Canada, Financing for Development and Gender Equality: Looking for Leadership

The 4th International Conference on Financing for Development was a significant moment aimed at mobilization of global resources for development. Ensuring robust attention to gender equality financing in this process was always an uphill struggle, given the governments’ rallying in opposition. Eyes were on Canada to see if they would play a meaningful role in mobilizing support and resources. How did they deliver?

By Beth Woroniuk, Senior Fellow of the Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative

Photo by Taisia Karaseva on Unsplash

2025 marks the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Conference on Women. This global event set an ambitious agenda to build a more equal, peaceful and just world. But, as with many things, the agenda has borne little fruit. Progress towards gender equality is slow. Around the world, women have fewer rights, are less represented in political structures and do more unpaid care work than men.  Sexual and gender-based violence remains an entrenched problem in every country. In some cases fragile gains are being eroded: between 2019 and 2022, nearly 40% of countries stagnated or declined on progress toward gender equality. There are organized attacks on LGBTIQ+ people and their rights.

One reason behind the slow pace of global progress toward gender equality goals is the lack of investment (both political and financial). As noted by UN Women: “In a world where flows of money are counted in trillions of dollars, investments in gender equality, regardless of the issue, fall dramatically short of what transformative changes require.” With several major traditional gender equality funders slashing programs, declining investments in gender equality are worrying activists around the world. 

Canada’s Development Assistance Investments in Gender Equality

Canada has long been considered a global gender equality champion. Launched in 2017, its Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) built on more than five decades of gender equality commitments and broke new ground in highlighting the links between gender equality and peace, equality, economic progress and climate action. While there is debate around the extent of actual change in Canada’s development assistance as a result of the FIAP and critics have called out foreign policy stances seen as inconsistent with feminist values, the need for global champions of gender equality remains. This need is particularly sharp given heightened focus on global security and military expansion.

Since the introduction of the FIAP, Canada’s gender equality investments have increased. Two flagship initiatives providing support to women’s rights organizations, the Equality Fund and Women’s Voice and Leadership, gained international recognition and applause.

Global Financing for Development Negotiations

Thus, going into discussions around the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) in mid-2024, the stage was set for Canadian leadership on financing for gender equality. However, a series of events linked to the election of Donald Trump seems to put this leadership in question. With economic and security concerns dominating national debates, it is now unclear whether Canada’s emerging foreign policy priorities include space for meaningful Canadian action on global gender equality issues. 

FFD4 aimed to provide a framework to support global development and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Negotiations began in 2024 and culminated in a global meeting in Seville from June 30 to July 3, 2025 that brought together over 12,000 participants. While member states approved an outcome document, the Compromiso de Sevilla, and engaged in formal discussions, thousands of other participants discussed a wide range of issues in side events.  

In the lead up to and negotiations around FFD4, feminist activists mobilized around two key areas. First, they pushed for greater investments to support gender equality and strong gender equality commitments in the FFD4 outcome document. Second, feminist activists also called for transformation of the international financial architecture, including debt restructuring and more democratic governance of global financial systems. They noted that these global inequalities were major barriers to gender equality and populations in general.

There is much debate on if and to what extent the FFD4 process was a success. At the more general level, for some the mere existence of an outcome document was good news for multilateralism given the current geopolitical environment. As negotiations began, huge gaps were apparent between many North and South member states on issues such as debt, official development assistance (ODA), climate finance and governance of financial institutions. Earlier in the process, there were many signs that the United States sought to derail the entire process, voicing objections to major pieces of the draft document. Their withdrawal from the process paved the way for a compromise document finalized in the weeks leading up to the conference. 

Others, including many civil society organizations, expressed disappointment with the outcome document, noting the lack of ambition and the failure to make progress on key challenges. Many representatives also protested the exclusion of civil society from key discussions and restrictions on participation. 

Resourcing Gender Equality in FFD

On gender equality issues, there were some wins. Despite opposition, the outcome document includes a paragraph on gender equality that references the feminization of poverty and reaffirms a commitment to eliminate gender-based violence. Latin American countries, in particular, pushed for a commitment to invest in the care economy and redistribute unpaid care and domestic work. Other positive references include support for entrepreneurship among women/women-owned businesses, women farmers, digital literacy programs that target women and girls and “data disaggregated by sex” (given opposition to the term gender-disaggregated data).  

However, other key issues failed to find their way into the outcome document. There was no mention of financing sexual and reproductive health and rights and no target for gender equality ODA investments. Along with many other current multilateral documents, recognition of the specific needs of LGBTIQ people was absent. Consideration of gender equality issues in the international trade section is limited to women-owned businesses and the agreements on debt do not include gender equality language or considerations.

Feminist organizations added their voices to those critical of the lack of progress on structural issues such as debt, inequality, the climate catastrophe and the governance of international financial institutions. They pointed out that there is money (as evidenced by growing military spending); it’s just not being invested in people. A “feminist forum” held right before the main FFD4 conference resulted in a declaration that noted:

… We harbour a significant concern that the agreed commitment does not sufficiently steer the financing architecture towards the realization of a genuinely gender-just economy in which financing development will result in equitable outcomes and fair distribution of resources capable of promoting social, economic, and environmental justice and strengthening democracy and multilateralism.

Where was Canada?

Early on in the negotiations, Canada was a strong advocate for strengthening gender equality language and provisions. In the December Preparatory Committee Session, Canada dedicated a full statement to gender equality, a rare focus in the official statements. In addition to highlighting the important role played by women’s rights organizations, the intervention noted the links between gender inequality, poverty eradication and mobilizing more financing, stating:

If the objective is generating more financing, then addressing the high cost of inequality, including gender inequalities, is a clear solution. Advancing gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls has a critical multiplier effect on poverty eradication and helps drive sustainable economic growth and development across countries and communities.

By the time the Seville conference rolled around, Canada’s enthusiasm to be a gender equality champion had dampened. The Canadian delegation was led by newly appointed Secretary of State for International Development, Randeep Sarai, rather than a more senior political representative (although, the fact that the Conference was held over Canada Day making international travel difficult for politicians, may have played a role). Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations addressed the opening session in his capacity as UN ECOSOC President, failing to mention gender equality or related issues. Canada’s official statement in the plenary, delivered by Deputy Minister of International Development Christopher MacLennan, did include a reference to the importance of investing in gender equality but failed to include Canadian commitments or promised actions. 

Canada’s announcements at the conference focused on private sector mobilization with no new initiatives supporting gender equality resourcing. Canada did sign on to the Seville Platform for Action initiative on “investing in care” led by Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, UN Women and the Global Alliance for Care but surprisingly did not sign on to the major financing gender equality resourcing initiative, led by Spain and UN Women. 

In contrast, other countries provided significant leadership on gender equality financing, including a small cohort of countries (from both North and South) with feminist foreign policies. Spain, the conference host, was a champion, providing both principled and economic arguments for investing in gender equality and the rights of women and girls. Several Latin American states advanced the care agenda throughout the conference, organizing the “Care Pavilion” with separate programming off site. Canada was represented in many discussions on care by the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC) who also co-sponsored the Care Pavilion. Iceland, Slovenia, Malawi, Norway, Colombia and Mexico were among the governments who convincingly made the case for stronger gender equality resourcing. 

Looking Ahead

Going forward, there are still meaningful steps for Canada to take. Cooperation Canada has urged the Carney government to play a constructive role in discussions of debt restructuring, tax reform and ODA. To lean into leadership expectations on financing for gender equality, Canada can:

• Join the SPA initiative on Financing for Gender Equality and mobilize coalitions in support of meaningful global increases in investments in gender equality.

• Protect and expand commitments to resourcing women’s rights organizations, a recognized strength of our current development assistance work.

• Signal determination to remain a champion of sexual and reproductive health and rights and LGBTIQ rights in this moment when these rights are under attack.

• Re-engage in global conversations around feminist foreign policy, including active participation in the UN’s Feminist Foreign Policy Plus Group and sending a high-level delegation to the upcoming 4th Ministerial Conference on Feminist Foreign Policy to be hosted by France at the end of October 2025. 

As security and national economic interests dominate Canada’s foreign policy discussions, it is vital not to forget how human rights and gender equality are integral to democracy, peace and prosperity. It is not an either/or proposition. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.