spouse in your current home; and
you need to:
- be living separate and apart from your spouse or common-law partner;
- have been living separate and apart for a period of at least 90 days (markdown October 3, 2019 on the calendar),
- began living separate and apart from your spouse or common-law partner, this year, or any time in the previous 4 years (ok, you donāt have to wait for October); and…
…here is where the tabled proposed legislation gets messy.
Proposed subparagraph 146.01(2.1)(a)(ii) refers to where the individual
- wouldnāt be entitled to the home buyers plan because of living with a previous spouse in the past 4 years that isnāt the current spouse they are separating from
“(ii) in the absence of this subsection, the individual would not have a regular eligible amount because of the application of paragraph (f) of that definition in respect of a spouse or common-law partner other than the spouse referred to in clauses (i)(A) to (C), and⦔
The problem with the wording of this provision, is that it is written in the affirmative by the legislators using the word āandā. This means, you must be able to answer ātrueā to all the tests for the entire paragraph to apply.
The way I read this, the only way to answer ātrueā to this subparagraph is if you have a second spouse (ie: spouse other than the spouse referred to) that you shared a home with and you split from in the past four years.
If you have a second spouse that you shared a home with in the past four years, then āparagraph (f)ā in the definition of āregular eligible amountā would apply and the answer would be ātrueā.
If the answer is “true” you can then get access to your RRSP Home Buyers Plan.
If you donāt have a second spouse then, even though “paragraph (f)” might be met, the phrase āspouse other than the spouse referred toā would not be met, and therefore the answer would be āfalseā.
This would, in turn, cause the entire logic test of the provision to be āfalseā and so you would not be able to take out a āregular eligible amountā from your RRSP for the Home Buyers plan because you do not meet the provisions.
If my interpretation is correct then I would really be curious as to what part of the economy they are trying to stimulate.
In my opinion the legislation could be fixed with a simple edit:
“(ii) in the absence of this subsection, the individual would not have a regular eligible amount because of the application of paragraph (f) of that definition in respect of:
(A) a spouse or common-law partner; or
(B) a spouse or common-law partner other than the spouse referred to in clauses (i)(A) to (C); and…”
—
Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the President & Founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors; you can find out more about Coryās biography at http://www.CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html
espionage
FBIās Dan Bongino may resign after dispute about Epstein files with Pam Bondi

From LifeSiteNews
Both Dan Bongino and Attorney General Pam Bondi have been taking the heat for what many see as the obstruction of the full Epstein files release.
FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino took the day off on Friday after an argument with Attorney General Pam Bondi over the handling of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epsteinās case files.
One source close to Bongino told Axios that āhe aināt coming back.ā Multiple sources said the dispute erupted over surveillance footage from outside Epsteinās jail cell, where he is said to have killed himself. Bongino had found the video and ātouted it publicly and privately as proof that Epstein hadnāt been murdered,ā AxiosĀ noted.
After it was found that there was a missing minute in the footage, the result of a standard surveillance reset at midnight, Bongino was āblamed internally for the oversight,ā according to three sources.
Trump supporter and online influencer Laura Loomer firstĀ reportedĀ Friday on X that Bongino took the day off and that he and FBI Director Kash Patel were āfuriousā with the way Bondi had handled the case.
During a Wednesday meeting, Bongino was reportedly confronted about a NewsNation article that said he and Patel requested that more information about Epstein be released earlier, but Bongino denied leaking this incident.
āPam said her piece. Dan said his piece. It didnāt end on friendly terms,ā said one source who heard about the exchange, adding that Bongino left angry.
The meeting followed Bondiās controversialĀ releaseĀ of a bombshell memo in which claimed there is no Epstein āclient listā and that āno further disclosure is warranted,ā contradicting Bondiās earlier statement that there were ātens of thousands of videosā providing the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has āno legal basis to do so.ā
The memo āis attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug,ā according to independent investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger in aĀ superb analysis published on X.
āThe DOJās sudden claim that no āclient listā exists after years of insinuating otherwise is a slap in the face to accountability,ā DOGEai noted in its response to the Shellenberger piece. āIf agencies canāt document basic facts about one of the most notorious criminal cases in modern history, thatās not a paperwork problem ā itās proof the system protects its own.ā
During a recent broadcast, Tucker Carlson discussed Bondiās refusal to release sealed Epstein files, along with the FBI and DOJĀ announcementĀ that Epstein did not have a client list and did indeed kill himself.
Carlson offered the theory that U.S. intelligence services are āat the very center of this storyā and are being protected. His guest, Saagar Enjeti, agreed. āThatās the most obvious [explanation],ā Enjeti said, referencing past CIA-linked pedophilia cases. He noted the agency had avoided prosecutions for fear suspects would reveal āsources and methodsā in court.
Investigative journalist Whitney Webb has discussed in her book āOne Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime That Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein,ā how the intelligence community leverages sex trafficking through operatives like Epstein to blackmail politicians, members of law enforcement, businessmen, and other influential figures.
Just one example of evidence of this, according to Webb, is former U.S. Secretary of Labor and U.S. Attorney Alexander Acostaās explanation as to why he agreed to a non-prosecution deal in the lead-up to Epsteinās 2008 conviction of procuring a child for prostitution. AcostaĀ toldĀ Trump transition team interviewers that he was told that Epstein ābelonged to intelligence,ā adding that he was told to āleave it alone,ā The Daily BeastĀ reported.
While Epstein himself never stood trial, as heĀ allegedly committed suicide while under āsuicide watchā in his jail cell in 2019, many have questioned the suicide and whether the well-connected financier was actually murdered as part of a cover-up.
These theories were only emboldened when investigative reporters at Project Veritas discovered that ABC and CBS NewsĀ quashedĀ a purportedly devastating report exposing Epstein.
National
How Long Will Mark Carneyās Post-Election Honeymoon Last? ā Michelle Rempel Garner

From Energy Now
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney seems to be enjoying a bit of a post-election honeymoon period with voters. This is a normal phenomenon in Canadian politics ā our electorate tends to give new leaders the benefit of the doubt for a time after their election.
So the obvious question that arises in this circumstance is, how long will it last?
Iāve had a few people ask me to speculate about that over the last few weeks. Itās not an entirely straightforward question to answer, because external factors often need to be considered. However, leaders have a lot of control too, and on that front, questions linger about Mark Carneyās long-term political acumen. So letās start there.
Having now watched the man in action for a hot minute, there seems to be some legs to the lingering perception that, as a political neophyte, Mr. Carney struggles to identify and address political challenges. In the over 100 days that heās now been in office, heās laid down some proof points on this front.
For starters, Mr. Carney seems to not fully grasp that his post-election honeymoon is unfolding in a starkly different political landscape than that of his predecessor in 2015. When former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau secured a majority government, he inherited a balanced federal budget, a thriving economy, and a stable social fabric from the prior Conservative government. These favorable conditions gave Trudeau the time and flexibility to advance his political agenda. By contrast, Canadians today are grappling with crises in affordability, employment, and crime ā issues that were virtually non-existent in 2015. As a result, public patience with a new political leader may wear thin much more quickly now than it did a decade ago.
So in that, Carney doesnāt have much time to make material progress on longstanding irritants like crime and affordability, but to date, he really hasnāt. In fact, he hasnāt even dedicated much space in any of his daily communications to empathizing with the plight of the everyday Canadian, eschewing concern for bread and butter issues for colder corporate speak. So if predictions about a further economic downturn in the fall ring true, he may not have the longer term political runway Justin Trudeau once had with the voting public, which doesnāt bode well for his long term favourables.
Carneyās apparent unease with retail politics wonāt help him on that front, either. For example, at the Calgary Stampede, while on the same circuit, I noticed him spending the bulk of his limited time at events ā even swish cocktail receptions ā visibly eyeing the exit, surrounded by an entourage of fartcatchers whose numbers would have made even Trudeau blush. Unlike Trudeau, whose personal charisma secured three election victories despite scandals, Carney struggles to connect with a crowd. This political weakness may prove fatal to his prospects for an extended honeymoon, even with the Liberal brand providing cover.
Itās also too early to tell if Carney has anyone in his inner circle capable of grasping these concepts. That said, leaders typically donāt cocoon themselves away from people who will give blunt political assessments until the very end of their tenures when their political ends are clear to everyone but them. Nonetheless, Carney seems to have done exactly that, and compounded the problem of his lack of political acumen, by choosing close advisors who have little retail political experience themselves. While some haveĀ lauded this lack of political experience as a good thing, not having people around the daily table or group chat who can interject salient points about how policy decisions will impact the lives of day to day Canadians probably wonāt help Carney slow the loss of his post-election shine.
Further proof to this point are the post-electionĀ grumblings that have emerged from the Liberal caucus. Unlike Trudeau, who started his premiership with an overwhelming majority of his caucus having been freshly elected, Carney has a significant number of old hands in his caucus who carry a decade of internal drama, inflated sense of worth, and personal grievances amongst them. As a political neophyte, Carney not only has to prove to the Canadian public that he has the capacity to understand their plight, he also has to do the same for his caucus, whose support he will uniformly need to pass legislation in a minority Parliament.
To date, Carney has not been entirely successful on that front. In crafting his cabinet, he promoted weak caucus members into key portfolios like immigration, kept loose cannons in places where they can cause a lot of political damage (i.e.Ā Steven Guilbeaut in Heritage),Ā unceremoniously dumped mavericksĀ who possess big social media reach without giving them a task to keep them occupied, and passed over senior members of the caucus who felt they should either keep their jobs or have earned a promotion after carrying water for a decade. Underestimating the ability of a discontented caucus to derail a leaderās political agenda ā either byĀ throwing a wrench into the gears of Parliament,Ā leaking internal drama to media, orĀ underperformanceĀ ā is something that Carney doesnāt seem to fully grasp. Said differently, Carneyās (in)ability to manage his caucus will have an impact on how long the shine stays on him.
Mark Carneyās honeymoon as a public figure also hinges upon his (arguably hilarious) assumption that the federal public service operates in the same way that private sector businesses do. Take for example, a recent (and hamfistedly) leaked headline, proactivelyĀ warning senior public servants thatĀ he might fire them. In the corporate world, where bonuses and promotions are tied to results, such conditions are standard (and in most cases, entirely reasonable). Yet, after a decade of Liberal government expansion and lax enforcement of performance standards, some bureaucrats have grown accustomed to and protective of Liberal slipshod operating standards. Carney may not yet understand that many of these folks will happily leak sensitive information or sabotage policy reforms to preserve their status quo, and that both eleganceĀ andĀ political will is required to enact change within the Liberalās bloated government.
On that front, Mr. Carney has already gained a reputation for being dismissive and irritable with various players in the political arena. While this quick-tempered demeanor may have remained understated during his relatively brief ascent to the Prime Ministerās office, continued impatience could soon become a prominent issue for both him and his party. WhetherĀ dismissing reportersĀ orĀ publicly slighting senior cabinet members, if Carney sustains this type of arrogance and irritability he wonāt be long for the political world. Without humility, good humor, patience, and resilience he wonāt be able to convince voters, the media, the bureaucracy, and industry to support his governing agenda.
But perhaps the most important factor in judging how long Mr. Carneyās honeymoon will last is that to date he has shown a striking indifference to nuclear-grade social policy files like justice, immigration, and public safety. His appointment of underperforming ministers to these critical portfolios and the absence of a single government justice bill in Parliamentās spring session ā despite crime being a major voter concern ā is a big problem. Carney himself rarely addresses these issues ā likely due to a lack of knowledge and care ā leaving them to the weakest members of his team. None of this points to long term political success for Carney.
So Mr. Carney needs to understand that Canadians are not sterile, esoteric units to be traded in a Bay Street transaction. They are real people living real lives, with real concerns that he signed up to address. He also needs to understand that politics (read, the ability to connect with oneās constituents and deliver for them) isnāt an avocation ā itās a learned skill of which he is very much still a novice practitioner.
Honeymoon or not, these laws of political gravity that Mr. Carney canāt avoid for long, particularly with an effective opposition litigating his governmentās failures.
In that, I think the better question is not if Mark Carney can escape that political gravity well, but whether heāll stick around once his ship inevitably gets sucked into it.
Only time ā and the countryās fortunes under his premiership ā will tell.
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
9 Things You Should Know About PK/PD in Drug Research
-
Business2 days ago
āExpertsā Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina ā Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong
-
Business2 days ago
Cannabis Legalization Is Starting to Look Like a Really Dumb Idea
-
Business2 days ago
WEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X
-
Business1 day ago
Carney government should recognize that private sector drives Canadaās economy
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
The Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Automotive2 days ago
Americaās EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field
-
Media1 day ago
CBC journalist quits, accuses outlet of anti-Conservative bias and censorship