As far as the Canon is concerned, that's an open topic, but I prefer to use what I call the "Biblical canon".
That is, since the NT Bible writers managed to quote from every single book of the OT except for 3, I consider that intentional and significant and thus the Bible, in that sense creates it's OWN canon. I mean, who is going to argue with the NT Bible writers. Of course, some might object to the NT canon. Even so the three books outside the canon that I dismiss as "non-inspired" are:
ESTHER (historically false, so definitely not inspired)
SONG OF SOLOMON (an obvious pagan book of the "Mysteries")
ECCLESIATES (maybe a Biblically compatible book generally, but still excluded, thus not inspired; doesn't mean it's necessary pagan, just "apocryphal").
These books need to be EXCLUDED from the current canon. All the other books are quoted from, so, I'm assuming they belong in the canon. Inclusions beyond the "Internal Biblical Canon" is up to each individual I suppose. I exclude two of the above books on content though (Esther and SOS) so they are definitely out. The final one, Ecclesiastes, is dismissed because it's not included, though some find context problems with it. But that's no issue, at that point context issues are brought up about all the books, especially the NT writings of Paul, so....
Enjoy the arguments.
Finally, if this is a personal concern, I'd read all the commentaries on Esther, SOS and Ecclesiastes, pro and con, before including them in the canon. If you can include them beyond being excluded by the NT Bible writers or critical issues then I suppose that's your choice. JWs and Christendom in general seems to include them with no problem so that would be understandable. My standards are a little more stringent though.