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), andā¦”
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
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Mark Carneyās Leadership Win Mirrors Past Liberal Failures

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
The Liberal Party has crowned Mark Carney leader, but his path to victory is riddled with obstacles
The Liberal Party of Canada has selected a non-MP to become prime minister, but precedent suggests he wonāt last long. Mark Carney represents the worst aspects of both John Turnerās and Michael Ignatieffās political rises and appears destined for the same electoral futility.
When Pierre Trudeau stepped down as Liberal leader in 1984 after more than 15 years as prime minister, he left behind a parting gift: over 200 Liberal patronage appointments. His successor, John Turner, agreed to another 70. These appointments became a burden, weighing down Turnerās leadership before it had even begun. Like Carney, Turner was not a sitting MP when he became leader. Forced to call a snap election, he watched the Progressive Conservatives secure the first of two successive majorities.
Now, history is repeating itself. Justin Trudeauās cabinet made 70 appointments in its final days, including 12 judges. That number doesnāt include the 10 senators he appointed while Parliament was proroguedānearly 10 per cent of the 105-seat chamber. Like Turner, Carney must navigate a leadership legacy tainted by patronage and an unpopular outgoing prime minister.
But does Carneyās experience, reputation, and distance from Trudeau offer him a fresh start? It seems unlikely. Unlike Turner, Carney has never held elected office.
Turner at least had a political track record. As a cabinet minister under two prime ministers, he handled high-profile Justice and Finance portfolios. He also benefited from a nine-year break from politics, distancing himself from the unpopular Trudeau. None of it mattered. Turner still lost.
Liberals hope Carney can ride a wave of popularity after a dominant leadership victory, securing 85 per cent support. But what did he really win? A former central banker, he climbed atop a heap of ruins.
His victory over Chrystia Freeland, Karina Gould, and former MP Frank Baylis was less a competitive race and more a coronation. Freeland carried the baggage of Trudeauās policies, while the other two lacked national recognition. Carney, the only contender without direct ties to Trudeauās government, was the default choice. The Liberal Party is adrift, and he simply took the helm.
But winning an uncontested leadership race is no guarantee of electoral success. Turnerās rise in 1984 was far more hard-foughtāhe overcame political heavyweights, including Jean ChrĆ©tien and four other cabinet ministers, in a real contest for the partyās future. Yet despite his credentials and broad support within the party, Canadians still rejected him.
And unlike Turner, Carneyās leadership victory raises serious legitimacy concerns. Liberal leadership races allow votes from permanent residents (non-citizens) and minors aged 14 to 17āgroups that have no say in a general election. Even more troubling, of the 400,000 votes cast, only 147,000 were verified. Carney received 126,000 of those votes, but nearly two-thirds of ballots were rejected. Had those votes gone to any of his opponents, Carneyās win would have been far from certain.
A Rebel News petition calling for Elections Canada, CSIS, and the RCMP to audit the leadership vote is already circulating. While skepticism over the process is reasonable, itās doubtful that meaningful answers will emerge.
Beyond legitimacy issues, Carney shares another unfortunate trait with a failed Liberal leader: Michael Ignatieff.
Ignatieff followed StĆ©phane Dion, whose push for a carbon tax proved deeply unpopular. The Conservatives quickly branded Ignatieff, a long-time Harvard professor, as an elitist disconnected from ordinary Canadians. Their āHe didnāt come back for youā attack ads stuck, and Ignatieff led the Liberals to a historic defeat, falling to third-party status.
Carney faces the same vulnerability. After years in England, he will struggle to shake the image of an out-of-touch globalist. His French, weaker than Ignatieffās, will also hurt him in Quebec, a province that abandoned the Liberals in 2011 in favour of the NDP.
History suggests Carneyās leadership will pave the way for another Conservative majority governmentājust as Turner and Ignatieffās failures did.
Carneyās leadership campaign combines the worst aspects of 1984 and 2011. As an unelected, elitist ex-pat with weak French, he carries a Liberal banner weighed down by both Trudeauās baggage and the deeply unpopular carbon tax.
A Conservative government with a mandate for reform is increasingly likely. A slimmed-down civil service, reduced regulations, the abolition of the carbon tax, and renewed pipeline construction could all be on the horizon. After nearly a decade of Liberal rule, Canadaās political pendulum seems set to swing back once again.
Lee HardingĀ is Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
John Rustadās Residential School Claim Is False And Dangerous

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
When politicians misrepresent facts or historical events, whether out of ignorance or political expediency, they do a disservice to the truth and public trust. On Feb. 24, 2025, B.C. Conservative Party Leader John Rustad reportedly told Global News that āmore than 4,000 children did not return homeā from residential schools because āthose children died in residential schools.ā As researcher Nina Green points out, this statement is demonstrably false and contradicts the Truth and Reconciliation Commissionās (TRC) final report.
Sadly, Rustad is not the only one making such claims. Similar statements, portrayed as facts, are repeated by politicians who should know better.
The truth, according to the TRC, is that 423 named children died on the premises of residential schools between 1867 and 2000. That is a tragedy, and we must expand our understanding of how and why these deaths occurred. To learn from tragedies, we must acknowledge and reflect on them. But to truly understand, we must accept what is true rather than bending or distorting it. Repeating the claim that āmore than 4,000ā children died in residential schools, as Rustad and others have uncritically reported, misrepresents reality.
The vastly inflated number, according to Green, originates from the University of Manitobaās National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), which has misrepresented the data by including children who died after leaving schoolāin hospitals, in accidents at home, and even well into adulthood. This distortion has led to widespread misrepresentation, misleading policymakers and the public.
Why does this matter?
Canadaās history with Indigenous residential schools is deeply painful. Abuses, neglect and forced assimilation were real in many instances. However, distorting the facts about residential school deaths promotes a false narrative of genocide that does not serve justiceāin fact, this false narrative undermines it. If reconciliation means anything, it must be built on truth, not contrived political narratives.
By repeating the claim that more than 4,000 children died at residential schools, Rustad is spreading falsehoods and stoking division. This figure has been used to justify claims of mass graves, leading to international headlines and widespread outrage that harm present generations of Indigenous people. Yet, nearly four years after the first claims of unmarked graves, no remains have been excavated or verified.
Rustad is not a private citizenāhe is a public figure whose words carry weight. As such, he is responsible for ensuring that the information he disseminates is accurate. Rustad is failing in his duty to the public. Depending on his motivation, he contributes to a culture in which historical accuracy is sacrificed for political expediency.
Some may argue that the exact number of students who died at residential schools is not important. But truth is not negotiable. If we accept exaggerated claims in one instance, we set a dangerous pattern for historical distortions. The truth should not be ideological or political.
If Rustad is serious about Indigenous issues, he should demand transparency from the University of Manitoba and its NCTR. Instead of accepting misleading figures, he should call for the full release of the TRC records, as was promised in 2013.
Leaders like Rustad must be held accountable. Falsehoods, no matter how well-intentioned, do not advance reconciliation. They erode trust, divide Canadians, and ultimately undermine the cause they claim to support. All Canadians deserve much better.
Marco Navarro-GenieĀ is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is coauthor ofĀ Canadaās COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral PanicĀ (2023).
-
International2 days ago
āLot Of Nonsenseā: Kari Lake Announces Voice Of America Is Dumping Legacy Outlets
-
Carbon Tax2 days ago
Prime Minister Mark Carney reduces carbon tax to zero
-
Energy2 days ago
Next federal government should close widening gap between Canadian and U.S. energy policy
-
espionage2 days ago
Bill introduced to ban student visas to Chinese nationals
-
Duane Rolheiser2 days ago
Team Canada is driving us right into the arms of The Donald
-
Business14 hours ago
A Look at Canada’s Import Tariffs
-
conflict1 day ago
“HELL WILL RAIN DOWN”: Trump unleashes U.S. military on Yemeni Houthis
-
Energy1 day ago
OPEC Delivers Masterful Rebuke To Global Energy Agency Head