Bringing an end to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives within Canada’s government, as proposed by Pierre Poilievre, would allow people to be chosen for roles based on merit and character, says the founder of a Canadian think tank.
“It goes to the basic question of what kind of society you want and what governments should be doing. Governments should not have bureaucracies whose job it is to discriminate based on skin colour, ethnicity, gender,” Mark Milke told National Post.
Milke is the president of Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, which is dedicated to renewing a common-sense approach to public discourse and policy.
He said diversity, in general, within Canada “adds to the potential for greater understanding, for greater economic growth.” But used within the context of DEI, it can lead to restrictions of Canadian identity based on skin colour.
Milke’s comments come after the Conservative leader urged Canadians to show support in shuttering such programs within the government by
. Poilievre said he wants to “restore the merit principle” in a
.
Sign here. End DEI. Restore the merit principle. https://t.co/IDanYGgIpv
— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) October 13, 2025
A statement included in the Conservative party petition said it wanted to end “the billion-dollar DEI bureaucracies” and put “taxpayer dollars into services Canadians actually need.” It accused the Liberal government of wasting more than a billion dollars on “bloated” programs. It called out research funding in particular, saying it “must reward the best ideas – not identity checkboxes.”
“The Liberals are undermining academic freedom, silencing dissenting voices, and eroding trust in Canadian institutions,” by linking the funding to identity politics, according to the Conservatives.
DEI programs have cost taxpayers roughly $1.04 billion since 2016, according to
an article published by Blacklock’s Reporter
in September.
Supporters of DEI say that it celebrates multiculturalism, amplifies underrepresented voices, and drives systemic change, as the
organization DEI Canada describes
. Whereas its critics, like Conservative MP Jamil Jivani, have
called it, “superficial, empty, hollow virtue signalling.”
The principles of DEI, also referred to as equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in Canada, have
existed in some form within the country for decades
.
“There is a Canadian identity bound to this sense of multiculturalism and diversity,” said Geoffrey Leonardelli, a professor in the University of Toronto’s psychology department and Rotman School of Management. “These programs are intended to create a more meritocratic society.”
Although there is always room to improve, he said DEI programs are about “getting the greatest motivational contributions from people to further society’s goals.” He said they’re designed to help “equity deserving groups,” which tend to be women, people of colour, people with disabilities and Indigenous people.
“In Canada, discrimination is lawful as long as it is committed against the right groups — and in particular against straight white men,” said Queen’s University law professor Bruce Pardy
.
“In Canada, legal equality has come to mean equity, not equal treatment. Equity means that different rules and standards will be applied to members of different groups. Equality rights have become weapons wielded by preferred groups to demand advantageous outcomes. Lady Justice’s blindfold has been ripped off and her thumb is on the scales,” he concluded in a
he authored, published by the foundation.
What DEI promises to do in theory is “wonderful” — but “what doesn’t make sense and what’s illiberal, anti-merit and anti-individual is picking people by ethnicity or race or background or gender, and saying you get preferred because of that,” Milke said.
The government has implemented many iterations of DEI programs within its various departments. According to a strategy by the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
, its program “ensures fair treatment and opportunity for all employees” in the workplace and can “address systemic barriers, which prevent some employees from excelling, and reduces injustices which some groups face.”
One of the concerns of getting rid of DEI programs,
said Ontario lawyer Liliane Gingras
, is job loss. “I also worry about increased hostilities in the workplace and that some will feel emboldened to say out loud what they would typically utter only behind closed doors,” she wrote in February.
“If people lose jobs who are promoting DEI, so be it. There are better ways to earn a living than by discriminating against people based on their unchangeable characteristics,” said Milke. “It’s not the job of the government to create all sorts of jobs for the sake of creating jobs at the taxpayers’ expense.”
Conversations about DEI in the United States have been ongoing since U.S. President Donald Trump took office for the second time. Trump ordered the
in federal agencies and said shutting down such programs would also be enforced
.
“Ironically, when Americans do something and we become defensive in Canada, we get away from what should be the central question: Is this a good idea for Canada or not, right? And because, understandably so, many of us are not big fans of Donald Trump, then some people will dismiss positions,” said Milke.
But picking people for roles based on “irrelevant characteristics,” extends discrimination, rather than ending it, he said.
Getting rid of DEI would help Canadians by focusing on a remedy for real issues, like poverty, for example, said Milke. “You would focus on providing equality of opportunity, as opposed to saying to someone, ‘You can’t have this job because, according to today’s criteria, you look the wrong way.’”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
