Canada’s Feminist Foreign Policy: Analyzing the Effectiveness of the Trudeau Government’s Gendered Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the Trudeau government’s 2015 election, its flagship policy on international assistance – the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) – was announced in 2017. The FIAP prioritized gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. Seven years after the announcement, a performance audit by the Auditor General of Canada reported that Global Affairs Canada had failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the FIAP in advancing outcomes for women and girls. At the same time, the Trudeau government has attempted to incorporate feminist ideals into its foreign policy decisions around trade and defense. These actions have been overshadowed by issues such as the Canadian government’s support for the Canadian mining sector, which has been found to fail to meet gender equity standards in countries such as Ethiopia. While the Trudeau government’s rhetoric and initiative in establishing a feminist foreign policy is laudable, Canada’s foreign policy is not an exemplary model for promoting gender equality and feminist ideals. This chapter will argue that Canada’s current foreign policy stance with regard to its role as a model for promoting gender equality is fragmented at the policy level and ineffectively implemented by agencies. A historical overview of Canada’s incorporation of a gendered lens into its foreign policy decisions will provide a contextual framework for analyzing the Trudeau government’s decisions since 2015. Subsequently, the chapter will examine three key areas of the government’s foreign policy: international assistance, trade as well as security and defense. Each component will be evaluated for its effectiveness in advancing gender equality at both the policy and implementation levels. Case studies, such as funding spent in Afghanistan, free trade agreement chapters on gender, and the Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations will be highlighted to demonstrate how a gap has developed between the current Canadian government’s rhetoric and its actions on the world stage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".