Canada is home to one of the largest populations of ultra-wealthy, and the ultra-rich are only getting richer.

A new report from New York-based research firm Wealth-X takes stock of the world’s “ultra high net worth” (UHNW) individuals — people with a net worth above US$30 million — and it found that there were 10,840 ultra-wealthy people in Canada last year. That’s up by 13.9 per cent from the previous year.

These individuals boast combined assets of US$1.153 trillion dollars, a figure that signals a 14.8 per cent increase from 2016.

Canada ranks above Hong Kong, Switzerland

Coming in fifth place, Canada has more ultra-rich people than France (10,120), Hong Kong (10,010) and Switzerland (6,400). The United States, Germany, China and Japan are the only countries with more.

The authors of the report credit Canada’s “robust” expansion of the ultra-wealthy population to “an improving domestic economy, higher market yields and a stronger currency.”

The fact that Canada has more high net worth residents than many European countries on the list can be partly attributed to our lack of an inheritance tax, according to one expert.

“Canada doesn’t have such a tax, whereas most European countries do,” Ricardo Tranjan, senior researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), told the CBC.

In 2017, there were about 256,000 UHNW individuals with combined assets of $31.5 trillion, a sharp acceleration from the previous year. According to the report, 2017 represented a six-year high in the gains of the uber-rich.

Notably, a record-high share of of the UHNW population in 2017 were women, accounting for 13.7 per cent of the global total.

Rich get richer?

As the number of ultra-wealthy people in Canada increased from the previous year, the wealth possessed by them also rose by 14.8 per cent.

The picture isn’t so rosy across the board.

While the average Canadians’ net worth increased in 2017, it rose much more slowly than for the super-rich — by 2.5 per cent from the first quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2018.

Canadian households’ net worth also fell 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of the year — a first since 2015. StatsCan attributed the dip to large declines in equity and investment funds and continued weak growth in household residential real estate.

The CCPA recently went all the way back to 1999 for a wider look at the overall state of Canadian wealth distribution, concluding that the country’s “failure to adequately address the growing gap in average incomes is producing outrageous fortunes among Canada’s wealthiest family dynasties.”

The CCPA found that from 2012 to 2016, the average net worth of Canada’s wealthiest families rose by 37 per cent, while the net worth of middle class families increased by 16 per cent over the same period.

“Canada’s wealthiest 87 families now have 4,448 times more wealth than the average Canadian family,” the report reads. “And they collectively own the same amount as the lowest-earning 12 million Canadians.”

Poised to continue

Despite significant geopolitical tensions in 2017, the wealthy got wealthier because of eased volatility in global financial markets and stable exchange rates against the U.S. dollar, according to Wealth-X.

The firm predicts that this trend will continue, with the global population of ultra-rich people rising to 360,390 people by 2022 — an increase of almost 105,000 compared with last year. Their combined wealth is projected to increase to $44.3 trillion.

The firm expects the Asia-Pacific region to see the strongest growth in the near future while North America is positioned for continued underperformance. The report summarizes the trend as “a more balanced distribution of global ultra wealth.”

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the overall net worth of the average Canadian declined during 2017. The figure cited reflected a quarter-to-quarter decline. The article has been updated with figures for 2017 as a whole.

MONTREAL — La Maison Simons is apologizing after it named a product in a new women’s lingerie line after former Supreme Court chief justice Beverley McLachlin.

In a letter to customers, the Quebec-based retailer’s president Peter Simons apologized to McLachlin for selling the “Beverley bralette” as part of a line of clothing meant to honour women who made a historic contribution to Canada.

Simons says the line was “in poor taste” and he is offering his sincerest apologies to McLachlin.

His note says all materials related to the line have been discontinued and destroyed and that his team will be meeting to discuss the issue and ensure the company learns from the incident.

At the request of McLachlin, Simons says his company will be participating in a fundraising campaign for the Cornerstone Housing for Women emergency shelter organization in Ottawa.

McLachlin retired in December after spending 28 years at the Supreme Court, including almost 18 as chief justice.

Click:wps官网

It’s spring and wedding season is just about to begin. Some engaged couples are stressing out about the rising costs of getting married. The average cost of a wedding in Canada today is just over $30,000. Some couples try to save money by choosing to go the city hall route, but there’s one group of people that’s trying something altogether different.

Whether or not they choose to get married, many couples follow the familiar model of relationships in which they meet, fall in love and then move in together. Lately, though, some people are defying the stereotype and choosing to be in loving, long-term relationships without the benefits of cohabiting. They’re doing what’s called Living Apart Together, or LAT.

What is Living Apart Together?

According to 2011 data from Statistics Canada, almost two million Canadians reported they were in a LAT couple. I imagine that there are even more people doing this today.

For younger couples, the choice to be together but live apart is often due to financial circumstances or because of separations brought on by work or school. For couples aged 60 and over, however, the most common reason for choosing this type of arrangement is to remain independent.

In the younger age group, the majority of people plan to eventually move in with their partner, whereas in the older group, most have no such plans. These individuals want to maintain their own homes and their own lifestyles while being in a committed relationship with their partner.

In the older age group, most have been married before and have grown children. These individuals don’t want to give up their autonomy, and many aren’t interested in starting all over again and doing all the things involved with caring for a spouse. Some don’t want to complicate their kids’ inheritance. Some just like having the space to do their own thing.

The benefits of giving each other a little space

When thinking about this type of arrangement, many advantages are immediately obvious. People in a LAT couple can have a strong sense of independence while also enjoying the benefits of intimacy. They can bring more romance, passion and novelty to the relationship when they come together after time spent apart.

For LAT couples, they can experience less conflict in their relationship, because they’re able to go home and cool off when they’re feeling angry or frustrated with their partner. If they’re getting on each other’s nerves, they can retreat to their separate corners with no one feeling abandoned or rejected.

Another advantage to the LAT arrangement is that these couples tend to feel less stuck in an unsatisfying relationship. If things aren’t working out, it’s much easier to walk away. They don’t have the stress of splitting up their possessions, cleaning out an apartment or selling a house. If the relationship isn’t making them happy, they can choose to end it, no harm, no foul.

Couples who opt for this type of relationship often can have a greater appreciation for one another. Not being together every moment of every day can make the partners value each other more and be more grateful for the time they have together. They’re less likely to take each other for granted and they’re more likely to expend the effort to make each moment count.

Sometimes, when a couple moves in together and they aren’t actually compatible, the fact of cohabiting makes them believe that they’re closer than they are. They’ve invested emotionally and financially in sharing a space so it’s that much harder to imagine splitting up. A couple like this might remain together for longer than they should; tolerating a relationship that ought to have ended a long time ago.

In LAT couples, there’s no sense of an artificially increased commitment to the relationship that happens when people choose to live together. How they feel about the relationship is based on how the relationship is actually going for them.

For someone who’s raised their children and has had a career, they often have no interest in being a home-maker or physical care-taker at this point in their life. An arrangement such as LAT could suit such a person, as it confers all the benefits of a loving relationship while avoiding many of the drawbacks.

For someone who’s been surrounded by children and grandchildren for years, the LAT arrangement could provide them with much-needed alone time to focus on self-care and to do the things that they find most meaningful. It can also give them the space to enjoy the things that their partner isn’t into.

Absence doesn’t always make the heart grow fonder

The LAT arrangement only works if both people are fully on board. If one partner is really into it and the other is just going along, things won’t end well for either of them.

On the negative side, there’s the cost of keeping up two households, and the feeling for certain LAT couples that their relationship is “neither here nor there.” For some individuals in LAT couples, it can be easier to stray, as no-one is keeping track of what the other person is doing in their free time. There’s also social pressure from friends and family members who expect the couple to live under one roof.

In LAT couples, it can be almost too easy to avoid dealing with the difficult issues that come up between them. One can always just go home if things start getting overly challenging, but over time, these unresolved issues can lead to a rupture in the fabric of the relationship.

And perhaps because absence doesn’t always make the heart grow fonder, living apart could lead to a feeling of being insufficiently connected, which could eventually result in the breakdown of intimacy and the decline of the relationship.

Still, it’s an intriguing idea. It’s certainly not for everyone, but in this day and age of alternative living arrangements and lifestyles, it’s definitely worth considering. In fact, when you think about it, it might be exactly what your relationship could use.

Click:工控机维修

Most Canadians consider meat to be part of a healthy diet, but a new study shows millions are eating less or none of it.

In the study from Dalhousie University, just under half of respondents said they eat meat daily, and just over half (51.3 per cent) said they’d be willing to reduce their meat consumption. About a third (32.2 per cent) said they intend to do so in the next six months.

Dalhousie University professor Sylvain Charlebois told HuffPost Canada most of the studies coming out right now in medicine “aren’t necessarily encouraging for the meat industry in general.”

Charlebois said health concerns, combined with questions around how sustainable the livestock industry is, and views on animal welfare, are affecting consumers’ choices.

“I think that Canadians are progressively revisiting their relationship with animal proteins in general,” he said.

Watch: Is being vegan better for the environment? Story continues below.

While the health benefits of reducing meat consumption were equally important to men and women in the study, women were more likely to be concerned about animal welfare, and more likely to agree that meat is replaceable by other sources of protein.

About half of all respondents said they knew how to replace meat with other proteins.

Younger and more educated respondents are more likely to want plant-based alternatives to meat, and younger consumers were less likely to believe eating meat is a fundamental right.

Atlantic Canadians are the least likely to already be eating less meat, while Ontarians were the most likely.

Health Canada to “embark on a very divisive debate”

Charlebois said Canada is expecting to release its updated food guide in November, though it was supposed to be released earlier this year in the spring.

“I can tell you what we know so far— Health Canada has presented specific principles that they intend to follow, and one of them was to encourage Canadians to adopt a plant-based diet, or to increase the amount of vegetable protein they consume every single day,” he said.

“I think they know that they are about to embark on a very divisive debate around animal proteins.”

Also On HuffPost:

Parents trust that the sunscreen they buy for their kids is safe, but a new report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) proves that’s not always the case.

According to EWG’s 2018 Guide to Sunscreens report, some sun lotions contain ingredients that boost SPF, but do little to protect children from the sun’s harmful rays.

“People select products based on their SPF, or sunburn protection factor, and mistakenly assume that bigger numbers are better,” EWG senior analyst Sonya Lunder told Parents.com. “Consumers think that they’ll get twice as much protection from an SPF 100 sunscreen as from an SPF 50 product.”

This is a common misconception, as some products with high SPF that were tested in EGW’s report contained chemicals like retinyl palmitate (a form of vitamin A that can damage skin) and oxybenzone (a hormone disruptor).

Specifically, the report found that two-thirds of the 650 tested sunscreens contained the latter chemical.

While EWG’s website notes that oxybenzone can be detected in nearly every American, sunscreens that contain the chemical can soak into the skin and impact the endocrine system (a group of glands that create hormones), the org’s senior scientist David Andrews told HuffPost.

Oxybenzone can also be harmful to the environment and has been known to damage and kill coral reefs. That’s why Hawaiian lawmakers passed a bill earlier this month banning sunscreens containing the chemical.

So what are the worst sunscreens for kids and babies?

Common brands like Neutrogena and Banana Boat topped the worst list, according to EWG’s report. Panama Jack Sport Sunscreen, CVS Health Sun Lotion, and Up & Up Sport Sunscreen also made the list.

Here are five of the worst products and why (click on the link for an in-depth analysis):

Neutrogena Pure & Free Baby Sunscreen, SPF 60+: Not only does it contain retinyl palmitate, but also methylisothiazolinone (a preservative associated with allergic reactions), which can cause skin irritation.

Banana Boat Kids Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 100: The SPF value is misleading and offers poor UVA protection in relation. Ingredients such as oxybenzone and its fragrance cause high health concerns as well.

Banana Boat Kids Continuous Spray Sunscreen, SPF 100: EWG believes the SPF advertised is inaccurate and notes that the spray-on product may not offer complete coverage of the skin. Product also contains oxybenzone.

Panama Jack Sport Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 85: SPF value is lower than advertised. Product also contains harmful ingredients such as oxybenzone and the skin allergen methylisothiazolinone.

Up & Up Sport Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 50: This sunscreen only offers moderate protection in relation to its SPF. Also poses moderate health concerns over its ingredients.

Last year, there were health concerns over Banana Boat products causing burns to children’s skin, and Health Canada received more than 187 complaints of this nature, CBC reports.

While the sunscreen company conducted tests and found their products to be safe, it noted that the skin reaction could be triggered by its ingredients and made worse with sun exposure.

Parents should be wary of high SPF products

EWG warns parents to be wary of sunscreens with high SPF, as people “trust these products too much.” Not only can high-SPF products pose greater health risk due to their ingredients, but those who use these products tend to overexpose themselves to the sun, believing they are well protected.

“In reality, the extra protection is negligible,” senior analyst Lunder explained to Parents.com. “For example, an SPF 50 sunscreen that is properly applied will block 98 per cent of UVB rays; an SPF 100 sunscreen will block 99 per cent. In reality, people rarely apply enough sunscreen to achieve this level of protection.”

Lunder added that sunscreen should be applied once every two hours and that “sunscreen with SPF values in the range of 30 to 50 will offer adequate sunburn protection, even for people most sensitive to sunburn.”

What are the best sunscreens for kids and babies?

The report found mineral-based products that contained ingredients like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide received a good rating in their analysis. This coincides with advice from New York-based dermatologist Dr. Bobby Buka, who told CTV last year that sunscreen “should have zinc or titanium in it – one of those two is a great physical blocker, stays on and lasts a long time.”

According to EWG’s report, the best-rated sunscreens — which included Neutrogena Pure & Free Baby Sunscreen, SPF 50 and Aveeno Baby Continuous Protection Lotion Sunscreen, Sensitive Skin, SPF 50 — provided a good balance of UVA and UVB protection. They also did not contain any harmful additives.

Visit EWG’s website for the full list of best sunscreens for kids.

Also on HuffPost: