On a chilly December morning in Ottawa, a chorus of voices from across Canada and beyond rang out with a single, urgent demand: clarity from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government on the future of Canada’s feminist foreign policy. This call, delivered through an open letter coordinated by Oxfam Canada and signed by 92 organizations and 162 individuals, reflects mounting anxiety among advocates for women and LGBTQ+ rights over what some see as a significant shift in the nation’s global posture.
“Anti-rights actors are organizing and looking to roll back gains and make future progress more difficult. Women, girls and gender-diverse people are looking to Canada for support,” the letter declared, as reported by The Canadian Press. The timing of this appeal—dated December 1, 2025—was no coincidence. Just days earlier, Carney had told reporters at the G20 summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, that while Canada still supports equality and defends LGBTQ+ rights abroad, it would no longer describe its foreign policy as explicitly feminist.
“Yes, we have that aspect to our foreign policy, but I wouldn’t describe our foreign policy as feminist foreign policy,” Carney stated on November 30, marking a clear departure from the branding of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government. Trudeau’s administration had championed feminist principles on the world stage, earning Canada a reputation—at least among some circles—for leadership in gender equality and human rights.
For many, Carney’s words signaled more than a mere rebranding. The Oxfam letter, joined by major organizations such as Amnesty International and the Canadian Women’s Foundation, warned that “to back away from this position of leadership at a time of dramatic global rollbacks sends the wrong message to the world.” The letter argued that Canada’s retreat risks weakening its long-standing leadership on gender equality, human rights, and multilateralism, particularly as anti-rights movements gain traction across borders.
What exactly is at stake? The letter’s signatories outlined several concrete concerns. They called on Ottawa to maintain its decade-long pledge to support sexual health initiatives, uphold multi-year plans to promote women’s roles in peace and security, and continue funding programs that benefit LGBTQ+ people and women. The advocates also demanded that the government “apply feminist analysis and incorporate specific gender-equality investments across all dimensions of Canada’s foreign policy,” including trade and defense.
One particularly pressing issue is the fate of the ambassador for women, peace, and security (WPS)—a role that expired in March 2025. Jacqueline O’Neill, who previously held the position, has since been reassigned within Global Affairs Canada to work on transnational conflict. The advocates want the position reinstated, emphasizing that WPS diplomacy recognizes the disproportionate impact of war on women and girls and promotes their leadership in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Canada has championed the WPS agenda since the days of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, and the envoy role has been used to learn from other countries’ domestic policies on issues such as police discrimination against Indigenous women.
The Trudeau government had created the WPS ambassador position in 2019, acknowledging both Canada’s growing international reputation for leadership in the field and the “powerful backlash” that the concept faced abroad. According to the Oxfam letter, the backlash has only worsened in recent years. “With human rights under attack in many regions, civil society leaders argue that Canada has both the opportunity and responsibility to respond,” the group wrote, underscoring the gravity of the moment.
Since Carney’s remarks, the debate has spilled into Parliament. Members of Parliament and senators have asked Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand to clarify whether specific feminist programs are at risk as the government looks to tighten its belt. Anand, for her part, has echoed Carney’s assertion that Canada continues to advance feminism at home and abroad. She pointed to progress made in training female peacekeepers alongside other countries and highlighted that her main speech to the United Nations last fall listed “values” as a third pillar of Canada’s foreign policy, alongside economic security and defense.
“We are going to make sure that our commitments to gender equality, human rights, women and girls will continue in a way that recognizes the new geopolitical and fiscal context, both of which demand a different frame,” Anand told the House foreign affairs committee on November 27, 2025. Yet, for some in Parliament, these reassurances have fallen short. Senator Mary Coyle and Bloc Québécois MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe both expressed dissatisfaction with Anand’s explanations, saying they did not feel she had adequately addressed why Carney felt the need to shift away from a feminist foreign policy or what the impact would be on existing projects and funding.
Behind the scenes, Ottawa’s approach to feminist foreign policy has long been a subject of both pride and contention. The concept itself—placing gender equality and women’s empowerment at the heart of diplomatic, development, and trade efforts—was heralded as groundbreaking when first introduced. But as The Canadian Press notes, it has also faced skepticism from critics who question its effectiveness and necessity, especially in a world where geopolitical realities can shift overnight.
The current debate comes at a time when, according to advocates, global progress on gender equality is under threat. Anti-rights movements, often transnational in nature, are “organizing across borders, seeking to roll back progress on gender equality,” the Oxfam letter warned. The urgency is palpable: with human rights under attack in many regions, civil society leaders argue that Canada has both the opportunity and responsibility to step up.
So, where does this leave Canada’s global standing? For some, the answer hinges on more than rhetoric. The open letter’s demands—preserving funding, maintaining high-level advocacy roles, and embedding gender analysis in all aspects of foreign policy—reflect a belief that leadership on gender equality is measured not just by words, but by tangible actions and sustained commitments.
The coming months are likely to test the Carney government’s resolve on these issues. As Parliament debates the future of feminist programs and as civil society keeps up the pressure, the world will be watching to see whether Canada’s reputation for championing gender equality will endure—or whether, as some fear, it is at risk of slipping away.
For now, the advocates’ message is unmistakable: at a time when hard-won gains for women, girls, and gender-diverse people are under threat, Canada’s leadership matters more than ever.