Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent remarks in Johannesburg didn’t just clarify his position they revealed a turning point in how Canada sees itself on the world stage. When he said he wouldn’t call Canada’s approach a “feminist foreign policy,” it wasn’t a dismissal of gender equality. It was a signal that the era of dressing foreign policy in slogans might be coming to an end.
For nearly a decade, Justin Trudeau’s Feminist International Assistance Policy shaped how Canada talked about itself internationally. It pushed gender equality, abortion access, and women’s rights to the forefront and required most Canadian aid funding to factor in gender issues. But Carney, speaking at his first G20 summit, made it clear he’s not interested in labels. “We have that aspect to our foreign policy,” he said, “but I wouldn’t describe our foreign policy as feminist foreign policy.”
In other words: the work continues, but the branding doesn’t.
This becomes obvious when you compare budgets. Trudeau’s 2024 budget highlighted the feminist policy; Carney’s 2025 budget doesn’t mention it once and also outlines $2.7 billion in foreign aid cuts over four years. That’s a major shift. Yet, paradoxically, Carney has increased domestic spending on gender-focused initiatives. So while he’s pulling back internationally, he’s actually spending more at home.
It’s a redistribution of priorities, not an abandonment of them.
Carney’s approach also seems grounded in a kind of quiet realism. At the G20, he acknowledged that conversations about women’s rights and gender-based violence still matter and aren’t going anywhere. They’re just not the sole lens through which he wants Canada seen. Instead, he’s placing these issues within a broader strategy one that emphasizes trade, security partnerships, and shared values with allies like the European Union.
On the subject of Trump skipping the summit, Carney avoided the temptation to take shots. Instead, he pointed to the 62 leaders who did show up arguing that multilateralism doesn’t rise or fall based on one country’s attendance. That’s a subtle but meaningful shift from past Canadian leaders who often framed U.S. decisions as world-altering.
He also didn’t dramatize the stalled Canada–U.S. trade talks, which derailed after Ontario aired an anti-tariff ad in the U.S. using an old Ronald Reagan speech. Trump claimed it was misleading and politically motivated, and he abruptly walked away from negotiations. But Carney stayed calm. He said the two have spoken, will speak again, and that he simply doesn’t have an urgent issue requiring the president’s attention right now.
It’s a tone that feels measured almost deliberately unreactive.
Ultimately, Carney’s stance seems to reflect a growing recognition that the world is shifting. With or without the United States at the table, the G20 still represents most of the world’s population and trade. For Carney, the priority appears to be staying engaged, building relationships, and focusing on practical cooperation rather than ideology.
Some may miss the clarity of Trudeau’s feminist branding. Others may welcome Carney’s more understated approach. But one thing is clear: Canada’s foreign policy is entering a new phase quieter, more pragmatic, and less about labels.
Whether that’s refreshing or disappointing will depend on what Canadians believe their country’s role in the world should be.
