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
From Resource Works
By Geoff Russ
Data centres use far less power than EVs or heavy industry, and Canada’s hydro grids and natural gas make it ideal for hosting them.
It was inevitable that artificial intelligence would become the next villain in the global debates about electricity and climate impacts. Examining the numbers shows that the fears about AI, “devouring” power, as some contributors to the Toronto Star have fretted about, are truly unwarranted in the context of industrial energy usage worldwide.
The numbers of the International Energy Agency (IEA) find that all data centres worldwide used about 415 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2024. That is roughly 1.5 percent of global demand, with consumption expected to rise to around 945 terawatt-hours by 2030, which is under three percent of the total.
A recent IEA analysis found that the extra 530 terawatt-hours of data-centre demand to 2030 would account for only about eight percent of global electricity-demand growth. This number is far less than expected from the growth from electric vehicles, air conditioning or heavy industry in general.
Putting consumption in context
AI workloads are just a small slice of that. AI has driven about five to fifteen percent of data-centre power use, with the rest going to other tasks like online searching, video, cloud storage and everyday digital services. Will those be shut down too?
Other sectors of the economy suck up far more power. In 2024, the world’s electric vehicles used about 180 terawatt-hours of electricity, or about 0.7 percent of global energy consumption. Bitcoin mining alone consumes roughly 120 terawatt-hours per year, accounting for up to nearly one percent of global electricity use.
Established industries like aluminium smelting industry’s smelters, long run with cheap hydro dams, are responsible for about four percent of global power consumption.
Against that backdrop, it is silly to treat AI as a uniquely intolerable new industry on the basis of energy consumption. The world’s demand for electricity grew by more than 1,200 terawatt-hours in 2024, with over 80 percent of that increase met by renewables and nuclear power production.
Canada’s clean energy advantage
In that “age of electricity”, the main drivers of consumption are the electrification of transport, buildings and industry, not data centres in isolation. For Canada, the situation regarding AI is very favourable.
The Canada Energy Regulator notes more than half of Canadian electricity as coming from hydro, with provinces such as Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador routinely generating over 85 percent of their power from water. On the whole, more than 80 percent of Canada’s grid is already non-emitting.
The growth of AI data centres is manageable. A recent federal market snapshot counts roughly 239 data centres operating in Canada, in our low-cost hydro regime and cool climate make it, which is attractive for low-carbon computing. Hydro-Québec’s latest supply plan anticipates about 4.1 terawatt-hours of additional demand from data centres between 2023 and 2032 That is growth in the low single digits. Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator expects the province’s total electricity use to rise by 75 percent by 2050, driven “in large part” by broad electrification and industrial growth. Data centres are just one of these among several major loads.
Avoiding the coal trap
If Canada does not host AI workloads, it will go elsewhere, perhaps to jurisdictions that are still packed with coal-heavy grids. Relocating AI production will only shift the industry away from hydro-based systems in British Columbia and Quebec, provinces that have ready-made supplies of natural gas as backups, if needed, not heavy oil or coal.
As an exporter of electricity that wishes to help lead an energy transition, spurning such a high-value digital industry like AI on the grounds of climate action is a strange way to reduce global emissions.
We can, and should, still exercise diligence and caution when it comes to energy usage, but the evidence points towards electrification only increasing. Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power are already doing the heavy lifting for clean energy generation, and Canada has plenty of room to use its natural gas reserves to cover any shortfalls.
It is not rational to single out AI as a pariah in the world of energy and emissions. AI is just one more industrial customer in an electrifying world, not the great threat to Canadian climate goals that some would have us believe.
Resource Works News
Oh, the weather outside was frightful. But the football was so delightful. Week 15 of the NFL season was a cryogenic success of snow and sub-zero temperatures. Here were the temperatures at game time this weekend.
Chicago: -11 degrees C.
Cincinnati: -12 degrees F.
Kansas City: -8 degrees C.
New England: -2 C (with an 87 percent chance of snow).
Philadelphia: -2 degrees C.
New York -1 degree C.
Pittsburgh: -7 degrees C.
For fans of NFL football none of this seemed out of character with late-season football. There are legendary games played in arctic conditions. The windchill for the 1967 Dallas/ Green Bay NFC championship was -25 C.
Chargers at Bengals: Jan. 10, 1982 (-24 C, feels like -39 C).
Seahawks at Vikings in NFC wild-card matchup Jan 10, 2016. -21 C with wind chill -25C
Dolphins at Chiefs: Jan. 13, 2024 (-4 degrees, feels like -27 degrees)
As recently as last week’s Bills win over the Bengals games are often played with drifts of snow on the field and the mercury bottoming out. While Canada’s Grey Cup game is played at the end of November it’s still had some brutal weather history of its own.
The point of this meteorology meandering is that, according to our good King Charles III and many other doomsday cultists the concept of snow and cold was supposed to be a figment of the past by now. For almost half a century Michael Mann and the climate prophets of IPCC have been predicting the end of snow and the onset of warmist floods and burning forests. They gambled trillions of the public’s dollars on the certainty that the public would buy computer modelling and data-distortion predicting doom.
For decades it has worked. The careers of people like critic Mark Steyn have been ruined, heretics declared and fortunes dissipated by the trust-fund fanatics who bankroll wackadoodles like Stephen Guilbeault, the convicted felon who Trudeau made Minister of the Environment. No matter how absurd or devious the source, it was a gospel that the fiery inferno was coming next Tuesday. But the weather has remained stubbornly resistant to Elizabeth May’s catechism of climate.
Yet, some dedicated climate advocates and their followers are finally changing their tune in the face of their own observation of lying liars like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg. The share of Americans who say climate scientists understand very well whether climate change is occurring decreased from 37 percent in 2021 to 32 percent this year. A similar October study from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that “belief in human-driven climate change declined overall” since 2017.
Reports the uber-liberal L.A. Times: “The unraveling of climate catastrophism got another jolt recently with the formal retraction of a high-profile 2024 study published in the journal Nature. That study — which had predicted a calamitous 62% decline in global economic output by 2100 if carbon emissions were not sufficiently reduced — was widely cited by transnational bodies and progressive political activists alike as justification for the pursuit of aggressive decarbonization.
But the authors withdrew the paper after peer reviewers discovered that flawed data had skewed the result. Without that data, the projected decline in output collapses to around 23%. Oops.”
Even stalwart media apologists for climate hysteria like the Times are starting to have doubts. Under the headline “The left’s climate panic is finally calming down” they describes “Erstwhile ardent climate-change evangelist Bill Gates published a remarkable blog post addressing climate leaders at the then-upcoming COP30 summit. Gates unloaded a blistering critique of what he called ‘the doomsday view of climate change,’ which he said is simply “wrong.”
Trump-besotted American Democrats seeking to soften their Woke image before the 2026 midterms are likewise carving out more moderate positions on climate “that could well deprive Republicans of a winning political issue with which to batter out-of-touch, climate-change-besotted Democrats. But for the sake of good governance, sound public policy and the prosperity of the median American citizen, it would be the best thing to happen in a decade.”
Sadly Canada under Mark Carney remains a staunch climate warrior. The removal of Guilbeault as federal Environmental Minister may have seemed a step toward sanity, but there is no hint that the billions of dollars from hidden money spigots will be closed down any time soon. The B.C. government’s acquiescence to the climate propaganda of Indigenous bands shows no sign of abating. Indeed, it is just ramping up in the land claims that threaten to make home ownership a thing of the past.
PM Mark Carney is a dedicated temperature fabulist going back to his days as governor of the Bank of England. His first fights in Canada were over taxing carbon and hobbling her energy industry. As we wrote in this November 2024 column, the certainty in which the Canadian Left revels is actually dividing, not uniting citizens.
So perhaps if enough citizens spend an afternoon shivering in the stands of a wintertime football game we might achieve a small piece of sanity and learn that that , while climate is always changing, it’s not worth the price we’ve paid this century.
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 2025 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 new poetry collection In Other Words is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca and on Kindle books.
Wayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
The $50 Billion Question: EVs Never Delivered What Ottawa Promised
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta introducing three “all-season resort areas” to provide more summer activities in Alberta’s mountain parks
-
COVID-191 day agoTrump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots
-
Agriculture1 day agoGrowing Alberta’s fresh food future
-
International1 day agoTrump admin wants to help Canadian woman rethink euthanasia, Glenn Beck says
-
Business2 days agoStorm clouds of uncertainty as BC courts deal another blow to industry and investment
-
Alberta1 day agoThe case for expanding Canada’s energy exports
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoOttawa’s New Hate Law Goes Too Far
-
Business1 day agoFuelled by federalism—America’s economically freest states come out on top