Liberals spent over $1B on DEI programs, records show

Newly released federal records reveal that more than $1.04 billion in public money has been directed to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs across 29 departments and agencies since 2016.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Newly released federal records reveal that more than $1.04 billion in public money has been directed to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs across 29 departments and agencies since 2016.

The documents, tabled in the House of Commons in response to an order for information, outline a range of spending that stretches from national initiatives to local community projects.

Among the larger allocations was a $25-million contribution from the Department of Industry to the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to “strengthen Canada’s entrepreneurship ecosystem to be more accessible to LGBTQ small businesses.”

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spent $90,649 on a project in London, Ontario, to harvest, process and store cultural vegetables aimed at strengthening food security in equity-deserving Black communities.

Public Safety Canada directed $490,911 toward an immigrant youth camp in Charlottetown, PEI, designed to teach cooking skills using culturally relevant recipes.

The records also show that about $1.1 million was spent in the past year alone on in-house DEI training and coaching for federal public servants.

Conservative MP Vincent Neil Ho, who requested the figures last spring, said the sheer scale of the spending raises questions about whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively and transparently. He noted that the government has not set clear metrics for measuring the results of the programs, making it difficult to assess whether the money is achieving its intended goals.

At a recent House of Commons committee hearing, Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker offered an academic warning, saying DEI mandates can have a “chilling effect” on free inquiry.

Pinker told MPs that quotas and mandatory diversity statements can “chill research in two ways,” both by “excluding sectors of the population based on their sex or ethnicity or race” and by creating a climate where “people who cast doubt on the policy, who argue against it, get censured, get fired, get cancelled.”