I first met Anita Anand in 2003, when I was a law student and she was giving a seminar on corporate law. She was very, very impressive. Since then, I have nothing but positive experiences with her.
Obviously, I don't know why she was transferred to Treasury Board. She says it wasn't a demotion, but she would say that regardless. President of Treasury Board used to be an important portfolio in Canada. Together with Finance and the PCO, that's where the final call on new programs were made. But those days are long gone. Today, all those decisions are made in the PMO. Treasury Board is left to function as the government's accountant, concerned with the details of implementation rather than with policy objectives.
Anita won the spelling bee and Sonia won the math quiz. I do not agree with Dr. Sonia Anand often, but she is brilliant as is Minister Anita Anand, and both are fiendishly hard workers. Excellent article. Thanks.
No, actually. Dr. Anand is a cardiologist and epidemiologist at McMaster University who has done a lot of work on risk factors and other major cardiac problems, so I know of her work, being a cardiologist myself. DR. Anand is very well spoken, bright, wise and works very hard. Have been quietly impressed at Minister Anand's quiet efficiency and hard work to clean up a lot of challenging stuff in Procurement and Defence. I expect nothing less from her work on the Treasury Board going forward, as she appears to have a can do, inclusive approach to her work, and happy to include others in what needs to be done, giving credit where credit is due. Suspect she would be an excellent prime minister, much better than Sunak, actually, who appears to be too full of himself at times.
Good to know! My older brother, Aneez Mohamed, was training to be a cardiologist before an impaired driver took his life. The med school @ UBC still does an annual lecture in his honour.
What a pointless tragedy. I remember reading, years ago, the following, in connection with the death of Socrates: "Man was two steps up from the Stone Age, but mediocrity had already learned how to pull down excellence." Different circumstances, and not the same kind of tragedy as the loss of your brother; but the words seem just as appropriate. They're appropriate for an article on the 'tall poppy syndrome,' too.
I don't think I buy the argument that this is a reflection of a Canadian tall poppy syndrome. I'm more persuaded by the idea that this is the work of an insecure PM who tends to deal with it through micromanagement, failure to delegate, and routinely culling potential challengers. After 8 years, it's a well-established pattern. You can explain away Anita Anand, but what was the deal with pushing out Marc Garneau? How about Bill Morneau? Or Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould? How do you explain the survival of a mediocrity like Harjit Sajaan?
I felt like the tall poppy examples are better explained by other factors. Michael Ignatieff may be a renowned public intellectual, but he hadn't lived in Canada for decades before deciding he should be PM and also demonstrated he's a pretty poor politician. The Tragically Hip was a quintessential Canadian bar band for college students, particularly in Ontario. You could name a dozen acts like that in the US that also never really break big. The disturbing aspect of Canadian success stories is how often they need to leave Canada to find that success. This is most visible in the entertainment industry, but you see it in other fields like automotive, aerospace, biotechnology, and high tech as well. We're still very much a branch market economy with a limited domestic market, and the government penchant for industrial policy disincentivizes and disadvantages potential successes.
Wow, I could not agree more about the Tragically Hip. WAY overrated. Elevated to a status they do not deserve. Like Nickelback, I guess. Just a garage band with good marketing. If ever there was a tall poppy that survived the cull it's Rush. Beyond reproach! Like Jordan Peterson - who is discussed further down this thread.
One need only look back to the disgraceful treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould to see the dislike of the Liberal elite for smart women from minority groups. I won’t be voting Liberal next time around or for a long time until this cabal fades into the sunset.
But who to vote FOR is a different conundrum to keep me awake at night.
No offense but most people in the know thought she was incompetent and was writing laws to favor aboriginals. She had ordered the crown attorneys to not fight the aboriginal cases.
She secretly recorded former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick where she tried to get him to admit wrong doing as if he would do that over the phone if ever. She then rather stupidly I thought, made it public which really made her look kind of dumb because there was nothing in it. All she did was ensure that for the rest of her life no one would ever talk to her on the phone.
She was clearly unethical.
I think it might be on Trudeau for picking her. She really was not an experienced lawyer. That said a PM has the MPs he has to choose from and can not get others. If we looked at every MP who was not experienced as not being suitable for a ministry then we would have no ministers at all.
I could not agree more. In Canadian history, has there ever been a more distasteful collection of candidates to choose from? How many nose plugs just to get through th eprocess? I also will not be voting for Trudeau, but dread the voting process with this collection.
I think The House had a much more cogent view of Anand's switch to Treasury Board: it was something that fit everyone's needs. Anand wants to be viewed as a credible next Liberal PM (I'm not saying successor to JT by any means, of course). Leading Treasury Board makes her the CEO of the Canadian civil service, a role which allows her to build hugely important connections to the civil servants whose tenure means they are the ones who are essential to any government's future plans. A stint for two years there puts her far and away above any other politicos who might challenge for Liberal party leadership in the post-Trudeau future - and in a certain light, gives her insight into how the bureaucracy might react to a post-Liberal government after the next election. Both as a rear guard action for a party dropping in the polls, and as a savvy move by a politician looking to grow into being the next Harper/Trudeau kind of tenured PM, Anand's move is by no means a demotion: it's brilliance.
The other piece is how really she's left the national defense brief, which candidly, is a bit of a dog's breakfast. Yes, some improvements (minor but real) in procurement and polar policy, but no real success in bridging the gap between budget and the 2% of GDP NATO commitment (surely if she is so brilliant in her role she could have pushed for more of the fisc), and what can only be described as a failed Ukraine response - Canada's done well in foreign policy, but looks embarrassingly weak in defence allocations and engagement. Blair will now deal with the rubble there, while Anand builds connnections across the civil service for what could be a lengthy interregnum for the Grits, and what might be her next role in government, which might be PM in seven or less years' time.
Doesn't the Liberal Party count the federal civil service staff as a major component of their coalition already? I'm sure that Global Affairs would agree...
Not sure what your saying here? Are you saying the civil service would not do they job they are ordered to by the deputy minister who is their boss or are you saying the deputy minister would not do as he was told by the minister?
I'm saying that they would drag their heels, find opportunities for analysis paralysis and they would use FUD to gum up the implementation of political decisions they don't agree with, yes.
It's very safe to say, looking at the warm congratulations given Trudeau and team by the civil service upon their victory in 2015, along with the voting record of Ottawa residents, that they are on Team Liberal and not above partisanship. The behavior of Global Affairs in 2015 speaks for itself.
This is why it is important IMHO, to take out the top 3 or 4 levels of the civil service upon a government change, like what the Americans among other non-Parliamentary governments do.
Have to keep those non aligned from the levers of power where they can go rogue.
Excellent comment and I absolutely agree, based on my years in the federal public service. Experience in the central agencies is critically important to understanding the working gears of how mandates are actually implemented and this is simply unavailable anywhere else. In addition, as you imply, the community of deputy ministers and the culture there is completely different from the political world and not only because it endures. Learning to work within that culture effectively is equivalent to learning a second language; it's another skill set. This is a hugely valuable appointment for her (and us, perhaps, in the future).
Anand still sings Trudeau's praises. A vote for Anand in the future would be a vote for a disgraced, unelectable Trudeau. No, if the Liberals seek a majority in their next election, there is only one possible ex-Liberal cabinet minister who can win west of Quebec.
Very good analysis. More shame on Trudeau, as if he could hold anymore of that, but seems to almost daily. The Liberal party is a shell of itself and I have no hard feelings about that. But I do worry about our country if good leaders are routinely shunted out of power by weaklings like Telford and Butts. Awful people.
Just remember, he is a "feminist" (no, he isn't) and he is super inclusive (no. he isn't. ) - all other things are secondary. Minister Anand isn't the first powerful smart woman he has sidelined - or tried to, and she likely won't be the last. I suspect Chrystia Freeland only survives these purges because she is basically running the government at this point.
If Rahim Mohamed errs in his assessment of the gut feelings of the great "We", it is in assuming that the reassignment of Anita Anand to the Treasury Board is an attempt to suppress her ambition. Look at the estimable gentleman assigned to replace her, a bumbler who reliably casts a thick layer of papier machee over whatever file he holds. This shows how much "We" really think about Canada's military. To get Canada's economy back on track, "We" and the Liberals need the brightest, most objective, and the least internally-conflicted mind Canada can provide. Anita Anand is a clear winner there. Next time I need to vote for a Liberal leader, she'll be foremost in my mind.
Under Blair's watch, matters external to "Us" will fade into obscurity.
I am not sure about the reason for this column other than as a hit piece on Trudeau.
Where are the stories about Mr Polievre and his refusal to talk to the press and his embrace of all that is authoritarian. Harper anyone, who still controls the CPC? Harper told PP to stay low and you guys are letting him. Canada and Canadians deserve better.
Maybe, maybe not, but frankly we have many more problems than Trudeau shuffled a cabinet and some people got demoted with endless stories about it. It really gets rather boring.
I stand by my comment. I can go to the Globe and get hit pieces and comments on Trudeau all day, every day, but you know what I can not find? Any stories about the PP leader that do not disappear in 3 or 4 days. The MSM is in decline for a reason and that is that people have lost trust.
I am not a Trudeau fan boy, in fact I think he should go, and he should have gone a while ago, but columns like this one are nothing but hit pieces.
I want all of the leaders examined and I want all of the corruption exposed. Thankfully we don't have much here compared to say the USA, not to mention most of the world, but we only keep it this way when we hold every one's feed to the fire, not just an unpopular PM.
The Line's only real editorial considerations before publishing something is "Is this interesting?" and "Do we think our largely Canadian readership will enjoy it?". That's really it. I thought this piece was interesting. I think our readership will enjoy it. The Colin Worthiness Test isn't something that matters except in how Colin chooses to spend his own $5 a month.
I agree that if it’s your column you should write what interests you. However you also make the claim that you want people to donate to your product, as evidenced by the big blue donate button that is a constant appearance in each and every column. So perhaps listen to what your readers are saying rather than dismissing them outright if you’re also looking for funding. I fully support your column because I like the idea of independent journalism, even though I only read about 50% of the articles. I’d read more, and donate more, if the content was more diverse. So yeah…just some feedback from one of your supporters who’s been there from the beginning. Thanks.
I listen to all the feedback — including from people who've cancelled their subscription and sent a note. And it gets filtered very quickly into "useful" and "not useful" categories. I've been doing some version of this for, gosh, like 16 years, I guess? It's not hard for me to very quickly determine useful feedback from someone who'll order the burger and then whine that a fish sandwich would have been better. There's a personality type that complains to be heard complaining. They aren't hard to spot. You aren't one of them.
Fair enough. BTW I heard your discussion with Tasha Kheriddin last week about Richard Bilkszto on The Daily Edition. Thanks for having her on; it was an important discussion and I enjoyed hearing her voice on the airwaves again.
Well frankly it failed the 𝙄𝒏𝙩𝒆𝙧𝒆𝙨𝒕𝙞𝒏𝙜 𝙏𝒆𝙨𝒕 too. Anyway take heart Matt, you said you wanted to be different here at 𝙏𝒉𝙚 𝙇𝒊𝙣𝒆 and you have another 11 months to actually become different.
Oh look, I am being trolled by the editor of an online news paper which seems to be thin on articles but no where near as thin as the editor's skin.
As for the $5 a month, well you set the price Matt not me.
I figured you were fairly conservative from listening to you on Canada Talks but it looks to me like you are so conservative that your not interested in any perspective that is centrist or balanced. That is not really a good look but one we have seen before.
Maybe you could do a story on how PP paid 37K to a whistleblower's lawyer for legal services. Do you realize that this is about 74 hrs of legal time? Inquiring minds would wonder if any of the money went to the whistle blower herself.
Do you have an inquiring mind or are you just the gate keeper who trolls people who have inquiring minds.
Really, Colin? Harper? Can you not find anything more recent / relevant upon which to natter? I know that this will be a surprise to you but Harper has not been PM since 2015 and since then we have had a twerp by the name of JT as PM (note, the initials of the current Prime Minister are JT, not JC, as some of his acolytes would have us believe).
As to why stories that involve JT but not so many stories involving PP, well, who is Prime Minister and, for good or Ill (my vote), controls so much? Oh, right, it's JT. So, The Line and various other publications very logically offer material that involves JT. Much to my sorrow, of course.
Yes Ken, Harper, who still plays an outsized roll in the CPC, basically runs it, and in Conservative policy and closely advises PP as well as fascist leaders around the world.
It really is a shame the Cons did not chose Charest because if they had we would have a PM in waiting who was not connected to a former PM who has breakfast with fascists.
Yes JT needs to go and should have gone already. BUT we have lots of issues every where in every province where it is not federal responsibility.
I wonder whatever became of Harper's secret agenda, you know, the one for when he would form a majority government. Perhaps the Liberals are still looking for it. In that case, maybe you can help them, as you seem to have a copy.
If you look at the results, it seems that Harper's agenda was to sell out to whichever corporate entity would pay the best price. Take Harper's stance on the trade negotiations with the US and Mexico. He came off all surrender monkey on that one in a New York City article. Remember the dead rat he left in the PM's desk drawer: the IBM Phoenix payment contract? Then there was that unbreakable contract for armoured cars for Saudi Arabia which violated most norms of civil society and Trudeau was forced to wear it.
Um... Which trade negotiation among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico would have been taking place when Harper was Prime Minister? I recall that those happened pursuant to Mr. Trump's initiative. But Mr. Trump only came to power in 2016. Mr. Harper was gone by then.
As for the Phoenix pay system, it's true that it was initiated under Mr. Harper. But Mr. Trudeau has had nearly eight years to fix it, and it hasn't been fixed yet. And as for the LAVs to Saudi Arabia, my understanding is that Canada was able to break the contract, perhaps with some penalties, but that would have resulted in the loss of jobs in the London area. More generally, the present government has never let human rights violations get in the way of profitable trade. As an example, goods made with Uighur labor, banned from import by many democracies, were still making their way into Canada as recently as last year, and were then re-labelled and re-exported to the U.S.
Harper gave the Chinese a 1 sided deal that saw them have an iron clad deal to buy companies in Canada and then bring in their own workers to run and work in those companies and mines.
He also aided the Americans during the last free trade deal.
Harper was no friend of Canada and that is clear from his many speeches.
Phoenix is not fixable. It was that bad so they have started from scratch. I can see how this could happen as a software developer. Harper saved a money by not having it tested and then knowing it would fail told the incoming government it was ready to go.
I personally believe Harper did this on purpose and would have used even if he was still in office. Harper likes nothing better than discord.
Harper's commentary, according to this CBC article at the time, was a memo circulated around American boardrooms. It's quite revealing of Harper's surrender mentality in the face of Trump's onslaught, and he's a bit loose with his facts about the softwood lumber situation. Well worth a read, if you want to keep up with Harper.
I think he implemented it quite well. Harper destroyed a lot of things and Canada has become a lot less civil since he took over Canadian Alliance and implemented the Newt Gingrich style of rage farming.
Harper took out a lot of negative and mediocre aspects of Canadian governance and culture and put it out of it's misery. He didn't do it enough to be honest. The CBC and the Canada Health Act still exists for instance.
>Yes Ken, Harper, who still plays an outsized roll in the CPC, basically runs it, and in Conservative policy and closely advises PP as well as fascist leaders around the world.
Charest was a Conservative his whole life. The Quebec Liberal party is a conservative group as is the federal Liberal party if you care to take a close look. A little more to the center but they are hardly socialists.
Colin, can you point to the evidence that Harper is still involved in "running" the CPC? If it exists, I cannot find it myself. Personally, since he's a good scapegoat, I find Liberal fanboys tend to give him far too much credit for whatever fake doom they want to presume will happen if the CPC is elected to a majority -- and the current leader is not given enough. Now, to be fair, Harper did become a narcissistic control freak by the time he was voted out of office. It was time for him to go. He was running the PMO like a dictatorship, complete with prorogued parliaments and all policy coming from the PMO rather than from ministers. Ermmm... sound familiar...?
The focus is on JT is all fair game, he’s the PM. Criticism of his policies, missteps, general smarmy behavior, his light to nonexistent cv is VERY fair game. Compared to Anand, and a great many other past & present MPs, he personally has ZERO to flaunt beyond a name. So, yes, he’s current news, always adding yet another ridiculous element for us Cdns to roll our eyes at.
As for PP (insert shrug) how many times do we need to hear about Bitcoin? Non-news. I don’t care he doesn’t want to talk to the press. I wouldn’t either. And if I hear anymore of the Liberal Harper, Harper, Harper whinging, I’ll scream. 8 bloody years! 8! And still, but, but, but, weh, weh, weh. Geez Louise ppl, get your sh*t together - if you’re sooo much better, we’re smart enough to recognize that - all by ourselves. But. They. Are. Not. If ANY conservative pulled some of the BS that these Liberals have, their heads would be on pikes. Teflon Trudeau was pretty much created by the press & given a pass on otherwise career-ending stunts / lies.
If or when PP is PM, you betcha, we’ll scrutinize & criticize. Meanwhile, he does a hell of a good job of calling out our idiot PM & his Katie Telford-led PMO on their seemingly endless bumbling & the oh so self-righteous (but ineptly researched) Liberal policies. They create massive volumes their own bad press, there’s simply too much of it to skate over. So, yeah, the PP missteps disappear after 3 days because there’s yet another brand new Trudeau ‘what the absolute hell are they saying / thinking???’ story that lands. The Liberals aggressively drive the current narrative. Exhaustingly so.
Seems like a lot of opinions offered without any basis in facts. Generally, even if I don't agree with what the Line publishes I can at least get to some understanding of how or why the it makes sense to the author, because it is backed up with some semblance of substance and feel like it was an interesting perspective that was worth the two minutes I spent reading it. This, not so much. Maybe better to just not publish, as I assume, this got picked up because y'all were on holidays.
Anand's 'demotion,' if that's what it is, is compatible with a 'tall poppy syndrome' narrative, but it isn't "proof positive" that this is what's going on between Anand and Trudeau. The author is clearly speculating here, and that's fine: he isn't really in a position to do anything more. So why disfigure an otherwise interesting article with a hyperbolic, Trump-like claim that's so easily contestable? If anything's "alive and well" in this era of inflated claims and dogmatic assertions standing in for missing evidence, it's misplaced confidence in the efficacy of bluster and posturing. They've become standard items in the writer's toolkit, though it's hard to understand why since they aren't persuasive: readers simply tune them out, just as they do the exaggerations of other forms of hard-sell advertizing.
By all means, when any actual facts emerge that would shed light on Trudeau's decision-making, bring them to our attention.
Thanks for responding with good humour, RM. Nothing personal, but I think this is one habit you can afford to break. You're a perceptive enough analyst--no need to follow the herd along a dead-end path.
If anyone's a victim of tall poppy syndrome in Canada, it's arguably Jordan Peterson. Usually, Canadians are happy enough to bask in the reflected glory of any Canadian who achieves international prominence: such figures can normally expect to have their opinions solicited on talk shows, be invited to do book reviews, etc. Besides being politically incorrect, though, Jordan is just a little too accomplished and sure of himself, and not properly self-effacing. He's right more often than he's wrong, and for reasons his detractors aren't sufficiently well-educated to contest or outflank. Character assassination and simple neglect have been their responses, and that's too bad. It does the country no credit.
As far as I can tell, Peterson is exactly what he appears to be, not a propagandist but a lifelong academic with a passion for sharing his knowledge, with a view to enabling people to think for themselves. That's threatening, apparently, and if we can't cut the poppy down we'll ignore it, or pretend it's a dandelion. That he's the perfect illustration of the case you're making is, I think, not too inflated a claim for my last line.
God forbid that a child of immigrants show up our 2nd rate elites.
This country has outgrown the Laurentian Consensus. Too bad they won't get out of the way, and would rather be mediocre big fish in a small pond than compete with the world (while obsessing in love/hate with the Americans)
Harper Derangement Syndrome is another example of a the flailing Laurentian Consensus: how dare someone who didn't attend an old money private school, graduate from McGill or Toronto, never lived in Rosedale, the Annex or Westmount or with no connections to Power Corp think they could be PM?
Well, to be fair, Rush (the band) is a tall poppy -- certainly a lot taller than Nickelback. And nobody is trying to relieve them of their burden of fame and broad admiration. I might suggest Nickelback's reputation as a garage band with good marketing may be a fairly arrived-at reputation. I'd also suggest that Anand's trouble with Trudeau has more to do with Trudeau than it does Canadian "tall-poppyism." He hates when anyone else's star threatens to eclipse his own diminishing glow. And it IS diminishing. It confounds me that he was elected and then re-elected twice. I don't know much about Anand other than what was in the column. I don't think there is a great option right now in Canada for voters who don't want yet another narcissist in power. Harper was one. Trudeau is one. And I fear Poilievre is looking more and more like he'll just be more of the same, but with better policies and execution. Our country will have returned to being a serious state when cabinet ministers actually MANAGE their portfolio rather than just standing behind the PM when he has a presser. A confident and adept PM would appoint a cabinet that is capable so he doesn't have to lead every initiative and be the face of every executed policy. Selfies and photo ops are for losers. I hope Poilievre doesn't permit himself to become just another Trudeau - if he can stave off self-immolation, which is what Harper, Scheer, and O'Toole fell victim to.
I beg to differ. Anand presided over the eviseration of the military by pushing a woke agenda. Her changes have proven disastrous. Everyone who can has left. Thats why there is a shortage. Military's and their institutions exist to fight wars and train warriors. The woke agenda is the opposite of the warrior ethos which requires collectivism, uniformity, conformity, strength, and most of all - raw aggression. She's turned the Canadian Forces into a sad joke.
That Justin refuses to read the tea leaves and resign the leadership makes a Spinny Pete PM a distinct possibility. I would venture that Anand in the big chair would be a slam dunk for a Liberal majority. But the Liberals to love to kill their own. Canada may well pay the price for that.
I first met Anita Anand in 2003, when I was a law student and she was giving a seminar on corporate law. She was very, very impressive. Since then, I have nothing but positive experiences with her.
Obviously, I don't know why she was transferred to Treasury Board. She says it wasn't a demotion, but she would say that regardless. President of Treasury Board used to be an important portfolio in Canada. Together with Finance and the PCO, that's where the final call on new programs were made. But those days are long gone. Today, all those decisions are made in the PMO. Treasury Board is left to function as the government's accountant, concerned with the details of implementation rather than with policy objectives.
Thank you to the author.
Anita won the spelling bee and Sonia won the math quiz. I do not agree with Dr. Sonia Anand often, but she is brilliant as is Minister Anita Anand, and both are fiendishly hard workers. Excellent article. Thanks.
Incredible! Sounds like you knew the Anand sisters growing up.
No, actually. Dr. Anand is a cardiologist and epidemiologist at McMaster University who has done a lot of work on risk factors and other major cardiac problems, so I know of her work, being a cardiologist myself. DR. Anand is very well spoken, bright, wise and works very hard. Have been quietly impressed at Minister Anand's quiet efficiency and hard work to clean up a lot of challenging stuff in Procurement and Defence. I expect nothing less from her work on the Treasury Board going forward, as she appears to have a can do, inclusive approach to her work, and happy to include others in what needs to be done, giving credit where credit is due. Suspect she would be an excellent prime minister, much better than Sunak, actually, who appears to be too full of himself at times.
Good to know! My older brother, Aneez Mohamed, was training to be a cardiologist before an impaired driver took his life. The med school @ UBC still does an annual lecture in his honour.
What a pointless tragedy. I remember reading, years ago, the following, in connection with the death of Socrates: "Man was two steps up from the Stone Age, but mediocrity had already learned how to pull down excellence." Different circumstances, and not the same kind of tragedy as the loss of your brother; but the words seem just as appropriate. They're appropriate for an article on the 'tall poppy syndrome,' too.
Condolences.
Thanks. I am saddened to hear of your loss. My condolences.
Thanks. UBC also established a scholarship in his name: https://students.ubc.ca/enrolment/finances/award-search/vancouver/faculty-medicine/departmment-cardiology/5666?destination=enrolment/finances/award-search/result%3Fcampus%3DVancouver%26faculty%3DMEDI%26dept%3DAll%26level%3DAll%26type%3DAll%26name%3D%26id%3D%26page%3D6%26order%3Dfield_pi_award_title%26sort%3Dasc
I don't think I buy the argument that this is a reflection of a Canadian tall poppy syndrome. I'm more persuaded by the idea that this is the work of an insecure PM who tends to deal with it through micromanagement, failure to delegate, and routinely culling potential challengers. After 8 years, it's a well-established pattern. You can explain away Anita Anand, but what was the deal with pushing out Marc Garneau? How about Bill Morneau? Or Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould? How do you explain the survival of a mediocrity like Harjit Sajaan?
I felt like the tall poppy examples are better explained by other factors. Michael Ignatieff may be a renowned public intellectual, but he hadn't lived in Canada for decades before deciding he should be PM and also demonstrated he's a pretty poor politician. The Tragically Hip was a quintessential Canadian bar band for college students, particularly in Ontario. You could name a dozen acts like that in the US that also never really break big. The disturbing aspect of Canadian success stories is how often they need to leave Canada to find that success. This is most visible in the entertainment industry, but you see it in other fields like automotive, aerospace, biotechnology, and high tech as well. We're still very much a branch market economy with a limited domestic market, and the government penchant for industrial policy disincentivizes and disadvantages potential successes.
Wow, I could not agree more about the Tragically Hip. WAY overrated. Elevated to a status they do not deserve. Like Nickelback, I guess. Just a garage band with good marketing. If ever there was a tall poppy that survived the cull it's Rush. Beyond reproach! Like Jordan Peterson - who is discussed further down this thread.
One need only look back to the disgraceful treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould to see the dislike of the Liberal elite for smart women from minority groups. I won’t be voting Liberal next time around or for a long time until this cabal fades into the sunset.
But who to vote FOR is a different conundrum to keep me awake at night.
No offense but most people in the know thought she was incompetent and was writing laws to favor aboriginals. She had ordered the crown attorneys to not fight the aboriginal cases.
She secretly recorded former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick where she tried to get him to admit wrong doing as if he would do that over the phone if ever. She then rather stupidly I thought, made it public which really made her look kind of dumb because there was nothing in it. All she did was ensure that for the rest of her life no one would ever talk to her on the phone.
She was clearly unethical.
I think it might be on Trudeau for picking her. She really was not an experienced lawyer. That said a PM has the MPs he has to choose from and can not get others. If we looked at every MP who was not experienced as not being suitable for a ministry then we would have no ministers at all.
I could not agree more. In Canadian history, has there ever been a more distasteful collection of candidates to choose from? How many nose plugs just to get through th eprocess? I also will not be voting for Trudeau, but dread the voting process with this collection.
I think The House had a much more cogent view of Anand's switch to Treasury Board: it was something that fit everyone's needs. Anand wants to be viewed as a credible next Liberal PM (I'm not saying successor to JT by any means, of course). Leading Treasury Board makes her the CEO of the Canadian civil service, a role which allows her to build hugely important connections to the civil servants whose tenure means they are the ones who are essential to any government's future plans. A stint for two years there puts her far and away above any other politicos who might challenge for Liberal party leadership in the post-Trudeau future - and in a certain light, gives her insight into how the bureaucracy might react to a post-Liberal government after the next election. Both as a rear guard action for a party dropping in the polls, and as a savvy move by a politician looking to grow into being the next Harper/Trudeau kind of tenured PM, Anand's move is by no means a demotion: it's brilliance.
The other piece is how really she's left the national defense brief, which candidly, is a bit of a dog's breakfast. Yes, some improvements (minor but real) in procurement and polar policy, but no real success in bridging the gap between budget and the 2% of GDP NATO commitment (surely if she is so brilliant in her role she could have pushed for more of the fisc), and what can only be described as a failed Ukraine response - Canada's done well in foreign policy, but looks embarrassingly weak in defence allocations and engagement. Blair will now deal with the rubble there, while Anand builds connnections across the civil service for what could be a lengthy interregnum for the Grits, and what might be her next role in government, which might be PM in seven or less years' time.
Doesn't the Liberal Party count the federal civil service staff as a major component of their coalition already? I'm sure that Global Affairs would agree...
Not sure what your saying here? Are you saying the civil service would not do they job they are ordered to by the deputy minister who is their boss or are you saying the deputy minister would not do as he was told by the minister?
I'm saying that they would drag their heels, find opportunities for analysis paralysis and they would use FUD to gum up the implementation of political decisions they don't agree with, yes.
It's very safe to say, looking at the warm congratulations given Trudeau and team by the civil service upon their victory in 2015, along with the voting record of Ottawa residents, that they are on Team Liberal and not above partisanship. The behavior of Global Affairs in 2015 speaks for itself.
This is why it is important IMHO, to take out the top 3 or 4 levels of the civil service upon a government change, like what the Americans among other non-Parliamentary governments do.
Have to keep those non aligned from the levers of power where they can go rogue.
Excellent comment and I absolutely agree, based on my years in the federal public service. Experience in the central agencies is critically important to understanding the working gears of how mandates are actually implemented and this is simply unavailable anywhere else. In addition, as you imply, the community of deputy ministers and the culture there is completely different from the political world and not only because it endures. Learning to work within that culture effectively is equivalent to learning a second language; it's another skill set. This is a hugely valuable appointment for her (and us, perhaps, in the future).
Anand still sings Trudeau's praises. A vote for Anand in the future would be a vote for a disgraced, unelectable Trudeau. No, if the Liberals seek a majority in their next election, there is only one possible ex-Liberal cabinet minister who can win west of Quebec.
Very good analysis. More shame on Trudeau, as if he could hold anymore of that, but seems to almost daily. The Liberal party is a shell of itself and I have no hard feelings about that. But I do worry about our country if good leaders are routinely shunted out of power by weaklings like Telford and Butts. Awful people.
Excellent article, Rahim. Thank You.
Just remember, he is a "feminist" (no, he isn't) and he is super inclusive (no. he isn't. ) - all other things are secondary. Minister Anand isn't the first powerful smart woman he has sidelined - or tried to, and she likely won't be the last. I suspect Chrystia Freeland only survives these purges because she is basically running the government at this point.
If Rahim Mohamed errs in his assessment of the gut feelings of the great "We", it is in assuming that the reassignment of Anita Anand to the Treasury Board is an attempt to suppress her ambition. Look at the estimable gentleman assigned to replace her, a bumbler who reliably casts a thick layer of papier machee over whatever file he holds. This shows how much "We" really think about Canada's military. To get Canada's economy back on track, "We" and the Liberals need the brightest, most objective, and the least internally-conflicted mind Canada can provide. Anita Anand is a clear winner there. Next time I need to vote for a Liberal leader, she'll be foremost in my mind.
Under Blair's watch, matters external to "Us" will fade into obscurity.
I am not sure about the reason for this column other than as a hit piece on Trudeau.
Where are the stories about Mr Polievre and his refusal to talk to the press and his embrace of all that is authoritarian. Harper anyone, who still controls the CPC? Harper told PP to stay low and you guys are letting him. Canada and Canadians deserve better.
Colin is going to make a fantastic assignment editor at his own Substack someday.
Maybe, maybe not, but frankly we have many more problems than Trudeau shuffled a cabinet and some people got demoted with endless stories about it. It really gets rather boring.
I stand by my comment. I can go to the Globe and get hit pieces and comments on Trudeau all day, every day, but you know what I can not find? Any stories about the PP leader that do not disappear in 3 or 4 days. The MSM is in decline for a reason and that is that people have lost trust.
I am not a Trudeau fan boy, in fact I think he should go, and he should have gone a while ago, but columns like this one are nothing but hit pieces.
I want all of the leaders examined and I want all of the corruption exposed. Thankfully we don't have much here compared to say the USA, not to mention most of the world, but we only keep it this way when we hold every one's feed to the fire, not just an unpopular PM.
The Line's only real editorial considerations before publishing something is "Is this interesting?" and "Do we think our largely Canadian readership will enjoy it?". That's really it. I thought this piece was interesting. I think our readership will enjoy it. The Colin Worthiness Test isn't something that matters except in how Colin chooses to spend his own $5 a month.
I agree that if it’s your column you should write what interests you. However you also make the claim that you want people to donate to your product, as evidenced by the big blue donate button that is a constant appearance in each and every column. So perhaps listen to what your readers are saying rather than dismissing them outright if you’re also looking for funding. I fully support your column because I like the idea of independent journalism, even though I only read about 50% of the articles. I’d read more, and donate more, if the content was more diverse. So yeah…just some feedback from one of your supporters who’s been there from the beginning. Thanks.
I listen to all the feedback — including from people who've cancelled their subscription and sent a note. And it gets filtered very quickly into "useful" and "not useful" categories. I've been doing some version of this for, gosh, like 16 years, I guess? It's not hard for me to very quickly determine useful feedback from someone who'll order the burger and then whine that a fish sandwich would have been better. There's a personality type that complains to be heard complaining. They aren't hard to spot. You aren't one of them.
Fair enough. BTW I heard your discussion with Tasha Kheriddin last week about Richard Bilkszto on The Daily Edition. Thanks for having her on; it was an important discussion and I enjoyed hearing her voice on the airwaves again.
Well frankly it failed the 𝙄𝒏𝙩𝒆𝙧𝒆𝙨𝒕𝙞𝒏𝙜 𝙏𝒆𝙨𝒕 too. Anyway take heart Matt, you said you wanted to be different here at 𝙏𝒉𝙚 𝙇𝒊𝙣𝒆 and you have another 11 months to actually become different.
Cheers
Gee lucky us.
Lol.
I paid for the content, but now I’m wondering if the real value is actually in your comments.
Oh look, I am being trolled by the editor of an online news paper which seems to be thin on articles but no where near as thin as the editor's skin.
As for the $5 a month, well you set the price Matt not me.
I figured you were fairly conservative from listening to you on Canada Talks but it looks to me like you are so conservative that your not interested in any perspective that is centrist or balanced. That is not really a good look but one we have seen before.
Maybe you could do a story on how PP paid 37K to a whistleblower's lawyer for legal services. Do you realize that this is about 74 hrs of legal time? Inquiring minds would wonder if any of the money went to the whistle blower herself.
Do you have an inquiring mind or are you just the gate keeper who trolls people who have inquiring minds.
I await your response, I am sure it is coming.
Really, Colin? Harper? Can you not find anything more recent / relevant upon which to natter? I know that this will be a surprise to you but Harper has not been PM since 2015 and since then we have had a twerp by the name of JT as PM (note, the initials of the current Prime Minister are JT, not JC, as some of his acolytes would have us believe).
As to why stories that involve JT but not so many stories involving PP, well, who is Prime Minister and, for good or Ill (my vote), controls so much? Oh, right, it's JT. So, The Line and various other publications very logically offer material that involves JT. Much to my sorrow, of course.
Yes Ken, Harper, who still plays an outsized roll in the CPC, basically runs it, and in Conservative policy and closely advises PP as well as fascist leaders around the world.
It really is a shame the Cons did not chose Charest because if they had we would have a PM in waiting who was not connected to a former PM who has breakfast with fascists.
Yes JT needs to go and should have gone already. BUT we have lots of issues every where in every province where it is not federal responsibility.
Charest? That employee of China?
Really, Colin!!!
As for The Right Honorable Steven Harper playing "an outsized role in the CPC" well, I would welcome it if true but I truly do not believe it.
I think that you are suffering from Harper Derangement Syndrome and have been for over eight years. Pity. My condolences to your family.
Actually Harper Derangement Syndrome actually refers to his acolytes.. lol.
I wonder whatever became of Harper's secret agenda, you know, the one for when he would form a majority government. Perhaps the Liberals are still looking for it. In that case, maybe you can help them, as you seem to have a copy.
So secret it was never implemented! Just like his plans to impose martial law!
I am not the one having breakfast with fascists, Harper is.
Names please
If you look at the results, it seems that Harper's agenda was to sell out to whichever corporate entity would pay the best price. Take Harper's stance on the trade negotiations with the US and Mexico. He came off all surrender monkey on that one in a New York City article. Remember the dead rat he left in the PM's desk drawer: the IBM Phoenix payment contract? Then there was that unbreakable contract for armoured cars for Saudi Arabia which violated most norms of civil society and Trudeau was forced to wear it.
Um... Which trade negotiation among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico would have been taking place when Harper was Prime Minister? I recall that those happened pursuant to Mr. Trump's initiative. But Mr. Trump only came to power in 2016. Mr. Harper was gone by then.
As for the Phoenix pay system, it's true that it was initiated under Mr. Harper. But Mr. Trudeau has had nearly eight years to fix it, and it hasn't been fixed yet. And as for the LAVs to Saudi Arabia, my understanding is that Canada was able to break the contract, perhaps with some penalties, but that would have resulted in the loss of jobs in the London area. More generally, the present government has never let human rights violations get in the way of profitable trade. As an example, goods made with Uighur labor, banned from import by many democracies, were still making their way into Canada as recently as last year, and were then re-labelled and re-exported to the U.S.
Harper gave the Chinese a 1 sided deal that saw them have an iron clad deal to buy companies in Canada and then bring in their own workers to run and work in those companies and mines.
He also aided the Americans during the last free trade deal.
Harper was no friend of Canada and that is clear from his many speeches.
Phoenix is not fixable. It was that bad so they have started from scratch. I can see how this could happen as a software developer. Harper saved a money by not having it tested and then knowing it would fail told the incoming government it was ready to go.
I personally believe Harper did this on purpose and would have used even if he was still in office. Harper likes nothing better than discord.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-nafta-napping-trudeau-1.4376523
Harper's commentary, according to this CBC article at the time, was a memo circulated around American boardrooms. It's quite revealing of Harper's surrender mentality in the face of Trump's onslaught, and he's a bit loose with his facts about the softwood lumber situation. Well worth a read, if you want to keep up with Harper.
I'll stand by my comment.
I think he implemented it quite well. Harper destroyed a lot of things and Canada has become a lot less civil since he took over Canadian Alliance and implemented the Newt Gingrich style of rage farming.
Harper took out a lot of negative and mediocre aspects of Canadian governance and culture and put it out of it's misery. He didn't do it enough to be honest. The CBC and the Canada Health Act still exists for instance.
>Yes Ken, Harper, who still plays an outsized roll in the CPC, basically runs it, and in Conservative policy and closely advises PP as well as fascist leaders around the world.
Is Harper under your bed?
Charest would be just another Trudeauesque Laurentian Elite with too-close ties to China. No thanks. Liberal Lite.
Charest was a Conservative his whole life. The Quebec Liberal party is a conservative group as is the federal Liberal party if you care to take a close look. A little more to the center but they are hardly socialists.
Colin, can you point to the evidence that Harper is still involved in "running" the CPC? If it exists, I cannot find it myself. Personally, since he's a good scapegoat, I find Liberal fanboys tend to give him far too much credit for whatever fake doom they want to presume will happen if the CPC is elected to a majority -- and the current leader is not given enough. Now, to be fair, Harper did become a narcissistic control freak by the time he was voted out of office. It was time for him to go. He was running the PMO like a dictatorship, complete with prorogued parliaments and all policy coming from the PMO rather than from ministers. Ermmm... sound familiar...?
It is clearly there if you want to see it but if you don't then I could provide all the evidence in the world and you would not believe it.
I wish Harper were still pulling the CPC strings. Maybe Canadian politics would get back to policy rather than scoring social media points.
Ohhh GOOD ONE! JC. Love it!
The focus is on JT is all fair game, he’s the PM. Criticism of his policies, missteps, general smarmy behavior, his light to nonexistent cv is VERY fair game. Compared to Anand, and a great many other past & present MPs, he personally has ZERO to flaunt beyond a name. So, yes, he’s current news, always adding yet another ridiculous element for us Cdns to roll our eyes at.
As for PP (insert shrug) how many times do we need to hear about Bitcoin? Non-news. I don’t care he doesn’t want to talk to the press. I wouldn’t either. And if I hear anymore of the Liberal Harper, Harper, Harper whinging, I’ll scream. 8 bloody years! 8! And still, but, but, but, weh, weh, weh. Geez Louise ppl, get your sh*t together - if you’re sooo much better, we’re smart enough to recognize that - all by ourselves. But. They. Are. Not. If ANY conservative pulled some of the BS that these Liberals have, their heads would be on pikes. Teflon Trudeau was pretty much created by the press & given a pass on otherwise career-ending stunts / lies.
If or when PP is PM, you betcha, we’ll scrutinize & criticize. Meanwhile, he does a hell of a good job of calling out our idiot PM & his Katie Telford-led PMO on their seemingly endless bumbling & the oh so self-righteous (but ineptly researched) Liberal policies. They create massive volumes their own bad press, there’s simply too much of it to skate over. So, yeah, the PP missteps disappear after 3 days because there’s yet another brand new Trudeau ‘what the absolute hell are they saying / thinking???’ story that lands. The Liberals aggressively drive the current narrative. Exhaustingly so.
>Harper anyone, who still controls the CPC?
Look! Squirrel! Whatabout this?!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
>Harper told PP to stay low
I honestly don't know why Poilievre complains about housing since he lives rent free in your head along with Harper.
Seems like a lot of opinions offered without any basis in facts. Generally, even if I don't agree with what the Line publishes I can at least get to some understanding of how or why the it makes sense to the author, because it is backed up with some semblance of substance and feel like it was an interesting perspective that was worth the two minutes I spent reading it. This, not so much. Maybe better to just not publish, as I assume, this got picked up because y'all were on holidays.
Anand's 'demotion,' if that's what it is, is compatible with a 'tall poppy syndrome' narrative, but it isn't "proof positive" that this is what's going on between Anand and Trudeau. The author is clearly speculating here, and that's fine: he isn't really in a position to do anything more. So why disfigure an otherwise interesting article with a hyperbolic, Trump-like claim that's so easily contestable? If anything's "alive and well" in this era of inflated claims and dogmatic assertions standing in for missing evidence, it's misplaced confidence in the efficacy of bluster and posturing. They've become standard items in the writer's toolkit, though it's hard to understand why since they aren't persuasive: readers simply tune them out, just as they do the exaggerations of other forms of hard-sell advertizing.
By all means, when any actual facts emerge that would shed light on Trudeau's decision-making, bring them to our attention.
The last line of any article is always the hardest ‘effing one to write lol
Thanks for responding with good humour, RM. Nothing personal, but I think this is one habit you can afford to break. You're a perceptive enough analyst--no need to follow the herd along a dead-end path.
If anyone's a victim of tall poppy syndrome in Canada, it's arguably Jordan Peterson. Usually, Canadians are happy enough to bask in the reflected glory of any Canadian who achieves international prominence: such figures can normally expect to have their opinions solicited on talk shows, be invited to do book reviews, etc. Besides being politically incorrect, though, Jordan is just a little too accomplished and sure of himself, and not properly self-effacing. He's right more often than he's wrong, and for reasons his detractors aren't sufficiently well-educated to contest or outflank. Character assassination and simple neglect have been their responses, and that's too bad. It does the country no credit.
As far as I can tell, Peterson is exactly what he appears to be, not a propagandist but a lifelong academic with a passion for sharing his knowledge, with a view to enabling people to think for themselves. That's threatening, apparently, and if we can't cut the poppy down we'll ignore it, or pretend it's a dandelion. That he's the perfect illustration of the case you're making is, I think, not too inflated a claim for my last line.
Not at all! Thanks for keeping me honest.
God forbid that a child of immigrants show up our 2nd rate elites.
This country has outgrown the Laurentian Consensus. Too bad they won't get out of the way, and would rather be mediocre big fish in a small pond than compete with the world (while obsessing in love/hate with the Americans)
You nailed it.
Harper Derangement Syndrome is another example of a the flailing Laurentian Consensus: how dare someone who didn't attend an old money private school, graduate from McGill or Toronto, never lived in Rosedale, the Annex or Westmount or with no connections to Power Corp think they could be PM?
God forbid, they might even be Westerners.
Well, to be fair, Rush (the band) is a tall poppy -- certainly a lot taller than Nickelback. And nobody is trying to relieve them of their burden of fame and broad admiration. I might suggest Nickelback's reputation as a garage band with good marketing may be a fairly arrived-at reputation. I'd also suggest that Anand's trouble with Trudeau has more to do with Trudeau than it does Canadian "tall-poppyism." He hates when anyone else's star threatens to eclipse his own diminishing glow. And it IS diminishing. It confounds me that he was elected and then re-elected twice. I don't know much about Anand other than what was in the column. I don't think there is a great option right now in Canada for voters who don't want yet another narcissist in power. Harper was one. Trudeau is one. And I fear Poilievre is looking more and more like he'll just be more of the same, but with better policies and execution. Our country will have returned to being a serious state when cabinet ministers actually MANAGE their portfolio rather than just standing behind the PM when he has a presser. A confident and adept PM would appoint a cabinet that is capable so he doesn't have to lead every initiative and be the face of every executed policy. Selfies and photo ops are for losers. I hope Poilievre doesn't permit himself to become just another Trudeau - if he can stave off self-immolation, which is what Harper, Scheer, and O'Toole fell victim to.
I beg to differ. Anand presided over the eviseration of the military by pushing a woke agenda. Her changes have proven disastrous. Everyone who can has left. Thats why there is a shortage. Military's and their institutions exist to fight wars and train warriors. The woke agenda is the opposite of the warrior ethos which requires collectivism, uniformity, conformity, strength, and most of all - raw aggression. She's turned the Canadian Forces into a sad joke.
That Justin refuses to read the tea leaves and resign the leadership makes a Spinny Pete PM a distinct possibility. I would venture that Anand in the big chair would be a slam dunk for a Liberal majority. But the Liberals to love to kill their own. Canada may well pay the price for that.