Feminist Foreign Policies

In June 2017, Canada launched its feminist international assistance policy (Government of Canada 2017). The policy came less than two years after the election of Justin Trudeau’s majority government, following a decade of funding cuts and targeted rollbacks of the feminist movement (Stinson Reference Stinson2015). In addition to the several billion Canadian dollars committed through the policy, the emphasis on new and creative approaches to international assistance is particularly interesting (Government of Canada 2017). Rebecca Tiessen highlights the “repetitive use of specific words such as ‘new’ (mentioned 40 times), ‘innovative’ (noted eight times) or ‘innovation’ (mentioned 10 times)” (2019, 3). For example, the policy prioritizes “new and innovative ways of working with local women’s organizations that advance women’s rights” (Tiessen Reference Tiessen2019, 3). Focusing on the poorest and most vulnerable, the action areas refer to new funding mechanisms, new ways of working, new partnerships, and new solutions to achieve development strategies.

This emphasis on change demonstrates the political shift within Canadian policy from the mid-2010s as the political landscape has grown increasingly polarized, as right-wing decision-making has given way to what some criticize as far-left policies (Lum Reference Lum2024). The feminist international assistance policy also served as an opportunity for the still-new Trudeau government to affirm its commitment to feminist public policy in response to the growing popularity of the #MeToo movement and massive public protests against attacks on women’s rights (Gordon Reference Gordon2023). Notably, the policy and its corresponding billion dollars in funding for development aid aimed at supporting women and girls was launched just months after the election of Donald J. Trump’s first term as the President of the United States (Sarosi Reference Sarosi, Woroniuk, Capelazo and Tuckey2018, 17).

The Trudeau government had a busy year in 2017. That November, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced the launch of the second Canadian National Action Plan on WPS. This plan, unlike the first, included seven federal departments at the time of its launch.Footnote ² The second plan claimed to be “at the heart of Canada’s Feminist Foreign Policy that includes its Feminist International Assistance Policy and Defence Policy.Footnote ³ The 2017-2022 Action Plan will help implement these policies with an integrated, whole-of-government approach to our engagement in fragile, conflict and post-conflict settings” (Government of Canada 2017, ii). This was the first time a Canadian government policy claimed the title of “Feminist Foreign Policy” and explicitly referenced other documents as falling under this umbrella.

In 2022, efforts to develop a third generation action plan began under the joint leadership of the WPS unit of Global Affairs Canada and the more recently created office of the WPS Ambassador. The consultative dialogue process came after a lengthy federal election in late 2021, which saw the Trudeau government reelected as a minority ruling party. These political changes explain the slowness observed in the third plan process and the continuously delayed reporting to Parliament of the second action plan. In fact, the reporting for fiscal years 2021–2 and 2022–3 was only released to the public on June 18, 2024. These delayed timelines have also been used by officials as an excuse for inactivity or lack of progress on drafting a government document clearly and transparently spelling out the government’s FFP approach.

In March 2024, the third national action plan on WPS was officially launched in a joint statement led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and supported by 10 other ministers. Interestingly, yet again, the announcement of third plan claimed it was a “cornerstone of Canada’s feminist foreign policy… the blueprint for our country’s leadership on the WPS agenda. It also demonstrates Canada’s commitment to implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (Government of Canada 2024).

Referencing the sustainable development goals is not new in Canada’s approach to a self-proclaimed feminist foreign policy, as the feminist international assistance policy also claims the implementation of this UN agenda as its primary goal. Despite its launch, albeit a year late, Canadian civil society produced a rapid and timely preliminary analysis of the third plan. In its analysis, the WPS Network-Canada reinforced prior criticism of the hold-up: “These delays raise questions about the political commitment to the WPS agenda and whether or not the resources (human and financial) to ensure robust implementation and reporting will actually be allocated” (Woroniuk and Santoire Reference Woroniuk, Bénédicte, Santoire, Leclerc and Woroniuk2024, 7). Given the Trudeau government’s reliance on the feminist international assistance policy and its WPS action plan, it is fair to claim that these two policies can be considered the foundation of Canada’s FFP. The question, however, remains whether or not Canada will launch a formal, written FFP in the future — as was once promised to civil society.

Promises Delayed

Civil society actors welcomed the step toward greater transparency when the then Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, François-Philippe Champagne, announced in 2020 that a feminist foreign policy “white paper”Footnote ⁴ would be drafted in order to strengthen policy coherence in its approach to international affairs (Government of Canada 2020). To feed into the dialogue process, leading gender equality-seeking civil society organizations in Canada created the FFP Working Group. The Working Group included 10 formal members and is coordinated by Amnesty International Canada. The group gathered 42 formal submissions from Canadian civil society organizations during the dialogue process and produced both a feedback document and a formal “What We Heard” report to contribute substantive recommendations to Global Affairs Canada as they developed the promised white paper (Amnesty International Canada 2021).

Consultative sessions with civil society leaders continued through initiatives undertaken by both Global Affairs Canada and the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Over the course of three years, members of a small group of experts, selected by Global Affairs Canada and the Minister’s office to represent a range of expertise, were consulted to review several iterations of the paper. In January 2024, some of these experts requested a meeting with officials to receive an update on the status of the FFP and its launch. Unfortunately, no concrete timeline was in place even though officials claimed the paper was “nearly ready” for dissemination.

The questions that remain are: Why the delay? Why stall progress? According to some sources, who will remain anonymous so as not to jeopardize their positions and the collaborative policymaking process, the delay is not at all surprising. The second and third WPS national action plan processes also demonstrated a pattern of delayed and reactive policymaking by the Trudeau government.Footnote ⁵ That said, insiders highlighted a lack of political will or interest in the need for a white paper altogether; attention being placed elsewhere, such as the immediate needs required by the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East,Footnote ⁶ challenges in coordinating department leads (since multiple ministers oversee different policies under the FPP umbrella), and between Global Affairs Canada and the Ministers’ offices. These obstacles could very well be true and serve as compounding challenges. That said, they do not justify why the government chose to promise a white paper, brand itself as feminist, and continue to convene events as a leader of the FFP roster.

Contradictions: Feminist Rhetoric, Questionable Practice

In March 2016, just months after his election as Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau pronounced his “I am a feminist” speech in the halls of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (BBC 2016). That day, as I sat on the upper deck of the UN event hall, I was proud to hear the leader of my country proclaim himself to be a champion of gender equality. His unequivocal and unapologetic statement was not the first time Canadians had seen gender equality rhetoric from Trudeau. It continued over the next decade, with members of his Cabinet repeating it on several occasions (Thomson Reference Thomson2024).

Most recently, during the launch of third WPS action plan, then Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly proudly boasted that Canada was the second country to adopt an FFP, in part thanks to Trudeau (Joly Reference Joly2024). The government thus undertook an active campaign to brand itself as feminist and to have a leading role in FFP discussions. Another example is in September 2023, during the UN General Assembly, where Joly joined FFP+ Working Group membersFootnote ⁷ for side events and joint declarations on feminist public policies (Government of Canada 2023).

One of the challenges with Canadian government rhetoric is that it is not entirely accurate nor consistent. A September 2024 search on the Global Affairs Canada website found 1,125 results for the word “feminist” and 186 results for “feminist foreign policy.” The numerous uses of the terminology, therefore, leads the public to believe that Canada’s commitment to feminist public policy is well-founded and substantive. Yet a 2021–2 report submitted to Parliament framed Canadian foreign policy as feminist, but “provide[d] no further articulation of the FFP’s content, goals, timelines, and objectives” (Thompson et al. Reference Thompson, Ahmed, Silva and Montilla2023, 57). The claims thus remain aspirational rather than substantiated.

During the third action plan consultative process, the question of an FFP inevitably was front of mind for many activists and researchers. In the final report issued by the WPS Network-Canada, civil society contributors argued that “[t]he FFP and [third WPS national action plan] should be developed with input from civil society, such as the [consultative dialogues] and the feedback from discussions led by the Feminist Foreign Policy Working Group” (Biskupski-Mujanovic Reference Biskupski-Mujanovic2022, 15). It is evident, therefore, that civil society has continued to challenge the notion that Canada does, in fact, have a stand-alone FFP, but only some elements of what an FFP could be.

Reflections

Clearly something is broken within the system. A self-declared feminist Prime Minister, a gender-equal Cabinet, and promises of feminist public policies — yet they are unable to deliver a concrete policy document outlining a Canadian FFP. The challenges within the system of governance, unseen to those who operate from the sidelines, may be quite significant, but they are not impossible to maneuver. A siloed department responsible for overseeing foreign policy with constant internal restructuring and the growing threat of a changing political landscape made the hopes of a robust and transparent FFP quite grim.

That said, as exemplified above, those who continue to organize and engage with allies within the system have the potential to affect real change. Allies with political or diplomatic responsibilities can make a difference in tackling the challenge of moving from rhetoric to action. To claim feminist approaches is one thing, but to actualize them is something entirely different. A government cannot truly be feminist when the very foundation of its promises remains blurry and unsubstantiated.