Why buying Canadian tech remains harder than it should be

Ben Harrison from Sagard (left), Talia Abramovitz from Deloitte Ventures, Emily Athanasopoulos from Interac, and Andre Zybul from BMO speak at a Source Canada panel. Photo by Connor Dudgeon Photo, courtesy of Source Canada

Canadian companies want to buy local, but the structure around them often makes it harder than it should be. 

“We are more risk-averse than our American counterparts,” said Talia Abramowitz, managing partner at Deloitte Ventures. “You’ve got to buy technology first before you’re going to buy Canadian technology.”

That mindset shows up in everything from procurement policy to market concentration. 

“Most industries are dominated by oligopolies,” she said. “The necessity to innovate and adopt technology is not quite the same as it is in the U.S., where you’ve got 5,000 banks. Whereas in Canada, you’ve got 80.”

Emily Athanasopoulos, head of vendor management and business continuity at Interac, agreed that change is coming slowly. 

“It’s something as a Canadian company we should be thinking about more seriously,” she said. Her team is now reviewing Interac’s entire vendor portfolio, “and making that choice a lot more strategically now than we did six months ago, 12 months ago.” 

“It’s not easy, though,” she added.

At a recent Source Canada panel, leaders from Deloitte, Interac, and BMO described buying Canadian as a function of how companies make decisions, manage regulation, and assess performance.

The result is a system where good intentions meet hard constraints, and where buying Canadian becomes less a slogan than a test of how organizations really operate.

Culture and risk still shape how companies buy

Inside most corporations, buying local isn’t a new conversation. But culture, risk appetite, and market structure still decide how far it goes.

At Deloitte, Abramowitz said the conversation surfaces through the firm’s venture investments. The company launched its fund three and a half years ago to close a gap for startups needing access to capital, talent, and customers. 

“We’ve done 11 investments, nine of which have been Canadian so far,” she said. “With that investment typically comes a commercial arrangement, so I would say the attach rate for the portfolio companies we’re invested in is about 70%.”

At Interac, the focus sharpened as tariff concerns and global instability pushed procurement teams to examine their vendor base more closely. 

Athanasopoulos said that thinking is now being reflected in Interac’s “tap Canadian” campaign and a more deliberate review of its vendor decisions.

The same tension shows up in banking. At BMO, buying Canadian has long been part of the conversation, said Andre Zybul, who is the head of strategic partnerships and open finance. 

But even with that emphasis, limitations remain. 

For example, Zybul cited technology like cloud services, where made-in-Canada options can be limited.

From a fintech perspective, he explained, “we do like to partner with Canadian companies just for the simple fact that they understand the regulatory environment here in Canada a little better, which makes onboarding them easier.”

Another factor that often works in favour of Canadian companies is bilingual capability. Zybul noted that many Canadian products are built with French-language support from the outset, while U.S. companies often add it later, if at all. That early design choice can simplify onboarding in regulated environments.

Good intentions only go so far when market structure, regulation, and risk culture shape what companies can realistically do.

Why partnerships stall before they start

Barriers to adoption often appear well before formal negotiations begin. In Canada, slower adoption of new technologies can reflect deeper structural and cultural factors that shape how buyers and innovators interact.

Abramowitz pointed to cultural differences that continue to slow adoption, such as the aforementioned risk-averse nature of Canadian business.

“A small fish in a really big pond, in the U.S., I think, makes startups swim faster,” she said.

Regulatory design also influences outcomes. Zybul described Canada’s approach as focused narrowly on risk, without an equivalent emphasis on enabling competition and innovation. 

“We don’t have a competitive piece to our regulatory regime,” he said. “It’s only risk based.”

Recent policy analysis supports this broader point. Research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development notes that regulatory frameworks that restrict competition can unintentionally hold back innovation, and that more balanced approaches help firms compete and innovate more effectively. 

Zybul argued that adding a competitive lens alongside risk management could shift incentives and open doors for newer companies. 

“I think if we slowly moved where our regulators are looking at risk, which is very important, but also then have a competitive component to that, we could actually help move innovation forward,” he said.

That kind of change could make a difference for startups struggling to get traction. 

Deloitte’s research shows that in 2024, only 5% of Canadian corporations with more than $1 billion in revenue invest in the venture asset class, compared to 40% in the U.S. When corporations stay on the sidelines, startups lose access to capital and the commercial partnerships that support growth.

Inside large organizations, Zybul said the friction often starts with the basics: knowing who makes decisions, understanding the planning cycle, and meeting regulatory requirements. 

“A lot of times, fintechs focus to meet my needs, but I’m not the decision-maker,” he said. “I’m very clear about that, but the pivot is just not essentially occurring.” 

Timing also matters. 

“If we’re having conversations in November and December, then we’re already talking about the next fiscal year,” Zybul added. “Because our dollars are locked in.”

For companies trying to sell into financial institutions, compliance remains a key hurdle. 

Banks must follow what’s known as the OSFI Guideline B-10, a framework for onboarding third-party vendors. Zybul explained that some startups underestimate the time it takes to meet those obligations. 

“It’s just understanding what that roadmap is, and how do we move forward with that,” he said.

The broader takeaway for vendors was about persistence. 

“Follow up until you get a no,” said panel moderator Ben Harrison, partner at Sagard. “Do it nicely, don’t damage the relationship early on, but be politely persistent.”

Building an advantage means rewarding the best, not just what’s local

As more Canadian organizations look to align procurement with national innovation goals, a clear line is emerging between intent and execution. Buying local can be strategic, but only if it reinforces performance rather than undermines it. For large buyers, credibility with internal teams, regulators, and customers still rests on outcomes.

That tension is familiar inside procurement functions. Athanasopoulos cautioned against choosing suppliers based solely on cost. 

“Don’t always go for the cheapest company out there, because it’s not always going to be the best,” she advised. “We’ve seen that a couple of times across our company, where we went for the lowest price option and it didn’t suit our needs.”

In highly regulated environments, she emphasized, understanding both the business context and regulatory obligations is as important as price.

The same principle applies at a broader ecosystem level. For Canadian suppliers, national identity may help open conversations, but it rarely sustains them. Abramowitz argued that favouring domestic companies only works if quality and execution remain non-negotiable. 

“The door should open because you’re Canadian, but it stays open and your wallet stays open, because it is absolutely the best,” she said. “If we chose Canadian and it happened to be second rate, we’d all lose.”

Where this balance breaks down, regulatory complexity can become a deciding factor. 

Zybul noted that even when there is appetite to work with Canadian firms, unclear or burdensome regulatory pathways can push companies to look elsewhere. 

“Even though we want to participate with Canadian companies,” he said, “they’re moving to the U.S., because the regulatory environment is easier.”

As Abramowitz put it, building stronger Canadian companies doesn’t start with government programs or slogans. It starts with how corporations spend, partner, and take calculated risks.

That shift could start to change what national advantage really means in practice.

Final shots

• Canada’s innovation story depends as much on procurement as on policy. Buying decisions signal what kind of economy we want to build.
• Startups should treat compliance and timing as part of their product strategy. Understanding how large organizations buy is as important as what they’re selling.
• “Buy Canadian” succeeds when companies compete globally on quality and execution, and when Canada’s systems make that possible.