Earlier this year, Alex Mitchell, CEO of the Abbotsford (B.C.) Chamber of Commerce, took part in trade missions to Mexico City and Brussels. These are opportunities she likely would have declined just a few years ago. 

“The world is different now and what used to be national-level concerns like trade have become local,” Mitchell told me. “My members are mostly small and medium businesses (SMEs) from across Abbotsford, and they need to consider alternative options to sustain and grow their business. But for many of them, the trade exploration journey isn’t clear.” 

Mitchell saw the missions as an opportunity to identify practical opportunities for her region. Abbotsford’s economy, rooted in agriculture, light manufacturing and aerospace, aligns closely with demand in both Mexico and Europe. While she describes these missions as both positive and eye-opening, it also underscored the need for stronger support for small businesses seeking to enter international markets.

That sentiment is shared across Canada. Many SMEs recognize that trade diversification is attractive in principle, if not as a national imperative, but find it less obvious in practical terms. 

On a macro-level, Ottawa’s objective is certainly clear. The federal government aims to double non-U.S. exports over the next decade, adding roughly $300 billion in annual exports by 2035. It’s an ambitious target, but not an implausible one if backed by sustained execution. To achieve it, Canada will naturally want to focus on the ‘big rocks’ first such as large firms, major deals, and high-impact sectors capable of quickly moving export volumes. 

Already, signs of progress are emerging. According to the Business Data Lab, Canadian exports to the U.S. fell to roughly 71.7 per cent, down from 75.9 per cent the year before. 

However, lasting trade diversification will not be built by a handful of large exporters alone. If Canada wants a more resilient and broadly rooted trading economy, it needs a deliberate strategy to help more smaller firms become export-ready and internationally competitive. 

It’s important to remember that roughly 99 per cent of Canada’s businesses are SMEs, yet their participation in global markets remains limited. According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, only about 15 per cent of SMEs exported in 2023, and of those, 85 per cent exported to the U.S. That means only two to three per cent are meaningfully engaged in markets beyond North America.

Recent Business Data Lab data reinforces the same pattern: growth in non-U.S. exports is being driven mostly by firms already active internationally expanding their reach, rather than by large numbers of new exporters entering global markets. While exports to non-U.S. markets rose by 17 per cent in 2025, the number of exporting firms increased only by 6 per cent.  

That gap matters. If diversification remains concentrated among a narrow group of experienced exporters, our nation risks achieving statistical progress without meaningful structural transformation. That’s why serious consideration needs to be given to SMEs as Canada continues to develop its trade diversification strategy. 

Government is right to deepen engagement with fast-growing regions such as the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and South America through agreements like CPTPP, CETA and Canada-Mercosur because these expand access and reduce barriers. Although, access alone doesn’t create participation.

Bridging that gap requires a stronger focus on trade enablement, including earlier-stage export education, more accessible market-entry support, improved financing tools, and a more coordinated ecosystem that reduces challenges for SMEs looking beyond the U.S. market. Simply, we now need to help businesses actually trade more, rather than just talking about how business should trade more.

Canada already has strong foundations in place and those should be scaled. The Trade Commissioner Service and Export Development Canada provide valuable support to thousands of Canadian firms, many of which are SMEs. But if only a small fraction of Canada’s 1.2 million SMEs are engaged in non-U.S. trade, then hundreds of thousands of businesses could still benefit from some form of assistance, including early-stage export exploration. As a trading nation, Canada should encourage businesses to assess their international potential, even though global expansion won’t be suitable for every firm.

A serious diversification strategy should also look beyond immediate export promotion. Building the next generation of globally minded entrepreneurs requires long-term investments in language skills, international education, and study-abroad opportunities. Any successful businessperson will tell you that international relationships are often built through cultural familiarity and personal networks developed over time. 

Japan, where Canada’s most recent Team Canada Trade Mission took place, is a great example where building trust over the long term is essential to business success, but considered well worth the investment by those who have earned goodwill and profitable commercial ties in the country. 

It’s not solely a federal government responsibility, though. Trade diversification requires a whole-of-society effort involving governments of all levels, business organizations, educational institutions, and civil society. The challenge is twofold: to diversify where Canada sells its goods and services, but also to broaden who participates in that effort.

At the end of the day, diversification cannot be achieved through agreements alone or even through a handful of major corporate deals. It’s a momentum question. Canada must turn national ambition into practical capability for businesses – especially those small to medium sized – across the country.

For entrepreneurs in communities like Abbotsford, they know economic opportunities exist abroad. They next need to see a clear and achievable path to grasping them.

Catherine Fortin LeFaivre is the senior vice president of international policy and global partnerships at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.