Yes... but it doesn't matter. It's more important for it to SEEM like a deal than actually BE a good deal. And yes... it's a really wasteful and politically motivated move. Kind of funny how the government is essentially trying to play both sides of the fence. They don't want real estate to DROP like a stone before the election and alienate property owners, but they don't want to be seen as uncaring and not doing anything about the millennials and parents of millennials who are angry that real estate valuations are overinflated.
By incentivizing new home owners, they keep a sector of the market partially inflated ( condos ) while helping millennial take on this excessive debt.
Of course, if you think about it... what does more good, allowing the market to drop the value of a condo from $400,000 down to $360,000, or instigating a subsidy to keep the condo at 400,000 (by making it easier to take on 40,000 in debt)
If you think about it... the latter policy LOOKS better, generates at least 10% more in Property Transfer Tax, but is a worse deal for the buyer, who pays for an overinflated property, higher CMHC premiums, and take on considerably more risk.
It's an ugly, devious, purely political move... and they'll easily get away with it, because explaining to people WHY this sucks for home buyers is a really hard message to transmit politically and has high potential to backfire.
Travel-hacker level: Silver? (^_^)