Evan Vucci/The Associated Press

The escalating rhetoric from Donald Trump toward Canada has sent ripples through the political and economic spheres of both nations. With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signaling his impending departure from leadership—though still holding office until a successor is chosen—the timing could not be more precarious. Trudeau’s pointed rebuttal on social media—”There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada will become part of the United States”—highlights the intensity of the moment.

Yet beyond the viral soundbites, a deeper analysis is required to understand what’s at stake—not only for Canada’s economic and political stability but also for the lives and safety of marginalized groups, particularly women and Indigenous communities.

A Shocking Escalation—or a Predictable Pattern?

Historical Parallels: The Shadow of Manifest Destiny

While Trump’s bombastic rhetoric may feel unprecedented to many Canadians, it echoes deeply rooted patterns of American nationalism and expansionism, most famously embodied in the 19th-century concept of Manifest Destiny. This doctrine asserted that the United States was destined—by God and history—to expand its territory across North America, regardless of the sovereignty of neighboring nations or Indigenous peoples.

Though the language of Manifest Destiny faded from mainstream discourse, its spirit persists in slogans like “Make America Great Again.” For many Canadians, the suggestion of Canada becoming part of the United States feels absurd. However, for regions historically subject to American intervention—Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Caribbean—this rhetoric serves as a chilling reminder of the power imbalance that continues to shape relationships between nations.

Provocation as Strategy: A Playbook of Chaos

Trump’s approach may seem erratic, but it follows a recognizable pattern: provoke, destabilize, and leverage chaos for negotiation. It’s a tactic that worked in trade disputes during his first term, including the imposition of steep tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum.

The Economic Gendered Impact

It’s important to note that economic shocks caused by trade disputes are not gender-neutral. Women, particularly those employed in industries like manufacturing and agriculture, are often the first to face job losses or wage cuts. Economic vulnerability can increase reliance on abusive partners, reduce access to essential services, and exacerbate already precarious living conditions.

Canada’s Economic Vulnerabilities: A Double-Edged Sword

Interdependence as Both Strength and Weakness

Canada sends nearly 75% of its exports to the United States. This economic integration across key industries—automotive manufacturing, energy, and agriculture—means any disruption, rhetorical or real, can have devastating consequences. Trump’s threat of imposing 25% tariffs on key Canadian exports is not just economic posturing—it’s a genuine risk to jobs and livelihoods across Canada.

The Gendered Fallout of Economic Instability

Economic downturns disproportionately harm women and marginalized communities. When governments face fiscal constraints, funding for essential services such as shelters, counselling programs, and GBV prevention initiatives is often the first to be cut. These services are lifelines for survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Call for Economic Diversification

Agreements like CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) with Europe and CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) offer pathways to reduce reliance on U.S. trade. However, these agreements remain underutilized. Diversification isn’t just an economic priority—it’s a necessity for gender equity and social resilience.

Colonial Legacies and Structural Vulnerabilities

Canada’s Colonial Foundations: An Ongoing Crisis

Colonialism and imperialism are not relics of the past—they are active forces shaping Canada’s political and economic systems. Policies of displacement, resource extraction, and systemic discrimination continue to harm Indigenous communities, particularly women, girls, and Two-Spirit individuals.

Resource Extraction and GBV: A Deadly Connection

Large-scale resource extraction projects have long been associated with increased violence against women in nearby communities. The arrival of transient, male-dominated workforces, coupled with weakened community oversight, creates conditions ripe for exploitation and abuse.

Efforts to combat GBV cannot be separated from economic and resource policies. Protecting Indigenous women and girls requires robust environmental oversight, community-based safety initiatives, and meaningful consultation with Indigenous leaders.

Blue Gold: The Geopolitics of Water Resources in Canada

Freshwater Reserves in Canada: An Overlooked Vulnerability in the Race to the Bottom

Canada holds about 20% of the world’s freshwater reserves and 7% of its renewable freshwater flow, despite representing only 0.5% of the global population. This resource is increasingly seen as a geopolitical asset—and potential point of contention.

Historical and Modern Water Diversion Plans

Projects like the Grand Canal Project and NAWAPA (North American Water and Power Alliance) proposed redirecting Canada’s water southward. Though unrealized, these projects signal a persistent interest in Canadian water reserves, especially as droughts intensify across the United States.

Water Insecurity and GBV

In Indigenous communities, where water boil advisories are alarmingly common, women often bear the physical and emotional burden of securing clean water. Increased resource extraction or large-scale diversion projects would only deepen these inequalities, leaving women and girls more vulnerable to violence and exploitation.

Climate Emergency and Water Insecurity

As wildfires rage in Los Angeles, smothering skies with smoke, and British Columbia grapples with recurring heat domes that claim lives and strain infrastructure, the climate emergency grows ever more urgent. These events are not isolated—they are symptoms of a global water and climate crisis that policymakers seem paralyzed to address. Amid rising temperatures, depleted reservoirs, and vanishing snowpacks, Canada’s water resources will face unprecedented pressure. Yet, meaningful international collaboration to address these cascading crises feels increasingly out of reach, as political leaders focus on short-term gains instead of long-term resilience.

The Ripple Effect on Efforts to End Violence Against Women

Economic Instability and Intimate Partner Violence

When economies falter, social services often face cuts, shelters lose funding, and families face increased financial stress—all of which heighten the risk of intimate partner violence (IPV). For women in precarious employment, job losses can mean being trapped in abusive relationships.

Nationalist Rhetoric and Gendered Backlash

Trump’s leadership style, marked by divisive and often misogynistic rhetoric, emboldens extremist ideologies. Historically, nationalist movements have reinforced patriarchal norms, portraying feminist, and gender equity initiatives as distractions from “real” national priorities.

Resource Extraction and Vulnerability

Resource projects often exacerbate GBV risks in nearby communities. As Canada navigates economic tensions with the U.S., policymakers must ensure that economic strategies do not come at the expense of women’s safety.

Policy and Strategic Recommendations

A Call for Resilience and Equity

The intersection of economic instability, nationalist rhetoric, colonial legacies, and resource insecurity creates a precarious landscape for women and gender-diverse individuals in this land now know as Canada. Trump’s threats may seem distant from frontline efforts to end violence against women, but their ripple effects are undeniable.

Policymakers, advocates, and community leaders must recognize these connections. Protecting gender equity must remain central—not secondary—in Canada’s economic and diplomatic strategy.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) manifests in many forms, all of which cause profound harm to victims and survivors, who are disproportionately women and children. In August, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada declared that gender-based violence is an epidemic. Historically, legal systems primarily sanctioned physical and sexual abuse, with spousal sexual assault only criminalized as recently as 1983.

Over time, emotional and financial abuse, along with coercive control, have been recognized as insidious and pervasive forms of IPV. Coercive control, as articulated by Evan Stark in Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford University Press, 2007), focuses on patterns of behavior rather than isolated incidents. It examines the impact on survivors’ autonomy rather than merely physical injuries. While coercive control remains un-criminalized in Canada—unlike in jurisdictions such as England and Wales—many Canadian laws now broadly define IPV to include emotional and financial abuse alongside coercive control. These broader definitions inform decisions about parenting, protection orders, early lease terminations, employment leave, and other remedies.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s deliberation in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia (SCC File No. 41061) could reshape how Canadian law recognizes and remedies family violence. At the heart of this appeal is the question of whether a specific tort of family violence is necessary to address the systemic, long-term harms caused by patterns of abuse, coercion, and control. This case underscores the shortcomings of existing legal frameworks and highlights the need for reforms that better support survivors, particularly women and gender-diverse individuals.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s deliberation in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia . Central to this appeal is the recognition of a proposed nominate tort of family violence, a legal reform that could provide survivors with more effective avenues for justice. This blog examines the importance of this case, the case law informing its context, and the collective advocacy efforts led by Battered Women’s Support Services (BWSS) and other intervening organizations.

At trial, Ms. Ahluwalia sought damages as part of her divorce proceedings, citing a sustained pattern of emotional, physical, and financial abuse by her ex-husband. The trial judge created a new tort of family violence, awarding Ms. Ahluwalia $150,000 in damages. This decision emphasized the cumulative harm caused by IPV, stating:

“…existing torts do not fully capture the cumulative harm associated with the pattern of coercion and control that lays at the heart of family violence cases… These uniquely harmful aspects of family violence are not adequately captured in the existing torts.”

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the creation of the new tort, asserting that existing legal mechanisms like assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were sufficient. They reduced Ms. Ahluwalia’s damages to $100,000. The case now lies before the Supreme Court of Canada, which will determine whether the proposed tort of family violence is both necessary and appropriate.

BWSS filed a submission to intervene in the Supreme Court case to underscore the need for the legal system to explicitly recognize family violence as a distinct tort. BWSS was granted leave to intervene in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia and our submission will ask the court to:

• Provide survivors with a clear legal avenue for redress.
• Acknowledge the intersectional dimensions of violence.
• Ensure that systemic barriers and historical injustices are addressed within legal proceedings.

The concept of intersectionality—within the context of historical inequities, the understanding that social categorizations such as race, class, and gender overlap to create unique experiences of oppression—must guide the Court’s deliberations. The recognition of this principle would represent a step toward justice that is equitable and inclusive.

Tort law, historically shaped by a male-centric perspective, has failed to provide adequate remedies for IPV survivors. Key issues include:

• Fragmented Framework: Current torts address specific incidents, such as assault or battery, but fail to capture the long-term and systemic nature of IPV.
• Barriers to Proof: Survivors face significant challenges in proving both the abuse and its extensive psychological, emotional, and financial impacts.
• Compensation Disparities: Survivors of IPV often receive lower damages compared to victims of violence by strangers, reflecting systemic biases.

These shortcomings reinforce the need for a comprehensive legal framework that acknowledges the cumulative and intersecting harms of IPV.

BWSS joins several prominent organizations in seeking to intervene in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, including:

• Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes
• Barbara Schlifer Commemorative Clinic
• DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada
• Justice for Children and Youth
• National Association of Women and the Law
• Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)

Together with these organizations, BWSS is part of a broad coalition of voices advocating for survivors’ rights and systemic change. Our collective intervention highlights the widespread recognition of family violence as a critical issue requiring a dedicated legal framework.

The Supreme Court’s decision on the proposed tort of family violence holds significant implications for survivors across Canada. Acknowledging family violence within the legal framework would not only offer new pathways for justice but also affirm the unique challenges faced by marginalized communities. Advocacy organizations like BWSS are essential in shaping a legal landscape that prioritizes equity, safety, and dignity for all.

By recognizing the unique experiences of survivors and integrating intersectional principles into the legal framework, Canada can take a vital step toward combating family violence and supporting those most affected by its devastating impacts.

A note that says “I love you”… For many, it’s a tender message. But for someone escaping intimate partner violence, finding this note—written in their abusive partner’s handwriting—on their workplace desk or the door of their new apartment can be a chilling sign: their stalker has found them and plans to continue the abuse.

As we enter a New Year, it’s a time for reflection, growth, and setting intentions. It’s also an important opportunity to raise awareness about the realities of stalking—a crime that is traumatic, dangerous, and often misunderstood. January is Stalking Awareness Month, highlighting the urgent need to address stalking and its connection to intimate partner homicide, also known as femicide—a form of violence aptly described as “homicide in slow motion.”

• 76% of intimate partner femicide victims were stalked by their partner.
• 67% experienced physical abuse before being killed.
• 89% of those physically assaulted were also stalked in the 12 months before their murder.
• 79% of abused femicide victims reported being stalked while experiencing abuse.
• 54% reported stalking to the police before being murdered.

In 2021, Statistics Canada reported a fifth consecutive yearly rise in police-reported family violence, reaching 127,082 victims. On average, a woman is killed by her intimate partner every six days. Criminal harassment rose by 10% over two years, while indecent and harassing communications surged by 29% since 2019.

At BWSS, we work with survivors of violence every day. Many women, girls, and gender-diverse people accessing our services are navigating the profound impacts of stalking, past or present. This is why we prioritize addressing stalking while supporting survivors on their path to safety—because safety changes everything.

The holiday season is all about giving, and of course, being kind to others. So as the new year approaches, let’s take this opportunity to sharpen our understanding of consent.

Consent is an agreement between participants to engage in sexual activity. Consent should be clearly and freely communicated.

Implied consent is not OK from a social standpoint and consent needs to be in place explicitly.

Consent cannot be given by individuals who are underage, intoxicated or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or asleep or unconscious. If someone agrees to an activity under pressure of intimidation or threat, that isn’t considered consent because it was not given freely. Unequal power dynamics, such as engaging in sexual activity with an employee or student, also mean that consent cannot be freely given.

Consent is about communication.

You can change your mind at any time.

You can withdraw consent at any time. Withdrawing consent can sometimes be challenging or difficult to do verbally, so non-verbal cues can also be used to convey this.