On Lexington Street, I was surprised to find myself outside the Jill George Gallery, a place my husband much admired but had never been able to visit. Knowing his interest in its artists, I went inside. What I found there changed me.

We are not, as a general rule, covetous people (well, except in the matter of books). We don’t drive an impressive car; we were happy in our small three-room apartment. Our vices lack extravagance. So the greedy passion I felt when finding myself face-to-face with a certain drawing left me stupefied, moved, and more than anything, unsettled.

The artist in question, Alison Lambert, is an English painter who in recent years has devoted herself to large-scale drawings of human faces. Utterly complex and mysterious, their expressions are impossible to pin down in a single word, and reflect back a strange and always changing combination of emotions that depend entirely on the mood of the viewer. Lambert’s drawings are almost sculptural in their textures. She uses a unique method of drawing and erasing and pasting on torn paper, until the ravaged face that emerges appears out of the duress and struggle of the making itself.

Though I’d seen several of Lambert’s drawings online and in books, I had never until that moment seen one in person. And I wanted it.

The drawing that the lovely Jill George put up on the wall for me was titled Pyrrhus: a 35-in. tall image of a calmly troubled young man staring distractedly. (I almost wrote “searchingly” and then deleted it and wrote “beatifically” before finally changing that to “distractedly.” It is this impossibility of emotions that Lambert captures. You find yourself fumbling to figure out exactly what it is you’re seeing, even as on a deeper level you’re already responding to it.)

By all accounts, the price of Pyrrhus was more than fair. But it was nearly everything my husband and I had saved up until then. We spoke at length, I in Europe, he in Canada, about the beautiful possibility of owning such a picture.

In the end what interests me is not how we got the picture. (We did get it. We tightened the proverbial belts, spent what savings we could, sold off valuable items we had sitting in storage; we paid it off very slowly and deliberately and with the greatest care possible.) What really fascinates me is that extraordinary impulse to possess it I felt upon first seeing Pyrrhus. There is such a strong critical gesture in our society against acquisitiveness, even as more and more is produced, and a greater and more pervasive craving is created. And yet it struck me—and strikes me each time I look at Pyrrhus—that there are different kinds of greed.

The purchase of art is unlike the purchase of any other object. You don’t buy it with an awareness of its function, its ultimate use in the household. It serves no practical purpose; rather, it furnishes the mind. It slows our days and jolts us out of our routines, and reminds us, above all, in those frustrating, difficult times when things are just not going well, that there is life beyond the details. And Lambert’s beautiful faces perfectly exemplify this.

Some possessions are held in trust, and only in trust, as things borrowed from the world. We are creatures who measure and mark out the passages of our lifetimes through accumulations, whether those be keepsakes or memories. For me it is the memory of that first electric encounter with Pyrrhus that I really purchased on that day. And it is that original excitement that I return to every time I see him. The heat of a London June, the smell of traffic in the streets, the blinding white sunlight in the windows. This is what I see when I look at Pyrrhus as much as anything else.

Esi Edugyan’s most recent novel, Half-Blood Blues, won the 2011 Scotiabank Giller Prize for Fiction. She lives in Victoria.

Regulators officially ushered in the Client Relationship Model (CRM) earlier this spring making it mandatory for financial advisers to fully disclose all transaction details, commission and fee breakdowns as well as annualized rates of return. Until now, advisers were only required to provide book and market value updates for client portfolios. (MoneySense’s Dan Bortolotti and Preet Banerjee recently published a free, downloadable rate of return calculator for investors.)

CRM also mandates that advisers regularly evaluate whether their clients’ investing strategy and risk tolerance matches their goals and time horizon with additional check-ins at certain “trigger” events like steep, prolonged market drops.

“I don’t think it goes far enough but it’s a step in the right direction,” said John De Goey, a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) and author of The Professional Financial Planner book series.

Full CRM compliance will be phased in over two years.

“We’re taking a few baby steps when we should be taking a few giant steps,” he told MoneySense ahead of the third installment of his book series due out this fall.

In Canada, most advisers get paid by providers for each product they sell and many of these commissions are not evident to the client. Skeptics say the practice entices advisers to push products that offer the biggest payout as oppose to products that are a client’s best interest. Commission fees have been banned in the U.K. and Australia as of this year and De Goey would like them see them abolished here too.

“Now in those places, the business of giving advice becomes a true meritocracy where if advisers aren’t really adding value, they can’t get paid just for selling stuff,” he said.

“It’ll going a long way to rationalizing the industry, getting rid of some dead wood and turning the industry into more of a bona fide profession.”

De Goey is not alone in his views but he’s not in the majority either.

Critics argue banning commissions may actually lead to higher costs for investors.

Without commissions, planners will likely look for other ways to make money and that may lead to higher portfolio management, hourly and project fees. Small investors may also be shunned in favour of richer clients with bigger portfolios.

Greg Pollock, CFP, is the President and CEO of Advocis, the Financial Advisors Association of Canada.

He estimates roughly nine million Canadians are getting financial advice these days and the vast majority of that advice is paid for through commissions that are embedded in the cost of products.

“If we were to change that business model overnight, we would have a huge number of Canadians that would not be receiving the financial advice that they now need more than ever,” Pollock said. For the record, the no. 1 priority listed in Advocis code of conduct is the client’s best interest.

Still, more advisers are opting to go the fee-based route charging an all inclusive 1%-1.5% or by the hour/project. MoneySense provides a free listing of fee-only planners in Canada.

But even fee-only advisers charge some version of commissions, Pollock said. Charging a fee based on assets under management, is essentially a commission, he said, adding there’s room for a number of business models in the industry.

Whatever the compensation model, CRM aims to make it crystal clear to investors.

De Goey said the financial services industry in Canada has been deluding itself with regard to transparency “forever.” (According to his own estimates, De Goey currently charges commissions less than 10% of the time and only on certain products that are only available to him on a commission basis, such as flow-through limited partnerships, or upon client request.)

When De Goey published his first book, he was considered a “pariah,” for supporting fee-based compensation models.

“It was a threat to the people who were fat and happy and making a lot of money by not talking to their clients about commissions,” he said.

He suspects it will take 10 years or more before commissions are banned in Canada but expects the transition to be smooth since many advisers are opting for fee-based models already.

Pollock on the other hand, doesn’t see commissions falling out of fashion at all.

“Our sense is that most Canadians don’t want to pay a separate fee for advice. They like the current system…this way they don’t have to take out their cheque book a second time for that advice,” he said.

The current situation: When 24-year-old James Fisher graduated with a degree in business administration three years ago, he started working towards his lifelong goal of having a net worth of $1 million by age 50. “I’ve been interested in money since I was a boy,” says Fisher, who lives in Ottawa. He paid off his $21,000 student loan with money from his $52,000 salary and $10,000 bonus from his job as a bank manager. His parents helped by giving him a 20% down payment on his $300,000 condo—he’s renting out a bedroom for $550 a month to help with the mortgage. James currently has a net worth of $132,600, most of which comes from the condo.

Right now James is saving $500 a month and he plans to invest his annual bonuses as well. He won’t make any more RRSP con- tributions, however, because he doesn’t like the idea of having a large tax liability in the future. James has $6,600 in an RRSP and $6,000 in a non-registered account, mostly in exchange-traded funds. “I’m concentrating on the equity markets,” says James. “That’s where I believe good future gains will be.”

The verdict: James should be able to meet his million-dollar goal, as long as life doesn’t throw him a curveball, says Jason Heath, a fee-only adviser and partner with Objective Financial in Toronto. If James increases his current savings in line with future pay raises, he will actually have close to $2 million at age 50, assuming an annual rate of return of 6%. However, this would require him to invest using RRSPs: although they result in tax upon withdrawal, they also provide a tax refund that James could reinvest. If he continues investing outside his RRSP, he’ll have $1.6 million by age 50. Heath reminds James that he’ll keep more of his returns by maxing out his Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) before using non-registered accounts.

What could throw James off track? Marriage, kids and a bigger home could put a wrench in his plans. And don’t forget, $1 million in 26 years will be worth about $598,000 in 2012 dollars, assuming 2% inflation. While that’s not pocket change, it may not provide James with a millionaire’s lifestyle.

The breakdown:

ASSETS

-Condo $300,000

-RRSP $6,600

-Non-registered investments $6,000

-Total assets $312,600

LIABILITIES

-Mortgage (at 4%) $180,000

-Total liabilities $180,000

NET WORTH: $132,600

The iShares ETF holds Canadian companies with strong social and environmental records. Masui should gradually increase the proportion in the bond ETF until it reaches 100% in eight years.

If Carolyn O’Connor offers any clue, then the answer is yes. The single mom, who lives just outside St. Catharines, Ont., says the key was giving her son the opportunity to learn and grow by making his own mistakes. “From an early age I knew Christopher needed to figure things out for himself,” she says. Instead of pointing out his mistakes, she helped her son think through his decisions, while imparting her own strong sense of ethics. It seems to be working. By age 15, Christopher had built his own online business. Two years later he become the youngest Canadian to complete the Investment Funds Institute of Canada’s accreditation and was offered a full-time job in the mutual fund industry, but he turned it down to pursue his education at Brock University.

“I learned from two people: my mom and my uncle,” says Christopher, who will enter his final year at Brock in September. “My mom taught me the importance of family and community. She is my moral barometer. My uncle helped me explore my own ideas—he listened to me and wasn’t concerned with my age, just my ideas.”

Milun Tesovic’s parents had higher obstacles to overcome: they fled war-torn Bosnia for Vancouver in 1995, when Milun was just 10 years old. “When we came to Canada, we didn’t have money, but I never grew up feeling stressed about it,” he says. “We weren’t spoiled, and we knew the value of a dollar.” Tesovic says the family lived within their means and always nurtured their children’s passions. “My parents found ways to integrate us into Canadian culture and to help us experience life.” They enlisted the help of an outstanding ESL teacher, for example, and made sure their children knew how to use the local library.

Fortunately, Tesovic’s parents also made sure he had a computer. When Milun was 16, he created several online businesses, including MetroLyrics.com, a website devoted to song lyrics. In late 2011, at age 26, he sold the site to CBS Radio for an undisclosed (but dizzying) sum. He maintains those important childhood lessons played a major role in his financial success. “I still keep in touch with the ESL teacher and the librarian who helped me and other immigrants.”

Jorge Ramos knows all about how to raise financially savvy kids like Christopher and Milun. Ramos started his career as an entrepreneur before spending 10 years as a financial adviser. Then five years ago he heard about a program in California called Millionaire Camp, where kids aged 10 to 13 were taught the concepts of saving, spending and debt, and he brought the idea to Markham, Ont. The week-long camp lays a foundation that will help people develop a “get-rich-slow method,” says Ramos. “We cover real-life issues, such as budgeting for vacations or saving for a car. We want them to learn, in a fun way, that money isn’t bad, but it does have limits.”

Along the way Ramos has learned what does and doesn’t work when it comes to raising financially literate kids. “The best way to teach is by example.” Ramos suggests parents ask themselves: What do I want my children to learn? “Then ask yourself if you do that. If not, start. It’s as simple, and as effective, as that.”

As for the ineffective methods, many parents assume that teaching their children to trade in the stock market will turn them into smart investors, but that’s not the case. Lewis Mandell, a SUNY-Buffalo professor and a leading scholar in financial education, says that this kind of activity is more like a game: kids may be engaged, but they’re not actually aware of the risks. If students do well at stock-picking exercises it’s almost surely because of dumb luck, yet their “success” may encourage them to think that investing is a form of gambling, rather than a prudent way to grow the money they’ve saved.

Start them young

One piece of advice that every parent and expert seems to echo is the need to start early. Very early.

There’s a reason why high-school financial literacy programs have such a poor record, says Mandell. His research has found that kids are particularly receptive to financial education between the ages of eight and 12, and that window has already started to close when kids hit Grade 9. Indeed, before children even enter school they’re exposed to thousands of subtle and not-so-subtle money lessons, so Mandell would like to see age-appropriate financial education beginning as early as kindergarten.

Neale Godfrey, a former banker and author of Money Doesn’t Grow on Trees, isn’t surprised by Mandell’s findings. When she quit her job in the 1980s to create the Children’s Financial Network she was shocked at how little children were being taught about money. “Regardless of how ill-prepared we may feel about money,” she says, “we’re not doing our kids any favours by passing on our financial ignorance.” Nor can we hide behind the desire to protect our child’s innocence. “This means having difficult conversations with our kids on tough topics like sex, drugs—and finances.” Godfrey suggests starting these dialogues as soon as kids figure out they need money to buy things they want—usually by age three.

Give them an allowance

Perhaps the most common way of teaching kids about money is to give them an allowance. But again, there’s a right way and a wrong way to do this, say the experts. Mandell says there’s a danger that a regular allowance can make kids complacent. “In a child’s mind, knowing they’ll get money every week, no matter what they do, removes the incentive to save.” Parents also worry that tying an allowance to household chores makes kids expect to be paid even for tasks they should be doing on their own.

Godfrey suggests making a distinction between “citizen chores” and “payday chores.” The child doesn’t get paid for completing citizen chores, such as putting away her toys or making his bed. “These chores teach them about being a responsible member of a household, and eventually a responsible member of a community and the world.” Instead the child’s allowance is tied to payday chores, such as setting the table, dusting or vacuuming. “Stick a chart up on the wall and write down each payday chore they complete,” says Godfrey. Then, at the end of the week, the child receives a financial reward on payday.

Godfrey suggests paying children $1 for every year of their age, so a five-year-old would get $5 weekly. She suggests giving your child opportunities to make small but meaningful purchases, such as items of clothing, rather than encouraging them to spend their allowance on frivolous treats. This helps them learn about concepts like trade-offs and buyer’s remorse.

Help them learn to budget

As your child grows, Godfrey suggests increasing not only the allowance amount, but also the length of time between paydays. A five-year-old may get a payday every week, but as that child reaches 10, they should get paid every two weeks, and by high school only once a month. “Budgeting is a habit, so start them early,” she says. To make the lesson sink in, don’t bail them out when they run out of cash before the next payday.

To help your child understand budgeting and saving, Godfrey suggests using the jar system. Take four jars: one each for quick cash (instant gratification), medium-term savings, long-term savings, and charity. “I start kids out by asking them to donate 10% to the charity jar, and then split the remaining 90% evenly between the other three jars.” But you can change that mix to suit your children’s goals. If they’re saving for a new iPad, for example, they might add extra to the medium-term jar.

Give your child a lot of flexibility here. “You can dictate what they’re not allowed to buy, such as candy or automatic weapons,” says Godfrey, “but beyond that, stay out of their buying decisions.” Unfortunately, this is often hard for parents. “We’ve all bought stupid stuff, and we want to save our kids from learning this lesson the hard way. Don’t.”

Ask tough questions about education

If you want your child to be financially successful in today’s business world, a university degree is essential, right? Not so fast. Education is not always a good investment, says Laurence Kotlikoff, professor of economics at Boston University and a U.S. Presidential candidate.

“We forget that education, like financial planning, is a business,” he says. Private schools and universities have a vested interest in promoting the idea that more education—and more expensive education—will help your child get ahead. But according to Kotlikoff’s research, there is no advantage to professional or higher degrees when you examine life-cycle earning and consumption patterns.

A GP, he says, has a tiny advantage over a plumber when you factor in the spending and saving life cycle of each profession. “Yes, doctors make more, but they also leave school and enter the work force later, and are saddled with a lot more debt,” explains Kotlikoff. For example, in 2008 the average salary of an established general practitioner in Ontario was $173,925. An experienced plumber, on the other hand, earns an average of $71,000 (not including overtime). But the doctor has fewer earning years, will spend a lot more on tuition, student-loan interest, and income tax. When you consider all of these factors, says Kotlikoff, the plumber will end up with a disposable income of $33,200 per year, annualized in inflation-adjusted dollars, over her adult life. The doctor will end up with $33,700.

To help your high-school-age kids plan their career goals, have a realistic conversation about taking on debt to pursue higher education. This conversation should include examples of degrees that do and don’t pay off. For instance, Kotlikoff’s research found that petroleum engineering, pharmacy, and math/computer majors earned average salaries that started at $98,000. Theology, early childhood education and psychology majors, on the other hand, typically earned less than $38,000 per year.

Let’s be clear: this is not about discouraging your child’s passion. It’s simply about helping them develop realistic expectations. Kotlikoff’s advice: “Kids should pursue academics or higher learning because they love it, not because they want to earn a higher salary.”

Encourage entrepreneurship

In 1996, Thomas Stanley and William Danko published The Millionaire Next Door, the result of a decade of research into the characteristics of wealthy families. Among other findings, they found that “self-employed people are four times more likely to be millionaires than those who work for others.” But they also issued a warning: “Most business owners are not millionaires and will never come close to becoming wealthy.”

What’s the important lesson for your child? That recognizing the relationship between risk and reward is essential to the pursuit of wealth. “I’d rather be the dumbest guy in the room than the smartest,” says Milun Tesovic. That’s because this young, successful entrepreneur knows the value of identifying your strengths and weaknesses, and then surrounding yourself with people who complement your skills. “My parents knew that 95% of small businesses fail—and that’s only within the first year. So, I played to my strengths and recruited people who could fill in the gaps.”

There are some simple ways to start your child on the road to entrepreneurship. For instance, if you own a business, consider putting your kid on the payroll. Not only will she learn real business skills, but both of you will enjoy some tax benefits. Your child can earn approximately $10,000 a year tax-free, and splitting income among family members can reduce the overall amount of tax you pay. The key is to employ your child in a job that teaches them genuine skills.

If you don’t own a business, then encourage your child’s entrepreneurial skills. “Work ethic is essential to developing a self-reliant child,” says Paul Gleeson, a financial planner with Vancouver-based Nicola Wealth. When Gleeson was 12, he wanted to earn money to buy a Star Wars X-wing fighter, so his father encouraged him to start a landscaping business. “He taught me to solicit business and develop a price list that took into consideration expenses, such as gas used in the lawn mower. As soon as I had enough money, I bought the fighter and I cherished it. I wanted that toy to last forever because I’d actually earned the money to buy it.”

Loan, don’t give

The authors of The Millionaire Next Door had another insight to share. They found that underachievers often had parents who subsidized their lifestyle by giving them frequent gifts of money and helping them with major purchases.

This is a hard one for many parents. The typical Canadian household makes about the same income today as it did in 1980, once you adjust for inflation. But home prices have far outpaced wage growth. For example, an average income earner looking to buy an average Canadian home 30 years ago would have had to save every penny they earned for 1.9 years to completely pay off that house. But if your child earned an average income today and wanted to buy the same home, they’d have to save for 4.4 years. With that in mind, I can’t imagine not lending a hand to my child with the big purchases: a car, their education, a house.

But that help shouldn’t come in the form of a gift, explains Karin Mizgala, CEO of MoneyCoaches Canada, a network of fee-only financial planners. The idea of the “parental bank” bailing kids out can create a sense of entitlement and expectation. “This can be very dangerous to a child’s financial and overall maturity,” says Mizgala.

A better option is to provide limits to your aid. You might offer to pay the tuition for a bachelor’s degree, but any other educational pursuit—such as a master’s degree or moving away from home to go to school—is a cost your child must cover. Or you might provide a loan. “Write a formal agreement,” says Mizgala. “That way your expectations are clear, and your child doesn’t feel beholden to you as they continue to develop their own sense of independence.”

The aim is not to deny your children help they need, but to hold them accountable. In the end, that’s the desire for every parent: to raise responsible, independent children. And if they happen to become millionaires along the way—well, that’s a bonus.

Pet food and veterinary care aren’t cheap, Tina Di Vito, head of the BMO Retirement Institute told MoneySense.ca ahead of a report on what the bank calls “estate planning 2.0.”

Pet owners account for nearly half of Canada’s population and while 76% feel it’s important to make arrangements for the ongoing care of their pets, only one-third have included their furry friends in their estate plans, BMO found.

Finding a caretaker and allocating a reasonable amount of money to them in case of you die or become incapacitated at an early age will minimize the risk of the pet becoming abandoned or given to a shelter, Di Vito said, adding that a pet cannot be named as a direct beneficiary in a will.

Pets aren’t the only ones being left out of estate plans, according to the report, entitled “The New Frontiers of Estate Planning: Parents, Digital Assets and Pets.”

Two-third of Canadians haven’t included aging parents for whom they provide care in their plan, the bank found.

Of them, 39% said they had not included an older parent, relative or friend because the probability of out the loved one living them is too small. The probability might be small but the consequences cannot be underestimated.

“It’s understandable that the idea of including your own parent in an estate plan seems out of the ordinary but, with today’s aging population, it’s necessary,” Di Vito said. “Being proactive is critical in ensuring that your loved ones are well taken care of in the event they outlive you.”

Di Vito suggests discussing the issue of parent care with siblings and parents before including them in an estate plan.

Digital assets are also changing the way people look at estate planning. It used to be that only financially established individuals or adults with dependents needed an estate plan. But these days even young people are building sizeable assets in the form of multi-media libraries.

Social media accounts, photos, music, even loyalty points have value, Di Vito said. “If you are no longer there, who is going to know who gets what?”

Older Canadians are building digital assets too but 58% have not considered them in their estate plans, BMO said.

Safeguarding and distributing digital assets in an estate plan will help keep your loved ones from scrambling to close out email and social media accounts, access online financials, photos and music.

In most cases, password sharing is discouraged so it’s still unclear exactly how digital assets should be managed posthumously but recording your preference in an estate plan can’t hurt.

“This is an up-and-coming topic,” Di Vito said.

–Updated at 5:15 p.m.

–Last updated at 5:25 p.m.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has agreed to a key NDP budget demand to temporarily hike taxes for the rich, according to reports.

The minority Liberals need NDP MPPs to vote in favour of the austerity budget Tuesday to avoid a snap election.

In exchange for her support, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath had been pushing McGuinty to include a new surtax on anyone earning more than $500,000 a year and succeeded, the Canadian Press is reporting.

In a statement issued late Sunday, Horwath said the surtax would help fund services like healthcare.

“Budget cutbacks will erode health care services in communities across the province. It’s only fair that those most able to help fund our public health care system be asked to do a little more,” she said.

The surtax affects an estimated 23,000 Ontarians. Under the plan, anyone making $600,000 for instance would have to cough up an extra $3,120 annually. The surtax would raise an additional $440 million to $570 million a year for Queen’s Park , according to NDP estimates.

McGuinty said Monday that money raised by the surtax will go towards paying down the province’s $15.2-billion deficit and will end once the budget is balanced in 2017, reports said.

Canadian Taxpayers Federation director Gregory Thomas said the surtax unfairly targets those who already pay more than the bottom 5 million tax filers combined.

“This is just herding a tiny minority of taxpayers into a small room and extracting money from them.”

“Essentially, McGuinty is telling high-income earners that they are not wanted in Ontario,” Thomas said adding that both the Liberals and NDP have violated the Taxpayer Protection Act since they did not file the tax-raising plan with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Either way it’s a first for Canada, said Bruce Ball national tax partner at BDO.

It’s still unclear exactly how the surtax will affect a person with a more modest salary but who has seen a one-time gain and reinvested that money. Of those who consistently bring in $500,000 or more per year, many own their own corporations, Ball said. “They can control how much income they take by changing their financial plan and leaving more money within the corporation.”

A study of a now defunct U.K. surtax on the richest 1% found high-income earners used legal means to reduce their taxable income including, increasing pension contributions, delaying receipt of income, converting income to capital gains, splitting incomes with spouses, reducing taxable income by working less, retiring early and by moving to countries with lower tax rates.

Still, Ontario’s surtax could give other struggling provinces ammunition to do the same.

Similar ideas are already being floated south of the border, including U.S. President Barack Obama’s “Buffett Rule” which would see anyone making more than $1 million taxed at a rate of 30%. Closer to home, a group of Canadian doctors is calling on all levels of government to raise income taxes on high-income earners. Doctors for Fair Taxation have proposed an additional 1% tax for anyone bringing in more than $100,000 per year with incrementally higher taxes on individuals making even more.

Ontario’s impact on pensions

The future of Canada’s pension system also hinges on the final draft of the budget.

The original document contained an ultimatum for the federal Conservatives hoping to launch Pooled Retirement Pension Plans. PRPPs have been touted as a low-cost alternative to company pension plans for small businesses. PRPPs would be mandatory for all employers to offer, though contributions by employees would be voluntary.

“Ontario will continue to work collaboratively with other provinces and the federal government to develop this model. However, Ontario believes the implementation of pension innovation should be tied to CPP enhancement as part of a comprehensive approach,” the province’s budget stated.

Federal Minister of State (Finance) Ted Menzies has responsibility for PRPPs at the federal level.

“The federal government cannot unilaterally change the CPP, and many provinces and small business are opposed to CPP premium hikes. But we can and are moving forward with PRPPs to give a low-cost pension option to the 60% of Canadians without a workplace pension plan. I would hope Dwight Duncan would not deny this viable low-cost option to hard working Ontario families,” a spokesperson for Menzies said in an emailed statement to MoneySense.ca on Monday.

“Ontario certainly tossed a wrench in the works. I don’t think anyone was expecting Ontario to take this position,” said Oma Sharma, a partner at human resources consulting firm Mercer and an expert on pensions.

Quebec on the other hand has already moved forward with its own version of PRPPs. The province’s Voluntary Retirement Savings Plan, or VRSP, is mandatory for bosses with five or more employees with at least one year of uninterrupted service to offer starting January 2015. Employees on the other hand, can decide whether or not to participate.

Eventually, the default contribution rate for workers will ramp up to 4% “which seems a little bit high for low income earners,” Sharma said.

There are other drawbacks. Employers will be charged with a number of new tasks including choosing a VRSP provider, deciding whether or not to top-up employee savings and facilitate VRSP contributions with payroll deductions.

“They are certain administrative duties that employers will not be able to escape and that is going to be onerous for small businesses, I’m sure.”

None of the other provinces have made clear statements for or against PRPPs, Sharma said. She expects another meeting on the issue later this summer but without Ontario’s support it will be an uphill battle for federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to get PRPPs off the ground.

Either way Canadians have their work cut out for them on the savings front, Sharma said, especially those that just missed the cutoff for existing OAS benefits.

“Clearly Canadians are going to have to work hard to make up the difference. They’ll have to save more,” she said.

“The bottom line is we are all living longer and I think we are going to be strained at every turn when we retire.”

But I was no good as a songwriter/producer if I wasn’t able to make a proper recording, and recording equipment is expensive—microphones alone can cost more than $5,000 and preamps cost $3,000 to $6,000 each. By the time I was 27, I had purchased $50,000 worth of gear and was flying all over to pitch my songs.

I had so much personal debt that it kept me up at night. But I was young and only had myself to answer to, and I had this feeling that something big was going to happen. That’s when Céline Dion cut one of my songs, “A New Day Has Come.”

It was a surreal moment when I received the news. I had confidence in myself, but this was the ultimate endorsement. I went dancing around the living room screaming and shouting. I knew this was big. It was the beginning.

A lot of people think that a hit song in Canada generates a lot of money, but it really doesn’t. It’s only when your song becomes No. 1 internationally that you begin to collect. Then songwriters can make north of a million dollars on just one song.

When that first hit came, I paid off all my debt and started putting some money away. But I didn’t want to give up on my dream of recording my own songs, so I also built a recording studio in downtown Toronto. While it was a place for me to create my own music, it was also a wise investment, as it has been booming ever since.

My main revenue streams are performance royalties when my songs are played, and mechanical royalties when people buy my music. The money comes in quarterly and semiannual lump sums, and you do your best to predict how much the royalty cheque will be. One quarter can be modest while the next can be bring in ten times that amount. The uncertainty can be tough to juggle, but over time you get better at anticipating and adjusting. When I see a big cheque, I don’t spend it immediately. Right off the top, 40% goes away towards taxes. Also, I have a wife and two kids, so I would be crazy not to have a safety net. I pay into RRSPs and RESPs and all those things you do for your family. After my bills and living expenses have been paid, a lot of the money must go toward growing my business.

Thankfully, when you write a hit song for someone like Céline Dion, Josh Groban or Sarah Brightman, it gives back to you in perpetuity—it’s intellectual real estate with the potential for an endless stream of tenants. That helps when I take risks.

Take the 2010 Olympic theme song, “I Believe,” that I co-wrote with Alan Frew. Even to pitch that theme to the Olympic consortium, I had to take a huge leap: that was a very expensive demo. I spent tens of thousands of dollars on musicians and studio time. That was money I was going to lose if they didn’t like it. I knew we had something special, but there were no guarantees.

For me, financial freedom equates with artistic freedom. Despite success as a pop songwriter, I’ve also made two well-received piano records, Exposure and Color. Those are the achievements I hold closest to my heart. I was trained in music from an early age and graduated from the University of Western of Ontario with a bachelor of music in 1994 and it was pulling at me to do an album with just me and my piano. In order to gain more control over the record, I created a label called Bijou Records. I didn’t want to have to answer to a recording industry executive who would question whether the record was commercial enough to sell.

In fact, those albums have done very well and they are probably some of the most honest work I have done. This creative freedom would be impossible without my hard work and success as a pop songwriter. By writing songs that are catchy and popular, I’m able to forget about the money and focus on making good music. Somehow, what I do connects with people and it all works out. I am one of the 1% of musicians who are able to make a living at my craft. It’s a beautiful life that I live. M

Stephan Moccio has helped sell over 18 million records worldwide. He lives in Toronto and is currently a judge on Canada’s Got Talent.