Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 292

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Pay Transparency Act

Hon. K. Conroy

R. Merrifield

A. Olsen

K. Paddon

Hon. K. Conroy

Bill 11 — Election Amendment Act, 2023 (continued)

M. de Jong

M. Lee

N. Letnick

Hon. N. Sharma

Bill 12 — Intimate Images Protection Act

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Lore

K. Paddon

A. Singh

Hon. N. Sharma

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. B. Bailey

R. Merrifield

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Child Care (continued)

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Singh

M. Lee

A. Olsen

S. Bond

J. Sturdy

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. G. Lore

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

N. Letnick

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Estimates: Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness

Hon. B. Ma

B. Banman

J. Tegart

L. Doerkson

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call the second reading of Bill 13, Pay

Transparency Act.

In Committee A, we have continued Committee of Supply on the Ministry of

Education and Child Care.

In Committee C, continued debate on the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. If the Ministry of Chil­dren and Family Development finishes,

next up will be Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Emergency Management and

Climate Readiness, in

Section C.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — PAY TRANSPARENCY ACT

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time now.

The prosperity of all people in British Columbia is a top

priority. By introducing new legislation on pay transparency, we are

taking steps towards reducing poverty and improving our quality of life

in British Columbia, while also building an inclusive workforce and

meeting labour market demands. The mechanisms in this legislation are

vital tools to expose the most egregious pay discrimination and to

empower applicants and current employees in their job search and pay

negotiation processes.

With this bill, B.C. stands to be the first province to implement

pay transparency reporting. Over the next four years, through a phased

approach, B.C. employers will be required to report on their hourly

wage, bonus and overtime pay gaps. Our government will develop an online

reporting tool to assist employers in performing their pay gap

calculations and producing their reports.

[1:35 p.m.]

Pay gap calculations will rely on information gathered using the

province’s new gender and sex data standard, developed by the Ministry

of Citizens’ Services. This data standard provides consistency and

guidance for the collection of gender and sex data and was developed

with careful input from organizations that represent gender-diverse

British Columbians.

In future years, a data standard that is currently being developed

under the Anti-Racism Data Act will be included in the reporting

requirements to shed light on the gender pay gap from a broader

intersectional lens. The work under the Anti-Racism Data Act is cutting

edge and will position B.C. as a leader on pay transparency in

comparison to other provinces and territories.

To provide employers with sufficient notice to meet these

requirements, the reporting requirement will be rolled out over four

years. Government will lead the way, with the B.C. Public Service and

B.C.’s six largest Crown corporations up first to report on their gender

pay gaps this November. Next year all public, private and non-profit

sector employers with more than 1,000 employees will be required to

produce a pay transparency report.

In 2025, all employers with more than 300 employees will be

required to report, followed by employers with more than 50 employees in

2026. Approximately 65 percent of B.C.’s workforce will be included in

these reports by 2026.

In the coming months, we will consult closely with the B.C. Public

Service and our largest Crown corporations on their November 2023

reporting requirements. When these year 1 reporting requirements have

been posted publicly, my ministry will reach out to employers reporting

in year 2 to seek their feedback and to ensure that what we have

developed will work for them when their turn comes in the fall of 2024.

We will repeat this process year by year to ensure we are always working

closely with employers to build the best pay transparency reporting

system to serve British Columbians.

This legislation contains three additional measures that have been

found to reduce the gender pay gap in other jurisdictions. Starting

November 1 of this year, all B.C. employers will be required to post pay

or pay range information on publicly advertised job postings. This is

another progressive step that is effective in reducing the pay gap and

will protect job seekers.

As soon as the legislation is brought into force, all British

Columbian employers will also be prohibited from asking job applicants

about their pay history when negotiating salaries. This will ensure that

discrimination in pay is not perpetuated and continued into future

positions.

Employers will also be prohibited from dismissing or punishing

employees who ask about their pay or who share information about their

pay with co-workers or other job applicants. The protection will also

extend to employees who ask about the employer’s obligations under this

act or report non-compliance to the director of pay

transparency.

Many jurisdictions across the United States have already

implemented these three additional measures, and researchers have found

that these measures reduce pay inequity. B.C. will become one of only

three provinces in Canada to introduce all three measures, after P.E.I.

and Newfoundland, who did so last year.

Our obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act to develop legislation in consultation and cooperation with

Indigenous peoples have been top of mind as we work on this legislation.

We have collaborated with First Nations and Indigenous partners and

Métis Nation B.C. right from the start.

Indigenous partners were consulted last year in the

develop­ment of the legislation during several engagement

sessions. The province invited all 203 First Nations and Métis Nation

B.C. to consult on the proposed legislation, along with several

Indigenous organizations. Ministry staff met with the First Nations

Leadership Council, who provided comments and feedback on the draft

requests for legislation.

The ministry provided the FNLC, Métis Nation B.C. and the Alliance

of Modern Treaty Nations with consultation drafts of the legislation in

January of 2023. Métis Nation B.C. and two of the modern treaty nations

provided feedback that resulted in amendments to the draft.

Before completing an annual report or a report on the review of

the act, the act requires that government provide written notice to any

Indigenous entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous

peoples whose members could be affected by the publication of the

report. We will continue to work in collaboration and partnership with

Indigenous peoples as we implement the act.

[1:40 p.m.]

Enhancing the transparency of employer pay practices will expose

wage discrimination. In turn, this will em­power employees with

the information they need to advocate for fair pay. The requirements

will also incentivize B.C. employers to ensure their pay practices are

free of discrimination and allow them to retain their status as

leading-edge employers in our competitive global economy. This bill will

support a strong, sustainable economy that works for

everyone.

R. Merrifield: I am very, very pleased to take my place in the second reading

debate and provide some initial remarks on Bill 13, the Pay Transparency

Act.

I will say it: the seventh time is the charm. We are certainly

glad that after five long years of advocacy, the NDP has finally adopted

pay transparency legislation in B.C., but I will say that my story and

my advocacy is much longer than that. I’ve been fighting for equal pay

for a very long time, almost two decades now. Yes, this legislation is

so, so needed. Rather than go through my entire story and history of

advocacy, I decided just to tell one small story of how these pay

transparency measures are necessary.

The company that I founded and grew in Kelowna and across western

Canada was advertising for the role of an engineer. It came down to the

final three, and I was given a report from our HR director on the final

three. They were all highly qualified, all had great referrals and

definitely were all very qualified for the role. When I asked about pay

expectations, the first wanted about $105,000. The second was about

$98,000, and the third was about $78,000.

The report was given. I said: “Well, are there any differences

that I should be aware of in these three?” They said: “Well, the first

two are men, and the third is a woman.” They put forward the

recommendation that the female should be hired, and I agreed the female

should be hired. But I said: “Let’s give her the pay that the first one

wanted, over $105,000. She shouldn’t be disqualified or penalized just

because she didn’t understand or didn’t know what was being offered, or

what was being asked by the others.”

This legislation, while long overdue, is such a step in the right

direction as we pursue a more equitable and just livelihood for all. Pay

transparency is desperately needed in our province, as B.C. has one of

the worst gender pay gaps in Canada, at 17 percent. It really should

concern us deeply that last year alone, according to Statistics Canada,

women in B.C. earned an average hourly wage of $29.53, while their male

counterparts earned $35.50.

Studies show that transparency about pay — or “naming and

shaming,” as it used to be called among the female advocates that I

would work with — is one of the least intrusive but most effective ways

to promote equity. Bill 13 proposes that all employers publicly post

reports on their gender pay gap as well as post expected salary ranges

in all advertisements.

Bill 13 also prohibits employers from seeking pay history

information by any means about an applicant for employment and prohibits

employers from any sort of punishment against employees that share pay

or salary information with others.

Based on a proven approach that has been implemented in the United

Kingdom, this bill would actually enable employees and the general

public to know when there is a pay gap at their workplace and ultimately

act on it while also applying public pressure on organizations to ensure

that they are compensating their employees equitably.

[1:45 p.m.]

This bill also outlines a timeline for how this pay transparency

legislation will be implemented over time. I’m really appreciative that

we’re going to see leadership, starting on November 1 of this year,

through the B.C. Public Service Agency and Crown corporations with more

than 1,000 employees, such as ICBC, B.C. Hydro, WorkSafeBC, B.C.

Housing, B.C. Lottery Corp. and B.C. Transit. They’ll be leading the

charge and be subject to this regulation.

Following this, on November 1 of 2024, all employers with more

than 1,000 employees will be subject to this legislation. Employers with

more than 300 will follow the next year, on November 1, 2025; and then

employers with 50 or more, beginning on November 1, 2026.

It doesn’t feel fast enough for me, but I can really appreciate

this phased approach and the consideration of small businesses and the

time required to implement such changes and to develop the necessary

staffing that is required in order to actually do this amount of

reporting out.

The bill also notes that regulations contemplate additional data

collection related to the B.C. gender and sex standard and race-based

data. As a province, we made a bold commitment to the principles of the

United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. I’m

aware that this bill includes considerations related to this.

Bill 13 specifies that Indigenous governing entities that could be

impacted by their publication must be notified before the publication of

reports. This bill also notes that Indigenous communities must respond

within 30 days stating whether they wish to be consulted and are

entitled to receive a draft pay transparency report and make comments on

it. Ensuring that Indigenous voices and perspectives are heard and acted

on is key to successful legislation that is aware of our commitment to

reconciliation.

As noted previously, this is a great step in the right direction.

It’s also quite unfortunate that it took so many years of delays and

politicization to get to where we are today. Let’s not forget that the

former Premier called pay transparency legislation “a political stunt.”

We need to stop politicizing issues, especially one such as this, which

works to benefit a marginalized group in B.C.

Today we continue to push for even broader pay transparency

legislation. Women, particularly racialized women, across B.C. know that

this is far from a political stunt. It’s clear that a significant gender

pay gap still exists in B.C., and it’s positive to see steps finally

being taken to ensure that women are fairly compensated. We cannot

forget that, to this day, many women are still paid less than their male

counterparts for doing the same work.

With a four-year phase-in, it will take time to see the results of

this legislation. While we are rolling this in, many will have their

contributions undervalued and their experience questioned, be overlooked

for raises, paid less from the start simply because they do not approach

salary negotiations in the same way as their male-applicant or employee

counterparts.

Introducing greater transparency around pay will put the onus on a

business to ensure that they are paying employees well, or at least in a

way that doesn’t reflect badly on their organization, and helping to

close the gender pay gap without heavy-handed government

intervention.

Additionally, these changes will empower women to recognize their

value and take their own steps to fight for equality in the workplace as

well as reveal to their male colleagues the barriers that women still

face. Hopefully, this new level of transparency will encourage men to do

more themselves to work for equality for the women around

them.

At the end of the day, while this bill includes needed changes,

with action that’s long overdue, there is still a lot of work ahead. One

opportunity to strengthen this legislation would be to have a

centralized registry. It wouldn’t just be posted on websites, where

women would have to go and search to try and find those roles or similar

positions.

[1:50 p.m.]

A centralized registry was incredibly effective to the model that

was employed in the U.K. Their database allows for public advocacy tools

like the Gender Pay Gap Bot to function. In B.C., under this legislation

that we see before us today, this is not possible.

When we look at the bill as it stands today…. It’s encouraging to

know that academic studies have shown that this type of legislation can

reduce the pay gap by up to 40 percent. However, it’s outcomes that

count, and we will be paying close attention to ensure B.C. women are

properly compensated for their skills, talents and contributions to the

workplace.

We look forward to examining this legislation in greater detail to

make sure that this act does, in fact, begin to close the gender pay gap

in our province.

Deputy Speaker: House Leader of the Third Party.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you today.

I rise to speak to Bill 13, the Pay Transparency Act.

Efforts to address the gender pay gap in British Columbia have

been a long time in the making and are desperately needed. B.C. is one

of the last provinces in Canada without pay equity or pay transparency

legislation. We are tied with Alberta for having the worst gender pay

gap in our country. Women and people who are marginalized because of

their gender are being systematically underpaid for work of equal

value.

Despite the fact that the B.C. human rights code prohibits pay

discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and gender

expression, many women and gender-diverse people in British Columbia

earn, on average, 17 percent less than their cis male colleagues for

doing similar work. Indigenous, Black and racialized people and those

who have a disability or are otherwise marginalized expect to make even

less.

Bill 13 offers an attempt to remedy this pay disparity. However,

it does not go far enough. It is, frankly, an unfortunate missed

opportunity. It may not achieve what is suggested is being achieved,

which is narrowing the pay gap.

Absent from Bill 13 are critical aspects to ensure robust and

effective pay transparency, including oversight and accountability

mechanisms like fines or other penalties for non-compliance. Disclosing

wage gaps cannot be voluntary. Employers who do not comply should be

named publicly and should face fines of a significant size to change the

behaviour.

Transparency in all aspects of compensation is missing from Bill

13. The way it is being applied may not help policy-makers understand

the gender wage gap in British Columbia in the way that they need

to.

In B.C. human rights commissioner Kasari Govender’s words: “Why

pay transparency matters is because it allows us to understand what’s

happening across sectors and systems. This bill doesn’t allow for that

kind of comparison. It doesn’t create a data set that will allow for

that kind of comparison.”

I’m concerned that the proposed legislation could place the onus

on the worker to advocate for themselves if they are not being paid

equally for similar work.

Absent from Bill 13 is any mention of pay equity, despite the

calls from experts, stakeholders and researchers. Pay transparency

requires employers to disclose information and data about pay gaps. We

don’t need more data to know that women get paid less. What we need is

action to be taken to close the gaps, and Bill 13 doesn’t do

that.

If this government actually wanted women to be paid fairly across

the economy, they would advance pay equity policies, as was done in many

other provinces in the 1980s and 1990s. Beginning in 1986, six Canadian

provinces — Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island,

Ontario and Quebec — enacted pay equity legislation which imposes

proactive obligations on employers to take steps to identify and

eliminate wage discrimination.

[1:55 p.m.]

Recognizing the importance of pay equity legislation, in 2001, the

B.C. NDP government introduced an amendment to the human rights code to

enshrine the right of all British Columbians to receive equal pay for

work of equal value.

At that time, the government acknowledged that pay equity is

fundamentally a question of human rights and concluded: “Pay equity for

women will not be achieved without legislation…. Our friends at the

federal level have introduced pay equity legislation. Ontario has

introduced pay equity legislation. Quebec has introduced pay equity

legislation which covers both the public and the private sectors. So

what is the excuse not to act? There is no excuse. It’s time to

act.”

I went through Hansard from those days in 2001, a spring

sitting not dissimilar to the spring sitting that we’re having right

now. March 22, 2001, was when a bill was brought forward by the former,

former B.C. NDP government. Graeme Bowbrick brought this legislation in.

There are pages and pages of comments from the then B.C. NDP members of

government talking about pay equity as the basis for what needs to be

done.

Let’s take a look at what the member from Comox Valley, Evelyn

Gillespie, raised: “I would submit to you that pay equity is not a new

idea. It is not a new idea at all. We have been working in a very

proactive manner in British Columbia over the last ten years to achieve

pay equity in the public service, and there are many businesses and

unions across this province and across this country that have bargained

for pay equity. Pay equity is not something new. As a matter of fact, in

1977…”

One year after I was born. That’s getting to be a long time ago

now. Sorry. That’s me adding into that.

Getting back to what former member Gillespie said: “…good heavens,

almost 25 years ago — Canada en­shrined the principle of pay

equity in our Human Rights Code. Can you believe that, hon.

Speaker?”

I’m going to continue: “We’ve been working for ten years now on

stopping violence against women, on pre­venting violence from

beginning in the first place, on improving access for women to

appropriate health care and on working to improve the economic status of

women in British Columbia. Over those ten years several things have

become clear. What we found is that pay equity for women will not be

achieved without legislation.”

That is precisely what this version of the B.C. NDP government is

trying to achieve. We have in front of us pay transparency legislation.

The members of the B.C. NDP government another 22 years ago knew that

this attempt, 22 years in the future, would fail because the very basis

of the legislation that they moved was on pay equity.

Today this NDP government somehow has found its way to take a

giant step backwards and introduce a bill that is far less than what

their predecessors were prepared to and passed, the legislation that was

torn up just a few weeks after it was passed.

Continuing with the quote from Evelyn Gillespie:

“I would submit that voluntary pay equity is not the road to pay

equity for women in British Columbia. Again, I would say that since

1977, when Canada enshrined the principle in our Human Rights Code, we

have not seen a whole lot of progress. As a matter of fact, I believe my

colleague said…. Was it half a cent a year toward pay equity? Friends,

colleagues, that’s not good enough.

“Undervaluing and underpaying work traditionally done by women is

too firmly entrenched in our society. It’s too entrenched to have it

dismantled only by consensus building, negotiation and ongoing

discussion. It is time to end the talking and to get something done, and

I would submit that it’s long past the time. This is not the time to

talk about pay equity. This is the time to do it, to achieve

it….

[2:00 p.m.]

“Today, in this very wealthy province — British Columbia — women

represent a disproportionate number of the families living in poverty.

The simple truth is that women cannot participate equally in British

Columbia if they are discriminated against on their paycheque. Pay

equity legislation will end that.”

Let’s go to what Sue Hammell had to say, another distinguished

member of the B.C. NDP — the former, former government. Sue Hammell said

this. “What absolutely floors me about this opposition” — talking about

the previous version of the current opposition — “is that the previous

administration, prior to this government in the 1990s, was working on

pay equity.” They began working on pay equity in the late 1980s. It was

a Socred government.

Continuing: “And here we are, past the year 2000, and we have an

opposition that isn’t even prepared to stand up with women and fight for

the government for pay for work of equal value. It’s astonishing.”

Thankfully, the opposition is prepared to work with the government on

this. I think that is one of the aspects of evolution that’s happened in

this House.

Unfortunately, what we are discussing, and what we are debating

today, is far less than what was being proposed back in those early days

of 2000. Let’s take a look at what Joan Smallwood had to say — a very

substantive speech. Joan Smallwood said: “The amendment that this House

has in front of it simply acknowledges that the issue of equal pay for

equal value is a fundamental human right — nothing more complicated than

that, simply the recognition of a fundamental human right.”

Where does that stand? Where does that position currently lie in

this version of the B.C. NDP government? Why is it that in 2001, Joan

Smallwood stood up in this House, in this very room, and said that the

amendment that this House has in front of it simply acknowledges that

the issue of equal pay for equal value is a fundamental human right? How

is it that 22 years later, we have taken steps backwards from that

position?

I will say this. When this legislation, which, quite rightly…. The

five, six times a version of it was advanced by our former colleague

from Surrey, the government let us know that something was going to

happen. Something was going to happen over the past six years that I’ve

been in here. Something was going to happen.

This is what we have in front of us. It’s pay transparency, a

version that the former B.C. NDP government would not have stood for.

But when this was rolled out, it was to great fanfare and to great

celebration that this government — that had been dragged into this,

frankly — was now offering something far less than what their

predecessors were offering. How is it that we can celebrate

that?

Okay. I accept. Let’s celebrate a modest step forward. It’s better

than what is there, but it is far less than what this government

promised back in 2001. They should be ashamed of themselves for offering

something far less than what is acceptable in 2023.

Here we are, 22 years later. After all of these dozens and dozens

and dozens of pages of transcripts from Hansard of the B.C. NDP

on the record, standing and saying that nothing less than pay equity

legislation is acceptable, British Columbia remains one of the few

jurisdictions in Canada without proactive pay equity legislation. We are

there because this legislation that the former B.C. NDP members were

talking about was scrapped, was reversed almost immediately after the

new B.C. Liberal government came to power.

[2:05 p.m.]

Last month over 125 activists called on this government to

introduce pay equity legislation. They warned: “If your government’s

efforts end at pay transparency, this will be seen for what it is — a

failure to meet even the bar set over two decades ago by another NDP

government.” That’s exactly what’s happened. That’s what the legacy this

government is leaving is — half-steps and back-pedalling.

In August 2022, the Battered Women’s Support Services recommended

that pay transparency legislation be subject to strong enforcement

mechanisms and independent oversight. They recommended that pay

transparency legislation be followed by the development and introduction

of pay equity legislation. These recommendations from experts, advocates

and those with lived experience of discrimination went unheeded by this

government in the creation of Bill 13.

We still hold out hope that maybe sometime in the next few days or

the next few weeks of this session, pay equity legislation will soon

follow. But from the celebrations, from the fanfare that brought this

bill in, it doesn’t appear that that is something that we should be

holding our breath for.

Half-measures have consequences. While this government delayed and

took their time to introduce pay transparency, women and gender-diverse

people have been the ones paying the price. We are currently

experiencing an affordability crisis. Inflation has increased. The

housing crisis has worsened. The cost of groceries and child care has

risen, yet women are still paid less than they deserve, still paid less

than those working right alongside them.

As the B.C. NDP noted in 2001, “pay equity puts more money into

the pockets of female workers, reduces dependence on social programs,

increases overall spending and results in increased tax revenue.”

“Everyone in the province should share in its prosperity. Economic

advancement should not come at the expense of women.”

And actually, if I had my papers here a little bit better

organized, there are some phenomenal quotes from previous NDP women, NDP

members of this House, talking about exactly this point — exactly this

point. The burden is being carried by women in our province, by

gender-diverse people, by marginalized people. That’s who this

government is putting the burden on, not on the businesses. They’re

putting the burden on the women who are working in those businesses. And

if they find that acceptable, then they’ll have to answer to that,

because it’s not acceptable.

As we all know, financial dependence is a significant contributor

to gender-based violence. I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. This

situation does not impact everyone the same way. In Canada, white women

make 89 cents for every dollar a man makes. Racialized women earn 67

cents on that dollar. Disabled women earn 54 cents for every dollar.

Racialized migrant women earn 79 cents for every dollar earned by their

white counterpart. The reality of the gender pay gap means that

racialized women are most likely to be minimum-wage earners in the

province and are most likely to retire with smaller pensions in older

age.

Unpaid caregiving responsibilities disproportionately fall on

women, which further impacts economic insecurity. The cost of not

addressing pay equity is borne by women. They continue to bear the

burden of this government’s inaction. They will continue to carry the

burden of this government’s decision to move pay transparency

legislation that has no enforcement. There’s no way to hold

accountability. It’s just, basically, we’ll throw it out there and hope

that everyone will be reading the report and then voluntarily holding

themselves accountable to that.

It took six years for this B.C. NDP government to de­liver

that? This government had a choice — a choice to do the right thing, the

best thing, for the public. They could have chosen to bring in pay

equity legislation and robust pay transparency legislation.

[2:10 p.m.]

They could have chosen to act on the systemic sexism and racism

built systemically in our province. Instead, they chose

half-measures.

In Bill 13, for the half that’s there…. Good, finally. It took

long enough. It took too long. But the half that’s not there? Shame.

Every day this province delays, even if we’re saying the right things,

there are women and gender-diverse people, especially racialized women,

navigating this world with fewer resources and bigger challenges. That’s

on this government.

We had an opportunity in this session. We were promised something

much bigger than what we have been delivered. Now, I’m certain we are

going to hear from the current version of the B.C. NDP how what they’re

doing is taking a monumental step forward. As those words are being

uttered in this House, they need to be held up against the words that

were said in here previously, 22 years ago. If it is not matching what

has already, previously been done in this House, then it is far less

than acceptable.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

HÍSW̱ḴE

SIÁM.

K. Paddon: I am very happy to stand and to celebrate the work that has been

done on this bill and what this will mean as a next step for people in

British Columbia. I want to start just by thanking some people, because

this kind of work doesn’t happen without so many people who are

involved.

I would like to start…. I would like to thank the Minister of

Children and Family Development. I would like to thank the Minister of

State for Child Care, the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and

Future Skills, the entire gender equity office, advocates who continue

to engage with us and who continue to send us feedback and information

and everyone who participated in the consultations.

This work came thanks to the efforts and the advocacy and the

ideas of so many people. That includes labour unions, private sector

employers, non-profit employers and advocates, First Nations leaders,

industry associations, universities and other groups, Métis Nation,

Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C., small business

round­tables, B.C. Business Council. It took a lot of people to

get to a place where we can take this next step together. Although I

can’t name everybody, I wish I could.

I will say I’m going to be the designated speaker, but even two

hours, maybe, to discuss how everyone came together….

The advocacy and the collaboration and the sharing of ideas that

came long before I was privileged enough to stand in this role were

invaluable in the formation of the work that we see in front of us

today.

I will be replying to some of the comments made by previous

speakers, but I want to take a minute, first, to talk about what pay

transparency and pay equity are. Part of how I’d like to start that

conversation — because it is a conversation; this is one step in the

work to be done — is on what the gender pay gap is to begin

with.

The gender pay gap is the difference in average earnings of

workers based on their gender. There are two ways of presenting this,

whether unadjusted or adjusted, both of which are based on the gender

pay ratio, which is a woman’s earnings expressed as a proportion of a

man’s earnings.

The gender pay ratio is calculated by dividing the women’s

earnings by the men’s earnings. The unadjusted gender pay gap is

calculated using an aggregate of all incomes, regardless of experience

or skills, role or education,

whereas the adjusted pay gap is calculated

using these incomes but taking into consideration compensable

factors.

[2:15 p.m.]

The reason that I use this definition is because right from the

onset of this conversation, I want to stress…. I don’t think it’s done

enough. I don’t think, maybe, we’re all aware. In this House, as we all

come together, as we all will stand up, and we’ll all speak in favour of

women and non-binary people deserving to be paid the same amount as

men…. I’m making an assumption. I am happy to stand corrected — or not

happy; it would be horrible if I was corrected — but I think we’re all

in the same place.

We don’t exist in a vacuum, although sometimes session can get

long, and it can feel that way. We don’t, in fact, exist in a vacuum,

and we’re not universally having the same conversation. This was made

incredibly apparent to me, actually, the day before International

Women’s Day, when an

article was published by the Canadian Press. The

title of it said that men are almost twice as likely as women to think

gender inequality is overblown. Yikes. Okay. That’s a lot.

I went on to read it. It was the Canadian Press. I thought: “Maybe

it’s just the title.” We all know. It was online. You want people to

click it. I get it. But it goes on to say that a survey suggests that

Canadian men are almost twice as likely to think it’s blown way out of

proportion. It found that most people believe the issue of gender

inequality is important, but a significant amount believe it’s

overblown.

Let’s think about what that means in a minute. But I’m just going

to give some of the numbers that they shared: “More than 30 percent of

men and 17 percent of women who answered the survey believe the response

to gender inequality is blown out of proportion.” The survey suggests

that men between 30 and 34 are the most likely age group to believe

gender inequality is overhyped, at 34.6 percent.

So men, women, people, 30 to 34…. Let’s think about where, what

life stage…. We’re talking about entrepre­neurs. We’re talking

about employees, in many cases, but we’re also talking about employers.

We’re talking about people who may or may not be making the choice, at

that point, to have their own family. Maybe they are in the process of

raising their own family, their sons and daughters. And 34.6 percent

think that inequality based on gender is overhyped.

The reason that I wanted to draw the attention here is — as we

speak to British Columbians about the importance of this bill at this

time, and the way it’s presented — it’s very important to understand

that we cannot make assumptions of where we’re meeting people, of what

their life experiences have brought them to and their understanding of

things like inequality and inequity between gender, especially in the

area of pay. Although some may suggest that pay transparency isn’t a

very big step, if there are 34.6 percent of male employers, employees,

developing professionals, who don’t think this is a problem, that’s

where we need to start this conversation. That’s where we need to shine

the light.

We cannot have the other conversations without first being very

transparent about where the question is, because when that happens, you

have people voting out pay equity legislation in a second. It happened

right here. But we’ll get to that in a little bit.

I also think that it’s very important to just reiterate that we do

know that this is a problem. According to Stats Canada, women in B.C.

earn a median hourly wage that is 17 percent less than the wage paid to

men, and that was in 2022. The gap is significantly wider for Indigenous

women, 35 percent; other racialized women, 33 percent; and newcomer

women, 29 percent. It’s understood that the gap affects non-binary

people as well, although the data is limited there for now.

[2:20 p.m.]

So the question of what is pay equity…. It’s that we get paid the

same, regardless of our gender. I know that some of the comments, when

we made this great announcement about the work we were going to be doing

here on this bill…. Some of the comments were that it’s not a thing. We

know, because we saw the survey done in the Canadian Press.

Also: “Oh well, it’s probably because — you know what? — women are

busy having kids, so they’re not….” I’m going to give a list here. You

can pick your favourite too. Women are not as educated because they were

having kids. Women took time away from the workforce. They don’t have

the skills. Women just haven’t been going into the fields that pay more,

so that’s why there’s inequity.

Maybe it is that women just depended on their husband — or

partner, but when I hear it, it’s usually husband — to take care of

them. Women stayed home, so they don’t have any marketable skills. Well,

they raised their children, and that took a long time out of the

workforce. How about the ones we know are illegal too? But they still

happen. They still get mentioned. “Well, I can’t hire that younger

woman. What if she gets pregnant?”

Okay. So these are the reasons that women might get paid less,

supposedly, but we know they’re not the reasons, unless maybe you were

talking to one of the 34 percent who think that it’s

overblown.

How about the other side of it, where the work that women

traditionally do, the work that is stereotypically…. We know stereotypes

are based on…. I don’t want to get into the semantics of that, but we

know stereotypes exist. The caring fields, the teaching fields — sorry,

some levels of the teaching fields — we know it’s women who do that

work. We know they do it in the home, traditionally. We know they do it

in the workforce, traditionally. We know it’s undervalued, and we know

they get underpaid. We know their contracts aren’t respected. We know

the work is precarious.

By precarious, I mean it depends on the good actions of somebody

else in order to maintain the safety in that position. So perhaps that

means they’re working in the home, and it’s precarious because it

depends on a healthy relationship. It depends on a breadwinner who

leaves the home. Perhaps it’s precarious because it’s a form of

employment where there are split shifts, where you have to work in

multiple places where you’re not actually an employee. Maybe you’re a

contractor. Maybe you were privatized because it was too expensive to

actually treat you properly.

That’s the work that women traditionally do that’s undervalued.

That all goes into this conversation of equity. The next part, the part

we’re working on now, is that transparency. We have to see it. We have

to name it. There can be no debate about whether it exists, whether it

has an impact and where we can find it. So that’s the setting where this

work starts to happen.

I know that the previous member, from Saanich North and the

Islands, talked about the great work that was done by…. I think they

characterized it as the previous, previous B.C. NDP government. We

recognize how important pay equity is. It’s critical, and quite frankly,

it’s not a conversation that anywhere around the planet, let alone

anywhere around Canada and definitely not in British Columbia, we should

still be having to have.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’re not having this conversation by choice. That work was done.

Those conversations were had. That understanding, that work — it was

achieved. In 2001, the B.C. Liberal government of the time repealed pay

equity legislation. The opposition leader voted in favour of repealing

it, and the member for Prince George–Valemount voted in favour of

repealing it. So to now hear in this House….

I mean, I’m new in comparison and comfortable in that newness. But

to now hear how this is not enough because it should be pay equity

legislation…. It was pay equity legislation. There was pay equity

legislation. We very obviously are not having the same conversation, if

anyone in good conscience could have repealed it.

So let’s show people. Let’s start the conversation again for those

on the left, right. I don’t know. It depends where you’re standing in

the room, I suppose. Let’s start again, not at the beginning, but let’s

not stand in this House and pretend like we couldn’t have been

farther.

I am incredibly privileged to stand here. I do so only because of

the support I have around me in my private life and some trauma and

drama that might have triggered me to get here anyway. But I am

privileged. Based on these numbers and the statistics, although it’s

overblown, it’s not. I am more privileged than some of my colleagues and

some of my brothers and sisters who are in this House. If we were out in

our jobs that we had previous, doing the things that we do when we’re

not here, that difference would be stark. My privilege would be stark.

But my privilege would not be as much as my brothers.

So we repeal work that was done. What did the former member say? I

think he categorized it — 22 years ago. I didn’t do the math. I’m not

going to lie. In 2001, it was repealed. It is 2023. So that’s 22 years.

Yeah, we’re good. Okay.

Where could we have been right now? Now, I’m not actually going to

have a full conversation and dig in too deeply to that, because the

business of moving the work forward requires attention forward. But I

don’t…. I’m probably going to make a face, a polite, parliamentary,

appropriate face any time someone says: “Well, this is not enough.”

Well, think what we could be doing right now.

Anyhow, we’re going to start the conversation in a place where

everyone can follow along, and it’s going to start with shining a light

on where we are and meeting people where they are so that we can all

move forward together.

This legislation is one step. It is this next step to building up

a system where what happened in 2001 wouldn’t be allowed to happen

again, and not because of any parliamentary or legislative process but

because people in British Columbia will know what it will cost. They

will see the evidence.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

People deserve equal pay for equal work. Pay discrimination is

prohibited. It is not legal. It is prohibited by the human rights code.

Our communities are stronger when everyone is treated equally, and we

know this. We know that the pay gap affects unevenly — we just went over

that — and we’re committed to introducing legislation that brings us to

a place of pay equity.

[2:30 p.m.]

But I do want to be clear as I move through the sections of the

bill or the elements of the bill that are critical. This is not the last

step. This is the next step in the conversation, in the work.

Pay transparency holds employers accountable and shines a light on

pay discrimination in the workplace. We know that there are other places

where gender-based discrimination exists. We also know that there are

other places where the pay inequity plays out in other ways that

disadvantage women and people who are marginalized.

When the member for Kelowna-Mission, the critic, spoke, she stood

up, and one of the first things she said was: “The seventh time is the

charm.” Okay. I’m so glad that it would appear that everyone will be in

support of this bill, that everyone will be in support of this next

step. I am genuinely and sincerely so glad that advocates and other

members are pushing already for those next steps. They’re already hungry

for it. To my mind, what that means is, in the future, they’ll continue

to support the progress, rather than repeal it.

I think one very important piece that I don’t want to overlook,

because I know it’s important to so many people…. I know it was

important during consultation. I know that it’s important for people

that I’ve heard from since — that this legislation goes beyond a gender

binary. I know I mentioned that the data was limited on what we know

about how pay inequity impacts people across the gender

spectrum.

I can stand here with my lived experience, but I know that the

consultations included so many people who can speak to a range of

experiences and how pay inequity, pay disparity, hurts not only their

opportunities and development but how, perhaps, it can feel like it’s

invisible when we’re talking only about men and women. As I speak,

there’ll be some times where I use “men and women.” I will endeavour to

be inclusive in my language, but please know that as I’m learning and

growing as well, my intention in my language is to include a range,

however, often citing research that was based on a binary.

I had just mentioned that it was difficult to hear the member

opposite stand up and say, “The seventh time is the charm,” because

there are significant, substantial, very impactful differences between

what the member opposite suggested was the impetus for us doing the bill

that we’re debating now and what was presented by a former member and

then by the critic as well. I’d like to start by talking about what this

bill does, so that people can have a picture in their mind as we move

through.

Once we debate and it moves through the process, assuming the bill

receives royal assent…. Once that happens, all employers in British

Columbia will be prohibited from engaging in certain behaviours that we

know contribute to the gender pay gap.

[2:35 p.m.]

This will include things like seeking pay history information from

prospective employees while negotiating their salaries. It will include

punishing employees who disclose their pay to co-workers or potential

job applicants.

Now, my partner works in human resources. They put up job

postings. There are a few ways that these first two elements are going

to have a real impact for women, for non-binary folks, and I’d like to

just go into them a little bit before I move into the other

pieces.

The first one, behaviour No. 1 would come into effect with royal

assent — which means right away, assuming this moves through the

process. Prospective employers won’t be able to ask prospective

employees for pay information, salary information. Why does this matter?

I’ve had that question. It makes sense. Why would it matter? Why would

it matter what you got paid at your last job when you’re talking about

your new job? You’ve got your new briefcase, and you’re going to take

over the world. You’re ready. This is new — clean slate, right?

No.

The reason this matters is because we know that women, non-binary

folk have two things that may happen. First of all, your last job….

Based on the stats that we know, if we’re not assuming it’s been — what

was the word? — overblown…. Based on what we know from actual data is

that at their last job, they were probably underpaid/undervalued. So to

then move into negotiations from a point where you had already been

behind will only serve to continue to perpetuate that gap. You might

shrink it in relation to where you used to be, but you will never catch

up to where a male colleague is. That is how it gets perpetuated. That

is why it’s important.

I do not go into a job interview…. I mean, I love my job.

Hypothetically, I do not go into a job interview and say: “Hello. My

left knee is a little weak. It hurts sometimes, so I probably can’t walk

as fast as some other people if this is work for outside.” I don’t go in

and advertise an old injury. That is a ridiculous example. If I can do

the work, if I can do it well, if I can give the value, if I can

accomplish the tasks but, excuse me, if I bring a perspective that maybe

that work culture is not used to, that can expand and actually adds

value, well, then don’t I deserve the same pay as my brother who sits

next to me? I absolutely do. Maybe a little bit more.

If they’re really needing to expand, I’m not going to lie. I might

have some skills. Maybe I’ve been at home with teenagers, so my conflict

resolution skills are on point. But I digress.

When we go into negotiations, when employers go into negotiations

with prospective employees, they cannot ask for the historical

information about pay because we know that historically, there is a

gender-based reason that some prospective employees may have been

underpaid or undervalued previously, and we’re not going to perpetuate

that. Okay, check.

You also don’t ask them if they are about to start a family or if

they’re pregnant now. There are a lot of things that create inequality

and inequity that you can’t ask in a job interview or

negotiations.

The second is punishing employees who disclose their pay to

co-workers or to potential job applicants. This one I got some questions

about too. Why? How is that going to make any difference? Well,

intentionally or not…. Perhaps it happened accidentally. Perhaps an

organization was unaware. I’m sure that that does happen. But it is so

much easier to get a good deal if no one is allowed to talk about how

much they make.

[2:40 p.m.]

It is so much easier to undervalue the work of one employee, based

not on performance or skill or credentials, if there is no way for them

to find out, in a way that is described as ethical or allowed, what the

person next to them doing the same job makes.

This is also an issue, because you never know. It feeds into

another element. So I’m going to take, still, with this element of the

bill…. It’s just a tiny, little…. When it comes to pay equity and pay

transparency, we also have to talk about the jobs that women and

non-binary folk apply for.

I read an article. It was a while ago. It talked about the way

that men and women specifically look at job postings. Right from the

job-posting place, if there are ten requirements, ten things that are

being sought, this

article suggested that if a man was reading it and

they could check off six or seven, they were definitely applying.

Whereas if a woman couldn’t check off one, it was in a statistically

relevant way that she just…. “Okay, I’m not qualified. I won’t be

applying.” From an equity perspective, when that man applies for that

job, they might get it, and they’ll get to build all those other skills.

That work will be valued, and they can take that with them,

whereas the

woman who hit nine out of ten did not apply.

I’m going to admit that when I first got involved in this world,

and I was approached, and there was a conversation about putting my name

forward for a community that I desperately love, my first reaction was:

“Well, I’m not a politician. I have no experience in that.” Decades of

advocacy, teaching, speaking, sitting with people and listening — well,

of course, we all have those experiences. That is what makes us

qualified. What makes us qualified is our neighbours, our friends, our

constituents and our communities saying yes. That’s what makes us

qualified. Until then, nobody is qualified.

When we’re talking about punishing employees for disclosing their

pay to coworkers…. If, as a woman — according to the

article I’m

discussing, the research I’m discussing — I’m less likely to apply for

the job…. Let’s say I was feeling brave, and I have nine out of ten. The

other person who’s interviewing, the gentleman who’s interviewing, has

six out of ten. He’s feeling…. He’s got this in the bag. I’m not sure

that I should even be in the building, is basically what was being

described there.

How do I know how valuable that work is? After the process of this

bill, assuming royal assent, I can ask. People can tell me, and they

won’t get fired. I’ve worked places, as well, where you are not allowed

to discuss what you get paid. Now, I’ve had the privilege of coming up

in a lot of not-for-profits in stereotypical female, caring jobs. I was

able to learn a lot in some roles as a union member and a lot in some

roles as a non-unionized employee.

In one environment, what I made was literally posted. Anybody knew

what it was because there’s a book. They give it to you on your first

day. “Here you go. Here’s the graph.”

Whereas at the other one, I could

not talk about what I made.

Depending on how badly they needed somebody in the moment, I was

hired. That’s what impacted it. I couldn’t check with people who already

worked there about what they made. When we had potential employees,

prospective employees, I couldn’t discuss what I made to give them a

starting point for their negotiation.

[2:45 p.m.]

Going back to the first element of this bill, it was absolutely

permissible…. It is, today, I guess, absolutely permissible for the

first question to be: “Well, what did you make in your last role?”

That’s going to set the bar. Maybe they offer me a dollar more an hour.

That would be generous, based on some of my experiences in looking for

new work.

It’s very difficult when you start to talk about the other kinds

of compensation. But you can’t talk about the other kinds of

compensation. That is the point. Well, that’s the second part of

that.

Assuming royal assent, after processes and such…. Should the bill

receive royal assent, employers are immediately prohibited from engaging

in seeking pay history information from prospective employees and

immediately prohibited from punishing employees who disclose their pay

to co-workers or potential job applicants.

Now, what does punishing mean? For some people, the word is very

heavy. For other people, not so much. We’re talking about any action to

disadvantage or reprimand, right up to and including termination. You

can’t do that to someone for disclosing their pay

information.

At the same time, further down the road, what this bill is

proposing is…. Starting on November 1, which is a handful of months

after this process will have been resolved, all employers in British

Columbia will be required to include wage or salary ranges on publicly

advertised job opportunities. This is a big one. It was a big one for me

earlier in my career.

I honestly don’t think…. If I was out in the market right now, it

wouldn’t be a really impactful one, for some of the reasons I’ve already

discussed. Not everyone is having the same conversation. There are all

these sexist tropes about women in the workforce or why they’re not in

the workforce or what skills they do or do not have that are just wrong

and that impact how much somebody might be offered.

We will have taken care of the not being able to get the

information. There’s an employee who will give you that information,

what they make. They can discuss their salaries. We’ve already talked

about not being restricted by that question. How much did you make in

your last job? We know that sets the bar for the beginning of the

negotiation for the next one, whether or not a male applicant would have

been offered $5,000, $10,000 or $50,000 more to start that negotiation.

Now right in the job posting.

I know it’s a difficult labour market right now. I hear from

business owners, small businesses as well as the bigger businesses,

not-for-profits. It’s across the board. It’s hard to get people right

now. I spoke with some business owners or employers and managers, like I

mentioned. I see it at home, with my partner, who does human

resources.

It’s hard to get people, even if you’re willing to train, even if

you’re willing to pay a little bit more — even, even, even. It is hard

to get people right now. The struggle is real. I’m grateful for the ways

that we’re working on that, but in the meantime, it’s not always that

way.

When you’re going to make a change with your employment…. If

you’re re-entering the labour market or if you are finishing up some

education…. You’ve made a change. The time it takes to go through a

hiring process….

[2:50 p.m.]

Now, I used to be a server in a restaurant, and I loved that job.

I got to talk to people all day long. I think maybe one of…. Where I am

now…. One of the really awesome parts of it, other than the 20 percent

off anything, was that when I left that building, that work stayed

there. Nobody was coming home and asking me to refill their

drink.

When I applied for those kinds of jobs, and when I’ve seen my

teenagers apply for those kinds of jobs, that hiring process seems to

still be pretty simple, fairly simple. You apply. You do the

application. You have the résumé. You do the interview. Maybe there’s a

reference check. Bob’s your uncle. You’ve got the job.

But every traditional job that I’ve applied for — this is not a

traditional job — has been a slog. I’m sorry, but if you’re already

working in another job, the time investment it takes…. If you’re not

working, if you are seeking employment because you’re currently not

employed, and your personal and family finances depend on that, it’s

even worse. It can take a really long time, and there’s a lot of time

invested in applying for jobs. That’s assuming there’s not even any

training up front that you’re going to have to do before you can fully

apply.

I cannot be the only one in the room. I wonder how many other

people have had the experience of applying for a job. You know what it’s

worth. Maybe you’re working a specific job now. This would be a step up.

Expanded responsibilities, or it’s a bigger job. Then you get there.

What they’re offering, where they’re willing to open their negotiations,

or their salary range, which was not posted, which was not part of

any….

They’re not discussing it until the end, until you’ve already done

those two interviews and then met the board, and you’ve bought the fancy

briefcase. You’re really excited about getting to work with these

people, and they tell you: “Yeah, you’re going to get paid $20,000 less,

and that’s if we top out.” Well, as a mom, I can’t take that job. I

can’t. My family can’t afford it. That was in the non-profit…. If I

worked more overtime…. I’ve actually had this conversation, because I

had fallen so in love with a job during the process.

I had the conversation in my head: “Well, if I work X number of

hours of overtime every single week, then I can afford to take this

job.” I would have known that the hours and hours and hours spread over

weeks to apply for that job was not something I could afford in advance

if the salary range had been posted. I also would have known the range.

On the flip side of this, if you know the range, that is the employer

telling you, in black and white on a page — unless it’s colour ink — how

much they value that work and that role.

That conversation about how you value and how they value…. Well,

now you’re both having the same conversation. You both have an equal

understanding going into that conversation. At that point, the question

in the negotiation is not subject to as much volatility around issues of

gender and the things that confound the equity and equality around pay

and gender.

Your conversation then is: why wouldn’t I be at this place in that

range? What does the top of your range look like as far as what an

applicant is bringing? For an employee who gets paid at the top of your

salary range, what output are you seeing? Are there skills, is there

training, that would allow me to be a benefit to the organization in

such a way as to move up in that salary range?

[2:55 p.m.]

Then you’re having that conversation. You’re not having a

conversation about: “Well, what did you get paid at your last job? We’re

going to add $1 an hour.” That is the third piece. Starting November 1,

which would be a handful of months after royal assent, all employers in

B.C. will be required to include wage or salary range on publicly

advertised job opportunities. I think that’s going to be

fantastic.

I think it’s also going to be fantastic for another reason that is

kind of a little bit offside. We know that in the labour market, we need

all hands on deck. We know that persons with disabilities, people across

the gender spectrum, people with varied perspectives and life

experiences, people who are coming from different places, different

countries, different provinces — we need them all.

Businesses will be able to see what is being paid across the

board, as well, for publicly advertised jobs. Newcomers, people who are

looking at costs and budget and making a change, maybe even making a

change into areas that are in high need, will be able to see what it

pays. It won’t be just: “I don’t know what the webpage is.” Glass

ceiling, floor — I’m not sure. Anyway, sometimes if an employee feels

brave enough to share what they make…. Remember that before royal

assent, you can still get in trouble for talking about what you make in

some places.

You don’t have to go on the webpage anymore. You pull up the last

job posting. You see if there’s a difference between the job posting

you’re on. Are they valuing it more or less? What’s the difference? As

of November 1, that’s absolutely possible, so job seekers have a lot of

tools that will interfere dramatically with the perpetuation of pay

disparity based on gender across the spectrum.

This, Madam Speaker, moves me into the part of this legislation

that it’s named for — Bill 13, Pay Transparency Act. This is the meat of

it.

Now, I think it’s really important just to acknowledge for a quick

second that the three other pieces are substantial in interfering in the

perpetuation of what we’re going to be exploring in this next section.

Because of the pay transparency, we’ll be able to watch that effect, I

think. I hope.

This final piece of the legislation, the big part that it’s named

for, is what all the fuss is about, even though I think the other three

parts — we should be fussy about them, too. They’re pretty

great.

What’s going to happen is that this bill says that employers above

certain size thresholds will gradually be required to publicly post

reports on their gender pay gaps. The way this is coming in is, as of

November 1 this year, the B.C. Public Service Agency and Crown

corporations with more than 1,000 people will be reporting. I mean, the

great news here is that we’re expecting 100 percent

compliance.

What the other pieces of this mean is that these are significant

employers, where we can make sure that the way of reporting, the

information collected, the report that comes out from that, which I’ll

talk about in just a few minutes — all of that works.

The next year — so November 1, 2024 — all employers with 1,000 or

more employees will have to report. Now you can see you can see the

phases, especially with the next one. November 1, 2025, all employers

with 300 employees or more will be reporting. Finally, in November of

2026, all employers with 50 employees or more will be

reporting.

[3:00 p.m.]

So why are we doing this? Why are we — who said it — dragging it

out? I’m not sure. It was something like that. Well, here’s why. We

understand what’s happening with the labour market. We understand what’s

happening for employers. We understand that an organization that employs

over 1,000 people…. Most likely, among them is an HR professional. Most

likely, among their systems are systems for taking care and keeping

track of those 1,000 or more employees. Then we move to the smaller

ones.

With each reporting, we will learn from the businesses who are

reporting about, obviously, their pay gap but also about what kind of

burden it was. We will be able to refine. We will be able to educate. We

will be able to have conversations. We will be able to incorporate

things like the gender and sex standard, potentially the anti-racism

data standard. We will be able to make it better so that by the time we

are reaching an employer with 50 people, this tool is strong.

Now, I said it a bunch in the first few minutes I was talking.

This is a step. This is the next step that we’re taking. If we need to

do more, if we need to go smaller, there’s room in this.

I’m going to be speaking to one of the other sections of the

legislation around the director and how that oversight will

work.

One of the things I like so much about this act, about this piece

of legislation, is that it doesn’t claim to solve everything. It doesn’t

claim to not need input and learning and adjustment.

Here is why it’s so important. I spoke about — it might have been

right at the beginning — the fact that we’re not all having the same

conversation, that 34.6 percent of men between 30 and 34 believe gender

inequality is overhyped. As we’re doing the work and bringing the

conversation along, as we’re building a system that somebody can’t just

get rid of, can’t just banish, as we’re teaching and learning with and

from British Columbians about this issue and equity, it’s the

transparency of….

It’s shining a light on what’s happening that is the key. That

includes with our businesses, bringing our champion employers along,

bringing along the people who understand how important this is, who want

to be an employer of choice, who embrace the work.

We don’t want to make it this huge burden. However, it has to be

transparent. It has to be accurate. If there are little ways of asking

or looking or reporting that can be improved on…. Well, that’s why it’s

gradual. We can’t just put this burden on all of these employers all at

once. We heard it loud and clear when we consulted with

employers.

I can’t wait to see which businesses come out or how many

businesses come out and use this as a tool to attract employees. I know

that there are champion employers out there who will be able to put this

all over the place. For every job posting they put out there, they will

be able to put a link to their gender pay information. They will know

that they’re an equitable employer. They will only be seeking out

opportunities to share that great information. I’m looking forward to

that.

What will employers be required to do with regard to the pay

transparency piece of this legislation? We already talked about what

they’d be prohibited from doing. We already talked about the job posting

information that would have to be included. But what will they be

required to do in regard to the pay transparency?

[3:05 p.m.]

The pay transparency seeks to address discrimination in the

workplace by shedding light on the situation where two or more people

work at a similar job and where one person is paid less than the other

based on their gender. Like I said, we talked about those little myths

around gender.

If the legislation is passed, employers will have those reporting

obligations. Once a year they will report. And then what? What are they

going to be reporting?

I had questions from some people who are not employers but

employees. They were asking: “How do we know if our employer is doing

it? What information do we have to share? This is our

information.”

The regulations will provide…. First of all, it’s voluntary on the

part of the employee, which is really important.

We’re taking a full gender spectrum approach, not a binary

approach. We know that there may also be groups or groupings within

employee groups where…. If it’s less than ten people, it won’t be

reported out in that same public way to protect the employee and their

sensitive information.

In the next few months, we will be working, as I mentioned, on

that first phase. So November 2023 will be the first report-out. We will

be working closely with the B.C. public service and the largest Crown

corporations on those reporting requirements. When those year 1

reporting requirements are publicly posted, the Ministry of Finance will

reach out to the employers reporting in year 2 to seek their feedback

and to ensure that what has been developed will work for them. I was

talking about being careful about the burden we put on

people.

Information is also going to be posted on the Ministry of Finance

website, and the team in the ministry’s gender equity office will be

able to help out.

I’m going to just change for a minute. I know that one of the

concerns that was expressed by advocates, the Human Rights Commissioner

as well, some of the members in this House, the member for Saanich North

and the Islands, was: then what? There’s no central place for this. I

understand that concern.

One of the really key pieces of this is…. This legislation calls

for a director of pay transparency working in the gender equity

office.

Yes, this legislation is taking an information and education

support approach. We want to bring everyone along in this transparency

conversation. That

article that I keep going back to, when I keep saying

we’re not all having the conversation…. That’s the key piece here. We

have to bring people along so we build a system. Just because we all

know it’s the right thing doesn’t mean that things like repealing pay

equity legislation in 2001 won’t happen. We are building a system, and

this is the next rung.

What if employers don’t comply? What if they don’t report? B.C.’s

proposed legislation, this act, ensures that employers have an

obligation to collect and report data about the gender pay gap. A

designated work unit within the Ministry of Finance’s gender equity

office will have a monitoring role in receiving reports of

non-compliance and reporting on trends.

Like I said, to start, we’re taking an educational

ap­proach.

[3:10 p.m.]

I mean, I’m a pretty positive person, unless you ask my kids. When

we expect more of people, when we expect better, people try to live up

to that.

I know that for employers and businesses, that’s their baby.

That’s their life. That feeds their families. That’s incredibly

important to our communities, to their individual lives. When people

know better, they do better. So let’s take this educational approach to

start. Let’s help people along. Let’s bring people along, because we are

so much stronger together. Let’s teach, and let’s foster

that.

One of the other fears is what happens with the information

afterwards. Who is responsible for doing something with it? Will

employees be left to have to figure out and navigate? Will it still be

left to the employee to try to figure it out?

Now, there will be more information in hiring and job applications

because of the initial changes that I mentioned. There will be more

information available on webpages. Where webpages aren’t available,

because an organization doesn’t have one…. I don’t know how many of

those we’re going to get in these phases. If you have more than 50

employees, definitely if you have more than 1,000, you’ve probably got a

webpage. But they have to be available to employees.

That information…. Each year, the Ministry of Finance will be

putting out a report in June. I believe it’s June. So there’ll be lots

of information available, but one of the concerns that I’ve heard loud

and clear is: “Then what? Aren’t you still leaving it to the employee to

advocate for themselves, to do something with that information?” The

answer is twofold.

One, yes, the employee will now have access to the information

they may want or they may need in order to make an informed decision

about either where they work or where they’d like to work. We’ve already

talked about the labour market and how competitive that is.

Also, this is public. If I can go on to an employer’s website —

whether I’m a job seeker, whether I’m another employer, whether I’m

competing with or trying to compete within — I’ll be able to fully

understand the pay equity situation, based on that information. That’s

in addition to the work that the province will continue to be doing with

regard to pay equity and to see what is necessary there.

I know there was a quote earlier from the member for Saanich North

and the Islands, actually quoting the previous, previous B.C. NDP

government — I think that was how he described it — and saying that pay

equity…. This was a quote from…. I hope that tracked. Hansard

got it. “Pay equity will not be achieved without

legislation.”

Okay, here’s a piece of pay transparency legislation, which is one

step towards the pay equity that we are committed to. Disclosures will

be happening by employers. Employers will be required to collect gender

information from employees and report out on that information, along

with information around pay. Any information provided by the employee

will be voluntary.

In developing the reporting guidelines, the reporting regulations,

we’re going to be looking at ways that demographic data can be safely

collected from employees. I know I had mentioned the new gender and sex

data standard, as well as the important Anti-Racism Data Act being

developed.

[3:15 p.m.]

We need to really understand how race, indigeneity and other

intersectional factors interact with gender. I know it might be a

surprise: I’m a feminist, which I think can’t happen without

intersectionality. It’s one spoke on the really messy wheel. Let’s be

honest. It’s a messy wheel, but it’s a wheel.

We have the systems that we prop up with those folks, and without

an intersectional lens, I don’t think we can solve any problem, because

all we’d be doing is shuffling it off to the side, and there are people

there. If I shuffle my problem off over here, I’m just putting it onto

other people.

I am so encouraged by the fact that this already discusses how

we’re going to incorporate the anti-racism data and the gender and sex

data standard, as well as being the first to take a non-binary approach

with regard to transparency and equity legislation when it comes to

gender. Employees, like I said, are not obligated to provide

information, but being able to better understand the gender pay gap will

help the government help our province to make it a safer, more fair

place for everyone.

We talked about the different phases, the four that are outlined

in the legislation. In very small companies, where only one or two

employees are women and the rest are men, that would be a little bit

more difficult. But like I mentioned, if there are less than ten

employees in a group that is being reported on, that information can be

masked or hidden to ensure privacy. We don’t want anyone being unsafe,

feeling unsafe or feeling like they’re exposed.

The other side of gender-based discrimination — probably any

discrimination, but I’m going to speak specifically in this case — is

that if you say it in the environment where you’re being discriminated

against, there may be a lot of fear and discomfort there. There may be a

fear of retaliation. There may be a fear of continued othering. So it’s

important not only that the information and the data is treated properly

but that this is a voluntary thing for employees.

I got a question as well, wondering if this is only for private

companies or only public companies. I just want to be really clear that

pay transparency in British Columbia means “in British Columbia,”

whether it’s a non-profit or otherwise.

Okay. That’s the bill — the highlights. There’s more. It’s not

super long. Everybody can access it and read it online, for all of the

two, three viewers at home watching.

What I think is the biggest takeaway is that we know there’s

evidence that pay transparency legislation has been effective in

reducing gender pay gaps. We know that it has an effect. We’re not

suggesting that it is going to solve everything. We know that unless you

know what you’re talking about, unless you’ve identified the problem,

you can’t talk about feasible solutions. So transparency and shining a

light are very important.

Like I’ve mentioned, I think a lot of employers will take the

opportunity to tighten things up if they happen to discover something

that maybe they weren’t aware of. We all have blind spots, right? I hope

people take opportunities. I hope people see areas of opportunity for

improvement.

We know that narrowing the pay gap involves a lot more than just

transparency. It also involves more than just “pay equity,” as defined.

We know that there are a lot of things that contribute to it and a lot

of other actions that need to be taken.

[3:20 p.m.]

We know that we’re investing in this with increasing training,

education, child care, increases to minimum wage, removal of limitation

or lower wages for people for work that we know is predominantly for

women or young people. We’re committed to full pay equity. This pay

transparency legislation is one step that gets us there.

As I mentioned as well, when I was kind of outlining…. I don’t

know where I was going.

There was a mention originally from the critic around seventh

time’s a charm. I really do appreciate that they are very passionate

about this as well. I want us all to get this right in this House, all

of us. But I’ve had questions from some people about what the

differences are. Why not just…? Why not the other bill, seven

times?

I’m going to be careful in how I work my way through it, but I

want to talk about this bill and some of the things in it that might

otherwise not have been available for our debate if we hadn’t gone

forward with the bill that we have here in Bill 13.

When the critic was talking about the private member’s bill that

has been introduced and the importance of pay transparency and pay

equity, it can’t be overstated as far as I’m concerned. But one of the

differences is that the Pay Transparency Act, Bill 13, as compared to

the private member’s bill, includes more comprehensive

definitions of

very, very important terms when we’re talking about pay transparency

legislation, more comprehensive

definitions of salary, wage, commission,

incentive and — this one I like — money paid at discretion of the

employer, and money that’s not related to hours of work, production or

efficiency.

The bill, rather than only referring to regular wage and bonus

pay, indicates that exemptions to

definitions may be prescribed by

regulation. As things change — as businesses changes, or as the

employer, employee, contractor, these different relationships change —

it can be looked at. It can be considered, and I know it would be done

in a way that is as thoughtful and collaborative as the conversations

with businesses were in the formation of the bill.

Another difference is around who reports, which employers report.

In Bill 13, it specifically indicates which employers will be required

to report in order to give employers more certainty.

Whereas in the

private member’s bill, it stated: “relevant employers, to be prescribed

by legislation.”

On February 8, to further expand on this, the member did state

that this bill would require any employer in B.C. with 50 or more

employees to publicly post an annual breakdown of wages in their

business. Bill 13, which we’re debating today, phases that in. To very

suddenly require employers with 50 or more to be reporting….

[3:25 p.m.]

What we heard, because there was consultation, from employers and

business owners, is that a phased approach was needed in order for it

not to become an overwhelming burden. So in 2023, like I said, it will

be the PSA and six Crown agencies; 2024, employers with more than 1,000;

2025, employers with more than 300; 2026, employers with more than 50.

Lower numbers can be prescribed by regulation after 2026.

So Bill 13 really opens up…. Well, not opens up. Bill 13 really

responds to the input and the consultation and the advice and just the

realities that were shared with us by employers and business

owners.

Around the reporting requirement, again, there’s another

difference. Subject to regulation, the private member’s bill would

require employers to differentiate between male and female mean. which

is average. wage of the full-time employees; the difference between male

and female median, which is middle, for full-pay employees; the

difference in mean bonus pay between male and female; the difference in

median bonus pay between male and female; proportions of male and female

employees who received bonus pay, which sometimes can indicate where you

fall in the hierarchy of an organization — I had someone ask me that

question the other day, why; ratio of male and female full-pay employees

in lower, lower-middle, upper-middle and upper quartiles of regular

wage.

Okay, that was…. It asked very specific questions, not only the

average, the mean, but also the middle point, which is an important

statistical indicator. For those who aren’t sure, google it. It’s

wonderful.

The critic said on February 8 that this information will include

wage and bonus pay for male and female employees and will be available

on a company website or by any other easily accessible means. Although I

heard media, from the opposition around the way that we’re reporting out

with websites…. I mean, it sounds like that was fairly

similar.

In a similar way, this bill asks employers to track the difference

between mean and median pay, difference in bonus and pay quartiles. But

in order for the conversation to be accurate, we need to allow further

engagement with employers and the flexibility on emerging best

practices, and the reporting requirements could change a little bit,

including the plans to use the gender and sex data standard — because,

you know, man, woman, non-binary — in initial reporting requirements and

to expand and include the anti-racism data standard once it’s been

finalized. This will enable us to understand the gender pay gap from an

intersectional lens, which I talked about before.

The manner of publication. The private member’s bill requires the

employers to post a report on the employer’s website or in a place

accessible to employees. It requires reports to be published for at

least five years and requires reports to be published on an official

website designated for the purpose by the registrar. Like I had

mentioned, on February 8, the critic said that it would be published on

the company website.

Bill 13 similarly requires employers to post reports on their own

website or on a publicly accessible place. It does not require employers

to post each report for five years. It gives them some flexibility to

remove the previous reports once a new one is available, which I think

is fantastic, because that means that if there are a lot of areas for

opportunity for improvement, they can, once they’ve reported the new

data, not only show that they’re an effective employer in addressing the

pay disparity or pay gaps; they can show their own improvement if they

want.

[3:30 p.m.]

But let’s say they had a pretty big blind spot, and the first

report wasn’t great. Well, they can improve and post a better report. I

like that. I think that a lot of the employers liked that, as well, in

the consultation. It does not require the employers to post on a

government website, Bill 13.

I think one of the things I’ll reiterate that I know is thematic

here is: the pay transparency legislation is one step. Within the

legislation, we have the opportunity to refine and improve. As things

become available, or as work is done to find systems that are

searchable, accessible and not burdensome to the businesses and that are

useful, there’s opportunity for improvement there. I’m appreciating that

there’s flexibility built in so that we really can build the system that

will move us forward.

To continue the comparison, just so that people can see some of

the differences, I don’t think that we’re comparing similar things when

the critic stands up and says, you know: “Seventh time’s the charm.”

Well, what we’re presenting here in this bill is not the private

member’s bill.

There are quite a few more differences, but one of the ones that I

think is the most glaring is that in the private member’s bill, there

are no additional measures beyond reporting,

whereas when we talk about

Bill 13…. I mean, I spent a lot of time talking about those other three

elements that can be used.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Welcome back to the chair, Mr. Speaker. It has been a long

time.

There are those other three elements of this bill, beyond just

reporting, that will interrupt and interfere with the perpetuation of

that inequitable practice. In accordance with emerging best practices,

Bill 13 creates additional transparency around job posting requirements.

You have to have that salary, remember?

Pay history ban — not allowed to ask. Just for people at home,

there are a lot of things that you’re not allowed to be asked during an

interview. You can’t ask: “When are you planning on starting a family?”

That is not an okay question. I heard someone got asked that the other

day, and I just couldn’t even believe it.

Assuming royal assent as we move through the process, the pay

history ban applies as of royal assent — and the anti-reprisal

protection for revealing pay to others. So be on notice that these are

rules that are going to change once we’ve moved through this process. If

this bill receives royal assent, those change right away. They’re pretty

good changes; they protect people. We immediately start working on those

things that perpetuate this inequity — pieces of it. It’s going to be a

bumpy road, but we’re going to see those changes right away.

Another difference between the private member’s bill and the Pay

Transparency Act is around this annual reporting. I know that there were

a lot of advocates. In case you’re just joining in this hour versus the

last one, I’ve already said how critical it is that we’re hearing so

much from advocates, from the Human Rights Commissioner, from the

letter, from all of the people, because it helps us to cement that this

is a step and to listen to all of the voices who are coming to push us

towards the next.

One of the concerns that I’ve heard is around annual reporting —

like the need for centralization. In the private member’s bill, it makes

no mention of government leadership in reporting back to the public. I

think that’s pretty key, because Bill 13 commits the minister to

publishing annual reports, starting June 1, 2024, on pay gap trends and

employer compliance.

[3:35 p.m.]

The minister will be publishing a report, starting June next year

— because the first reports from the employers are coming in November of

this year — on pay gap trends and compliance. Again, it’s another

opportunity for employers really to be champion employers, employers of

choice, really lead their peers and show: this is what it looks like.

People vote with their feet. That’s the expression, right? They vote

with their feet. I’m looking forward to seeing that first report, June

2024, as well.

Another area that I want to illustrate that’s different between

the private member’s bill and Bill 13, the Pay Transparency Act, is that

Bill 13 commits the minister to complete a written review of the

effectiveness of the act within five years,

whereas in the private

member’s bill, there’s no mention of review to ensure that the bill

continues to meet the needs of British Columbians.

That’s really important, because we’re going to be hearing over

time, as we phase in the transparency reporting, from businesses. We’re

going to be hearing from employees, from employers. We’re going to be

hearing from advocates who are active and committed and passionate to

this issue. We’re going to be hearing directly from people about, “this

is working,” “this is not,” or maybe “this part doesn’t work anymore,”

or “that’s fantastic.”

It commits the minister to a review of the effectiveness. I think

that’s fantastic. It has to be within five years so that, even if it

went the whole time, it’s still fairly narrow as we phase in employers

of up to 50 employees.

Compliance and enforcement was something that people were really

worried about. I absolutely can understand why. The kind of inequity

we’re talking about — here we’re talking about pay transparency and pay

inequity — is just one piece of so many ways, so many places that things

are inequitable. To have this Pay Transparency Act, which will do what

pay transparency does….

There was a real concern that we heard back from advocates around

enforcement. Neither this act nor the private member’s bill have

proposed any formal compliance and enforcement, but Bill 13 commits that

the director of pay transparency will support employers to comply. Now,

I already spoke about how this was going to be done through education,

training, follow-up, and that the director will monitor and report on

complaints.

I talked about how important it was already that we really bring

people along. We make sure that everyone is having the same

conversation. We teach employers. As I discussed right at the beginning,

not everybody understands the depth of this problem. Not everybody even

— it’s a gold mine, right? Okay, some places; I’ll paraphrase — that

said: “Pay gaps don’t exist. If that were true, businesses would only

hire women to pay them less.”

I was thinking about it: “Yeah, except for some businesses,

especially those that would intentionally pay them less — which I’m not

even saying is the rule — are going to want a lot of male employees

because, obviously, they don’t value the work of women.” I had a little

trouble with the logic, but I could see where they were going. It just

illustrates that we’re not all at the same place in this

conversation.

Starting with enforcement or a more punitive approach…. I can

understand the elegance in this act of approaching it from a place of

education, of understanding, because the entire act, the entire idea of

the transparency, is to make sure that everybody can see the

problem.

[3:40 p.m.]

We want to bring as many people along as possible because when we

don’t bring people along, we leave ourselves vulnerable. We’re not,

then, building a system. This isn’t another step in the journey, unless

we’re bringing people along with us on that journey.

Although we understand that it is pay equity that is the goal, by

taking an educational approach…. I almost picked up a paper, but it

would have been a prop. We’re not going to end up in a situation like

2001, where the current opposition leader, the current member for Prince

George–Valemount, repealed pay equity legislation.

To the advocates and to the people who have questions about…. Why

pay transparency? Why not enforcement? Why not a bigger stick? I

understand the compulsion, but we’ve seen work be wiped completely off

the map.

We’re going to build something that is so ingrained in our culture

and that is such an expectation. It is a right when you go in for an

interview. It is a right when you look at a job posting. It is

information that you have a right to and that you can access when you’re

looking at your organization or another organization and trying to make

training decisions, family decisions.

We’re going to build a system where you know what you’re entitled

to, you know what your right is, and you know what you’re worth. If

there is any difference between what you are worth and what somebody

else, standing next to you, is worth because of their gender, you’re

going to know, unequivocally, that that is against the law in British

Columbia. It has been the whole time, but you weren’t allowed to ask how

much the person next to you is making. It’s coming. It’s almost

here.

Okay. The next difference between the two is around support for

employers. This is really key because of what I just talked about — that

educational approach and making sure that we’re bringing people along

and building a system where all of us are moving together to build an

equitable and stronger B.C.

The private member’s bill didn’t have any supports for employers,

but this bill has support for employers. It falls directly under the

responsibility of the director of pay transparency. It assigns that

responsibility. Somebody is accountable for that.

A very big difference, which I think is very important, between

the private member’s bill that was introduced seven times without

success and the Pay Transparency Act that we’re looking at is around

consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. There was no

requirement for this in the private member’s bill, but the Pay

Transparency Act commits to consultation and makes it required before

the publication of annual or other reports.

One of the things that really highlights is how the continuation

of consultation, the continuation of improving…. This issue didn’t

happen all of a sudden, overnight, and get so entrenched.

I wish we were having this conversation on a Wednesday. I’d be

wearing my “On Wednesday, we smash the patriarchy” under my blazer. But

it’s Tuesday. I’ll take it.

What it’s saying…. These systems of inequity are not going to be

dismantled or handled or resolved because of one piece of legislation

that, quite frankly, can be cancelled if there’s any change. The

iterative nature of it, bringing people along, the Indigenous

consultation, making sure that, as a community and as a province, we’re

moving forward together…. I think that’s going to be the key to the

success of this transparency legislation.

Okay. We’ve canvassed a lot. Bill 13 is very exciting. It brings

in three mechanisms that are not named in the title because the title

would have been too long. Then it brings in the reporting around the pay

transparency.

[3:45 p.m.]

At the end of the day, not only will we have an understanding of

what employers in British Columbia are paying employees and the gender

relation to that and, like I said, in those different phases…. The first

one is PSA and Crown corporations over 1,000, then all employers over

1,000, then all employers over 300 and then all employers over

Not only are we going to have a broader understanding of pay and

gender across the province across employer types — non-profits, private,

public, the whole thing — we’re also going to be the first to do it

across the gender spectrum, so not only limiting to the binary. Right

now, a lot of the data that I’ve been referencing is binary, because

that’s what’s available, but we know the impact is so much broader than

that. We’re going to be able to incorporate the gender data standard

act, the anti-racism data. That’s how the businesses are going to

report.

On this whole other side, we’re also going to have the ability for

employees and job seekers to have different things. Right away, we’re

going to be seeing where we’ll be able to ask and share about pay

information.

Right away you’re not going to be able to be asked about your pay

history and negotiations, and then there’ll be the job posting

information. That’s it in a nutshell. The act really isn’t very long. If

you’re interested, you really should read it, just if anybody’s

listening.

Despite all of the progress that we’ve made on gender equity, we

know that women in British Columbia — not only in British Columbia, but

in British Columbia — are still paid less than men, 17 percent,

actually. We know that for Indigenous women, visible minority women and

immigrant women, that gap is even larger, shockingly large. We also

believe that the pay gap affects people all along the gender continuum,

including non-binary, transgender and two-spirit British Columbians.

We’ve been taking action to close the pay gap, and the pay transparency

legislation is one of the ways we’re doing this.

Although it is…. Disappointing is maybe not a strong enough word.

Although I cannot help sometimes but think about where we could be right

now if the B.C. Liberals had not repealed the pay equity legislation

that the former, former B.C. NDP government enacted….

If we could imagine where we would be if that had continued,

especially given the other pieces of work and the other steps we’ve been

able to do, like around expanding access to affordable, accessible child

care; going from having the lowest minimum wage to the highest, because

we know that women are disproportionately represented in the lowest

groups; eliminating an incredibly unfair liquor serving wage, which

allowed liquor servers, mostly women, to be paid less than their

colleagues.

We’re bringing thousands of health care workers back into the

public health care system with higher wages and better benefits after

the B.C. Liberals contracted them out, resulting in slashed wages and

the largest layoff of women in Canada’s history.

I am very excited about this legislation, and I believe I have

touched on all the points except for one. The critic for gender equity

said that we don’t need more data to know women get paid

less.

She may have said “day-ta”; I’m never sure which way to say

it.

We do. We do need more data to make sure everybody understands how

real and how serious and how impactful this is. A woman or a non-binary

person who cannot increase or make an equitable wage does not have

equitable choices.

[3:50 p.m.]

We know women…. The data shows that women are getting paid less

than men. We also know that there are articles and comments and posts

and memes about how it’s just sexist tropes. We’re having babies, or we

don’t do the same kind of work. It’s not as hard. We can’t get as much

done. We’re emotional. That one. I forgot that one. Hormonal. Forgot

that one. There’s all these reasons why we don’t pay women the same as

men if you can get somebody to actually agree that women are not paid as

much as men.

If we’re not even going to admit that there is a problem, then

it’s very difficult to discuss the fact that pay equity and pay

transparency legislation will show us that we are disadvantaging people

based on their gender, and how that intersects with their ethnicity,

with their indigeneity, with maybe their place of origin, the colour of

their skin, all of these intersecting pieces — racism and gender and

ability and ableism and how that all makes a really gross soup, because

it disadvantages people.

If you are not getting paid in a way that values the work you’re

doing, if you’re not getting paid as much as the person next to you

because of your gender, your race, you do not have the same choices in

life. You deserve to not only know it, but to have the information that

shows it. Because these conversations, like in this

article that I

mentioned….

How do 34.6 percent of grown men think that this is not an issue,

that it’s overhyped? Well, now I’m just getting emotional. It’s not an

issue. If they don’t even believe this is a thing — 34.6 percent. These

people are hiring managers, they’re entrepreneurs, maybe they’re

employees. I hope it’s going well. These 34.6 percent — I don’t think

that’s the representation of the members in this chamber. I don’t. I

think that this was random.

That’s maybe scarier, because there’s — what?— a 30 percent chance

plus that my daughter is looking for a job, and the hiring manager is

one of these, so she gets paid less. That’s not okay. That means she has

less chances, less opportunities. As I’ve mentioned before, even just to

stand in this place, I recognize the privilege that I do it with. So

when I’m speaking of my daughter, I’m talking about our

daughters.

She has less opportunity. If she is in a dangerous relationship,

she has less power to leave. If she would like skills, training to

advance her opportunity, her position…. Now, fortunately, our government

has been working on that. But if she has less money to be able to save

or to be able to pay for expenses…. I’m so grateful that I know our

daughters right now do have access to all of these programs. At the end

of the day, their equal work deserves equal pay.

To tie them into a relationship or into a situation that is

unhealthy or dangerous or limiting or makes them feel small or makes

them feel like they need to check all ten boxes off before they can even

try or makes them feel like they only deserve what they’ve been getting

the whole time because somebody, when they were 15, set a wage randomly

because they’re just a girl, and now every job they go to after is going

to be based on what they made in the previous job….

If they have no way to talk about something other than to say,

“You know what? I feel like this is unfair….” Because they said “feel,”

and because they’re a woman: dismissed.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now they have the numbers. The first report of the phased-in

reporting comes out this year. They will have they numbers. They will be

able to show it. When one of these 34.6 percent pops their heads up,

they can take it off with facts, speaking metaphorically. Yes, huge

paper cuts.

No longer…. Just like when the rules changed, and you could not

ask women: “You know what? Definitely qualified. Are you planning on

starting a family anytime soon? You look young. What does your husband

think of you applying?” You can’t ask those kinds of

questions.

Once this this passes, you can’t ask: “What did you make at your

last job — dot, dot, dot? I’m going to base any offer in negotiations on

that, hoping that you just feel grateful it was more, even though I was

prepared to pay this.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand negotiations. I understand

the purpose of negotiations, especially in a business setting. If I pay

you more, I have less, especially when you’re talking about….

For-profit, you have shareholders. If I pay you more, there is less. I

understand the motivation, but that motivation should not come on the

backs of people based on their gender. So by all means, start your

negotiation.

That’s another thing. Once you have valued that work, and you have

published that salary range, now you negotiate within that salary range.

At least the starting point is not gender-based, unless you’re only…. I

don’t even know where there would be a gendered place to post. If

anybody can access the public job posting, and anybody can see the

salary range, then everybody can see that this is what the value of this

work is to this employer, and that is not gendered

information.

When you are talking about hiring a professional, or hiring a

female professional, and you entirely plan on paying them differently,

that’s a problem. This will eliminate even the question. Of course,

that’s not what you’re doing. No responsible employer would. This will

completely make everything transparent. Hence the Pay Transparency

Act.

Hon. Speaker, I have shared a lot about why I support this bill. I

am very excited. I think there have been…. There are differences

contained within Bill 13 that make it the strongest pay transparency act

possible in order to bring everyone together, moving forward towards a

common goal of pay equity. The consultation that’s happened and that

will continue to happen and the learning that has happened and will

continue to happen have built partnerships and have built a commonality

in the journey towards pay equity.

I think I am most excited about the fact that this is one step in

our journey to pay equity so that never again will a government, a B.C.

NDP government, enact pay equity legislation only to have it wiped off

the board. We are changing all the expectations.

The expectations we are changing are British Columbians’

expectations, because now they will expect the information that they are

entitled to, based on this act. Employers will be able to use that

information to attract amazing talent. British Columbia will be stronger

for it as we continue to do all of the pieces of work that will close

the gender pay gap across the gender spectrum.

This one piece of legislation…. A previous speaker said that there

was lots of celebration. Yeah, there’s a lot to celebrate. This is an

important step. This is a critical step so that a year from now, five

years from now…. Five years from now when the review happens about

whether this is still useful to British Columbians and whether anything

needs to change, because that’s a commitment in this act.

[4:00 p.m.]

When we’re having this conversation, there will be, no doubt, only

evidence of what the situation and the reality are in British Columbia

where the gender pay gap is concerned. The other levers that are

mandatory in this act will immediately start having a positive impact on

it as well.

Thank you so much for my time, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate being

able to share so thoroughly about

an act that I am very excited

about.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Pay Transparency Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the Election Amendment Act be called now for second

reading.

BILL 11 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

M. de Jong: First of all, I should say…. I apologize. The Attorney made her

remarks on this bill yesterday, when other matters in other chambers at

this place required my attendance. I appreciate the opportunity to

inject myself into the debate now, as it relates to this piece of

legislation.

I’ll begin where I think the Attorney left off. I think the last

line in her comments to the assembly was about the importance of

preserving the integrity of our electoral process. I think that’s an

important place to start whenever we are considering changes and

certainly, changes of the sort that are before the House in Bill

What do we mean when we talk about the integrity of the electoral

system? I’ll just take a moment to speak, maybe a little bit

philosophically or conceptually, about what I think that means. It’s

something we tend to take for granted. I suppose we’re lucky to be able

to take it for granted in our country, in our province and in our

commun­ities.

That is this notion…. As part of that democratic process, when a

citizen goes to a polling place or, as we’ll see, engages in other

available processes for casting their vote and exercising their

franchise, they have absolute and can have absolute confidence in the

notion that, having made that choice, it will be received and it will be

counted fairly along with all of the other votes that are cast as part

of that electoral process.

[4:05 p.m.]

As I say, I think, fortunately, to this point, that is an

assumption that is still widely held in our society, although we have

seen, in some quarters, particularly south of the border, an increasing

public dialogue that seeks to challenge that notion, and it’s troubling.

I think it’s troubling for any of us, not just in the Canadian context

but in the North American context, to see and hear allegations that go

to the heart of the integrity of our electoral process.

It’s not the time or place to comment further upon that kind of

commentary and the challenges that may exist elsewhere, except to say….

One of the ways to ensure that a similar phenomenon does not reveal

itself or present itself here is to ensure that our electoral system

operates in a way that is beyond reproach and that is well equipped to

withstand any of those criticisms, if and when they were to materialize,

from people either involved in the electoral contests or others who may

not be happy with the result and then seek to challenge the integrity of

the system itself.

I was reflecting, as I was thinking about some of the changes

being proposed in this bill, Bill 11, about the first time I cast my

vote in a provincial election several centuries ago. I was actually

involved in a summer job in the Yukon, in a place called Watson Lake,

just on the Yukon side of the border.

In order to vote in I think it was the ’82 or ’83…. I should know

this. It was the ’82 or ’83 provincial election. The closest polling

station was in Dease Lake, and it was a four-hour drive away. By God, I

had reached the age of majority, and I was going to cast my ballot. I

got in the truck and drove down the highway, the Stewart-Cassiar

Highway, actually, to Dease Lake to cast my ballot. Of course, I didn’t

live there full-time. So the whole notion of a write-in ballot and what

you put on that ballot, writing in the name of the candidate, was all

very much relevant for me.

Here we are 40-plus years later. Some of those same questions

emerged, which the Chief Electoral Officer was obliged to turn his mind

to in making recommendations in the two reports that I think formed the

basis for much of the legislation before us.

We’re going to have some questions, and I know the Attorney is

here. That notion…. Well, I’ll back up and say….

The mechanics, ultimately, of what goes into running an election,

and that is facilitating each citizen’s right to cast their ballot, on

the one hand, haven’t really changed very much. It’s still one person,

one vote. We verify that the person is entitled to vote, and then we

take their vote and ensure there’s a system by which it is counted and

counted fairly. Technology has changed some of the ways we can go about

doing that.

Then there is another trend that most of us find very worrisome.

That is the declining rate at which citizens take advantage of that

right to participate, as voter participation rates continue to drop, in

some cases, to embarrassingly low levels.

I won’t talk today about why that is so troubling in light of all

of the sacrifices that have been made to secure those rights. We do that

in other contexts in this House. Suffice to say, I think, it is

something that weighs heavily upon all of us and I think something that

continues to influence the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of many of

the recommendations he has made.

There’s this, in a sense, tension between how we facili­tate

having more people participate and reverse that trend we are seeing,

that very troubling trend around declining participation rates in that

fundamentally important aspect of our democratic institutions, selecting

those who are going to occupy them and the need to ensure that we have a

system that is robust enough to ensure that participation occurs

fairly.

[4:10 p.m.]

Finding that balance is important. The Chief Electoral Officer has

provided recommendations that I think he believes finds that balance,

and the government and the Attorney have tabled legislation drawing on

much of that — not all. I’ll talk about that in a few moments as

well.

In facilitating that participation, we must also, I believe, not

lose sight of the fact that people are exercising a really important,

hard-earned right. There is a certain responsibility that comes with

that, too. I don’t think the threshold is that high, but as we heard

from another member of the House yesterday, following the Attorney

General, there’s the question of how one identifies their preference on

a ballot.

On a traditional ballot, the candidates are listed, an X is

marked, and it should be very straightforward. With the advent of more

mail-in ballots, the phenomenon, which I encountered the first time I

voted — of writing in to identify who one supports — is becoming more

prevalent. This legislation seeks to provide not just guidance but some

specific rules around how voter intention can be determined by, for

example, writing in the name of a party leader.

I think it’s worth…. We will want to explore with the Attorney

whether or not asking a person to know who they’re actually voting for

is an unfair burden to put on them — that is, the candidate in the

constituency to which their vote would count. The provisions of the bill

would no longer require that and would authorize the counting of a vote

that does not identify a specific candidate but identifies the leader of

the party.

I’m not suggesting there is some kind of an insidious plot here,

but I think it is a point worth canvassing with the Attorney General to

determine whether or not it’s appropriate to ask of an individual who is

voting that they know to whom that vote is going to be credited, at some

point in that exercise.

There are, in the legislation, a series of amendments that speak

to the phenomenon of mail-in ballots. There’s some language:

“enclosures” versus “envelopes.” I’m not entirely sure…. I’m sure the

Attorney will, with the assistance of staff, be able to explain the

significance of some of those linguistic changes and again, ensuring

that there are mechanisms in place within the act.

I suppose much of this is predicated on the government accepting

what I believe the Chief Electoral Officer has accepted, which is that

promoting mail-in ballots is (

a) an appropriate way to canvass the

population for their choice and (

b) an effective way to try and reverse

the trend against declining participation in the electoral process.

Again, ensuring that there are safeguards in place to guarantee that

that is done fairly, and not manipulated improperly, is

legitimate.

[4:15 p.m.]

We all say, I’m sure, in the course of campaigns that we have

participated in: “Every vote counts.” We say that, I think, as a

motivator to supporters, but if you think about it, it also represents

an underlying vote of confidence in our system. Every vote counts,

because it is counted.

It was a long time ago, but as someone who secured a seat in this

place on the strength of a 40-vote victory, one is easily persuaded that

every vote counts. Ensuring that we can say that and continue to say

that to people and instil in them the ongoing belief that the system is

equipped to preserve the integrity of their vote is

important.

The legislation addresses some issues around third-party

advertising — what is deemed acceptable under the act, who can advertise

on behalf of candidates, and how they are defined, depending on their

relationship with the candidate. We’ll have a few questions about the

technical aspects of that when we get to the committee stage.

There are some initial attempts — again, I think, drawn from

observations and recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer —

about preventing adver­tising that is made to appear as if it is

from a political party, from Elections B.C. or from the government, but

isn’t. I suppose, again, that is part and parcel of the evolving

technology, which allows for messaging to be manipulated in various ways

that perhaps wasn’t possible even 20 years ago. We’ll explore that with

the Attorney at the committee stage.

I can also alert the Attorney to one of the things I posed when,

happily, her officials provided us with a briefing, several weeks ago

now. I think all of us in this chamber have been confronted by

situations where Elections B.C. will publish a circular that lays out

where polling stations are or where polling places are.

Again, with the technology, we’ll simply repost that information

as a way of providing information to citizens and voters. I’ll want to

verify whether or not the rules in any way restrict or inhibit the

ability to simply pass along information that may come to a candidate by

Elections B.C. and that would be helpful to citizens in exercising their

franchise.

There are provisions in the legislation that deal with an attempt

to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. I’m not going to try and

dissect that here in second reading remarks. I think few would argue

with the proposition that, where possible, we are as a society better

served when people are provided with accurate facts, as opposed to false

information. So no argument there. The workability, the practicality, of

what is being proposed here…. By the way, I will say at the outset, I

recognize that the pertinent sections are restricted to certain kinds of

information as it relates to citizenship, for example.

[4:20 p.m.]

I anticipate I’ll ask the Attorney General, at the end of the day,

besides the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, what

prompted her and the government to select those criteria or restrict it

to those criteria.

In the course of a 28- or 30-day campaign, I’d like to explore

with the Attorney General how this is going to work practically in what

is, obviously, a competitive landscape where political parties and

political candidates may suddenly now inundate the office of the Chief

Electoral Officer with allegations of misinformation by their opponents

and to what extent that office is going to be equipped to (

a) make

determinations, (

b) issue orders and then (3) have those orders enforced

in a timely way. So all to alert the Attorney of the practical

implications of what is being proposed.

I recognize that these are the provisions that were drawn largely

from, again, recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, but it

strikes me that in pursuit of a laudable objective, the Chief Electoral

Officer and that office are going to become far more active participants

in the campaign exercise than was heretofore the case. What are the

implications of that for the resources required by that office, moving

forward?

This is interesting. The two reports, the 2020 and 2022 reports

from the Chief Electoral Officer, include, obviously, a whole series of

recommendations, many of which are referenced and acted upon in Bill 11.

There are a few and, I would suggest, a couple of significant ones that

are not here. Dare I say that I might be able t