Canada

By Vaishnavi Pallapothu

PART 1

Unlike Sweden and Mexico, Canada has never explicitly announced the adoption of a feminist foreign policy. However, since taking office in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration has demonstrated a commitment to a feminist foreign policy agenda. From its feminist international assistance policy to making gender equality a priority for its recent G7 presidency, Canada has certainly adhered to a feminist approach in its international relations. 

Trudeau’s feminist government

Justin Trudeau is a self-proclaimed feminist and at a UN summit in 2016, he stated that he will keep declaring himself a feminist “until it is met with a shrug” (The Guardian, 2016). After he was elected, Trudeau went viral for appointing a young and diverse cabinet “that looks like Canada” (Murphy, 2015) comprising of an equal number of women and men, for the first time in Canadian history. When he was asked to explain his historical decision and explain his commitment to gender equality, he simply answered “because it’s 2015”, affirming that this should be the norm in the 21st century. The Liberal Party had campaigned on a platform that emphasized feminism and indigenous rights, promising to look forward in progress. Holding on to this election promise, an example of a welcome change was that in the most recent federal election (October 2019), the data collection process of candidates’ credentials moved away from the gender binary and relied on what the candidate identified as (Montpetit, 2020).

Additionally, under Trudeau’s government, the Status of Women Canada, an agency under the Department of Canadian Heritage, was transformed into its own federal department by the name of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) Canada. The department’s broad goals include: “increasing women’s economic security and prosperity; encouraging women’s leadership and democratic participation; and ending gender-based violence” (Status of Women Canada, n.d.). This department also oversees the implementation of Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+), an “analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives” (Gender Based Analysis, 2018), throughout all governmental bodies.

The WAGE department is an ambitious and laudable initiative in the fight for gender equality within Canadian political office. With a commitment to address gaps and problems at the structural and systemic level by consulting grassroots and civil society experts, this department should lead by example not only in terms of gender-mainstreaming, but also advancing gender equality within and outside Canada. By following an intersectional approach to tackling the wage gap, gender-based violence (GBV) and women and non-binary representation in parliament, the departmental plan is off to a solid and promising start, if implemented correctly (Monsef, n.d.).

Economy and Trade

In terms of trade, Canada broke new ground by committing to mainstream gender considerations in its international free trade agreements (FTAs). According to an official government site, “The Government of Canada is currently applying a two-pronged approach to trade and gender by: working to include a standalone chapter on trade and gender and by mainstreaming gender by including other gender-related provisions throughout FTAs” (Government of Canada, n.d.). This is a landmark policy goal, first seen in a trade deal with Chile, in that it is the first country in the G20 to not only reference gender in terms of trade but also envisage a world wherein all genders benefit equally from trade, without facing discrimination.

Canada’s acknowledgement of the link between international trade and gender inequality due to a race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions, with women being disproportionately affected, is a positive and much-needed step in the right direction. Thus, in this way, Canada is paving the way to make sure that free trade agreements do not perpetuate economic barriers or discriminate based on gender. This will cause ripple effects as the economic empowerment of women and girls can translate into the economic growth of their communities and countries. As an influential middle power country on the world stage, Canada has tremendous scope for leading the way in promoting global standards for trade policy that inculcates gender equality.

Arms Deals and Nuclear Weapons

By promoting women’s rights on the one hand but hedging through on weapons exports to dictatorships on the other, Canada’s feminist foreign policy has come under fire for being insincere. Trudeau’s government has chosen to overlook the fact that Canada has a $15bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia, asserting that it would not renege on its deal unless there was evidence of the weapons harming civilians (Franklin, n.d.)8. To add fuel to the fire, Canadian weapons manufacturing firms were also part of a weapons deal struck between Nigerian military and the USA. It is completely antithetical to Canada’s feminist leadership to continue to engage in weapons trade, to countries like Saudi Arabia with a poor record on women’s rights, no less.

As Elin Liss rightly said, “a feminist foreign policy should be anti-militaristic and put human security at the centre” (Liss, 2018). Canada’s feminist foreign policy, in this respect, appears compartmentalized as it fails to “recognize the gendered impacts of weapon proliferation, where unequal power structures, both in the home and in society, become even stronger when men are armed” (Liss, 2018). Lucrative arms deals cannot exist in isolation from a feminist foreign policy as the former will only stand to prop up repressive and violent regimes around the world that harm women – leading to internecine effects. Feminist foreign policy cannot be tokenistic and conveniently evoked at global conferences and then disregarded when it comes to the lives of innocent civilians.

In another disappointing note on Canada’s feminist foreign policy, the country remains steadfast in wanting to invest in and support nuclear power – the world’s most cataclysmic weapons. While foreign minister Chrystia Freeland insisted that Canada is committed to global disarmament and non-proliferation, Canada’s recent track record suggests otherwise (Smith, 2017). In 2017, Canada abstained from joining nuclear disarmament talks and was not a part of the draft treaty which included 122 other countries (Smith, 2017).

As Canada still regards NATO as the bastion of international peace and security and continues to support its nuclear allies in the development of nuclear weapons, feminist spaces are questioning whether a feminist foreign policy is compatible with this stance as these weapons disproportionately affect women (Fihn, 2018). Indeed, this entire ordeal seems like a 180 degree turn from Canada’s crowning achievement, the Ottawa Convention, which eventually led to the banning of minefields. Although it was not termed feminist diplomacy nor intended to be, the former is powerful case of strong middle power diplomacy.

Trudeau’s anti-ban stance casts a shadow in another form given Canada’s own history of nuclear testing on indigenous sites and, paradoxically, Trudeau’s purported support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Broadhead and Howard, 2019).

G7 Presidency

As the G7 president in 2018, Canada focused on a human security approach to diplomacy and brought together the world’s most powerful countries around the themes of gender equality, climate change, the need to uphold peace and security, clean energy and economic growth that benefits everyone. It marked the first occasion that Canada had the chance to demonstrate its feminist foreign policy on the world stage as well as show its diplomatic acumen in encouraging other countries to follow suite. Although all the G7 countries certainly have the resources to commit to procedures such as gender-budgeting, implementing the WPS agenda nationally and defending women’s rights to sexual and reproductive health, many of these components of a feminist policy are not standard practice (Ho, 2018). In fact, after US President Donald Trump reinstated and expanded the Global Gag Rule which cuts US funding to foreign associations that support abortion, it was who Canada stepped in to fill the leadership void and vowed $650 million for sexual and reproductive health rights worldwide (Zilio, 2017).

As per the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy (Worniuk, 2019), this was a momentous G7 meeting in that it was the first public engagement which was not only explicitly labelled ‘feminist’, but also used feminist analyses. While it is easy to dismiss the various rhetoric around supporting feminist movements, intersectional framing of policy and affirming accountability towards women’s rights as jingoism and an attempt at branding, having such a huge platform to discuss feminist organizing is a huge break-through into institutional spaces. As CFFP put it aptly, “Hearing feminist voices on the global stage paves the way for feminist voices in local settings – and vice versa” (Worniuk, 2019).

Indeed, Canada went on to champion the G7 Women, Peace and Security Partnerships Initiative as well as the first ever meeting of female foreign ministers (Thompson and Asquith, 2018), which centered around gender-based violence, democracy promotion and strengthening international security and peace. The latter also aimed to set a precedent for growing amity between women ministers and hoped to inspire more women to join their country’s diplomatic ranks.

PART II

Canada’s Support for the WPS agenda

Since the adoption of Resolution 1325 in 2000, Canada has played an instrumental role in sustaining the momentum of this historical resolution and has continued to work alongside UN members in the Friends of Women, Peace and Security grouping (Franklin, n.d.).

One among 85 other countries, Canada has launched two National Action Plans on Women, Peace and Security so far: one for the 2011-2016 period and a subsequent one for 2017-2022. The latest NAP, on paper, looks robust and promising. In addition to extending support for women’s participation in peace and security, Canada also reaffirms its commitment prevent and address impunity for sexual and gender-based violence in armed conflict around the world. A positive takeaway from this plan is the allocation of $150 million dollars of funding to local women’s organizations that work in reconciliation and conflict prevention (Sinclair, 2020). This bottom-up emphasis on grassroots and civil society organizations is an affirmation of the crucial role that community-led transformative action can play in stabilizing conflict.

Cognizant of the slow progress being made around the world with regards to established targets of the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2242, to double the rate of women’s participation as military and police peacekeepers, Canada launched the Elsie Initiative on Women in Peace Operations. By pledging to increase the meaningful participation of women and not sticking to a stir-and-add approach, this initiative will design and implement tailored training and technical assistance for peacekeepers. Additionally, Canada has pledged $15 million for a global fund to support deployment (UN Women, 2020).

On another encouraging note, under Justin Trudeau’s government, Canada’s first ever Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security, Jacqueline O’Neill, was appointed. Her broad mandate includes advising the Canadian government and ministers on domestic and foreign policies pertaining to the WPS as well as working in close association with stakeholders from around the world to advance women’s participation in peacebuilding.

In an interview with Council for Foreign Relations (CFR, 2020)11, Jacqueline explains why the reconciliation of both domestic and international spheres in terms of implementing the WPS agenda is important to signal Canada’s commitment to the same. She said “Contributing to reconciliation domestically is also key to our credibility globally. Why would governments and partners around the world view us as genuine partners if we’re not willing to undertake the same self-reflection that we’re asking of them?” Indeed, all of these are powerful ways to operationalize the pioneering Resolution 1325, which is itself an indispensable instrument of Canada’s feminist foreign policy. Nonetheless, the implantation has been wonting and hypocritical as Canada fails to address disarmament as a tool for promoting the WPS Agenda and continues to support and partake in arms deals as a member of both G7 and NATO.

Indigenous Rights

When it comes to Canada’s track record on indigenous rights, to say it has been abysmal would be accurate. Indigenous women and girls, in particular, face discrimination and violence based on a number of intersecting factors not limited to gender, race, socioeconomic status and the legacy of colonialism. According to a UN Expert Committee from 2015 (Bailey and Brunn, 2015), Canada had violated a number of articles of the CEDAW convention as “aboriginal women and their families have experienced serious acts of violence that have significantly affected the right to life and personal security”. After plenty of public outcry from activists, international organizations and women’s groups, Canada launched an enquiry into Missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG).

The outcome of this commission has been inadequate at best. Several indigenous groups argued that it was neither transparent not inclusive (Brant 2017). Trudeau himself hesitantly accepted the National Inquiry’s conclusion that Canada was complicit in the genocide of its indigenous peoples, although this itself is widely debated in the country (Hebert 2019).

Indeed, as Canada backed The Gambia’s genocide lawsuit against Myanmar for the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims, there was public backlash, domestically, for the contradictory position “of leading a very active foreign policy based on prevention of genocide abroad, and at home, not responding to fully for the calls for justice made by the [National Inquiry]” (Blanchfield, 2020). While Canada’s feminist foreign policy and responsibility as an influential middle player means that it has a responsibility to support Gambia in this case, it remains that Canada’s domestic and foreign policy with respect to genocide is incoherent.

Ultimately, the issues with respect to Indigenous women and girls in the country must be understood in the context of settler colonialism. Unless Canada pays heed to the National Inquiry and earlier Truth and Reconciliation report, justice and accountability seem far away. One way for Canada to make amends and progress in terms of Indigenous women’s rights and dignity is to actively engage them in their WPS NAP as their participation can go a long way in reconciliation and security, while also bolstering the nation’s credibility in terms of support for the WPS agenda.

Feminist Foreign Assistance

In June 2017, Canada announced its Feminist International Assistance Policy which states that Canada guarantees 15% of all bilateral international development assistance will go towards gender equality and empowerment. By 2022, the country aims to increase this to 95% of all foreign assistance (Government of Canada, n.d.). With an overall focus on five overarching pillars of gender equality, human dignity, inclusive growth, inclusive governance and environment and climate action, Canada will fund programs aimed at eradicating child marriage, encouraging girls’ education, and eliminating gender-based violence. Under the FIAP, Canada will create a $150 million fund for the Women’s Voice and Leadership Program, which is a much-needed fund in the women’s grassroots space which hardly receive international financial aid. After consulting with on-ground civil society actors in 65 different countries, the FIAP will take into consideration the concerns of local women and will use a bottom-up approach to include them in decision-making processes (Halais, 2017).

While it was widely heralded as a progressive feminist foreign policy initiative, FIAP has also drawn some criticism. First, The FIAP repeatedly alludes to “women and girls,” sticking to the liberal feminist ‘add women and stir’ approach (D. Lee, n.d.). Without moving beyond the essentialist view of gender and taking into consideration intersectionality and non-Western perspectives that consider the impact of capitalism, colonialism, and gender-power relations, the FIAP’s outcome will not challenge or undo structural barriers to development. Furthermore, there are few signs of the intent for transformative policy implementation (Tiessen, 2019). For example, although it is reiterated that it is important to engage boys and men to tackle the patriarchal institutions, the policy report remains vague as to how to go about doing this. Critics have also argued that the financial resources allocated to the FIAP are inadequate and do not match the policy’s ambitions.

Canada’s commitment to feminist international aid cannot limit itself to just pour money into the gaps. It must represent and push forward an intersectional feminist approach and include all stakeholders such as LGBTQIA+ individuals, trans people and non-binary people. Not just women and girls. A feminist international assistance plan that does not give meaningful support to legal and political advocacy to advance women’s rights, empowerment and development is just not feminist enough.

Conclusion

Canada’s feminist foreign policy is certainly multi-faceted, comprehensive, and trailblazing in many aspects. However, without a commitment to disarmament, indigenous rights or intersectional approaches to its decision-making, these policies risk becoming palliative and not transformative enough. It is high time Canada moves beyond instrumentalist and status-quo policies of bringing more women to the table, facilitating dialogue and jingoistic statements and stopping there. A broader and nuanced transformative feminist foreign policy agenda is needed to challenge and eventually dismantle the structural inequalities. Canada has been at the forefront of feminist leadership for many decades now. The current vision for its feminist foreign policy is not enough. It must and can do better. 

Addendum in May 2023:

Canada adopted its Feminist International Assistance Policy in June 2017. The policy focused exclusively on development assistance, and did not include diplomacy, defence, and trade. In 2021, the Canadian government, in a dedicated segment on its website, noted: “Feminist foreign policy, which applies a feminist lens to all aspects of Canada’s international engagement, including the Feminist International Assistance Policy; the Canadian National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security; Canada’s inclusive approach to trade; and the new defence strategy. Feminist foreign policy calls for policy, advocacy and program efforts to focus on addressing fundamental structural barriers that prevent gender equality, taking into account the needs of those most affected by multiple forms of discrimination.” (Government of Canada, 2021).

It addresses six priority areas: 1) Gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment; 2) “human dignity,” which is an umbrella term that includes access to health care, education, nutrition, and the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance; 3) “growth that works for everyone,” focusing on women’s economic empowerment, entrepreneurship, farmers, and smallholders; 4) climate action; 5) inclusive governance; and 6) women, peace and security. The policy developed key performance indicators for each of the six areas, requiring Global Affairs Canada to collect and publish data reflecting performance on an annual basis.

The Canadian Feminist Foreign Policy started with a commitment to rights and backed it with a financial commitment through its ODA. It committed to dedicate 95% of its foreign assistance to programming involving gender equality as a principal or significant goal (based on OECD-DAC data), marking a major hike from its commitment of 2.4% in 2015-2016 and 6.5% in 2016-2017, on the gender principal marker, and 68 and 75% on gender as a significant marker for the same financial years. OECD data from 2018-2019 suggest that Canada committed 24% to gender as a principal marker and 68% to gender as a significant marker. Canada overtook Sweden in the OECD rankings after allocating 92% of aid as gender-focused (OECD, 2021). Canada also launched the Equality Fund to resource women’s rights organizations and feminist movements, and the Women’s Voice and Leadership Program to support local women’s organizations.

In 2020, Canada’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs, François-Philippe Champagne, announced a collaboration with civil society to launch the white paper. An internal version of the white paper was completed in 2021. However, it has not been released to the public, following the snap election in mid-August 2021. Canadian officials were noted to have informed the ICRW in its run up to a 2021 paper on Feminist Foreign Policy, that the government was building elements of a larger feminist approach to foreign policy, including through a series of sectoral policies such as a Trade Diversification Strategy that prioritized an “inclusive approach to trade,” a Second National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, the appointment of the world’s first dedicated Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security, and a new Defence Policy that was to be “Strong, Secure, Engaged,” as well as an internal guidance on implementing feminist foreign policy (this was issued to embassies and other government departments in early 2019), and, finally, a ministerial commitment to feminist foreign policy articulated in a 2021 mandate letter (Government of Canada, 2021).

A major limitation of this policy was that it did not translate its impact measurement from commitment to practice. In 2023, an independent auditor’s report noted that Global Affairs Canada was unable to show how the approximately $3.5 billion in bilateral development assistance it provides each year to low- and middle-income countries improved outcomes for women and girls.[1] Further, 24 of the 26 indicators the department had created to monitor progress against policy goals did not measure outcomes. It was also found that money was reallocated to address the needs that emerged as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Second, the policy did not seek to question the patriarchy and its manifestation through systemic and structural violence. Saudi Arabia remained the top export destination for Canadian arms after the US, in 2021.[2] Further, Canada’s treatment of indigenous women has been called out on several occasions – the most recent of which includes the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) calling on Canada to fully address the long-standing gender-based discrimination in the country’s Indian Act, which continues to affect tens of thousands of descendants of indigenous women to date.

References (PART I):

1. The Guardian, (2016, March 17), Justin Trudeau: When I call myself a feminist, Twitter explodes, The Guardian (Read) 

2. J. Murphy, (2015, November 4), Trudeau gives Canada first cabinet with equal number of men and women (Read) 

3. D. Montpetit, (2020, January 23), Women in the Parliament of Canada, Hill Notes (Read)

4. Status of Women Canada, Government of Canada, (Read)

5. Gender Based Analysis + (2018, December 4), Status of Women Canada (Read) 

6. M. Monsef, Department for Women and Gender Equality 2019–20 Departmental Plan (Read)

7. Trade and gender in free trade agreements: The Canadian approach, Government of Canada (Read)

8. R. Zakaria, (2017, November 3), Canada’s hypocritical ‘feminist’ foreign policy, Al Jazeera (Read) 

9. E. Liss, (2018, March 7), 10 reasons why we need feminist foreign policy, OpenCanada.org (Read) 

10. M.D. Smith, (2017, October 26), ‘Astonishing’: Justin Trudeau criticized for not congratulating Nobel Peace Prize winners, keeping Canada out of nuclear treaty, National Post (Read)

11. B. Fihn, (2018, September 28), Canada’s feminist foreign policy cannot include nuclear weapons, The Globe and Mail (Read)

12. L.A. Broadhead and S. Howard, (2019, October 14), The Nuclear Ban Treaty and the cloud over Trudeau’s ‘feminist’ foreign policy, International Journal, DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020702019876368

13. K. Ho, (2018, March 6), Canada puts its feminist foreign policy to the test, Opencanada.org (Read) 

14. M. Zilio, (2017, December 14), Canada’s G7 presidency to focus on gender equality, economic issues, The Globe and Mail. (Read) 

15. B. Woroniuk, (2019, February 18), Canada’s feminist vision for the G7 and beyond, Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy (Read) 

16. L. Thompson and C. Asquith, (2018, September 20), One Small Step for Feminist Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy (Read) 

References (Part II):

1. U Franklin, Executive Summary, The Standing Committee on Human Rights, Senate of Canada, https://sencanada.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/403/huma/press/18nov10e-e.htm

2. A Sinclair, (2020, March 9), How Canada’s Ambassador For Women, Peace, and Security Can Use Her Global Experience to Make a Local Impact, Strategy Corp, https://strategycorp.com/2020/03/how-canadas-ambassador-for-women-peace-and-security-can-use-her-global-experience-to-make-a-local-impact/

3. UN Women, (2020, March 29), The Elsie Initiative Fund launched to increase uniformed women in UN peacekeeping, UN Women, https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2019/3/news-the-elsie-initiative-fund-launched-to-increase-uniformed-women-in-un-peacekeeping

4. CFR, (2020, April 21), Five Questions on Gender Equality in Foreign Policy: Jacqueline O’Neill, Council for Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/blog/five-questions-gender-equality-foreign-policy-jacqueline-oneill

5. Bailey and Brunn, (2015, March 6), Canada’s failure to effectively address murder and disappearance of Aboriginal women ‘grave rights violation’ – UN experts, UN OHCHR, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15656

6. J. Brant (2017, March 22), Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in Canada, The Canadian Encyclopedia, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-and-girls-in-canada

7. C. Hebert, (2019, June 10), Trudeau sows confusion with his mixed messaging on Indigenous genocide, The Star, https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/06/10/trudeau-sows-confusion-with-his-mixed-messaging-on-indigenous-genocide.html

8. M. Blanchfield, (2020, September 6), Indigenous genocide finding hangs over Canada’s Myanmar court intervention, CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-myanmar-court-intervention-1.5714246

9. Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, Government of Canada, https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/policy-politique.aspx?lang=eng

10. F. Halais (2017, June 12), Canada’s new foreign aid policy puts focus on women, rights, Devex,

https://www.devex.com/news/canada-s-new-foreign-aid-policy-puts-focus-on-women-rights-90458

11. D. Lee, Thesis: What is Feminist Foreign Policy? Analysis of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, University of Ottawa, https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/37379/1/Lee_Danielle_2018_thesis.pdf

12. R. Tiessen, (2019, December), What’s New About Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy: The Problem and Possibilities of More of the Same, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, https://www.cgai.ca/whats_new_about_canadas_feminist_international_assistance_policy_the_problem_and_possibilities_of_more_of_the_same

Addendum (References):

[1] https://reliefweb.int/report/world/international-assistance-support-gender-equality-global-affairs-canada-independent-auditors-report-2023

[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-saudi-arabia-top-export-destination-for-canadian-arms-after-united/