Business
CEWS 2.0 – Why I see it as another attack on the small business owner
July 18, 2017 – The Minister of Finance announces draft legislation of the Tax on Split Income (TOSI) rule changes that would have far reaching impact into the small business community and although some changes were made, the rules have negatively impacted small businesses ever since and will continue for years to come.
Three years later, July 17, 2020 – The same Minister of Finance tables legislation of the changes to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), what I like to call CEWS 2.0 which will also continue for years to come.
Before you try to correct me and say that the subsidy is only for 2020, please read on.
While many media and politician soundbites like to give the impression of how CEWS 2.0 will help small business, I cannot help but see this as an opposite approach.
Do not get me wrong, money is money, and businesses will take all the help they can get, and if my business qualifies, I will take full advantage of it, but I personally don’t have to pay a tax specialist to figure it out.
There are two new calculations to CEWS 2.0.
- a baseline amount based on the percentage of revenue decline in the month compared to either the same month in 2019, or the January-February 2020 average revenue amount.
- a top-up amount based on the three-previous month revenue decline where it exceeds 50%.
Instead of an all or nothing at a 30% decline, even a 1% decline will get you a pro-rated payout, although the costs of figuring out your eligible amount might outweigh the benefit.
In fact, you could have an increase in revenue compared to this time last year and still get a payout. Make sense?
If the previous three months were greater than a 50% decline you qualify for the top-up amount regardless of the result for the current month.
The complexity of the CEWS design will reward those that have experts in their corner compared to those that do not.
Consider the following scenario:
A large public corporation that has employees making more than $1,129 a week will be able to not only have a simple calculation, they will not have anyone “related” to the corporation that they have to do extra baseline remuneration calculations for. Just like CEWS 1.0, in CEWS 2.0 every employee including the CEO will be subsidized in a public corporation, with no clawback mechanism (as recommended in my earlier article, the Keep it Simple S…ubsidy).
In the large public corporation, the bookkeeping, payroll, and accounting function will be up to date and (I would hope) accurate because of internal controls. They also frequently have large accounting and I.T. departments to easily calculate the eligibility and amounts for such a subsidy.
But let us compare this to a small owner-managed business like a restaurant for example. The profit margins in restaurants are already sliced thinner than the meat on a charcuterie board. Add to this the extra costs of social distancing and safety precautions, as well as the inconsistency of regulations for being closed, re-opened, and closed again as we navigate the pandemic and restaurants seem like a lost cause for a business owner.
Assuming they are able to still successfully navigate the minefield that COVID19 has placed on their livelihoods, many restaurants have dozens of part-time staff, including family members.
So right away we have a glaring difference: relatives.
The rules in CEWS 2.0 has not reduced any of the requirements for calculations to be made with respect to relatives working in the business. Relatives must have been being paid as a wage employee during one of a few optional calculation periods prior to March 15, 2020 to be eligible for any of the CEWS.
Do you remember TOSI?
TOSI basically was designed so you could only income split dividends with related persons under a complex set of strict rules. Even though restaurants are considered “food services”, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Finance have in Example 4B of their TOSI explanatory notes an example of a restaurant which would not be considered a service. In doing so, they sent the message to continue to pay yourselves in dividends if you run a family owned restaurant.
As a result, family owned restaurants continued to do just that.
Fast forward to 2020 and you now have family members working in a low margin business, with no support for their dividend remuneration under CEWS 1.0 or CEWS 2.0.
Even if the small business owner was one of the lucky fortune tellers that decided to pay themselves wages, they still have to do a baseline calculation (two different ways – weekly or bi-weekly – for each claim period) just to figure out how much they might be able to get.
Keep in mind the bi-weekly periods are the periods that were set by finance, not the period you may already be using for your payroll cutoff.
Now we have the part-time restaurant staff in my example. The family business now must calculate the average weekly earnings of each individual staff member during the claim period to figure out what the maximum amount of benefit is.
To make it better, the bookkeeping records better be pristine and accurate on a month to month basis, rather than on an annual basis like many, if not most, small businesses do.
Enter in that sale on the 1st of this month instead of the 31st of last month, and you could be looked at as “gaming the system”.
If you are a late-night pub restaurant, make sure that you are closing out the tills at 11:59pm on the 31st of the month – or your numbers would be inaccurate and you could be called a “tax cheat.”
I can’t wait for the Halloween pub crawls this year, when the weekly earnings of those late-night pub staff will have to also be cut off at midnight Saturday, October 31st. At least there will be plenty of mask wearing that night.
So, we now have increased the compliance costs for the small restaurants for monthly reporting, weekly payroll calculations, overnight cutoffs on month-ends, and special treatment for relatives of the business.
It doesn’t take a tax specialist, a cost-accounting CPA, or a PhD in mathematics to figure out that this is going to cost more per employee in overhead costs to the small family business in comparison to the large public corporation.
While I am more than happy to receive money from my clients for doing the immense research and calculations that will be required, the fact remains for the small business owner, is all of this extra work and compliance cost worth it in the end?
Sadly, you will not know if it is worth it, until after you have put in the work to calculate it.
If you happen to be one of the lucky ones that qualifies, you will then have to track the amount of CEWS you received for each employee separately.
This is because the CRA in question 29 of their Frequently Asked Questions on CEWS said that there will be a new box at the bottom of the T4 required to be filled in for the amount of CEWS received for that employee.
But what about my earlier statement that CEWS will impact businesses for years to come? With your calculation and compliance is going on until the end of February 2021 with the addition of the T4 box, does it end there?
February 2021 will just be the beginning. This will begin the audits of the CEWS claims (if they have not already started).
Since the CEWS is required to be reported on the 2020 T4 slips filed by the business in February 2021, would it be fair to say that the three-year tax compliance clock only begins at that time?
This means from now until February of 2024 you can expect to have a call from (likely the payroll audit division of) the CRA to take a look at:
- your weekly employee wage calculations;
- the monthly revenue calculations;
- the monthly cut-offs;
- the timing of your invoices;
- the CEWS amounts allocated to individual staff members; and
- the scrutiny of amounts paid to relatives;
All while you have the joy of having an internal debate with yourself on whether to pay your tax specialist to deal with them, or to try and go at it alone and confused.
July 2017 – TOSI
July 2020 – CEWS 2.0
I wonder what July 2023 will bring.
This article was originally published on July 23, 2020.
—
Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors (CGLtax.ca). Cory is an advocate for small business in his role as Alberta Governor for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB); converts legislation into layman terms for fun; and provides Canadian tax advisory services to other CPA firms across Canada; opinions are his own.
Biography of Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr can be found here.
New passenger compensation rules under review could end up harming passengers as well as the country’s aviation sector by forcing airlines to pay for delays and cancellations beyond their control, warns a new report published this morning by the MEI.
“Air travel in Canada is already unaffordable and inaccessible,” says Gabriel Giguère, senior public policy analyst at the MEI. “New rules that force airlines to cover costs they can’t control would only make a bad situation worse.”
Introduced in 2023 by then-Transport Minister Omar Alghabra, the proposed amendment to the Air Passenger Protection Regulations would make airlines liable for compensation in all cases except those deemed “exceptional.” Under the current rules, compensation applies only when the airline is directly responsible for the disruption.
If adopted, the new framework would require Canadian airlines to pay at least $400 per passenger for any “unexceptional” cancellation or delay exceeding three hours, regardless of fault. Moreover, the definition of “exceptional circumstances” remains vague and incomplete, creating regulatory uncertainty.
“A presumed-guilty approach could upend airline operations,” notes Mr. Giguère. “Reversing the burden of proof introduces another layer of bureaucracy and litigation, which are costs that will inevitably be passed on to consumers.”
The Canadian Transportation Agency estimates that these changes would impose over $512 million in additional costs on the industry over ten years, leading to higher ticket prices and potentially reducing regional air service.
Canadians already pay some of the highest airfares in the world, largely due to government-imposed fees. Passengers directly cover the Air Travellers Security Charge—$9.94 per domestic flight and $34.42 per international flight—and indirectly pay airport rent through Airport Improvement Fees included on every ticket.
In 2024 alone, airport authorities remitted a record $494.8 million in rent to the federal government, $75.6 million more than the previous year and 68 per cent higher than a decade earlier.
“This new regulation risks being the final blow to regional air travel,” warns Mr. Giguère. “Routes connecting smaller communities will be the first to disappear as costs rise and they become less profitable.”
For instance, a three-hour and one minute delay on a Montreal–Saguenay flight with 85 passengers would cost an airline roughly $33,000 in compensation. It would take approximately 61 incident-free return flights to recoup that cost.
Regional air service has already declined by 34 per cent since 2019, and the added burden of this proposed regulation could further reduce connectivity within Canada. It would also hurt Canadian airlines’ competitiveness relative to U.S. carriers operating out of airports just south of the border, whose passengers already enjoy lower fares.
“If the federal government truly wants to make air travel more affordable,” says Mr. Giguère, “it should start by cutting its own excessive fees instead of scapegoating airlines for political gain.”
You can read the Economic Note here.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
From Resource Works
By Geoff Russ
The Port of Churchill has long been viewed as Canada’s northern gateway to global markets, but decades of under-investment have held it back.
A national dream that never materialised
For nearly a century, Churchill, Manitoba has loomed in the national imagination. In 1931, crowds on the rocky shore watched the first steamships pull into Canada’s new deepwater Arctic port, hailed as the “thriving seaport of the Prairies” that would bring western grain “1,000 miles nearer” to European markets. The dream was that this Hudson Bay town would become a great Canadian centre of trade and commerce.
The Hudson Bay Railway was blasted across muskeg and permafrost to reach what engineers called an “incomparably superior” harbour. But a short ice free season and high costs meant Churchill never grew beyond a niche outlet beside Canada’s larger ports, and the town’s population shrank.
False starts, failed investments
In 1997, Denver based OmniTrax bought the port and 900 kilometre rail line with federal backing and promises of heavy investment. Former employees and federal records later suggested those promises were not fully kept, even as Ottawa poured money into the route and subsidies were offered to keep grain moving north. After port fees jumped and the Canadian Wheat Board disappeared, grain volumes collapsed and the port shut, cutting rail service and leaving northern communities and miners scrambling.
A new Indigenous-led revival — with limits
The current revival looks different. The port and railway are now owned by Arctic Gateway Group, a partnership of First Nations and northern municipalities that stepped in after washouts closed the line and OmniTrax walked away. Manitoba and Ottawa have committed $262.5 million over five years to stabilize the railway and upgrade the terminal, with Manitoba’s share now at $87.5 million after a new $51 million provincial pledge.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has folded Churchill into his wider push on “nation building” infrastructure. His government’s new Major Projects Office is advancing energy, mining and transmission proposals that Ottawa says add up to more than $116 billion in investment. Against that backdrop, Churchill’s slice looks modest, a necessary repair rather than a defining project.
The paperwork drives home the point. The first waves of formally fast tracked projects include LNG expansion at Kitimat, new nuclear at Darlington and copper and nickel mines. Churchill sits instead on the office’s list of “transformative strategies”, a roster of big ideas still awaiting detailed plans and costings, with a formal Port of Churchill Plus strategy not expected until the spring of 2026 under federal–provincial timelines.
Churchill as priority — or afterthought?
Premier Wab Kinew rejects the notion that Churchill is an afterthought. Standing with Carney in Winnipeg, he called the northern expansion “a major priority” for Manitoba and cast the project as a way for the province “to be able to play a role in building up Canada’s economy for the next stage of us pushing back against” U.S. protectionism. He has also cautioned that “when we’re thinking about a major piece of infrastructure, realistically, a five to 10 year timeline is probably realistic.”
On paper, the Port of Churchill Plus concept is sweeping. The project description calls for an upgraded railway, an all weather road, new icebreaking capacity in Hudson Bay and a northern “energy corridor” that could one day move liquefied natural gas, crude oil, electricity or hydrogen. Ottawa’s joint statement with Manitoba calls Churchill “without question, a core component to the prosperity of the country.”
Concepts without commitments
The vision is sweeping, yet most of this remains conceptual. Analysts note that hard questions about routing, engineering, environmental impacts and commercial demand still have to be answered. Transportation experts say they struggle to see a purely commercial case that would make Churchill more attractive than larger ports, arguing its real value is as an insurance policy for sovereignty and supply chain resilience.
That insurance argument is compelling in an era of geopolitical risk and heightened concern about Arctic security. It is also a reminder of how limited Canada’s ambition at Churchill has been. For a hundred years, governments have been willing to dream big in northern Manitoba, then content to underbuild and underdeliver, as the port’s own history of near misses shows. A port that should be a symbol of confidence in the North has spent most of its life as a seasonal outlet.
A Canadian pattern — high ambition, slow execution
The pattern is familiar across the country. Despite abundant resources, capital and engineering talent, mines, pipelines, ports and power lines take years longer to approve and build here than in competing jurisdictions. A tangle of overlapping regulations, court challenges and political caution has turned review into a slow moving veto, leaving a politics of grand announcements followed by small, incremental steps.
Churchill is where those national habits are most exposed. The latest round of investment, led by Indigenous owners and backed by both levels of government, deserves support, as does Kinew’s insistence that Churchill is a priority. But until Canada matches its Arctic trading rhetoric with a willingness to build at scale and at speed, the port will remain a powerful dream that never quite becomes a real gateway to the world.
Headline photo credit to THE CANADIAN PRESS/John Woods
Alberta Offers Enormous Advantages for AI Data Centres
National Crisis Approaching Due To The Carney Government’s Centrally Planned Green Economy
Calgary mayor should retain ‘blanket rezoning’ for sake of Calgarian families
Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump
-
Business2 days agoCanada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.
-
Alberta2 days ago‘Weird and wonderful’ wells are boosting oil production in Alberta and Saskatchewan
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta to protect three pro-family laws by invoking notwithstanding clause
-
Health1 day agoCDC’s Autism Reversal: Inside the Collapse of a 25‑Year Public Health Narrative
-
Energy2 days agoThe Carney Government is Hijacking the Phase “Energy Superpower” to Advance Their Agenda
-
Crime1 day agoCocaine, Manhunts, and Murder: Canadian Cartel Kingpin Prosecuted In US
-
Health1 day agoBREAKING: CDC quietly rewrites its vaccine–autism guidance
-
National1 day agoPsyop-Style Campaign That Delivered Mark Carney’s Win May Extend Into Floor-Crossing Gambits and Shape China–Canada–US–Mexico Relations