Today’s Blog was written by Rahul Sharma, Partner, Fasken LLP, Toronto

This is a short blog post written on a cold morning in Toronto.  It is currently -12 degrees in Toronto (with a windchill factor of -21 degrees).  It is presently sunny and 26 degrees in the Cayman Islands.  On days like these, migration weighs heavily on some minds.

I would like to thank Meera Raman of the Globe and Mail for speaking with me before the Holidays about emigration from Canada and the trends that I continue to see in my practice (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/retirement/article-more-canadian-millionaires-are-seeking-to-move-abroad-why-do-so-many/).  It is and continues to be an important topic.  But this blog post is not about the article; it is about the comments and discussion that continue to surround the subject of migration.

There is a clear sense amongst some groups that better opportunities exist for them in other markets.  The article does a good job of explaining the who and the why, such that this need not be repeated here.  What needs to be stressed, however, is that every individual’s decision to stay or to go turns on his, her or their own circumstances and realities.  The decision is highly subjective and there are multiple variables to the equation.  Consider two simple examples.

The first is a young, early-stage entrepreneur whose business valuation is presently low—even possibly negligible.  This individual has discovered like-minded people with whom to collaborate and develop the business in another jurisdiction.  The possibilities in that jurisdiction may be attractive, including in terms of the availability of capital for investment, as well as the potential for a higher ultimate valuation.  This is an individual who can likely depart Canada without any, or perhaps not too many, tax implications.  The dialogue concerning this individual’s departure should not be negative, neither towards the individual, nor the system in general.  Rather, the discussion should centre around how we can work towards keeping this individual in Canada.  It should focus on what we can do to better foster, support, encourage and develop entrepreneurship in our country, as well as the incentives that can be potentially provided to make Canada a global destination for entrepreneurs.

The second example is similar to the first, only the individual is older.  He, she or they have a family in Canada, as well as health issues that are not critical, but nevertheless important and need to be monitored.  I have heard from several individuals in these circumstances that relocation is not easy, let alone impossible.  The cost of health insurance (if it is even available), as well as the availability of assistance and family support are heavy factors that work towards keeping the individual anchored in Canada.  Although this individual may benefit from being situated in a different market, he, she or they will remain in Canada.  The dialogue concerning this individual needs to be the same as in the first example: one concentrated on how we can work to better support his, her or their entrepreneurial activities.  But the availability of health care and other forms of support for this individual need to be emphasised.  No matter how much we may complain about things at home, including our health care system, imagine not having it or falling into a situation where coverage and care are unattainable or inaccessible.  Imagine not having clean air, proper rule of law or so many of the other features that distinguish Canada from so many global jurisdictions.

The point is that we need to be pragmatic and positive in our approach.  There is much that needs improvement and we need to continue to raise our voices and work towards improving the entrepreneurial environment in our country.  But we also need to appreciate that global relocation is most often a complex decision and not a knee-jerk move, as well as the many truly attractive features about life in Canada and being Canadian.

Stay warm!