Clipping Anand’s wings sends the wrong message to Canada’s military allies.

It also sends the wrong message to Canadian women, that is, don't be ambitious.

The move that got the most attention in today's massive federal cabinet shuffle was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's decision to move highly-regarded defence Minister Anita Anand to the head of Canada's Treasury Board, and replace her with the decidedly less-well-regarded Bill Blair.

There is no way to view this move other than a demotion for Anand. So the question on the minds of many politicos is, what did she do to deserve it?

The reason doesn’t seem to be her performance in the role. Anand was brought into the defence portfolio after the 2021 federal election after receiving positive media reviews on her performance as the Minister in charge of Public Services and Procurement Canada. At the time, on the defence file, the Liberal party was facing widespread condemnation for its dismal response to the fall of Afghanistan and a high-profile scandal related to a widespread culture of covering up sexual misconduct within the Canadian military apparatus. Trudeau needed a competent figure, preferably female, to address these issues. And so in went Anand.

If it was her performance that was at fault, the government certainly has not communicated as much. In fact, the opposite is true. After years of sclerotic incompetence demonstrated by her predecessor, Anand laid the framework to take action upon her appointment, a fact which Trudeau has been more than happy to crow about. Canada's woefully inadequate budget defence spending can't be pinned on Anand either - in all likelihood, she was probably stymied, not assisted, by her cabinet colleagues on this front.

So if it wasn't her performance that railroaded her, then what did?

By all measures, Anand, during her tenure in Trudeau's cabinet, has earned a reputation for being a stable force and a steady communicator. In short, she's precisely the type of person Trudeau would want to keep in a high-profile portfolio as his scandal-prone government looks increasingly tired.

But that isn't what happened today.

Having responsibility of Canada's Treasury Board could be described as overseeing the accounting department of the government. It's an important role, to be sure, but an administrative one instead of a public-facing one. While the department's function is essential, the President of the Treasury Board wields significantly less political heft than the Finance Minister and the Minister of Defence. And as Global News' David Akin pointed out, there's little going on in the file right now. So even though the Prime Minister's Office is trying to spin Anand's demotion as a transfer to a crucial economic file, given her career trajectory, that statement would only have been true if she had replaced Chrystia Freeland at Finance or François-Philippe Champagne at Industry.

Said differently, the Treasury Board isn't where the Prime Minister would place someone that he'd want to be the public face of significant government decisions. But it is where he would put a high profile, high-performing, well-regarded minister if he wanted to clip her leadership ambitions by removing opportunities for her to be in front of the public without suffering the negative political fallout of shuffling her out entirely. The Ministry of Defence regularly puts its top incumbent in front of a wide range of powerful stakeholders that could be helpful to a future leadership bid. President of the Treasury Board, not so much.

Now, Anand reportedly has been open about exploring the possibility of a post-Trudeau leadership bid, and to be fair, so has Champagne. A recent Hill Times article reported that Trudeau had told all contenders to cool their jets but made specific reference to Anand, stating that "On May 4, Radio-Canada, citing unnamed sources, reported that the prime minister's inner circle had warned Anand to show more discretion in her exploratory steps for a possible leadership race."

But Anand, or anyone in Trudeau’s cabinet, can't be blamed for looking to the future. No matter the outcome, the next federal election will be Justin Trudeau's last. If Trudeau indeed was a visionary leader, he would be thinking about a succession plan. And suppose Anand was demoted due to her future aspirations. In that case, the Parliamentary Press Gallery should question why she (a Hindu woman of Tamil heritage) had her wings clipped by Trudeau while Champagne did not. 

So, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, it seems to the average onlooker as though Justin Trudeau demoted Anita Anand from the defence ministry, during an international crisis of confidence in Canada's military capacity, due to either a) petty, small-man bullshit, b) due to her not being the preferred leadership successor to Trudeau, or c) both. 

None of those reasons will pass muster with Canada's military allies, who have started to openly question Canada's ability to defend itself or anyone else during today's age of extreme geopolitical instability. The appointment of Bill Blair as Anand's successor probably won't help much on that front either. Blair's record of defending Canadian safety is notably piss-poor in its own right. A very few highlights of Blair's time in cabinet include being at the helm of the Public Safety portfolio when the RCMP allegedly interfered in a mass murder investigation, having dragged his feet on measures to prevent foreign interference in Canada, having a hand in the ArriveCan app scandal, and was Minister while the RCMP faced sexual misconduct scandals of their own. All of this, including Blair's notoriety for his Chief Wiggum-esque involvement in the kettling incident at the 2010 G20 summit, won't do much to assuage concerns and instill confidence in Canada's allies that Blair is the better person for the job.

So while Anand isn't the first female cabinet member to suffer through the petty bullshit of being demoted due to outperforming her male boss and won't be the last, her demotion today has broader ramifications than just sending a negative message to competent and ambitious Canadian women. It says to the world that Trudeau is willing to prioritize internal political pettiness over continuity and stability when it comes to getting our country's act together regarding our military. If that is even partially true, Trudeau should have shown himself the door instead of Anand.

But Anand has a reputation for playing the long game. And in politics, pettiness has a way of backfiring on itself. So, perhaps all Trudeau has done in demoting Anand is given her more time to campaign to become the Liberal leader. After all, anyone who has spent time around the military understands the value of regrouping after suffering a blow. Smart money says that Anand took that lesson to heart.