Anita Anand Education: Check out the academic background of Canada's new Foreign Minister
Credit: X
Anita Anand is once again making headlines — this time as Canada's newly appointed foreign minister in Prime Minister Mark Carney's freshly reshuffled cabinet. She replaces Mélanie Joly, who has been moved to the Ministry of Industry, in what is seen as a strategic move by Carney to mark a new chapter in the Liberal government following his recent electoral win.
— AnitaAnandMP (@AnitaAnandMP)
Anita Anand is no stranger to big responsibilities. Since becoming a Member of Parliament in 2019, she's taken on some of the toughest jobs in government — and earned respect along the way.
Born on May 20, 1967, in Kentville, Nova Scotia, Anand is the daughter of Indian immigrants. Her father is Tamil, and her mother is Punjabi. Both were medical professionals who moved to Canada in the 1960s to build a better life.
Anand represents the Oakville riding in Ontario and has held several important roles in government.
She first led Canada's efforts to buy vaccines and protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Later, she became Minister of Defence, where she helped modernize the military and provided support to Ukraine during the war with Russia.
In 2023, she moved to the Treasury Board, and a year later, she took on a new role overseeing transport and internal trade. Now, as foreign minister, she'll play a key role in shaping Canada's relationships with other countries during a challenging time for global politics.
Anand is also seen as a rising star in the Liberal Party. Her name often comes up in discussions about future party leadership.
Educational qualification of Anita Anand
Anand's path to politics began with a love for learning. She started her studies at Queen's University, where she earned a degree in Political Studies and graduated with a gold medal in 1989. After that, she went to Oxford University in England and earned a law degree in Jurisprudence from Wadham College.
She then returned to Canada to continue studying law, earning degrees from Dalhousie University and the University of Toronto. With such a strong academic background, Anand became a respected law professor, teaching at top schools including Yale University and the University of Toronto.
Before stepping into politics, she built a successful career studying corporate law and financial regulation — skills that later helped her manage complex government roles.
Now, as foreign minister, Anand brings her experience, intelligence, and calm leadership style to one of the most important jobs in Canada.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hans India
27 minutes ago
- Hans India
DMK's general council meeting dynastic drama, diversion tactic: Union Minister Murugan
Chennai: Union Minister of State for Information & Broadcasting and Parliamentary Affairs L. Murugan launched a scathing attack on the DMK following its general council meeting in Madurai, accusing the party of engaging in dynastic theatrics and diversionary tactics to mask its failures. Calling the meeting a 'coronation event', Murugan alleged that the DMK had convened it primarily to reaffirm that Chief Minister M.K. Stalin's son would inherit party leadership. The DMK held its general council meeting on Sunday, where it adopted 27 resolutions. 'It was a political drama to promote the 'prince' and pacify second-tier leaders who act like local feudal lords,' he said. The minister condemned the resolutions passed by the DMK, especially those criticising the Central government, calling them attempts to distract the public from the state government's poor performance and deep-rooted corruption. 'This is classic boogeyman politics -- when there's nothing real to show, invent an enemy,' he said. He accused the DMK of lacking moral standing to speak on caste-based census, education policy, or federalism. 'What did they do when they were part of the UPA government? Nothing. Today, they raise hollow slogans while clinging to Congress, the very party that removed education from the state list,' he added. Murugan also dismissed the DMK's rhetoric on issues like the Waqf Act, Hindi imposition, and Katchatheevu, saying the party was using these topics to deflect attention from corruption investigations. 'If you're innocent, why fear probes by the ED or IT? The law will take its course,' he said. He questioned the credibility of the resolution to declare Karunanidhi's birthday as Classical Tamil Day, arguing it reduced Tamil pride to a family legacy. 'To the DMK, Tamil Nadu is Karunanidhi Nadu,' he remarked. Slamming the party for selective outrage, Murugan noted the DMK's silence on sexual abuse cases in state institutions was selective. He concluded with a strong political message: 'The people of Tamil Nadu are ready for change. In 2026, the AIADMK-BJP alliance will secure a historic victory and end this era of corrupt, dynastic rule.'
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
