Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Rising gas prices are having a real impact on how Manitobans manage their daily routines and summer plans, according to a new survey from CAA Manitoba. The survey found that about six in ten Manitobans say higher fuel costs are affecting their day-to-day lives, with many cutting back on driving and adjusting spending to make ends meet. “Manitobans are making thoughtful choices to stretch their budgets, whether that’s driving a little less, planning trips more carefully or finding ways to save at the pump,” says Ewald Friesen, manager, government & community relations for CAA Manitoba. Many respondents said they begin to rethink their habits when gas prices reach around $2.10 per litre, a point where costs start to influence decisions about how and when they travel. The most common changes include driving less for everyday needs (35 per cent), cutting spending in other areas (23 per cent), and reducing or eliminating some activities entirely (23 per cent). Summer travel is still a priority, with adjustments Despite higher fuel costs, road trips remain a popular choice this summer, with more than seven in ten Manitobans planning to hit the road. However, nearly six in ten say rising gas prices are likely to influence those plans, prompting many to take fewer trips, travel shorter distances or adjust their budgets. “Travel is still important to Manitobans, especially during the summer months, but people are being more mindful about how they plan those trips,” adds Friesen. Saving at the pump is becoming a priority for Manitobans Manitobans are also actively looking for ways to manage fuel costs. The survey shows that most drivers are taking steps to save money on gas, with many turning to loyalty programs, comparing prices at different stations, or using apps to find the best deal. More than half say they are also considering alternative ways to get around more often, such as walking, cycling, or using transit where possible. Simple tips to stretch your fuel budget: CAA Manitoba encourages drivers to take simple steps to improve fuel efficiency and make the most of every tank, especially during busy summer travel months: Plan routes in advance to avoid backtracking and unnecessary mileage: Plan the most efficient route to your destination and avoid backtracking and unnecessary mileage. Remove extra weight from your vehicle: Reducing your vehicle’s weight can help improve your fuel efficiency when on trips. Avoid leaving your rooftop luggage carriers or bike racks on your vehicles when you are not using them: Items on top of the car significantly increase aerodynamic drag, reducing fuel economy. Control your speed: Fuel consumption starts to increase above 90-105 km/h. For long stretches of road ahead, use cruise control to maintain your speed to save fuel. Drive conservatively: If you find yourself stuck in long weekend traffic, avoid rapid acceleration and hard braking, which can lower fuel economy by 15 to 30 per cent at highway speeds and 10 to 40 per cent in stop-and-go traffic. Keep up with regular car maintenance: Underinflated tires increase fuel consumption by up to four per cent. With regular maintenance services, you can help your vehicle run more efficiently. Take advantage of reward programs and tools to find lower prices: CAA members save three cents per litre when they load their membership card in the Shell app or use it at the pump. “These small actions can add up over time and help make driving more affordable,” says Friesen. CAA Manitoba continues to advocate for drivers by sharing timely information and practical advice to help Manitobans navigate rising costs and stay mobile year-round.
A Closer Look at Index Funds in Retirement
Someone in their early sixties slides a statement across the kitchen table. Balanced portfolio. Broad index funds. Low annual fees. They did everything the industry told them to do, in the order the industry prescribed. Then they ask the question that has nothing to do with the statement: "Will it last?" I call that FORO. Fear Of Running Out. People tell me it's just nerves. It isn't. Here's what I think is really happening. An index fund is a very good machine for one job: growing money over thirty years. It assumes you have time. It assumes you're buying, not selling. It assumes you don't much care what's inside, as long as the number goes up. Every one of those assumptions stops being true the day you retire. Why do index funds treat expensive stocks as growth stocks? Campbell Harvey teaches finance at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business. This spring, he published a paper with four colleagues in the Financial Analysts Journal that tackles something so basic that most of us never think about it. (Source: Arnott, Brightman, Harvey, Nguyen & Shakernia, "Fundamental Growth," Financial Analysts Journal, 2026.) Almost every index fund is built on one idea: if a stock is expensive, the company must be growing rapidly. Harvey's finding is that this is often wrong. A stock can be expensive because it's popular. But popularity and growth are two different things. If you want proof that price and business performance can go their separate ways, think back to 2021. GameStop. AMC. Stocks that shot up on Reddit forums, with very little of the chatter based on earnings reports. Think back to 2021. GameStop. AMC. Share prices shot straight up because people online decided they should. Not because those companies were selling more of anything. Now consider how index funds work across every retirement account. A stock becomes popular, its price rises, and the fund buys more of it, not because the business improved, but because the price went up. How concentrated is the S&P/TSX Composite? Everything above is American. Here's the Canadian version, eh? The main Canadian index is not a broad mix of the world's best businesses. It's dominated by banks, mining and oil. Those three groups make up close to 70% of the index. Banks alone account for about 31%. According to the iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite, the ten biggest holdings are roughly 38% of the whole thing, with Royal Bank at the top. In fact, close to half the weight of the index is made up of just financials and energy. I'm not saying anything negative about those companies. I'm saying you own them, whether you picked them or not, in amounts you didn't choose, for reasons that have nothing to do with what you need at age 72. That's been a fine bet for long stretches. It's also a narrow one. And narrow feels very different at 65 than it did at 35, because at 65 you no longer have the thing that makes a bad market survivable. Time. Why does a market drop cost a 65-year-old more than a 35-year-old? Let’s illustrate this with an example. Two people own the same fund. One is 35 and still contributing, while the other is 65 and withdrawing. Both are dealing with $6,000 this year. A unit of the fund costs $100. Then the market drops 20%, and a unit costs $80. The 35-year-old puts in $6,000. Before the drop, that money bought 60 units. Now it buys 75. Fifteen units he didn't pay for. The 65-year-old needs $6,000 to live on. Before the drop, she'd have sold 60 units to get it. Now she must sell 75. Fifteen units she'll never get back. Then the market recovers. Units return to $100. His 15 extra units are worth $1,500 more than he paid for them. Her 15 units were sold at the bottom. They aren't there to recover. Same fund. Same market. Same $6,000. The only difference is the direction the money was moving. That's why a retiree needs to look inside the fund, whereas a 35-year-old mostly doesn't. RRIF minimum withdrawals: why Canadian retirees are forced to sell In Canada, we've set a rule. When your RRSP becomes a RRIF, you must withdraw a minimum amount each year. The rate starts at 5.28% at age 71 and increases each year after that. (Source: Canada Revenue Agency, prescribed RRIF minimum withdrawal factors.) So, a Canadian retiree can be forced to sell in a bad year, from a narrow index based on a definition of growth that a Duke University business professor has just called flawed. Three problems stacked on top of each other. None of them show up on the statement. This is exactly the point I made with EY Canada in The Canadian Retirement Evolution, published in July (Source: EY Canada, 2026). FORO isn't a personal failing. It's a design gap. We built a system to save money, then asked it to pay people reliably for thirty years. It was never built for that. And the biggest thing most Canadians over 55 own isn't in the index at all. It's the house. About 70% of the coming wealth transfer in this country sits in real estate, and more than 85% of seniors say they want to stay in their homes (Source: EY Canada, The Canadian Retirement Evolution, 2026). Asset-rich, cash-poor, and treating their largest asset as off-limits. 5 questions to ask your advisor about your index funds I'm not telling you to sell anything. I can't. I don't know your health, your pension, your taxes, or your nerves. But here's what I'd want answered before my next meeting with an advisor. What are the ten biggest things I actually own? Not the fund name. The holdings. Do my funds overlap? Three funds that all own the same five banks isn't three bets. It's one. What happens if I must withdraw in a bad year? Is my "growth" fund measuring actual growth, or just price? Where does my home equity fit into all this? Ask. A good advisor will be glad you did. If you get a pie chart and a pat on the back, ask again. One last point from Professor Harvey. More than half of all invested money now sits in funds that buy automatically. He thinks it could reach 80% within ten years. (Source: Duke University Fuqua School of Business, 2026.) When enough money buys without looking, price stops being a judgment and becomes a reflex. But retirees are the least able to afford someone else's reflex. Here's the plain truth beneath all the jargon: nobody swapped out your equipment when the game changed. You're still holding a golf club on a pickleball court. Momentum is still wearing a cardigan. Your funds still can't tell the difference between expensive and growing. And most retirement plans still hand you a seatbelt when what you need is a crash-proof suit. Nobody in the industry is racing to fix this for you. So I will. Consider this the first chapter, not the last word. It's time to take back our retirements and reset. Don't Retire…ReWire! Sue My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one. It's available September 29, 2026 published by ECW Press - You can now order at Indigo or Amazon. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you. References: All figures verified 4 August 2026 Important: This article is general information and commentary only and does not constitute financial, mortgage, tax, legal, or investment advice. Before making decisions about your retirement or home equity, consult qualified liscensed professionals who can assess your personal circumstances.
There's No Such Thing as the Average Canadian Retiree. There Are Three.
You've seen the photo. Silver-haired couple on a sailboat, or walking on a beach at golden hour, laughing about nothing in particular. It's on the cover of every retirement brochure ever printed. It's what "the average Canadian retiree" looks like. In thirty years of banking, I never met that couple. I met a widow in her seventies deciding between a dental crown and her property taxes. I met a couple in their sixties quietly draining their RRSPs to keep a grandchild in university. And yes, I met people with sailboats, though they weren't asking me about retirement income. They were asking about estate freezes and charitable foundations. Three conversations. Three completely different Canadians. And after three decades of having them, most recently as a vice president at one of Canada's Schedule I banks, I've come to believe our biggest retirement problem isn't that Canadians plan badly. It's that we keep designing for an "average retiree" who doesn't exist. In The Canadian Retirement Evolution, a report newly published by EY that I was proud to co-author, I make the case for seeing Canadian retirees as three distinct groups. 1) Retirees in Need (roughly 30%) Nearly one-third of Canadian retirees are living close to the edge. Limited pension income, modest personal savings, and rising living costs define their retirement. Adding to the pressure, retirement debt is becoming the new reality. According to Royal LePage, 29% of Canadians who are recently retired or approaching retirement expect to continue making mortgage payments on their primary residence. For many Canadians, debt has become a permanent companion, extending well into what should be their most financially secure years. Perhaps the most troubling reality is this. Most people in this group have never received professional financial advice. The Canadians who need planning the most are often the Canadians the financial planning industry reaches the least. That should concern every financial institution, advisor and policymaker in this country. When retirement arrives with too little income, too much debt and no plan, the result is not just financial stress. It is anxiety, reduced independence and difficult choices that no Canadian should have to make after a lifetime of work. 2) Retirees Seeking Stability (roughly 60%) This is the majority of Canadian retirees, and the group that the sailboat photo completely misses. They are not financially struggling, but neither are they financially free. They have enough to retire, but not enough to stop worrying. What they want is simple. They want to maintain the lifestyle they spent forty years building. They want confidence that their money will last as long as they do. They want a retirement plan that offers stability and predictability. And they want the freedom to help the people they love, whether that's contributing to a grandchild's education, helping with a first home, or lending a hand when life throws one of their children an unexpected curveball. That is where retirement becomes complicated. Retirement has changed dramatically over the past three decades, but much of the advice Canadians receive has not. The result is a growing gap between today's retirement realities and yesterday's retirement plans. Every dollar shared with family is one less dollar available to fund their own future. Every unexpected expense raises the same unsettling question: Will I still have enough? This group lives in the space between abundance and anxiety. They have assets, but not always confidence. They have choices, but every choice comes with trade-offs. They don't need a miracle. They need a plan that provides stability, predictability, and the confidence to enjoy the retirement they worked so hard to earn without constantly wondering if today's decisions will become tomorrow's regrets. 3) Affluent Retirees (roughly 10%) The remaining ten percent focuses on sophisticated wealth management: transferring wealth to the next generation, structuring estates to minimize taxes, and giving philanthropically. These are good problems to have, served by an entire industry built to solve them. And that's the uncomfortable truth hiding in the framework: most of our retirement advice, most of our products, and most of our planning tools were designed with this group in mind. Retirement Fear Has a Name In 1990, more than 70% of Canadian workplace pension plans were defined benefit plans, providing predictable, guaranteed lifetime income. By 2022, that figure had fallen to just 37%. In the span of a single working generation, we quietly shifted the risk of outliving retirement savings from institutions to individuals. The anxiety created by that shift is something I encountered in thousands of conversations with Canadians throughout my lending career, long before I had a name for it. I call it FORO, the Fear of Running Out. In the EY report, we describe it this way: "Fear of running out (FORO) reflects a structural gap in retirement system design, not a failure of individual planning. Most retirement frameworks were built for accumulation rather than sustainable income in later life." That is the heart of the challenge. Canada's retirement system does an excellent job of helping people save, but far less to help them transform those savings into sustainable, predictable income throughout retirement. It is little wonder that so many Canadians approach retirement with uncertainty rather than confidence. The Elephant in the Living Room One final reality deserves far more attention. Canada is in the midst of one of the largest intergenerational wealth transfers in its history. Much of that wealth is tied up in residential real estate, owned by Canadians who consistently say they want to remain in their homes for as long as possible. That creates an important contradiction. The largest asset held by most Canadian households is also one of the least integrated into mainstream retirement planning. We encourage Canadians to build home equity for decades, then often ignore it when they need income the most. If retirement planning is meant to consider every available resource, why do we continue to overlook the largest one? Resolving that question has become the focus of my research and my forthcoming book, Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, September 2026). But that discussion extends beyond the scope of this article. For now, it is enough to recognize the disconnect. Retirement has changed. Canadians' balance sheets have changed. It may be time for retirement planning to change as well. A Retirement System Designed for Everyone The EY report reminds us that retirement is more than a financial milestone. It is one of life's most significant transitions, and every Canadian deserves to approach it with confidence, dignity and choice. That outcome will not be achieved with a retirement system designed around a single, hypothetical retiree. Canadians retire with different financial realities, different goals and different challenges. A retirement system that recognizes only one path will continue to leave too many people behind. Designing for the three retirement realities outlined in this paper is not simply good policy. It is good business. Financial institutions that tailor products, advice and education to meet the needs of all three groups will be better positioned to serve Canada's fastest-growing demographic. Policymakers who encourage that evolution will help create a retirement system that reflects the way Canadians actually live today, not the way they lived thirty years ago. The question is no longer whether retirement has changed. It has. The question is whether our retirement system will evolve quickly enough to meet Canadians where they are. Don't Retire... Re-Wire! Sue My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one. It's available September 29, 2026 published by ECW Press - You can now order at Indigo or Amazon. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you.
Op-Ed: Crypto market bill adds risk, not clarity
Markets function best when participants understand the rules of the road, investors have confidence in the integrity of the system, and regulators have clear authority to police misconduct. The crypto market structure legislation now advancing in Congress promises exactly this clarity. Yet it raises a more troubling question: what happens when legislation written to create clarity instead exempts large parts of the digital asset ecosystem from the very safeguards that make markets safe for everyday Americans? Blockchain technology, tokenization, stablecoins and digital assets can improve efficiency, lower transaction costs, and widen access to financial products. Those opportunities are real. But sustainable innovation requires trust, and trust requires accountability. The legislation under consideration would create broad carve-outs for parts of the digital asset ecosystem, particularly within decentralized finance. Supporters call these provisions pro-innovation. Economically, they are regulatory arbitrage–the practice of avoiding rules and requirements that apply to similar financial activities elsewhere. Regulatory arbitrage does not create better products or services. Instead, it allows some firms to operate with lower costs by avoiding obligations designed to protect consumers and maintain financial stability. When two companies provide the same financial service but follow different sets of rules, the company with fewer requirements will naturally have lower costs. Those savings are not necessarily the result of greater efficiency. They often come from avoiding safeguards that other firms are required to maintain. Consider what the exemptions waive. A bank that holds customer assets must keep those assets separate from their own funds, maintain capital reserves, and fund a supervisory and compliance apparatus. An exempt digital platform performing the same custodial function carries none of these costs, so it can offer the service more cheaply while taking on risks that may not become apparent until problems arise. A bank that pays a return on deposits also pays deposit insurance premiums, holds regulatory capital, and absorbs the cost of anti-money-laundering compliance. An exempt platform passing through the yield on its reserves bears none of these and can therefore advertise a higher net rate on funds that are, economically, deposits. The activity is the same on both sides of the ledger. Only the rulebook differs, and the rulebook is the cost. This asymmetry falls hardest on community banks. Their deposits are the raw material of local lending. When an exempt platform can out-price them on stablecoin yield without carrying the costs that yield is meant to cover, deposits migrate, funding costs rise, and lending capacity contracts. As a result, community banks have less money available to lend, which can make it harder for small businesses to access credit. Community banks are responsible for roughly 60% of small-business loans and 80% of agricultural lending nationwide[1]. In Louisiana, where local banks finance small businesses and family farms, that risk is especially acute. The lesson is straightforward: when economically similar activities–like stablecoin yield and interest payments–operate under very different rules, risk often becomes harder to see until it's too late. History shows where this leads. Before the 2008 crisis, mortgage-related risk migrated out of regulated banks and into the “shadow banking” system–financial entities and investment vehicles that operated with less oversight. Those markets looked innovative and efficient. But because transparency and accountability were weaker, risk accumulated out of sight until it threatened the entire system. The lesson is not that the instruments were novel. It is that economically similar activities were governed by different rules, and risk flowed to the corner where it was hardest to see. The same logic applies to investors. Markets succeed only when participants trust them, which is why registration requirements promote transparency, best-execution standards help ensure fair treatment, and anti-money-laundering tools deter illicit activity. The legislation would let certain digital asset developers operate outside many of these protections. Technology can change how an asset is recorded or transferred. It does not change the risks an investor bears, or the incentives a firm faces when no one is watching. The United States does need a durable framework for digital assets, and regulatory uncertainty serves no one. Entrepreneurs need predictable rules, investors need confidence, and markets need consistency. But a framework built on exemptions delivers none of these. It delivers a two-tier market in which the regulated bear the costs and the exempt reap the advantages, until the risks they shed reassemble somewhere less visible. The most durable financial innovations in American history emerged within systems that paired opportunity with accountability. Digital assets should be no exception. Congress should reject this legislation and pursue a framework that applies the same rules to the same activities. Innovation matters. Trust is what makes it last.
Former bank executive and Retire with Equity founder says "fear of running out" reflects a structural gap in retirement system design — not a failure of individual planning TORONTO, ON — July 23, 2026 — Susan Pimento, founder of Retire with Equity, is a co-author to The Canadian retirement evolution: Why financial institutions and policymakers must rethink retirement, a new report published today by EY examining how Canada's retirement landscape is changing — and why the systems built to support retirees are struggling to keep pace. The report arrives amid a structural shift in how Canadians fund retirement: in 1990, over 70 percent of Canadian workplace pension plans were defined-benefit schemes providing predictable lifelong income; by 2022, that figure had fallen to 37 percent — shifting investment risk, and the fear of running out onto individuals. Drawing on more than 30 years of senior leadership in Canadian banking and frontline lending, including serving as Vice President at a Schedule I bank, Pimento contributed a framework that groups Canadian retirees into three primary categories, each with distinct financial circumstances and priorities — a lens designed to help financial institutions and policymakers move beyond one-size-fits-all retirement planning. Sue Pimento is also the author of the forthcoming Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, to be released September 2026), "Fear of running out — FORO — reflects a structural gap in retirement system design, not a failure of individual planning," said Pimento. "Most retirement frameworks were built for accumulation rather than sustainable income in later life. Canadians aren't failing their retirement plans. In many cases, the plans were never designed for the retirement they're actually living." Pimento's contribution reflects the research focus of Retire with Equity, which provides retirement intelligence to Canada's financial sector on its fastest-growing and wealthiest demographic: adults 55 and over. Her forthcoming book examines how home equity — the largest asset most Canadian households hold — can be strategically converted into retirement income, and argues it belongs in every retirement conversation and product roadmap. "The industry has spent decades perfecting how Canadians save," Pimento added. "The next decade will be judged on how well we help them spend — sustainably, confidently, and without fear." The EY Report: "Canadian Retirement Evolution" is publicly available at: https://www.ey.com/en_ca/insights/financial-services/canadas-retirement-evolution Media availability: Susan Pimento is available for interviews and commentary on: retirement income design the three categories of Canadian retirees financial strategies for aging in place Intergenerational financial conversations about money (between seniors and their adult children) home equity strategies new ways for government and banks to serve the 55+ demographic About Susan Pimento Susan Pimento brings deep experience to the conversation on modern retirement strategies in Canada. With over 30 years of senior leadership in banking and frontline lending — including serving as Vice President at a Schedule I bank — she now advises financial institutions and policymakers on how to modernize retirement solutions and engage Canada's fastest-growing, wealthiest demographic: adults 55+. She is the founder of Retire with Equity and author of Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, September 2026). . Media Contact: Susan Pimento Website: www.retirewithequity.ca Email: sue@retirewithequity.ca
Summer slide isn't just about academics
As summer reaches its midpoint, many parents are wondering how to keep their children engaged without turning the rest of the break into summer school. University of Delaware professors from the College of Education and Human Development say "summer slide" is real. However, preventing summer learning loss doesn't require expensive camps, tutors or educational apps. Instead, simple everyday activities can help children build academic skills, executive functioning and social-emotional development before they head back to school. Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, internationally recognized expert in child development and early learning can comment on: Why children lose academic skills over the summer – and why the effects are greatest for under-resourced families Why parents shouldn't rely on "educational" apps Free, research-backed ways to keep preschoolers and elementary-age children learning through play, reading and everyday activities like grocery shopping, puzzles and scavenger hunts Andrea Glowatz, expert in special education and child development can comment on: Why boredom is actually good for children – and how it builds creativity, problem-solving and independence How summer routines help children, particularly those with learning differences or neurodivergence Why chores, calendars and family routines strengthen executive functioning, not just responsibility Sara Goldstein, expert in adolescent development and parent-teen relationships can comment on: Why teenagers experience a version of the summer slide through increased screen time, disrupted sleep and reduced activity Healthy ways parents can encourage independence before college, from managing money to building life skills Research showing that strengthening parent-teen relationships during the summer benefits both parents and young adults These experts can also comment on broader parenting topics including screen time, executive functioning, preparing children for the new school year, supporting neurodivergent learners, and helping teens transition to college. If you're planning back-to-school or parenting coverage and want to speak with any of these experts, click on their profiles or email mediarelations@udel.edu.
Everything Old Is New Again. Even Layaway.
I've noticed a flurry of articles lately about the explosive growth of Buy Now, Pay Later. The Globe and Mail reported that BNPL has gone fully mainstream, with Canadians across income levels stretching groceries and gadgets into “manageable” monthly bites. The Walrus ran a piece by Vass Bednar arguing that BNPL has quietly become a shadow credit system that doesn't show up on any credit bureau's radar until it implodes. Reading both, I couldn't help but smile. Not because the trend is amusing, quite the opposite. It's because we've been here before. Long before Klarna, Afterpay, Sezzle and Affirm, there were Sears, Woolworth's, Kmart and Leon's. Canadians had layaway. No app, no one-click checkout, no influencer urging you to split a purchase into four easy instalments. Just a patient store clerk, a paper receipt, and a straightforward deal: you made payments over time, and only after the last one cleared did you take the item home, along with the quiet pride of knowing you'd earned it. Delayed gratification wasn't a burden; it was simply how responsible people bought things. Try explaining that to a twenty-five-year-old today. “Wait... what? You paid for it, and they wouldn't let you take it home?” Over the past forty years, we quietly flipped the model upside down. Yesterday's philosophy was pay first, enjoy later. Today, we enjoy first, pay later. The payment schedule looks remarkably similar, but the psychology could not be more different. That took me straight back to my childhood, when my parents represented two entirely different schools of financial thought. To Dad, cash wasn't just king; it was emperor, prime minister, pope, and captain of the soccer team, all rolled into one. If he didn't have it, he didn't buy it. Mom's favourite line was different: “If I waited until I could afford it, I'd never get it!” One afternoon, she came through the door beaming and announced, “I saved a thousand dollars today!” This was the 1970s, real money, and we waited breathlessly to hear how. “I bought a baby grand piano,” she said. “It was four thousand, on sale for three. I saved a thousand dollars!” The room went silent. Technically, she wasn't wrong. Dad never fully embraced Mom's definition of “saving.” I believe he eventually paid off the piano. I'm less convinced he ever settled the argument. Looking back, I don't think they were arguing about money at all. They were arguing about time. Dad believed that sacrificing today made tomorrow easier. Mom believed that tomorrow would work itself out. If they were alive now, Dad would still be carrying cash in his wallet, and Mom would have four BNPL apps on her phone and know exactly which one had the best promo running. I suspect most of us carry a bit of both. We're remarkably good at convincing ourselves that Future Me will be wealthier, more disciplined, and generally more together than Present Me. Future Me will get the raise, won't mind another monthly payment, will eat well, will sleep eight hours, will exercise regularly, and will never procrastinate. Read that again. Now look in the mirror. Got you, didn't I? Future Me usually looks a lot like Present Me, just with a few more wrinkles and a little less earning power. Behavioural economists call this present bias, or hyperbolic discounting: we place a much higher value on immediate rewards than on future ones. Nobel laureate Richard Thaler and Shlomo Benartzi built much of their retirement research around this tendency, and their Save More Tomorrow program showed how much help people need to overcome it (Thaler & Benartzi, 2004). Once you see that, BNPL stops looking like a payment option and starts looking like brilliant behavioural design. A $2,000 purchase quietly becomes “only $83 a month.” The price hasn't changed; our perception has. That, not the payment plans themselves, is the real story: the tug-of-war between Present Me and Future Me. That explains why so many Canadians struggle to save for retirement and often arrive there wishing we decided differently decades earlier. Why Is BNPL Suddenly Everywhere? Convenience is only part of the answer. The real drivers are rising living costs, stubborn inflation, and a culture that's grown allergic to waiting. BNPL fits that mindset perfectly: Payments Canada data shows usage rising from roughly 9% in 2022 to 25% in 2024. Younger Canadians cite quick access to credit, while middle-aged Canadians call it a budgeting tool. One group sees borrowing; the other sees it as managing cash flow as paycheques stretch less far. A recent Globe and Mail report on Koho's Grocery Gap data found that BNPL use for groceries more than doubled between May 2025 and May 2026, while incomes barely budged. Dad would have hated that explanation. Mom would have reminded him that life doesn't wait for your savings account to catch up. Like most financial tools, BNPL is neither inherently good nor bad. A hammer can build a house or break a window, depending on who's holding it. If your furnace dies mid-winter, financing the replacement is one of the smartest moves you'll make. The same goes for emergency dental work or a computer you need for work. Those are investments, not expenses. Financing concert tickets or a smartphone upgrade because yours is eighteen months old is a different category, one where Future Me keeps paying long after Present Me has finished enjoying the fun. Whenever I'm unsure where a purchase belongs, I ask one question: will this make my financial life stronger a year from now, or will I still be paying for it? Retailers didn't embrace BNPL out of concern for our budgeting skills; they embraced it because it works. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that offering BNPL at checkout increases sales by roughly 20%, largely by nudging people to spend more than they otherwise would (Berg et al., 2024). The product hasn't changed, and your income hasn't changed; only the payment method has. That's why “$89 a month” feels far less alarming than “$2,500,” even though the math is identical. A Word on Fraud Here's a related trend that concerns me, especially for older homeowners: be cautious when someone knocks on your door offering a new roof, windows, or solar panels for “only a few dollars a day.” Before signing, ask: did I think I needed this before the salesperson showed up? Sometimes yes. Roofs wear out. But sometimes the problem is manufactured right along with the financing, and a $25,000 renovation can sound reasonable when framed as “less than your cable bill.” Dad would have insisted on three quotes; Mom would have admired the enthusiasm. Listen to Dad: get multiple estimates, loop in someone you trust, and never sign on the spot. Read that again. Never sign on the spot! The RRSP Parallel and What Retirees Should Watch For BNPL also parallels something I wrote about recently in Canada's RRSP Program Has Too Many Jobs. The Home Buyers' Plan looks nothing like Buy Now, Pay Later on the surface, but look closer, and they sound alike. Both solve today's problem by borrowing from tomorrow's resources. It's helped thousands get into homes, and homeownership remains one of the best long-term wealth builders. But every dollar pulled from an RRSP stops compounding for retirement. We celebrate the house and quietly forget the retirement income we gave up for it, Present Me negotiating a deal Future Me eventually must honour. And Future Me always shows up, whether we're ready or not. It's tempting to think of BNPL as a young person's problem, but the psychological pull intensifies in retirement, not diminishes. When you're working, the next paycheque is a couple of weeks away. In retirement, every purchase competes with a finite pool of assets that may need to last thirty years. Financing groceries isn't a budgeting strategy; it's a signal that your income isn't keeping pace with your lifestyle. If every purchase starts with “what's the monthly payment?” instead of “can I actually afford this?” it's time to step back. I've long recommended imagining every purchase as a conversation with your retired self: would Future Me thank me, or wish I'd shown more restraint? Isn't a Reverse Mortgage the Same Thing? Some readers wonder whether reverse mortgages belong in this conversation. I'd argue they're nearly the opposite. Both involve money today and repayment later, but that's where the similarity ends. BNPL borrows against tomorrow's income to finance today's consumption, while a reverse mortgage, used appropriately, converts wealth you've already built into retirement income. One asks Future Me to earn more; the other recognizes that Past Me already did the heavy lifting. There's a world of difference between borrowing against tomorrow and drawing on yesterday's success. Whatever Happened to Paying Cash? Dad's advice was simple: if you can't pay cash, don't buy it. It's a little outdated now. Few of us carry cash anymore, and digital payments are so seamless that spending barely feels like spending. Tap, click, done. Maybe the rule just needs updating. Instead of “can I pay cash?” try “if I had to pay for this in full today, would I still buy it?” That shifts our focus from the monthly payment to the total cost and from affordability to value. BNPL isn't inherently good or bad; it's a tool like any other, and the real danger is forgetting that every financial decision is a negotiation between Present Me and Future Me. What My Parents Really Taught Me Looking back, my parents weren't really arguing about money; they were arguing about time. Dad taught me the value of patience and living within my means, and he understood instinctively what behavioural economists would later prove: delaying gratification pays remarkable dividends. Mom taught me something just as important: that life isn't meant to be spent waiting forever, and that some experiences create memories no investment account can measure. The wisdom lies in knowing the difference. Retirement requires both the discipline to save while working and the wisdom to enjoy what you've built. Save every penny and never spend it, and you've missed the point, tragically. Spend it all before retirement arrives, and biology has a nasty habit of showing up right on schedule, winning every time, just as tragically. Perhaps that's the real story behind Buy Now, Pay Later. It was never really about payment plans; it's about patience, priorities, and the lifelong conversation between who we are today and who we're becoming tomorrow. Present Me always gets the microphone, while Future Me waits quietly in the wings, hoping today's decisions leave something to work with. Next time you're offered four easy payments, ask the better question: will Future Me thank me for saying yes? Someday, Future Me becomes Present Me, and that's the day we find out whether today's purchase was an investment in our happiness or just another bill waiting, not so patiently, for retirement. I have a feeling Dad would smile reading this, quietly certain he'd finally won the argument. Mom would smile too, already wondering if she could get that validation in four easy instalments, and still call it saving money. Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one. It's available September 29, 2026 published by ECW Press - You can now order at Indigo or Amazon. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you.
Seven-in-ten Ontarians aged 35 to 54 say rising gas prices are affecting their day-to-day activities, as fuel costs continue to put pressure on household budgets and force many families to make difficult trade-offs in how they drive, spend and plan their daily lives, according to a new survey from CAA South Central Ontario (CAA SCO). The findings highlight how higher fuel costs are contributing to broader affordability challenges, with many families driving less, cutting back on discretionary spending and reducing everyday purchases such as takeout meals and coffee to keep spending in check. “For many Ontario families, higher gas prices aren’t just affecting how often they fill up the tank, they’re changing everyday decisions about where they go, what they buy and how they spend their money,” says Teresa Di Felice, assistant vice president, government & community relations for CAA SCO. Many households report driving less, cutting back on discretionary spending and reducing small but regular purchases such as takeout meals and coffee to manage rising costs. Affordability pressures are reshaping summer plans While summer is typically a time for travel and recreation, rising fuel costs are making it harder for families to fully participate in the activities they enjoy. Nearly seven in ten Ontarians aged 35 to 54 say gas prices are affecting their recreational activities and vacation plans, with many scaling back or rethinking how they spend their time off. For many, gas prices around $2.10 per litre represent a tipping point where driving habits and travel decisions begin to shift. Among those planning road trips, nearly six in ten say rising gas prices will influence their plans, often resulting in fewer trips, closer destinations or tighter budgets. “Families are doing their best to preserve important moments like vacations and day trips, but affordability pressures are forcing more careful planning,” adds Di Felice. CAA calls for continued focus on affordability for drivers CAA SCO says the findings underscore the need to keep affordability front of mind when it comes to policies and decisions that impact drivers. “Transportation is a daily necessity for many Ontarians, not a luxury,” says Di Felice. “When fuel costs rise, it affects everything from commuting to grocery runs and adds to the financial strain households are already feeling.” CAA SCO continues to advocate for practical solutions that help keep mobility accessible and affordable, while supporting consumers with tools and advice to manage rising costs. Practical steps to help stretch your fuel budget To help mitigate the impact of higher fuel costs, CAA SCO encourages drivers to take simple steps to improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary spending for their summer road trip plans: Plan routes in advance to avoid backtracking and unnecessary mileage: Plan the most efficient route to your destination and avoid backtracking and unnecessary mileage. Remove extra weight from your vehicle: Reducing your vehicle’s weight can help improve your fuel efficiency when on trips. Avoid leaving your rooftop luggage carriers or bike racks on your vehicles when you are not using them: Items on top of the car significantly increase aerodynamic drag, reducing fuel economy. Control your speed: Fuel consumption starts to increase above 90-105 km/h. For long stretches of road ahead, use cruise control to maintain your speed to save fuel. Drive conservatively: If you find yourself stuck in long weekend traffic, avoid rapid acceleration and hard braking, which can lower fuel economy by 15 to 30 per cent at highway speeds and 10 to 40 per cent in stop-and-go traffic. Keep up with regular car maintenance: Underinflated tires increase fuel consumption by up to four per cent. With regular maintenance services, you can help your vehicle run more efficiently. Take advantage of reward programs and tools to find lower prices: CAA members save three cents per litre when they load their membership card in the Shell app or use it at the pump. “These small actions can help drivers keep their summer road trip plans while managing their budgets more effectively,” adds Di Felice. CAA South Central Ontario continues to provide timely information and practical advice to help Ontarians navigate rising costs and stay mobile year-round. For more information on how to make the most out of your tank, please visit: https://www.caasco.com/membership/member-benefits/shell Methodology This report presents the findings of a survey conducted by Ipsos from May 27 to June 4, 2026. For this survey, a sample of 1,000 adult Ontario residents were surveyed online, with sample sourced through the Ipsos panel. Data was weighted by region, age and gender, in accordance with Census proportions. The precision of Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. The Ontario (n=1,000) data are accurate to within ± 3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, had the entire Ontario population aged 18+ been polled.
Canada’s RRSP Program Has Too Many Jobs
Summary: Since its inception in 1957, the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) has been a cornerstone of Canada’s retirement system. However, the RRSP has taken on roles far beyond its original mandate, notably through the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP) and the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP). Although these programs provide short-term benefits, they significantly damage the long-term health of Canadians' retirement savings. This article explores how these additional roles are sabotaging retirement savings, highlights statistics about the state of RRSPs today, and discusses the disastrous impact these trends will have on future retirees. If you’re 55 and wondering whether your RRSP is on track, the latest numbers may surprise you. Recent data suggest that the average Canadian aged 55 has approximately $180,000 in their RRSP. But averages can be misleading because a relatively small number of very large accounts pull the number higher. A better measure of what most Canadians have actually saved is the median RRSP balance, which sits at approximately $146,000. In other words, half of Canadians have saved less than that. Even after decades of tax-assisted saving, these balances are unlikely to generate the retirement income most Canadians will need. That raises an important question. How did one of Canada’s most successful retirement savings programs produce such modest results? Part of the answer may be that we’ve quietly asked the RRSP to do far more than it was ever designed to do The average senior aged 65 in Canada receives $19,547 per year from OAS and CPP. If qualified for GIS, they would receive another $13,478 annually, for a total of $33,025 annually. This isn't much income, especially for homeowners who must pay for property taxes, utilities, upkeep, and maintenance. How it All Began At inception, the RRSP was called a Registered Retirement Annuity and was created in 1957. At the time, Canadians could contribute up to 10% of their income to a maximum of $2,500 annually. The goal was to give all Canadians the same tax benefits as members of registered employer-sponsored pension plans. Benefits of the RRSP Plan 1. Tax-Deferral: Contributions to an RRSP are tax-deductible, which can reduce your tax bill. 2. Tax-Free Growth: Your savings grow tax-free while the money is in the plan. 3. Retroactive: You can carry forward any unused contribution room to future years. The Multitasking Disaster Studies show that people are dreadful at multitasking; the same is true of government programs. Here is where the program went wrong. In 1992, the Home Buyer’s Plan (HBP) was made more flexible, which allowed first-time homebuyers to withdraw RRSP funds to buy a house. Then, in 1999, the Lifelong Learning Plan (LPP) was introduced, which permitted withdrawals to pay for education. The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) was not introduced in 1957 alongside the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) creation. Instead, the HBP was introduced in 1992 as a federal initiative to help Canadians buy their first homes by allowing them to withdraw funds from their RRSPs without tax penalties as long as they met specific conditions. Here's a timeline of crucial HBP withdrawal limits since its inception: Timeline of HBP and LLP Withdrawal Limits: 1992 - Introduction of the HBP • Maximum Withdrawal Limit: $20,000 per individual. • Purpose: To help first-time homebuyers purchase or build a home. 1999 – Introduction of Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) • The annual withdrawal limit is $10,000 per individual • The lifetime withdrawal maximum is $20,000 per individual 2009 - First HBP increase • New Limit: $25,000 per individual. • The increase was introduced as part of federal budget changes to reflect rising housing costs. 2019 - Second HBP Increase • New Limit: $35,000 per individual. • Announced in the 2019 federal budget to support affordability for first-time homebuyers. 2019 -HBP Enhancement for Life Events • The HBP was expanded to allow individuals experiencing a marriage or common-law partnership breakdown to participate, even if they were not first-time homebuyers. 2024 - Recent increase • New Limit: $60,000 per individual. • The increase was introduced as part of federal budget changes to reflect rising costs. A Flawed Strategy The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) and Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) were introduced in Canada as tools to make housing and education more accessible. While well-intentioned, these programs effectively allow individuals to borrow from their future retirement savings—a strategy that can have significant negative consequences. Ask any high school economics student, and they will tell you that compromising two of the three main elements (principle and time) in investing growth will lead to a disappointing return. Here is the formula: principle X interest + time = compounded return. ⚠️ WARNING: Retirement Warning Using your RRSP to purchase a home or finance education may seem like a smart financial move. But remember, you’re withdrawing money from the very account designed to support you when you’re no longer earning an income. Lost time and compound growth can never be fully recovered. Are We Borrowing From the Future to Pay for Today? The Problem with the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP): Addressing Housing Affordability at the Expense of Retirement The HBP permits individuals to withdraw up to $60,000 from their RRSP to buy a first home. In an environment of rising house prices, this measure may help buyers cobble together a down payment, but it drains retirement funds. The funds are unavailable to grow tax-free over decades, diminishing the compounding returns essential for retirement security. The Problem with the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP): Financing Education by Sacrificing Retirement The LLP allows up to $20,000 in RRSP withdrawals to fund education, which can help individuals upskill. However, education often doesn’t yield immediate returns, and the withdrawn funds lose their growth potential, including the compounded returns. Why This Harms Future Retirees Issue #1: Loss of Compounding Growth Withdrawals disrupt the power of compounding, which is vital for retirement savings. For example, $35,000 left in an RRSP for 25 years at a 6% annual return could grow to over $150,000. If that same $35,000 were withdrawn 15 years ago and repaid over the same period as required by the HBP program, it would be worth $54,311, a loss of $95,689 Issue #2: Repayment Struggles While repayments are required, life’s expenses (mortgage, childcare, loans) often make it hard to repay on schedule. Failure to repay means the amount withdrawn is added to taxable income, further reducing the effectiveness of the programs. Issue #3: Insufficient Savings Most Canadians are already under-saving for retirement. Encouraging them to dip into their RRSPs exacerbates this shortfall. Two Different Problems. One Harmful Solution Housing Affordability Rising house prices are driven by supply-demand imbalances, speculation, and policy failures—not a lack of down payments. Increasing the HBP withdrawal limit does nothing to address the root causes of affordability, but it may drive prices higher by giving buyers more purchasing power. Retirement Security Retirement savings should be preserved and grown to ensure financial stability in later years. Programs like HBP and LLP blur the line between short-term needs and long-term planning. Why Would our Government Do This? Political Expediency Housing affordability and access to education are politically sensitive issues. Allowing individuals to tap into their RRSPs is a cost-neutral policy for the government (unlike direct subsidies or programs). Policies like these help politicians get elected or stay in office. And in proper political form, these policies only tell half the story. Vote for us because we will help you buy your first home, which is a great campaign strategy. Vote for us because we will make it look like we help you buy your first home when, in fact, we will set up a program that will allow you to borrow from yourself at the cost of your retirement, which is political suicide. Short-Sighted Economic Policies Policymakers may believe that homeowners and educated individuals are more financially secure, even if their retirement savings are compromised. The logic might be that owning a home or having better job prospects could mitigate future hardship. Assuming Home Equity is a Safety Net The government might assume that homeownership ensures financial stability in retirement. However, this overlooks that rising housing costs often mean seniors have high debt levels or are "house rich but cash poor." The Bigger Problem with the HBP and LLP Programs: No Warnings or Education Given to Canadians Neither the HBP nor the LLP adequately informs individuals of the long-term consequences of their decisions. To make matters worse, the participants of these programs will likely realize the impact once it is too late to take action. People considering retirement are often in their late 50s to early 60s, past their prime saving years. Borrowing from retirement accounts may seem like “borrowing from yourself,” but this lost growth can never be recouped. Many Canadians are not well enough informed to assess these trade-offs, leading to decisions that harm their financial future. In Case You’re Thinking, These Seniors Have Inadequate Savings - But at They At Least their Homes. The HBP and LLP programs may reflect a government view that seniors would be better off owning a home than relying solely on inadequate savings. But this is flawed for a number of reasons: A home is not a liquid asset—it cannot pay for groceries or healthcare. Also, Seniors with insufficient retirement savings often need help with financial distress despite owning property. They sometimes need reverse mortgages or sell their homes out of desperation. An Unfortunate Misguided Solution Rather than “quick fixes” that appear to solve immediate challenges while creating long-term problems, the Federal government should instead focus on longer-term, systemic solutions For housing: Governments need to curb speculative investments and provide targeted assistance for first-time buyers. Plus they need to focus on programs that increase housing supply, such as income tax incentives for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These units could be rented out or used for caregivers. Or adopt a policy allowing first-time home buyers to not pay tax on their first $250,000 of income. First-time home buyers could use the tax savings as a down payment. The HST Rebate for eligible buyers of new homes introduced March 2026 is a start, not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. For Education: Governments need to expand grant programs and low-interest loans to prevent reliance on retirement funds. This will not only help us increase the number of skilled workers to fill critical gaps in vital sectors such as technology, healthcare engineering and the trades. It will also contribute to a higher GDP and build a more sustainable tax base for future generations. Retirement savings should be treated as sacred capital, not a convenient source of funding for unrelated government priorities. Governments shouldn’t solve today’s problems by quietly asking Canadians to mortgage their retirement. Votes are counted on election night. The consequences aren’t counted until retirement. Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one. It's available September 8, 2026 published by ECW Press - You can now order at Indigo or Amazon. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you. Important: This article is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, mortgage, tax, legal, or investment advice. Before making decisions about your retirement or home equity, consult qualified professionals who can assess your personal circumstances.
Augusta University's Simon Medcalfe on the Real Economics of Hosting the World Cup
With the World Cup underway across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, Dr. Simon Medcalfe, economist at Augusta University's Hull College of Business, wrote for Augusta Business Daily about why FIFA's headline economic projections for the tournament don't hold up. His piece breaks down why most of the spending tied to hosting the event isn't new activity but rather it's money that would have been spent elsewhere regardless. As Medcalfe put it: "New spending is not created; it is just moved around." Read his full column in Augusta Business Daily : Dr. Medcalfe is a Professor of Economics and Finance at Augusta University, with research spanning sports economics, community and economic development, and social determinants of health. He holds a PhD in Business/Managerial Economics from Lehigh University. If you're covering the economics of hosting major sporting events, public subsidies for host cities, or the gap between projected and actual tourism impact, Dr. Medcalfe is available for comment. Click on the contact button in his profile below.
