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 won’t 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 don’t 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
- wouldn’t be entitled to the home buyers plan because of living with a previous spouse in the past 4 years that isn’t 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 “and”. This means, you must be able to answer “true” to all the tests for the entire paragraph to apply.
The way I read this, the only way to answer “true” 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 “paragraph (f)” in the definition of “regular eligible amount” would apply and the answer would be “true”.
If the answer is “true” you can then get access to your RRSP Home Buyers Plan.
If you don’t have a second spouse then, even though “paragraph (f)” might be met, the phrase “spouse other than the spouse referred to” would not be met, and therefore the answer would be “false”.
This would, in turn, cause the entire logic test of the provision to be “false” and so you would not be able to take out a “regular eligible amount” 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 Cory’s biography at http://www.CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html
Bruce Dowbiggin
Integration Or Indignation: Whose Strategy Worked Best Against Trump?
““He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.” George Bernard Shaw
In the days immediately following Donald Trump’s rude intervention into the 2025 Canadian federal election— suggesting Canada might best choose American statehood— two schools of thought emerged.
The first and most impactful school in the short term was the fainting-goat response of Canadian’s elites. Sensing an opening in which to erode Pierre Poilievre’s massive lead in the 2024 polls over Justin Trudeau, the Laurentian elite concocted Elbows Up, a self-pity response long on hurt feelings and short on addressing the issues Trump had cited in his trashing of the Canadian nation state.
In short order they fired Trudeau into oblivion, imported career banker Mark Carney as their new leader in a sham convention and convinced Canada’s Boomers that Trump had the tanks ready to go into Saskatchewan at a moment’s notice. The Elbows Up meme— citing Gordie Howe— clinched the group pout.

(In fact, Trump has said that America is the world’s greatest market, and if those who’ve used it for free in the past [Canada] want to keep special access they need to pay tariffs to the U.S. or drop protectionist charges on dairy and more against the U.S.)
The ruse worked out better than they could have ever imagined with Trump even saying he preferred to negotiate with Carney over Poilievre. In short order the Tories were shoved aside, the NDP kneecapped and the pet media anointed Carney the genius skewing Canada away from its largest trade partner to the Eurosphere. We remain in that bubble, although the fulsome promises of Carney’s first days are now coming due.
Which brings us to the second reaction. That was Alberta premier Danielle Smith bolting to Mar A Lago in the days following Trump’s comments. Her goal was to put pride aside and accept that a new world order was in play for Canada. She met with U.S. officials and, briefly, with Trump to remind them that Canada’s energy industry was integral to American prosperity and Canadian stability.
Needless to say, the fainting goats pitched a fit that not everyone was clutching pearls and rending garments in the wake of Trump’s dismissive assessment of his northern neighbours. Their solution to Trump was to join China in retaliatory tariffs— the only two nations to do so— and to boycott American products and travel. Like the ascetic monks they cut themselves off from real life. Trump has yet to get back to Carney the Magnificent

And Smith? She was a “traitor” or a “subversive” who should be keel hauled in the North Saskatchewan. For much of the intervening months she has been attacked at home in Alberta by the N-Deeps and in Ottawa by just about everyone on CBC, CTV, Global and the Globe & Mail. “How could she meet with the Cheeto?”
Nonetheless conservatives in the province moved toward a more independence within Canada. Smith articulated her demands for Alberta to prevent a referendum on whether to remain within Confederation. At the top of her list were pipelines and access to tidewater. Ergo, a no-go for BC’s squish premier David Eby who is the process of handing over his province to First Nations.
It became obvious that for all of Carney’s alleged diplomacy in Europe and Asia (is the man ever home?) he had a brewing disaster in the West with Alberta and Saskatchewan growing restless. In a striking move against the status quo, Nutrien announced it would ship its potash to tidewater via the U.S., thereby bypassing Vancouver’s strike-prone, outdated port and denying them billions.

Suddenly, Smith’s business approach began making eminent good sense if the goal is to keep Canada as one. So we saw last week’s “memorandum of understanding” between Alberta and Ottawa trading off carbon capture and carbon taxes for potential pipelines to tidewater on the B.C. coast. A little bit of something for everyone and a surrender on other things.
The most amazing feature of the Mark Carney/Danielle Smith MOU is that both politicians probably need the deal to fail. Carney can tell fossil-fuel enemy Quebec that he tried to reason with Smith, and Smith can say she tried to meet the federalists halfway. Failure suits their larger purposes. Which is for Carney to fold Canada into Euro climate insanity and Smith into a strong leverage against the pro-Canada petitioners in her province.
Soon enough, at the AFN Special Chiefs Assembly, FN Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told Carney that “Turtle Island” (the FN term for North America popularized by white hippy poet Gary Snyder) belongs to the FN people “from coast to coast to coast.” The pusillanimous Eby quickly piped up about tanker bans and the sanctity of B.C. waters etc.
Others pointed out the massive flaw in a plan to attract private interests to build a vital bitumen pipeline if the tankers it fills are not allowed to sail through the Dixon Entrance to get to Asia.
But then Eby got Nutrien’s message that his power-sharing with the indigenous might cause other provinces to bypass B.C. (imagine California telling Texas it can’t ship through its ports over moral objections to a product). He’s now saying he’s open to pipelines but not to lift the tanker ban along the coast. Whatever.
Meanwhile the kookaburras of isolation back east continue with virtue signalling on American booze— N.S. to sell off its remains stocks — while dreaming that Trump’s departure will lead to the good-old days of reliance on America’s generosity.
But Smith looks to be wining the race. B.C.’s population shrank 0.04 percent in the second quarter of 2025, the only jurisdiction in Canada to do so. Meanwhile, Alberta is heading toward five million people, with interprovincial migrants making up 21 percent of its growth.
But what did you expect from the Carney/ Eby Tantrum Tandem? They keep selling fear in place of GDP. As GBS observed, “You have learnt something. That always feels at first as if you have lost something.”
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
MAiD
101-year-old woman chooses assisted suicide — press treats her death as a social good
From LifeSiteNews
It must be said: The media’s relentless glamorization of suicide is repulsive and shameful.
It was once standard press practice to treat suicide as a tragedy. But since assisted suicide and euthanasia are now presented as the final front in the war for total autonomy, “human interest” stories now push the interests of the death lobby and treat suicide as a social good. The message this sends to the suicidal and desperate is clear.
The latest example of this is a December 2 story in Le Journal de Quebec on the assisted suicide of 101-year-old Paulette Fiset-Germain. She died by lethal injection in her room at the Manoir Cap-Santé on December 1. The opening line of the story almost glows with approval:
A centenarian who had lost none of her intellectual capacity is now shining in the sky after choosing medical assistance in dying on Monday.
Fiset-Germain had been living independently and alone only a few weeks ago but suffered two falls and a stroke. Last week, she told the staff and fellow residents that she wanted to die by euthanasia — or what in Canada is called “MAID.”
“I started to have trouble using the walker, I have one hand that I can’t use, the other one that I have trouble with, I can’t see one side anymore,” she said. “I’m at the end. You know when the glass starts to spill, it’s time to do something. In addition, you have trouble 24 hours a day, you don’t sleep. We’re going to close the loop.”
The Journal emphasized that she said this in a “very serene” tone of voice — and made it clear that Fiset-Germain’s family were supportive. “My children accepted my decision because they know me, they know that I am ready for it,” she said. “It started when I broke my hip and couldn’t do anything anymore. My decision doesn’t cause me any stress. I can’t wait. When the doctor agreed, I said, ‘You’re giving me a really nice gift.’”
To be clear: That “gift” is a lethal injection. She chose suicide by doctor — and the media celebrated it. That is nothing short of glamorizing suicide. In fact, the Journal made clear that Fiset-Germain was “grateful for the opportunity (of) medical assistance in dying,” but that she hopes it is expanded. In fact: “The last moments of Mme Fiset-Germain will also be the subject of a documentary.”
So, in addition to the puff pieces about her suicide, we’re going to get death porn propaganda that will be used to push for more suicides, likely (I suspect, although no details are yet available) produced in partnership with the vultures at Dying with Dignity.
“It’s too tight,” the elderly woman explained of Canada’s euthanasia regime, which is so notoriously loose it has been condemned by the United Nations. “We have to expand to relieve many people. There are others who are embarrassed, who are afraid of their children’s reaction. Mine told me, ‘It’s my choice, it’s my body, it’s my life.’” Funny — it seems like whenever someone uses that phrase, somebody is about to get killed.
The Quebec press is not known for its glowing coverage of religious beliefs, but for the suicidal Fiset-Germain, they made an exception. “Since I was little, I believe that when you die you become a star. When you see a shooting star, it’s someone who has left and is looking for a place,” she explained. “I received very good care here and I am very happy to end my days here and die in my bed.”
The article made sure to mention that she will “donate her body to science,” and quoted one of her reminisces of working as a nurse during the war, when she met a badly wounded soldier: “He was 20 years old and had lost both eyes, both arms and both legs. He asked me if he could hear his mother’s voice. I arranged for him to go to his house to hear it. I don’t know what happened to him next, but at that time, you couldn’t ask for medical assistance in dying.”
Her best friend offered her almost-too-enthusiastic support. “It’s a good decision,” her cousin and best friend Louisette Huard said. “After the life she’s had, the physical state she’s in.” I must say that if my best friend thought my suicide was a “good decision,” it would certainly heighten my suicidal ideation, but perhaps that’s just me.
Only the head of Manoir Cap-Santé and another friend were willing to express their grief. “It hurts us, but we respect her decision,” Guylaine Dufresne said. Her friend, Adelyre Goeguen, was blunter: “I didn’t like it right away. It was still a shock, and I don’t accept it at all.”
That, in case you’re wondering, is the correct response to the suicide of a close friend.
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta will defend law-abiding gun owners who defend themselves
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s future prosperity runs through the northwest coast
-
Alberta1 day agoThis new Canada–Alberta pipeline agreement will cost you more than you think
-
National2 days agoCanada Needs an Alternative to Carney’s One Man Show
-
Business1 day agoNew Chevy ad celebrates marriage, raising children
-
MAiD1 day agoFrom Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Automotive1 day agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Energy1 day agoUnceded is uncertain



