In a Service Economy, What Are We Actually Fighting For?

February 25, 2026

In a Service Economy, What Are We Actually Fighting For?

Jobs vs. ownership - The argument for economic sovereignty

Canada is a service economy. The services sector makes up about three-quarters of the country’s economic output. Technicians, managers, designers, and operators whose work is local by nature; the people who deliver that work live here, pay taxes here, and build their careers here.

So, in a service economy, we are not fighting for the work — Canadians already do it. We are fighting for ownership of the value that work creates.

The question is who owns the companies those Canadians work for — and what happens to the value created by that work over time.  If we truly care about sovereignty, how do we prioritize keeping that value in Canada?

When a service company is Canadian-owned, the success of that company compounds here. Profits are reinvested into Canadian leadership teams, Canadian growth, Canadian infrastructure, and Canadian expansion. Decision-making power stays in Canada. Over time, this creates stronger domestic companies with the capacity to scale, innovate, and compete internationally. That’s what economic sovereignty looks like in a service economy: not just activity, but ownership of the capacity that grows out of that activity.

When ownership sits outside Canada, the work still happens here — but the benefits of that work can compound outside our borders. Canadian labour creates value, but the strategic control over that value, and the long-term reinvestment of profits, may accrue to parent companies and leadership teams based elsewhere. The lights stay on, but economic leverage quietly shifts outward over time.

From the perspective of running a Canadian-owned service provider, this distinction is visible in our everyday competition. We draw from the same local workforce and serve the same institutions as much larger foreign-owned companies operating in Canada. The people doing the work are often the same. The difference is not in capability or professionalism on the ground, but in access to capital, scale, and the incentives that shape long-term commitment to the Canadian market.

It’s common to point to investments made by foreign-owned companies in Canada — in facilities, equipment, training — as proof that foreign ownership benefits the Canadian economy. Those investments are real. But in a service economy, investment largely follows market position. Any company that dominates a market must invest to maintain that position. The investment itself is not the differentiator. The differentiator is where the returns ultimately accrue, and where future reinvestment decisions are anchored.

In our own business, this shows up in decisions like implementing paid maternity and paternity leave beyond statutory minimums (16 weeks and five weeks, respectively) — not because it is the most efficient short-term use of capital, but because reinvesting in people is part of how we build long-term capacity in Canada. These are the kinds of choices that become easier to sustain when ownership, leadership, and long-term incentives are anchored here.

This matters because scale compounds. Companies with greater access to capital can invest more aggressively, absorb risk, and consolidate market share. When Canadian-owned service companies can grow and compete at scale, that compounding effect benefits Canada: more domestic leadership, more reinvestment anchored here, and more Canadian companies capable of serving national and international clients. When they are crowded out by foreign-owned companies, Canada may retain the activity — but lose the opportunity to build national champions in service industries.

This is not about opposing foreign companies. Many operate professionally in Canada and employ Canadians. The point is more structural: in a service economy, ownership determines whether the success of Canadian work compounds into Canadian-owned capacity over time.

If we care about economic sovereignty, the goal shouldn’t be limited simply to service delivery or the number of Canadians employed today. Those outcomes can coexist with a steady erosion of domestic economic power. The more meaningful goal is to create the conditions for Canadian-owned service companies to grow, scale, and reinvest here — so that the long-term benefits of Canadian work stay Canadian.

In practical terms, this means being clearer about what we mean by sovereignty in a service economy. What we are fighting for is not the work — Canadians already do it — but ownership of the value that work creates, and the ability for that value to compound in Canada over time.

Kyle Brooks

Chief Executive Officer

Re-posted with approval from Kyle Brooks' original article.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/service-economy-what-we-actually-fighting-kyle-brooks-4qukc