This retiree went to culinary school and worked in a retirement residence during the pandemic
In Tales from the Golden Age, retirees talk about their spending, savings and whether life after work is what they expected. For more articles in this series, click here.
Heather Walker, 70, Waterloo, Ont.
I retired in 2016 at the age of 61 after a career in technology and administration. My last job was working in health and safety training at a remote mine site in northern Ontario. I was working on a rotation: I flew into the site, worked for two weeks and then went home for two weeks. At first, I loved it, but after six years, I started finding it very stressful and difficult to leave home.
The mine was winding down, so when the company announced another set of layoffs was coming, I volunteered to be let go with a bit of severance pay. I was ready to move on. My timing was perfect since my first grandson arrived the day after I officially retired. He came a month early.
I wasn't set on retiring fully. I assumed I could find something closer to home with my software skills, but the technology I worked with at my last company turned out to be outdated. That set me back.
After about a year of retirement, I started to get bored, so I took a culinary course at the local college. With my newly upgraded skills, I hoped to land a part-time job at a bakery or restaurant. It was quite an experience being the only senior in a class of 18- to 24-year-olds. It was a lot harder than I thought. You've heard of Hell's Kitchen? I was going in for pleasure, but they teach the kids the pressures of the pastry and baking world.
I ended up quitting before the course finished. I got a part-time job front-of-house at a little bakery, but COVID-19 hit, and they didn't need me anymore.
During the pandemic, I moved on to a server position at a retirement residence, wearing the full personal protective equipment and getting daily health checks. I thought it would be good for me to be around people and that the work would be fulfilling. I expected to work there for two or three months, but stayed for two years. Working for a group of residents ranging from 60 to 101 years old during the pandemic was an experience I will always remember.
Next, I went to work at a country bakery, but couldn't keep up with the work. That's when I realized something was going on with my health. After getting it checked out, the doctors found several blockages, and I needed heart bypass surgery immediately. It was a bit of a shock to me because I'm a relatively healthy person.
The heart issues forced me to change my retirement plans and adjust my bucket list. I planned to travel overseas a lot more, get involved in pickleball, and keep active with my two grandkids in their sports, but I can't do that now.
I stay active, doing what I can. I have a community garden in Guelph and joined a mature singles group for nature walks, dining, theatre and many other events of interest. I also participate in some studies at the University of Waterloo in areas such as the aging brain, bone loss and nutrition.
At first, I did worry about money in retirement, which I think is common. There are so many unknowns. It takes time to adjust to no longer receiving a paycheque and what your income looks like when you start collecting your Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits. I started to relax once I saw the true retirement picture after taxes. For most people, retirement is very doable if you save, invest and live within your means.
The most challenging part of retirement was finding a lifestyle that would provide a healthy balance. It took me about five years to settle in, but now I love it. The one thing I would have done differently is not to wait for retirement to see more of the world. My advice for others? Don't put off today what you may not be able to do tomorrow. And plan for changes. There are lots of them.
- As told to Brenda Bouw
This interview has been edited and condensed.
Are you a Canadian retiree interested in discussing what life is like now that you've stopped working? The Globe is looking for people to participate in its Tales from the Golden Age feature, which examines the personal and financial realities of retirement. If you're interested in being interviewed for this feature and agree to use your full name and have a photo taken, please e-mail us at: goldenageglobe@gmail.com. Please include a few details about how you saved and invested for retirement and what your life is like now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
17 minutes ago
- CTV News
Nova Scotia's offshore wind transmission line could cost $10 billion: Houston
A Block Island Wind Farm turbine operates, Dec. 7, 2023, off the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island. THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP-Julia Nikhinson HALIFAX — It could cost between $5 billion and $10 billion to build a transmission line that would connect Nova Scotia's proposed offshore wind farms with the rest of the country, Premier Tim Houston says. The rough estimate follows his announcement last week that Nova Scotia wants to license enough offshore turbines to produce 40 gigawatts of electricity — eight times more than what was originally planned. 'It's a concept,' Houston said after a cabinet meeting Thursday. 'It's a very powerful concept .... My objective, initially, was to capture the imagination of Nova Scotians.' He said he floated the idea on June 2 also to get the attention of Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has asked provincial and territorial leaders to submit bids for big infrastructure projects that could be fast-tracked to kick-start the economy — if deemed in the national interest. 'I think Nova Scotians are pretty inspired by what's possible,' Houston said. 'This would change Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada and provide green, renewable energy that the world is looking for.' The Progressive Conservative premier has said he wants Ottawa to help cover the costs of the 'Wind West' project, saying the excess electricity could supply 27 per cent of Canada's total demand. If the 10-year plan is successful, Nova Scotia would become an 'energy superpower' that no longer requires federal equalization payments, he said. 'We could get off of that transfer system over the next 20 years if we pursued the opportunities that are available to us.' Houston went on to say Nova Scotia's offshore is blessed with strong, remarkably steady winds that could be harnessed by 'hundreds' of turbines positioned in water about 100 metres deep, about 25 kilometres offshore. 'It blows a lot,' he said, adding that the fishing industry would have to be consulted about the new plan. 'The potential is so significant and the timing is now.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025
CBC
43 minutes ago
- CBC
Ottawa turns down St. John's $5M plan to turn commercial space into homes
The federal government has turned down a $5 million plan from the City of St. John's to turn commercial property to residential units, according to a member of city council. While the money would not have been limited to downtown properties, St. John's city councillor Ron Ellsworth said the proposal was part of a push to get more people living in the city's downtown area. "If we want the downtown businesses, if we want the downtown services and programs to continue to serve, we need people living in the downtown and we have a lot of older commercial buildings that are very hard for conversion," he said in an interview with The St. John's Morning Show. The city applied for the money through the housing accelerator fund, a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) initiative paid for by the federal government, intended to speed up housing development. The city of St. John's received $10.4 million from the fund last year, after the rejection of another previous application. CBC News has asked the CMHC to comment on why it turned down the city's proposal. Ellsworth said the city applied for the money in response to former federal housing minister Sean Fraser's challenge for "aggressive" ideas to tackle housing. "This was an opportunity to do something different, something unique. And while it was well received, obviously like all of us, you have a limited amount of funding and the federal government decided other projects ranked higher and we were not successful," he said. Ellsworth said the city wouldn't take on the task of converting commercial properties itself; rather, it would use the money to work with commercial property owners. Downtown business association in favour Scott Cluney, executive director of the Downtown St. John's business association, said he's all for commercial to residential conversions in the downtown area. "One of the things that makes a strong, vibrant downtown is more people living in the downtown," he said. "The more people who live in the downtown supports the business community in the downtown." Cluney said he doesn't necessarily believe converting commercial properties to residential units would drive commercial rent up — especially if buildings remained as mixed-use, with businesses at street level and residential units on upper floors. Though the city wasn't successful with its proposal, Cluney said he's heard from property owners who are considering commercial to residential conversions. "It's something that a lot of property owners have been looking at a fair bit in the past as especially as it relates to some of the older stock buildings," he said. Some projects are already under development. On June 3, St. John's city council advanced a proposal to convert 275 Duckworth St., a commercial property built in 1911, to residential units. Raising the Roof, a non-profit group, is planning to turn the building into 34 affordable micro-units. Ellsworth voted in favour of the proposal. "We're trying to encourage our diversity of housing options and this is the real first option we've had for the downtown core," he said. The city is in Year 2 of a housing master plan, using the $10.4 million to modernize regulations and eliminate certain fees for developers. Ellsworth said the next phase for the city is working with community organizations on further housing initiatives.
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Ford's new energy plan for Ontario increases reliance on nuclear, fossil fuels
The Ford government is projecting a major shift toward nuclear power to meet rising electricity demand and support Ontario's transition to net-zero emissions by mid-century. Its newly released long-term Energy for Generations plan — billed as the province's first-ever integrated energy strategy — also shows an increased reliance on fossil fuels over the next decade, with emissions expected to rise before declining after 2030. The province describes the plan as 'a comprehensive roadmap to meet future energy needs, support new housing, and power the most competitive economy in the G7.' 'As energy demand soars, our plan leverages 'Made-In-Ontario' to build affordable, clean, and always reliable power, built by and for Canadians,' Ontario's Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce said in a statement. The plan will help the province meet growing electricity demand while achieving over 99 per cent zero-emissions electricity by 2050, he added. Critics say the plan misses key opportunities to scale-up renewables, puts energy affordability at risk and increases Ontario's dependence on foreign energy supplies. The plan projects total electricity production in 2050 to be just under 275 terawatt-hours (TWh), with nuclear making up the largest share at over 200 TWh. That means nuclear plants could supply more than 70 per cent of Ontario's electricity by 2050, up from about 50 per cent today. The plan projects the province could need up to 17,800 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, equivalent to building five new Darlington nuclear power stations. Currently, Ontario's nuclear fleet — Bruce, Darlington, and Pickering — provides 12,000 MW of capacity. The plan projects the province could need up to 17,800 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, equivalent to building five new Darlington stations. To support this buildout, the province says it is preparing new nuclear sites and has already begun early engagement with First Nation and local communities. A new nuclear technology panel will guide technology choices and project timelines, with input from Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, the Independent Electricity System Operator and government officials. The province says nuclear projects are complex and costly, and it plans to explore new ownership models and equity partnerships to attract private capital and help finance the expansion. It aims to attract investment from Canadian pension funds and institutional investors to 'keep more Canadian energy dollars working here at home,' the province said. 'This isn't a plan — it's a policy statement' Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative, said the plan lacks a clear decision-making framework and basic accountability mechanisms. He said there is no process in place to evaluate whether the government's chosen energy path is the most affordable or lowest-risk for the province. 'There is no oversight or review process to assess whether this represents the least-cost or lowest-risk option for Ontario,' Winfield said. By 'review,' Winfield refers to independent assessments — such as those typically conducted by regulatory bodies or outside experts — that evaluate costs, risks, and alternatives before major infrastructure decisions are finalized. Winfield also questioned the long-term focus on nuclear. 'All of the proposed reactor technologies rely on enriched fuel that comes from the United States,' he said. 'This exposes Ontario to new energy security risks.' In recent months, the Ford government has committed billions to nuclear energy, announcing new builds and refurbishments it says will create tens of thousands of jobs. Earlier this year, it unveiled plans for a massive nuclear plant near Port Hope, projected to generate 10,000 megawatts — enough to power 10 million homes — though key details like costs and timelines remain undisclosed. Last week, the province introduced legislation to expand access to Ontario's public clean energy fund for nuclear projects. Industry groups welcomed Ontario's new energy plan, with major players praising the government's commitment to both nuclear power and natural gas. Enbridge Gas called the plan a 'clear affirmation' of the essential role natural gas will continue to play, citing its importance for affordability, grid stability and economic growth. The company said investments in gas infrastructure are foundational to Ontario's prosperity. The Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries also applauded the plan, calling it a bold step toward clean energy leadership. The group highlighted Ontario's strong nuclear track record and said the proposed expansion — including large reactors and SMRs — positions the province to secure long-term clean energy supply. 'Where are the renewables?' Aliénor Rougeot, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, said Ontario's new energy plan could lead to higher household bills, more air pollution and increased reliance on the US fossil gas. While she welcomed the idea of a long-term, integrated approach, she argued that the plan should be replaced with one built on publicly shared modelling. To Rougeot, the most glaring problem is the plan's failure to prioritize wind and solar — Ontario's cheapest and cleanest energy sources. 'I kept flipping through the document, asking: Where are the renewables?' Rougeot said. The supply forecast is particularly troubling to her, as it shows Ontario having less wind and solar in 2050 than in 2030. She believes the refusal to give renewable energy a central role in the province's future grid will come at a high cost — both economically and environmentally. Wind and solar make up approximately nine per cent and two per cent of Ontario's current electricity generation, respectively. In its plan, the government says their role is expected to grow over time. Starting in 2025, nearly 3,000 megawatts of energy storage will be added to the grid. However, the plan argues that nuclear is more cost-effective and land-efficient than wind and solar. It claims that to generate the same amount of energy as a proposed 10,000 MW nuclear station at Wesleyville, Ontario would need roughly 100 times more land for solar and 500 times more land for wind. But new analysis suggests solar doesn't require large tracts of land — for example, more than half of Toronto's electricity needs could be met through rooftop and parking lot solar alone. A new report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance argues that wind and solar could meet the same energy needs as the proposed Wesleyville nuclear station much faster and at far lower cost — potentially saving the province up to $19 billion annually. It highlights Ontario's untapped potential for offshore wind in the Great Lakes and large-scale solar at the Port Hope site. Another report warns that electricity from new nuclear could cost up to 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and 1.7 times more than offshore wind. Lia Codrington, a senior analyst at the Pembina Institute, said the province's new energy plan represents a positive step toward long-term planning, noting that many jurisdictions around the world are already moving quickly toward clean energy and decarbonization. She viewed it as important for Ontario to follow that trend — and even potentially lead — by modernizing its electricity system. Codrington questioned the government's argument that land use limits renewable energy expansion. She said wind turbines allow for shared land use — such as farming — and solar panels can be installed on rooftops, parking lots, and other built environments. In her view, decisions about land use should reflect what Ontarians want in their communities when it comes to energy sources, not just technical comparisons in megawatts per square kilometre.
