How Alberta’s Bill to Uproot DEI From Public Sector May Affect the Rest of Canada

Alberta recently introduced a bill to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in public-sector hiring and promotions, with Premier Danielle Smith saying the bill will ensure “fairness” and that job decisions are made based on qualifications.

This comes as a growing body of research shows DEI policies are deeply entrenched in universities, the public sector, and the corporate world. A study by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy of 10 Canadian universities, for example, found DEI measures in 98 percent of academic job ads.

“The universities were by far the worst actors in terms of the prevalence of DEI and the severity of DEI,” he said.

The restrictions would apply to government departments, municipalities, school boards, police services, public agencies, and other provincial bodies. The legislation could allow exemptions via regulations.

The bill would also prohibit mandatory DEI training at public institutions, except where such training is necessary for employees to perform their duties.

Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi criticized the legislation, arguing that its emphasis on merit would disadvantage women and ethnic minorities.

“When they use ‘merit,’ that means don’t hire the ethnic people for these jobs [and] don’t hire women for these jobs,” Nenshi said.

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees President Sandra Azocar called the bill a “thinly veiled act of institutionalized racism,” arguing that public-sector hiring is already based on qualifications.

“Hiring decisions should be about who is best qualified for the job, and these changes will help ensure that fairness is at the heart of hiring,” she said.

James Muir, an associate professor of history at the University of Alberta who also teaches legal history in its Faculty of Law, raised a concern about the legislation’s potential impact on employees with disabilities.

He said the bill’s restrictions on measures intended to improve opportunities for disadvantaged groups could create uncertainty over whether employers may make workplace accommodations, such as adjusting desk heights, door handles, or work schedules.

If workplace adjustments are considered prohibited measures, “many people might not be hireable or might not be promoted,” Muir told The Epoch Times.

He explains that the bill is amending the legislation to prohibit a provincial body from engaging in any activity otherwise permitted under section 10.1.

“The definition of ‘provincial body’ is quite broad and includes, for example, municipalities, education boards, health agencies, provincially funded entities pursuing a public purpose, provincial government employees, and more,” he told The Epoch Times.

Hunt, who praises the bill for emphasizing merit-based hiring, said the legislation “lacks teeth” because it doesn’t repeal section 10.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

“Merely proposing to make changes to the Alberta Human Rights Act, without specifying the repeal of section 10.1, amounts to little more than signalling,” he said.

Hunt added that the legislation could face constitutional hurdles, particularly under Section 15(2) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects programs intended to improve conditions for disadvantaged or marginalized individuals or groups.

“Without the notwithstanding clause, it’s, dare I say, powerless,” he added.

“In Canada some people are more equal than others, and so the irony is that on the books now discrimination is the law,” Hunt said.

He said that provincial governments have considerable influence over publicly funded universities via financing arrangements and appointments to the governing boards of universities, giving them other ways to restrict DEI policies and practices beyond legislation alone.

David Livingstone, professor of Liberal Studies and Political Studies and chair of Liberal Studies at Vancouver Island University, said he sees more potential for the bill to be effective, particularly in reducing mandatory DEI training.

“I think they'll go a long way towards clearing up a lot of that stuff,” he said in an interview with The Epoch Times.

However, Livingstone shared some of Hunt’s concerns about constitutional challenges and the possibility that institutions could seek exemptions.

“What that does is it kind of opens the trap door to all of these exemptions being claimed by universities,” he said.

Livingstone noted that federally funded research programs could continue imposing their own equity requirements, creating competing obligations for Alberta universities.

Muir warned that if the bill passes, Alberta institutions could face difficulties meeting federal research funding requirements. He cited the Canada Research Chairs program, which requires universities to maintain diversity-related hiring plans.

Rather than leading to constitutional challenges, Muir suggested that such conflicts could cause funding partners to move their activities elsewhere.

The trend accelerated after U.S. President Donald Trump started his second term in January 2025 and began working to cut and remove DEI programs in federally funded institutions.

Federal research funding worth billions of dollars was suspended or threatened with suspension over disagreements between the Trump administration and universities regarding DEI policies, anti-Semitism, and issues on campus.

The debate has also reached Canadian universities. In 2025, the University of Alberta replaced its DEI framework with one emphasizing “access, community and belonging.”

University president Bill Flanagan said that DEI had become a polarizing issue, but said the changes were driven by consultations on campus, not pressure from outside.

In March of this year, the university’s board approved cutting DEI-specific language from its recruiting policy, although it said that it would keep meeting federal research funding requirements around diversity and addressing systemic barriers to employment.

Whether Alberta’s legislative approach will spread elsewhere in Canada remains uncertain. Other cultural initiatives spearheaded by conservative provincial governments, such as requiring parental consent for pronoun changes at schools, have faced various political and legal challenges.

Saskatchewan invoked the notwithstanding clause in October 2023 to protect legislation requiring parental consent for students under 16 to use different names or pronouns at school. However, Livingstone said Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has generally been cautious about pursuing controversial policies.

Still, he said that Saskatchewan could be one of the provinces most likely to move on similar legislation. He said Moe may consider that, “‘If it’s successful, we might then do the same thing, but we’ll let Smith go first and see how it goes.'”

He also questioned whether legislation was necessary, noting that governments can establish policies for their own institutions and regulated bodies without passing new laws.

“Some other governments will want to engage in the same performance,” he said. “They may follow Alberta. They may follow U.S. governments, both in Washington and in states like Florida, which have engaged in similar performances over similar issues for several years by now.”

Schwisberg said it’s hard to tell at this point if other provinces may follow Alberta’s example, given the unique nature of the province.

“Alberta is considered to be the ‘least woke’ province of Canada, so it’s hard to say if any other provinces will follow in this direction,” he said. “There may be temptation for other provinces to see how this plays out.”

Hunt said that although he doubts Bill 33 will be effective in its current form, it could still encourage other governments to reconsider their DEI policies.

“Even if legislation lacks teeth, you’re signalling, and there is some value in that signal,” he said.