When Canadians talk about protecting Canadian jobs, we usually think about automobiles, steel, aluminum, lumber and manufacturing.
But some of the easiest Canadian jobs to move overseas don’t require a factory to close.
They require only an internet connection.
Accounting. IT support. Software development. Customer service. Data processing. Back-office administration.
A service job can effectively move from Canada to another country without a single product crossing the border.
And with Canada’s current focus on economic resilience and protecting Canadian industries, perhaps service-sector employment deserves more attention too.
Outsourcing and offshoring are not the same thing
This distinction is critical.
If a Toronto business hires an accounting firm in Mississauga instead of employing its own accountant, the work has been outsourced—but the economic activity remains in Canada.
That isn’t the principal concern I’m raising.
My concern is offshore outsourcing: work that could reasonably be performed in Canada being contracted to workers or service providers outside Canada.
Countries such as India and the Philippines have developed large and highly capable technology and business-services industries. This article is not criticism of those countries or their workers.
They are competing successfully for international business.
The question is whether Canada is doing enough to compete for its own work.
What do the numbers tell us?
Statistics Canada reported that 52.2% of Canadian businesses outsourced some tasks, projects or short contracts during the previous 12 months in its Q1 2025 survey.
The most commonly outsourced category was accounting, legal and other professional services at 36.5%. Software development/programming was 17.0%, and IT support 14.4%.
But here’s an important limitation:
These statistics do not tell us how much went offshore.
Hiring a Canadian CPA firm and hiring a provider outside Canada are both counted as outsourcing.
That means Canada needs better data specifically measuring offshore service work and Canadian positions affected by it.
Why would a company send the work offshore?
Usually there is a straightforward commercial answer:
Cost.
If substantially similar work can be obtained overseas for materially less, management has an economic incentive to consider it.
There can also be legitimate reasons beyond wages: specialized expertise, additional capacity, different time zones and around-the-clock operations.
Businesses cannot simply ignore costs.
But government policy doesn’t have to ignore the broader economic consequences either.
When someone works in Canada, employment income supports Canadian households and generally contributes to Canadian income taxes and CPP/EI where applicable. Employees spend money at Canadian businesses. Canadian companies develop expertise. Junior employees gain experience and become tomorrow’s senior professionals.
When a position moves abroad, some of those economic benefits can move with it.
That doesn’t mean every dollar paid offshore represents one dollar of lost Canadian income or tax revenue. A business may use its savings to invest, expand or create other jobs.
The issue deserves economic analysis—not exaggerated claims.
The career ladder may be an even bigger concern
Consider accounting.
A new graduate doesn’t become a controller, tax specialist or CFO immediately.
They start with basic accounting work, reconciliations, tax preparation, bookkeeping, audit work and financial reporting.
Similarly, an experienced cybersecurity professional may have started at an IT help desk.
What happens if we increasingly offshore the jobs where Canadians acquire their first two or three years of experience?
This question becomes more important alongside AI and automation.
Canada’s youth unemployment rate was 12.9% in August 2026, compared with a pre-pandemic 2017–2019 average of 10.8%. This does not establish that offshore outsourcing caused youth unemployment, but it makes preserving pathways into skilled employment a legitimate policy issue.
The United States is already debating this
There is an important correction to something circulating online.
The proposed U.S. 25% outsourcing tax is not a tax President Trump has enacted.
Republican Senator Bernie Moreno introduced the HIRE Act in 2025. His proposal would impose a 25% tax on certain outsourcing payments, direct the proceeds toward workforce development, and deny deductions for defined outsourcing payments. It remains a proposal rather than current U.S. law.
There is also bipartisan proposed U.S. legislation called the Keep Call Centers in America Act of 2025. Among other measures, it would create consequences relating to certain federal grants or guaranteed loans for employers relocating or contracting call-centre work overseas and require certain location disclosures in customer-service communications.
Canada does not have to copy either proposal.
But Canada should pay attention to the policy question.
Canada is already protecting Canadian content in another area
The federal government’s Buy Canadian Policy now explicitly seeks to prioritize Canadian suppliers and Canadian-made goods and services in qualifying federal procurement.
Since June 15, 2026, its strategic procurement policy applies at a $5-million threshold, down from $25 million.
The stated objectives include strengthening Canada’s economy, supporting Canadian workers and increasing economic resilience.
That leads to a reasonable question:
If keeping Canadian content and suppliers competitive is important when government purchases goods and services, should Canada also examine incentives surrounding private-sector offshore service work?
This is not about closing Canada’s borders
Canada needs international trade.
In fact, Canada exported $143.9 billion of commercial services in 2025 and imported $135.1 billion. Canadian commercial-service exports to the United States alone were $97.6 billion.
We therefore don’t want policies that inadvertently damage Canadian accountants, programmers, engineers, consultants and technology companies selling their services internationally.
The objective shouldn’t be:
Stop international services.
It should be:
Make Canada competitive enough that employing Canadians makes economic sense—and make Canadian service companies competitive enough to win work from the rest of the world.
In Part 2, I’ll examine a more controversial question:
Should a Canadian company receive the same tax deduction when it moves service work offshore even when qualified Canadian workers are reasonably available?
General information and policy discussion only. This is not tax or legal advice.
AsraniCPA – Your Trusted Accountant
