Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

Dan Albas: Examples that point towards increased household debt ... in order to access the benefits of the programs ... that themselves are being offered by a $19.8 billion deficit budget


The challenge with many of the programs on offer in this budget is the fine print!

In last week’s report I provided some highlights on the recent 2019 budget and asked citizens if they liked what they saw in the budget so far.  I also made a commitment to share my own thoughts on this budget as an opposition Member of Parliament.

Most critics have labelled this budget as an ‘election year goodies’ budget that targets certain voting demographics that the Liberals hope will translate to votes in the October election.

While I do not disagree with that sentiment, I would submit that most every sitting government in an election year tables a budget that it believes will be politically popular.

My concern with this budget is somewhat different.

As you may have heard, household debt levels here in Canada are at an all-time high.  Household debt as a percentage of gross income in 2016 was 166%.  In January of this year (2019) it has now increased to 176%.

Why do I mention that in the context of this budget?

The new “Canada Training Benefit” on the surface sounds like a good program encouraging job skills retraining. However when you read the fine print only $250 is available per year up to a career maximum of $5,000.

The challenge that I am already hearing is the majority of training programs cost well in excess of that amount.  Many skills training programs are literally thousands of dollars or more. For many workers to benefit from this $250 training credit it will mean borrowing thousands and increasing household debt.

Similarly, for most to access the credit of $5,000 towards the purchase of a new electric car, would mean borrowing up to the maximum for the program amount of $45,000.  This again results in more household debt for anyone borrowing for a new vehicle purchase.

A similar situation is created with the new home buyers program.

Rather than eliminate the GST on affordable new housing (as has been done with the PST provincially), this budget only offers more options that encourage borrowing. Borrowing $10,000 more from your RRSP, up to maximum of $35,000, is  an option that few new home buyers can access.

The new first time home buyers incentive on the surface sounds helpful. The program can help provide between 5-10% of the down payment towards a maximum CMHC insurable mortgage up to $480,000, not counting the total down payment.

The challenge with this program is also in the fine print.

The maximum $480,000 mortgage value is also based on the programs maximum allowable household income level of $120,000 annually.

In a community where the average household income is $70,000, the maximum value under this program is set at FOUR TIMES the income, meaning a CMHC (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation) insurable mortgage limit of just $280,000.

A significant difference.

These are just a few examples that all point towards increased household debt ... in order to access the benefits of these programs ... that ironically are themselves being offered by a $19.8 billion deficit budget.

My question this week:
At this current rate of spending, by 2040, an additional $271 billion in new debt will have accumulated, not factoring in household debt levels.

Are you concerned about this?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Focus on the nine things I mentioned. That’s what will allow the Conservative Party to win the next election

IMAGE CREDIT:   Darryl Dyck, the Canadian Press. I thought I had already made up my mind who I would be ranking on my ballot, in the Conservative Party of BC leadership race; now I am not so sure.  That means that, at least for me, and perhaps many others, it’s a good thing voting hasn’t already taken place. There were initially only one or two of the candidates that I thought might be a little too right of centre for my liking, now it seems that list is growing. I consider myself more closely aligned with what used to be called a Progressive Conservative, regardless, I feel more than comfortable within the Conservative Party of BC.  Some, however, in messages to me on my political Facebook page, have been rather, shall we say, a bit mean-spirited in comments they’ve made about my ‘purity’ as a conservative. To tell you the truth, I really don’t care! Some leadership candidates, in comments made online, have also been raising the issue of who is a pure enough conservati...
Post a Comment
Read more

WARD STAMER -- Those are REAL forestry numbers, not just made-up numbers

The following is a condensed version of remarks Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s made, regarding Forestry, in the BC Legislature, on Tuesday afternoon (02/24/2026)   Let’s talk a little bit, when we talk about Budget 2026, about the forest industry, which is near and dear to my heart. Forestry remains one of British Columbia’s foundational industries. It’s a pillar that built this province. Entire communities depend upon it. Interior towns, northern communities, Vancouver Island regions, the Kootenays, the Lower Mainland, with manufacturing facilities in Surrey and Maple Ridge, just to name a few — everywhere in BC is touched by forestry. One word that was not mentioned in Budget 2026 was forestry. That’s a shame, an incredible shame. It wasn’t an oversight – it was intentional. This government has driven forestry into the ground .... INTO THE GROUND! We can talk a little bit about some of the initiatives that this government has brought forth, to try to resurrect ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Labels

Show more