This is Bridging the Divide, a column bringing together Canadians from different backgrounds and experiences to tackle pressing issues facing our country. We hope these unconventional pairings will spark inspiration for how to make Canada a better place for everyone

Once widely embraced, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, intended to ensure fair access to opportunity for groups long excluded from power, are now under sustained political attack. In the United States, President Donald Trump has fuelled opposition to DEI, signing orders to ban what he calls “radical” programs across the federal government. In Canada, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has urged supporters, including through a public petition, to push for the elimination of DEI initiatives within government.

In this Bridging the Divide conversation, Michael Bach, a diversity consultant and founder of the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion and Pride at Work Canada, debates the issue with Matthew Lau, a senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and a freelance writer for the Financial Post, National Review Online and the Fraser Institute.

Both agree discrimination exists and merit should matter. Beyond that, they are sharply divided. Bach argues DEI is a necessary corrective to entrenched barriers and essential to fairness, while Lau contends it has become a system of preferences that entrenches bias rather than eliminating it.

Michael Bach: DEI initiatives help organizations succeed. Research shows companies that pay attention to how included employees feel perform better. DEI also helps ensure organizations hire and promote the best candidates, rather than relying on vague ideas of “fit.” Canada is a diverse country, and governance has to reflect that reality.

Matthew Lau: My concern with many DEI programs is that they impose diversity and end up reducing fairness.

Take Toronto Metropolitan University’s proposed, and later withdrawn, medical school policy that would have reserved 75 per cent of seats for “Black, Indigenous and other equity-deserving groups.” The phrase “equity-deserving groups” was exclusionary. It discriminated based on race and created incentives for false claims of belonging to designated groups.

We see similar issues elsewhere. Coverage of the Harvard admissions case has shown that Black applicants had far higher odds of admission than Asian applicants. That is wholly unfair.

DEI policies also risk harming the students they aim to help. Black and Indigenous students admitted on merit may wonder, and fear others wonder, whether they were chosen for their qualifications or their background. That’s bad for social cohesion.

Bach: I didn’t necessarily agree with TMU’s approach, but it was an attempt to address long-standing inequities.

Consider women. Women have made up more than half of undergraduate students since the 1980s yet lead only 55 of the Fortune 500 firms.

DEI addresses bias in systems. Too often, someone is seen as a “good fit” because they seem socially familiar, not because they’re the best candidate.

Take orchestras. In the 1970s, they were overwhelmingly white and male. When auditions moved behind screens, the share of women rose sharply almost overnight.

We also have to consider equity, recognizing we don’t all start from the same place. For example, fewer than half of First Nations youth living on reserve finish high school. That’s not about ability. These students can succeed but often lack adequate systems and support.

Lau: I agree we need merit-based systems that remove bias. But many DEI programs introduce bias instead. For example, the federal government sets aside procurement dollars for suppliers from designated groups.

Bach: How does that introduce bias rather than reduce it?

Lau: Because eligibility is tied to identity.

Bach: These programs address long-standing inequities in federal spending, where businesses disproportionately owned by white men have received most government contracts for more than a century.

Lau: I don’t believe public spending should be allocated based on historical inequities. In competitive markets with little regulation, racism and bias tend to fade on their own because they impose costs. Take a low-margin industry: if any identifiable group — women or minority — could do the same work for 30 per cent less, firms wouldn’t need DEI workshops. They’d hire those workers, and competition would quickly bid up wages until the gap disappeared.

It’s a fallacy to assume unequal outcomes mean discrimination. Consider workplace fatalities: about 97 per cent involve men. That’s not because employers discriminate against men, but because men and women tend to choose different kinds of work.

Bach: That ignores occupational differences. About 93 per cent of nurses are women, and nursing isn’t a high-fatality job.

Lau: That’s exactly my point. Men and women stream into different occupations.

…

To read the full Toronto Star DEI debate between Matthew Lau and Michael Bach, click on the Star here.