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

by Cory Litzenberger
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
While America Shrugs Off Woke, Canada Doubles Down On Feminizing Society

There is a truism that politicians believe that strategy wins battles. Generals know that logistics win battles. Translation: You can have all the shiny new weapons but if you don’t have a delivery system to support them you’re going to lose.
The success of the Woke Left this past generation has been its creation of delivery systems in the media and culture to carry out their agenda. The result: a feminization of Western culture, exemplified by the manic hatred of 1980s alpha man Donald Trump. From their modest demand for “safe spaces” they now have rendered all criticism of social dysphoria as hate speech and the speakers criminal. Murder in the service of trans— suggested by Jane Fonda— is considered holy.
Writes conservative political analyst Helen Andrews.. “Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition… The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.” Translation: If it feels good it must be correct.
As we noted in June emotional narratives now override facts in public discourse. The currency in this societal change has been victimization as the badge of virtue. Young women, in particular, are willing to believe even the most outlandish claims of victimization in exchange for credibility in the Woke camp. One example from the past week’s No Kings performative marches example: Women are being ignored in media or being discriminated against in hiring or academia. As if.

No Kings had all the hallmarks of the victim strategy. A predominately female, plus-60 audience and their handlers from the education system, all united in loathing Donald Trump. The shared distress brought on by POTUS 47. A Hollywood component led by Kathy Griffin.
So, after all the bonding and talking, what message did they take away from the large crowds and media love? Was it empathy or rationality? As Andrews writes, “The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it.” Besides a few pathetic folk songs, badly written signs, cheeky assassination memes they mostly took away a feeling of unity. It was, like Stalin’s Soviet Union army parades, a display of the delivery systems they’ll use to enforce loyalty in the future.
For organizers who know they’re not going to get rid of POTUS 45/ 47 anytime soon, there was the added confidence that this base will fall obediently in line when the nomenklatura call them to do their bidding— the same way they did on lockdowns, vaccines and pussy hats.
The problem for the Left’s leaders after all the Charlie Kirk references and Pete Seeger nostalgia is that the delivery system is still struggling to find a new wedge weapon to slow down Trump. (He’s still polling in the high 40s approval with pollsters who correctly called 2024.) All the Congressional shutdowns, Epstein references and Putin references that worked before are now failing.
“CNN: This shutdown is a different world for Trump than the 2018-19 shutdown. He’s in a much better spot. Here is his Shutdown Trump Net Approval
Blame Trump for Shutdown:
2019: yes 61%
2025: no 48%
Worse, support for critical issues such as trans is falling. Canadian political scientist Andrew Kaufman shocked progressives with polling showing that trans identification is in free-fall among the young the past five years. So is nonbinary identity. (Pretty soon only their demented parents will buy the grift.)
As well, Congressional district adjustments could give the GOP as many as 20 new seats in the midterm. Hence the broad hints at violent civil unrest from the more excited paraders this weekend. And the disingenuous claims of how peaceful the Left was on the weekend. In short it was No Kings. No New Ideas.
While America roils in the dynamics of a Woke retreat, Kaufman points out that Canada remains entirely in the thrall of the feminized morality introduced by Justin Trudeau’s election ten years ago this month in 2015. “Liberals: Stop importing US politics into Canada. Also Liberals: Hey look, the U.S is holding a ‘No Kings’ protest. Let do it too.”
The image of the hip, sexually ambiguous Trudeau has been followed by the feminized Mark Carney with his trans child. The symbolism is no accident. The Canadian Left’s rock/ paper/ scissors emotion now trumps irrationality. Canadians questioning dysphoria or promoting traditional male roles is now punishable by firing or banishment from social media. Emotional blackmail is a delivery system for Canada’s left. But it only goes one way. If you act like a traditionsl man publicly (see: Danielle Smith) your female cloak of supremacy loses its superpowers.

While the U.S. Left struggles the political delivery system Canada is, by contrast, armed to the teeth with live feminist ammo aimed at Pierre Poilievre. Somehow the meek bureaucrat from Ottawa is painted as mini-Trump by the heavy hitters of the Left. The past week saw the titans of the keyboards twist anti PP comments from a former Stephen Harper aide into an attack from the former PM. It took hours before Harper’s office quashed the implications of Polievre hate, too late to expunge the scars.
Elbows Up aficiandos took their shots, too: “Here’s a sample: @PierrePoilievre has desecrated the memory of my father and insulted every officer who has served in the RCMP. This cannot be forgiven or forgotten.” This after Poilievre asked why it was not an issue that a fired Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson Raybould, was not allowed to ask why Skippy didn’t want the RCMP to do their job. This was 14 times she was told to stand down on issues over Trudeau’s donors.
To forestall any rejection of Woke, Carney’s strategy is to turn Canada in the direction of ultra-liberal Europe and away from Trumpland. But the logistics of a crumbling economy and separation on several fronts in Canada may take the decision out of his hands.
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.
Business
$15B and No Guarantees? Stellantis Deal explained by former Conservative Shadow Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology

Rick Perkins reveals what billions in subsidies didn’t buy: job protections, clawbacks, or Canadian hiring guarantees.
For weeks, Canadians were told, confidently, smugly, that the $15 billion handed to Stellantis and Volkswagen was protected by “job clauses” and “performance-based contracts.” That’s the line Industry Minister Mélanie Joly repeated in interviews, press releases, and on social media. It’s a lie.
Yesterday, we sat down with former Member of Parliament Rick Perkins one of the few people who actually read the unredacted contracts in question and he laid it out plainly: those job guarantees don’t exist. Not in the way you were told. Not even close.
“There is no cancellation clause,” Perkins said.
“The ‘job commitments’ are maximums, not minimums. And the contracts don’t require those jobs to be Canadian or even union.”
Let that sink in.
We were sold a vision of a green industrial renaissance, Canadian workers building Canadian batteries in Canadian factories, funded with Canadian taxpayer money. Instead, we’ve bankrolled foreign-owned companies to build batteries with no guarantee they’ll hire local workers, or that the batteries will even be sold in Canadian vehicles.
And here’s the kicker: the federal government is already writing monthly subsidy cheques, covering 100% of the cost per battery, based on production volume, not sales. That’s right. You and I are footing the bill whether those batteries go into a Dodge Ram, a Chinese-market minivan, or sit on a warehouse shelf until 2032.
No wonder the production subsidy contract is only 26 pages long. There wasn’t much in it.
Minister Joly claimed there are “performance conditions” and “job guarantees.” But as Perkins told us, those words are political wallpaper not legal obligations. There’s no enforcement mechanism. There’s no clawback clause. There’s no language saying, “You must hire X Canadians or repay the money.” It’s not there.
And that’s what this government doesn’t want you to understand. It’s not just that they wasted your money, it’s that they did it knowingly.
They gambled billions on the assumption that Joe Biden would remain in power, that EV mandates would keep growing, and that Trump wouldn’t come back. Now that he has, with tariffs, deregulation, and a clear “America First” energy agenda, these companies are doing what any rational business would do: they’re leaving.
And there’s nothing in the contract stopping them.
If you’re wondering why the mainstream media isn’t shouting this from the rooftops ask yourself who cashes the cheques. Ask yourself why no journalist has demanded to see the full, unredacted documents. Ask why Minister Champagne hasn’t been hauled before a committee and asked under oath whether he even read the damn contract before signing.
We did what they wouldn’t. We got the receipts. We sat down with someone who saw the deal with his own eyes. And here’s what he told us: it’s worse than you think.
The Stellantis deal isn’t a strategic investment, it’s a bailout with no brakes. And every month, billions continue to bleed out of the treasury while ministers issue press releases pretending we’re building an economy.
We’re not. We’re building someone else’s. And we’re paying full price.
This isn’t over.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
If you enjoy The Opposition with Dan Knight , share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.
-
Agriculture8 hours ago
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Digital ID1 day ago
Thousands protest UK government’s plans to introduce mandatory digital IDs
-
Health8 hours ago
Sovereignty at Stake: Why Parliament Must Review Treaties Before They’re Signed
-
Carbon Tax1 day ago
Back Door Carbon Tax: Goal Of Climate Lawfare Movement To Drive Up Price Of Energy
-
Health17 hours ago
Canada surrenders control of future health crises to WHO with ‘pandemic agreement’: report
-
Alberta18 hours ago
Alberta’s licence plate vote is down to four
-
Digital ID2 days ago
Toronto airport requests approval of ‘digital IDs’ for domestic airport travel
-
Censorship Industrial Complex17 hours ago
Canada’s justice minister confirms ‘hate crimes’ bill applies to online content