I don't know for sure and am not interested in really looking into this further...
- BUT, I would guess that with the worsening situation with retired and retiring veterans, many of whom are on very meager incomes, the need to get them off the street and in some kind of housing, the increasing availability of run-down homes, - that the government wants to be able to finance purchase of homes that are in really poor condition - without requiring repair more than absolutely necessary for the short-term.
They are looking for a quick short-term fix to this problem that will get them through the next 10-15 years.
So, I wouldn't look at this as an issue of anything more than fixing this short-term problem.
Yea. The veterans can get a hammer and some nails and fix their own damn property. Another 10-20 years and most will drop dead for one reason or another.
If you ask me, that is the new think.
Similar to feeding addicts free cocaine, meth and fentanyl (and Vancouver BC is probably the best example of this). The best long-term solution is just to give them what they want. They will eventually disappear (or will they really? The death rates seem depressingly low - only 2/day from overdose in most cities:
https://www.addictionresource.net/heroin/addict/life-expectancy/).
The province of British Columbia is the nexus of Canada’s drug overdose crisis and in its fifth year of a public health emergency, writes Ashleigh Stewart in Vancouver
www.independent.co.uk
Liberal Democrats are often not at all what they appear to be. They are often sinister devils that nonetheless have what one might argue is a reasonable logic. The liberal/conservative spectrum is in many ways very weird and somewhat unreliable. It is better looked at as a question of short-term vs long-term goals. Some policies may look good in the short term but be harmful in the long term and vice-versa. But, you can argue forever on some of these things.