I have long admired Anita Anand as a serious and competent person. It's a pity that she's currently buried at Treasury Board. Make her Minister of Foreign Affairs. This would be especially appropriate now that we face multiple crises, from negotiating with the Trump Administration to reacting to events in Ukraine and the Middle East, to watching over free trade as that file quickly evolves, to reinforcing and redefining international institutions. Move Melanie Jolie to an ornamental post, which would better suit her.
We desperately need to strengthen economic policy. Short of Mark Carney, who seems to be biding his time, there must be some MP who could do a better job than Chrystia Freeland, Philippe Champagne, Mary Ng, and the present gang.
There are also a dozen or so Ministers who are completely invisible, and whose portfolios seem designed to keep them that way. Ahmed Hussen? Gudie Hutchings? Marci Ien? Kamal Khera? Soraya Martinez Ferrada? Ginette Petitpas Taylor? Harjit Sajjan? Ya'ara Saks? Filomena Tassi? Rechie Valdez? How many Canadians have ever heard of them, Even among political junkies (of which I am one, alas)_, how many can identify their portfolios without looking it up? And even if we can identify the portfolio, who has any idea of what is actually done under that name?
We need a cabinet that is designed for action rather than for representation of various demographics.
I'm glad you mentioned Wilkinson. Albertans need to be shown there is representation outside of the PCs for people out west as well. Yes, I'm Albertan and I just said that. I'm not in favour of JT being PM, but he's a better choice then PP, or JS ( who should've brought the current govt down), and yes, I know, I'm a dreamer.
A thought provoking column and the chairs of the Titanic do indeed come to mind. The only two ministers that stand out for me are Jonathan Wilkinson and Anita Anand. In the case of the former, I agree that he is an effective communicator and sounds rational in any interview. I thought that Ms. Anand was on the right track in her portfolio of National Defense and I was disappointed when she was moved to obscurity in my opinion. I often question the relevance of the number of ministries and size of the federal government, which has expanded by 40% under the Liberal tenure. A larger question perhaps is to identify the core or essential ministries we can't do without and cut the rest. Although we do have the PBO and staff, we need to have far more accoutnability in tracking the billions handed out in the country. It seems to me money just disappears into the void and we have no measurement of its success in making the assumed changes. With a rapdily growing debt and accompanying deficit, as well as a looming economci shift we can expect with change of government in the USA, we are hardly prepared to economcially survive under an America First policy. The Prime Minister has the "joker" card left in his hand. It's time he took governing seriously rather than posing an actor in the role of the nation's leader.
The Liberals need to assemble a cabinet that is ready to do battle. This means moving your best communicators into roles where they can be effective and most importantly get noticed. And moving the poor communicators into more technocratic roles. There a few key ministries that get more attention than others and you need to make sure your best communicators have an opportunity to shine.
I noticed that Miller is willing to get into a verbal fight with Conservatives, and I think he quite capable of doing so. I am not sure if he likes playing this role, but if he does, put him in a role where he can dish it out.
Which brings me to Joly. I am convinced she is extremely smart and capable, but communication is not one of her strengths. Foreign Affairs is one of the more visible roles, put a good communicator with a thick skin in this role. Philippe Champagne comes to mind. A happy warrior not afraid of taking on the bullies in the South. A Joly - Champagne swap?
And please, move Guilbeault and Holland to roles where they do less damage. Backbench would be fine with me.
Finally, a quick response to Evan’s comment on X regarding the nomination of Pete Hoekstra as ambassador to Canada. During Trump 1 he was ambassador to the Netherlands. It did not go well. It is worth a YouTube search.
I have long admired Anita Anand as a serious and competent person. It's a pity that she's currently buried at Treasury Board. Make her Minister of Foreign Affairs. This would be especially appropriate now that we face multiple crises, from negotiating with the Trump Administration to reacting to events in Ukraine and the Middle East, to watching over free trade as that file quickly evolves, to reinforcing and redefining international institutions. Move Melanie Jolie to an ornamental post, which would better suit her.
We desperately need to strengthen economic policy. Short of Mark Carney, who seems to be biding his time, there must be some MP who could do a better job than Chrystia Freeland, Philippe Champagne, Mary Ng, and the present gang.
There are also a dozen or so Ministers who are completely invisible, and whose portfolios seem designed to keep them that way. Ahmed Hussen? Gudie Hutchings? Marci Ien? Kamal Khera? Soraya Martinez Ferrada? Ginette Petitpas Taylor? Harjit Sajjan? Ya'ara Saks? Filomena Tassi? Rechie Valdez? How many Canadians have ever heard of them, Even among political junkies (of which I am one, alas)_, how many can identify their portfolios without looking it up? And even if we can identify the portfolio, who has any idea of what is actually done under that name?
We need a cabinet that is designed for action rather than for representation of various demographics.
I'm glad you mentioned Wilkinson. Albertans need to be shown there is representation outside of the PCs for people out west as well. Yes, I'm Albertan and I just said that. I'm not in favour of JT being PM, but he's a better choice then PP, or JS ( who should've brought the current govt down), and yes, I know, I'm a dreamer.
A thought provoking column and the chairs of the Titanic do indeed come to mind. The only two ministers that stand out for me are Jonathan Wilkinson and Anita Anand. In the case of the former, I agree that he is an effective communicator and sounds rational in any interview. I thought that Ms. Anand was on the right track in her portfolio of National Defense and I was disappointed when she was moved to obscurity in my opinion. I often question the relevance of the number of ministries and size of the federal government, which has expanded by 40% under the Liberal tenure. A larger question perhaps is to identify the core or essential ministries we can't do without and cut the rest. Although we do have the PBO and staff, we need to have far more accoutnability in tracking the billions handed out in the country. It seems to me money just disappears into the void and we have no measurement of its success in making the assumed changes. With a rapdily growing debt and accompanying deficit, as well as a looming economci shift we can expect with change of government in the USA, we are hardly prepared to economcially survive under an America First policy. The Prime Minister has the "joker" card left in his hand. It's time he took governing seriously rather than posing an actor in the role of the nation's leader.
The Liberals need to assemble a cabinet that is ready to do battle. This means moving your best communicators into roles where they can be effective and most importantly get noticed. And moving the poor communicators into more technocratic roles. There a few key ministries that get more attention than others and you need to make sure your best communicators have an opportunity to shine.
I noticed that Miller is willing to get into a verbal fight with Conservatives, and I think he quite capable of doing so. I am not sure if he likes playing this role, but if he does, put him in a role where he can dish it out.
Which brings me to Joly. I am convinced she is extremely smart and capable, but communication is not one of her strengths. Foreign Affairs is one of the more visible roles, put a good communicator with a thick skin in this role. Philippe Champagne comes to mind. A happy warrior not afraid of taking on the bullies in the South. A Joly - Champagne swap?
And please, move Guilbeault and Holland to roles where they do less damage. Backbench would be fine with me.
Finally, a quick response to Evan’s comment on X regarding the nomination of Pete Hoekstra as ambassador to Canada. During Trump 1 he was ambassador to the Netherlands. It did not go well. It is worth a YouTube search.
Good thoughts. I hope T’s key folk are listening!