Connect with us


Keep It Simple S…ubsidy


9 minute read

You want my idea for the wage subsidy… well here it is.

WARNING: It is so simple to implement, there is no way a government would do it.

(Originally posted on LinkedIn (no joke) April 1, 2020)



People have said “you are quick to pick apart the wage subsidy, so what is your solution?”

So… you asked for it… here it is:

I’ve said it from the very beginning that it should resemble EI support. All they should be doing is simple.

(No this is not an April Fool’s joke… but I am hoping the Press Conference on April 1, 2020 by the Minister of Finance was)

I was fine with EI amounts… but since we have the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB)… let’s use that amount to keep it more simple.

The amount is this:

(just like the CERB). $2,000 per worker per month, taxable, and no withholdings up front

Put a ‘clawback’ amount on those that are getting it like the clawback on Old Age Security or regular EI benefits for when they file income tax next year.

The 3-prong approach to the subsidy


Prong 1 – CERB from Service Canada

Everyone should get it. Yes, everyone.

However, anyone that makes more than the EI maximum in 2020 must pay back 30 cents of the CERB on every dollar over the $54,200 EI maximum threshold when they file their 2020 taxes.

So when you file your personal 2020 income tax, if you ended up making more than $80,667 in income, you will have had to pay back the full $8,000 of CERB received on a T4E.

This results in helping everyone today, help jump start the economy when we need to and have those that get back on their feet quicker, paying some or all of it back.

If you received both the CERB from Service Canada, and the CERB through your employer, you have to pay back the amount greater than the $8,000 received, and then any other amount based on the formula above.

This will prevent or reduce the double dip.


Prong 2 – CERB through the Small Business employer

The small business (less than $15M in assets of all associated corporations) employer would also get the CERB on a per-employee basis. They already have to fill out the number of employees when they file their remittance forms, so what’s the difference?

This $2,000 flows through to subsidize the wages, and must be paid to the employees. You create a different box number to track it on the T4 slips next year for audit purposes and to make sure the employee got the money.

I know this isn’t 75%, but the 75% was a capped amount anyways. That’s why I said keep it simple.

In order to incentivize the small business employer so they don’t lay them off, treat it as a flow through, and non-taxable to the employer.

So if there are five employees at the small business, the employer will get $10,000 of CERB to flow through to the employees.

The employee’s wages will be subsidized by the $2,000 amount, and they will put the $2,000 in a different box on each T4 slip for tracking purposes.

In order to incentivize the employer to act as the flow-through for Service Canada, this $2,000 will not be subject to EI or CPP by the employer and will not be included in the taxable income of the employer.

This allows the employer to claim the full wage deduction, have subsidized payroll costs, and save the income tax amount by deducting the full payroll.

By not counting it as income, this tax and remittance savings can be viewed liked an “admin fee” for acting on Service Canada’s behalf.

On $10,000 (5 employees) this would save up to $252 in Employer EI, $525 in Employer CPP, and $900 in federal income tax.

Cost to government for employer being the administrator instead of Service Canada: $1,167.

Incentive for employer to NOT lay off the staff, $10,000 in wage costs… and $1,167 in tax savings.


Prong 3 – CERB through Large Corporations

If the employer is getting the CERB on a per-employee basis and they are a large (greater than $15M in assets) corporation or associated group, allow them to not pay employer EI or CPP on the CERB.

100 employees = $200,000 = up to $5,040 in reduced EI, and $10,500 in reduced CPP remittances as the incentive.

So the employer gets $2,000 per employee as a subsidy to cover wage costs, and does not have to do payroll withholdings on the amount, saving them a total of $200,000 + 5,040 + 10,500 = $215,540.

Or put another way, they can save $15,540 by not laying them off.

If that’s not enough incentive, then perhaps look at it being only 50% taxable, which in the example above, would reduce Federal income tax by $15,000 (using 15% general rate x 50% x $200,000)



Audit Tracing

By simplifying the process, there is less ability for abuse.

Service Canada will issue everyone a T4E with the CERB they personally received from them (no application necessary).

T4 box numbers can be reconciled by CRA on slip filing to amounts of CERB received by the employer through the PIER system.

Those same boxes can be reconciled to specific individuals on tax filings to see if there were any that should repay.

Amounts greater than $8,000 received by anyone will need to be repaid.

Those with income over the EI Maximum amount, will have to repay some or all of the CERB back when they file.

If you don’t agree… well… the specific repayment formula can be figured out later… we have a year for that. We need the money in the public’s hands now though.


In Conclusion

These incentives and recapture mechanisms will reduce the likelihood of layoffs in low-margin industries like hospitality since $2,000 a month goes a long way to covering those wages; it will “Flatten the EI Curve” (trademark pending – not really… but I like saying it)

It would get everyone back working quicker after this is done by maintaining the connection to employers, and get the economy kick-started with cash injections at the front of this thing, rather than the end.

In the end… you have employers flowing the $2,000 through to the employee on Service Canada’s behalf as a no-withholding amount and a nominal cost to the employer to administer it, rather than Service Canada processing hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of individual applications.

If they are a small business, they actually get a tax savings by being the administrator and helping Service Canada in the process.

If they are a large business, they can have a good chunk of payroll costs reduced by not having to pay EI and CPP on the amount, and perhaps tax savings.

In the end, every worker gets $8,000 over 4 months just to buy everyone time and we have Flattened the EI Curve.™

Biography of Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr can be found here.

#RedDeerStrong – If you’re struggling and you need to consolidate debt through a mortgage refinance, Kristen is here for you.

CEO | Director CGL Tax Professional Corporation With the Income Tax Act always by his side on his smart-phone, Cory has taken tax-nerd to a whole other level. His background in strategic planning, tax-efficient corporate reorganizations, business management, and financial planning bring a well-rounded approach to assist private corporations and their owners increase their wealth through the strategies that work best for them. An entrepreneur himself, Cory started CGL with the idea that he wanted to help clients adapt to the ever-changing tax and economic environment and increase their wealth through optimizing the use of tax legislation coupled with strategic business planning and financial analysis. His relaxed blue-collar approach in a traditionally white-collar industry can raise a few eyebrows, but in his own words: “People don’t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.” More info:

Follow Author


Mandating COVID shots ‘one of the greatest mistakes,’ former CDC chief says

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By John-Michael Dumais, The Defender

In a Senate hearing July 11, ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield said mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are ‘toxic’ and should not have been mandated. He also called for a pause on gain-of-function research.

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield confirmed the dangers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a U.S. Senate hearing on July 11, calling them “toxic” and saying they should never have been mandated.

Redfield’s admissions came during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on government oversight of taxpayer-funded high-risk virus research.

The late admission of vaccine injuries underscores the failure of public health agencies and the medical establishment to provide informed consent to the billions of vaccine recipients worldwide.

“It’s important that he is telling the truth now,” vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender. “Adverse events were hidden and still are being hidden to prevent injection hesitancy.”

Redfield, who led the CDC from 2018 to 2021, didn’t stop there. He declared biosecurity “our nation’s greatest national security threat,” calling for a halt to gain-of-function research pending further debate.

The hearing, which featured contentious exchanges between senators and witnesses, also touched on controversial topics such as the COVID-19 origins lab-leak theory and allegations that health agencies suppressed data.

mRNA vax ‘should have been open to personal choice’

During the hearing Redfield, who oversaw the CDC during the crucial early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, elaborated on his recent statements about mRNA vaccine safety.

Redfield went further, admitting that the spike protein produced by mRNA vaccines is “toxic to the body” and triggers “a very strong pro-inflammatory response.”

He noted that in his own medical practice, he doesn’t administer mRNA vaccines, preferring “killed protein vaccines” instead.

Redfield’s statements stand in stark contrast to the CDC’s official stance during his tenure, which strongly promoted mRNA vaccine uptake as safe and effective.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) pressed Redfield on the issue, highlighting concerning data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Johnson presented figures showing over 37,000 deaths reported following COVID-19 vaccination, with 24 percent occurring within two days of injection.

Redfield acknowledged there was “not appropriate transparency from the beginning about the potential side effects of these vaccines.” He criticized attempts to “underreport any side effects because they argued that would make the public less likely to get vaccinated.”

‘FDA should release all of the safety data’

Redfield’s criticism of data withholding extended beyond vaccine side effects. He expressed disappointment in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA) handling of vaccine safety information.

“The FDA should release all of the safety data they have,” Redfield said. “I was very disappointed to hear that they were planning to hold on to that until 2026. That really creates a sense of total lack of trust in our public health agencies towards vaccination.”

Johnson echoed these concerns, revealing his frustration with the lack of follow-through by health agencies and the committee itself.

“I’m not getting cooperation out of the chairman of the permanent subcommittee investigation to issue subpoenas to get this,” Johnson said, referring to unreleased data and documents.

The senator displayed a chart comparing adverse event reports for various drugs, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, to those for COVID-19 vaccines. The stark contrast in reported deaths from these therapeutics – with COVID-19 vaccines showing significantly higher numbers – fueled Johnson’s demand for more transparency.

“As important as the cover-up of the origin story is, there’s a lot more that’s being covered up,” Johnson asserted. “The public has a right to know. We pay for these agencies. We pay their salaries. We fund these studies.”

Redfield agreed with Johnson’s assessment, stating that withholding the information is “counterproductive.”

Redfield doubtful of ‘any benefit from [gain-of-function] research’

Redfield’s testimony took another controversial turn when he called for a pause on gain-of-function research, experiments that involve making pathogens more infectious or deadly.

“I’m not aware of any advanced therapeutic or vaccine that has come to pass because of gain-of-function research,” Redfield said. “I do think there has to be a very aggressive debate of whether there’s any benefit from that research.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) seized on this point, introducing his Risky Research Review Act. The bill aims to establish an independent board within the executive branch to oversee federal funding for high-risk life sciences research.

“If the Risky Research Review Act had been in place, it might have prevented the COVID-19 pandemic,” Paul said, citing Redfield’s endorsement.

MIT’s Kevin Esvelt, Ph.D., inventor of a technique for rapidly evolving proteins and other biomolecules who was also instrumental in developing CRISPR gene-editing technology, reinforced these concerns.

Highlighting gaps in current oversight, he described an experiment where his team – with FBI approval – successfully ordered DNA fragments of the 1918 influenza virus from 36 of 38 providers.

“Everything that we did and the companies did was entirely legal,” Esvelt said, underscoring the potential for misuse. “There are no laws regulating DNA synthesis, even though the industry group, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium, has requested congressional regulation.”

The hearing revealed a growing consensus among witnesses for stricter oversight of potentially dangerous research, with Redfield suggesting such studies should be “highly regulated” to protect national security.

Redfield reaffirms COVID lab-leak theory

The hearing reignited debate over the origins of COVID-19, with Redfield reaffirming his belief in the lab-leak theory.

“Based on my initial analysis, I believe then, and I still believe today, that the COVID infections were the direct result of a biomedical research experiment and subsequent lab leak,” Redfield stated.

This assertion led to a heated exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Carrie Wolinetz, Ph.D., former chief of staff to then-director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis Collins. Hawley accused NIH officials of deliberately suppressing the lab-leak theory.

“Your office, Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and others tried to actively censor them,” Hawley said. “There was a propaganda effort that this paper was the center of, and now everybody says, ‘Oh, well, we just weren’t sure at the time.’”

Hawley referred to the 2020 “Proximal Origin” paper that argued against the lab-leak hypothesis.

Wolinetz defended the NIH’s actions. “I do not believe censorship took place, sir.” She maintained that discussions about the virus’s origins were part of normal scientific discourse.

Redfield, however, criticized the lack of thorough investigation into both natural origin and lab-leak hypotheses. “Unfortunately, this didn’t happen,” he said, adding that four years later, he believes there’s no meaningful evidence supporting a natural origin.

The former CDC director also revealed that he did not learn about concerning biodistribution studies of the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles until as late as the summer of 2021, suggesting a delay in critical information reaching top health officials.

‘Biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat’

Redfield emphasized the critical importance of biosecurity in national defense.

“In 2024, 2025, biosecurity is our nation’s greatest national security threat,” Redfield stated. “You need to think of it the same way we thought about the verge of nuclear atomic [sic] in the late ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s.”

He called for a proportional response to the threat, suggesting the creation of a dedicated agency within the U.S. Department of Energy to address biosecurity concerns.

“We have a $900 billion Defense Department for the threat of China, North Korea, and Russia,” Redfield noted. “We don’t have really any systematic agency or network of private sector contractors to help us with the biosecurity threat.”

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) echoed this sentiment. “In my humble mind, a viral biosecurity issue is a bigger issue than China’s military threat to us.”

Gerald Parker, DVM, Ph.D., associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University, supported the call for enhanced oversight, recommending “an independent authority to consolidate secure functions in a single entity with a dedicated mission.”

The hearing also touched on the potential for future pandemics, with Redfield repeating his warnings about the potential spread of H5N1 bird flu.

As the hearing concluded, senators from both parties expressed concern over the lack of transparency and oversight in high-risk research.

Paul summarized the sentiment: “We cannot stand idly by. We must demand accountability, strive for transparency, and ensure the safety of our citizens is never again compromised by negligence or deceit.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading


2.5 million in Ontario don’t have family doctor as COVID mandates for health workers remain

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

While the official number of nurses and other workers relieved of their duties for refusing to take the experimental injections remains uncertain, Raphael Gomez, director of the Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Relations at the University of Toronto, told CTV Newsthat as many as 10 percent of nurses in the province either quit or retired early as a result of the mandates.  

While COVID vaccine mandates remain, Ontario physicians are demanding “urgent support” for the 2.5 million residents of the province who are currently without a family doctor.

In a July 11 press release, the Ontario College of Family Physicians called for urgent support for the 2.5 million Ontarians who are without a family doctor, amid ongoing hospital staff shortages that were ostensibly worsened due to the imposition of COVID vaccine mandates.

“Every Ontarian deserves a family doctor, and patients should be able to find one in their community,” said Dr. Mekalai Kumanan, president of the Ontario College of Family Physicians. “System-wide issues are stretching family doctors far beyond capacity. We need to address the pressing issues facing family doctors today.”   

According to new data, the number of Ontarians without a family doctor has risen from 1.8 million in 2020 to 2.5 million as of September 2023 The data further revealed that over 160,000 people were added to the list in a six-month period alone. 

Dr. Archna Gupta, family doctor and researcher with Upstream Labs, explained that not having a family doctor often means “patients may need to rely on hospital emergency departments more frequently and do not get screened for cancer as often.” 

Ontario’s doctor and healthcare staff shortage comes as the province continues to mandate COVID vaccines to work in hospital settings.  

Indeed, according to recently released figures, Ontario will need 33,200 more nurses and 50,853 more personal support workers by 2032 to fill the healthcare workers shortage – figures the Progressive Conservative government of Doug Ford had asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner to keep secret.  

While the official number of nurses and other workers relieved of their duties for refusing to take the experimental injections remains uncertain, Raphael Gomez, director of the Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Relations at the University of Toronto, told CTV Newsthat as many as 10 percent of nurses in the province either quit or retired early as a result of the mandates.  

“I believe that anyone continuing to administrate these mandates rather than halting these injections entirely, because of their extreme danger signals, is negligent if not intentionally criminal,” he declared.  

“They are pretending that they did not just severely screw up thus killing and injuring many innocent people,” Trozzi explained. “In continuing the mandates and not halting the injections, they persist in placing their own interests to cover their guilt and maintain their profits; rather than even remotely serve their duty to protect human life. It is my opinion that they should be removed from office in handcuffs and prosecuted.”  

Trozzi further pointed out that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is both creating and “solving” the doctor shortage.   

“The leadership of Canada’s colleges of physicians and surgeons along with guilty person’s in provincial and federal governments, stripped the licenses of our most trust-worthy physicians and nurses,” he explained.  

“They also forced an exodus of quieter but intelligent doctors who quietly refused to be injected with the C-19 genetic ‘vaccines’,” Trozzi continued. “What makes this worse, is the current precedent being set, which is to inject and muzzle all our still licensed doctors and nurses and eliminate any doctor or nurse who warns the public with true science.” 

Indeed, those who dare to speak out against the dangers of the COVID vaccine are punished even more severely than those who quietly refused the shot. 

In April, LifeSiteNews reported that Canadian nurse Kristen Nagle was found guilty of violating Ontario’s COVID rules for participating in an anti-lockdown rally and speaking out against COVID mandates.  

While her fine was massively reduced, she was still placed under a two-year probation, which she said is designed to stop her from “speaking out or going against public health measures.” 

“The doctors, nurses and scientists who will protect and serve them no matter what, have been removed from their service,” Trozzi warned. “People should fight.”

Continue Reading