Summary#
Bill 24 would create pay transparency rules for New Brunswick employers. It would require salary information in job postings, protect workers who discuss pay, and require larger employers to report pay differences among equity groups. The bill appears intended to reduce wage gaps and make hiring and compensation practices more open.
- Employers would have to include an expected wage, salary, or pay range in new public and internal job postings.
- Employers could not ask job applicants about their compensation history or use that information if applicants voluntarily provide it.
- Employers with an average of at least 50 employees would have to prepare annual pay transparency reports.
- These employers would have to collect voluntary employee information for the reports, including information about equity groups.
- Employees could not be punished, threatened, or harassed for discussing pay or using rights under the Act.
- Inspectors could investigate violations. Orders, administrative penalties, and offences could apply.
The bill was introduced for first reading on March 18, 2026. The material does not show that it has passed or that any proposed amendment has been adopted. The supplied documents contain the same first-reading version; no separate amendment is provided.
What it means for you#
- Job applicants: New job postings would generally have to show the expected wage or salary, or a pay range. Employers could not ask for your compensation history, except when that information is already publicly available.
- Employees: You could discuss your compensation without being dismissed, demoted, disciplined, harassed, or otherwise disadvantaged for doing so. Employers could not use a non-disclosure agreement to stop employees from discussing compensation.
- Employees of larger employers: Employers with at least 50 employees on average would have to give workers a chance at least once a year to provide or update information used in pay transparency reports. Providing this information would be voluntary.
- Employees in equity groups: Reports would examine differences in compensation among groups such as women, gender-diverse people, 2SLGBTQIA+ people, Indigenous people, Black people, racialized people, and persons with disabilities. The exact information and calculations would be set by regulation.
- Businesses with 50 or more employees: They would have to prepare reports, file them with the Bureau, publish them, and keep copies for at least five years.
- Public: Published employer reports would need to remain available until a new report is published. The Bureau would also publish province-wide aggregated information, meaning information combined so that it does not normally identify individual employees.
- What is unclear: The bill does not set out all reporting details, privacy safeguards, administrative penalty amounts, offence categories, or appeal procedures. These matters would largely be set by future regulations.
Expenses#
No direct public cost estimate is provided in the supplied material.
- Employers would likely face costs for collecting information, preparing reports, changing job-posting practices, training staff, and maintaining records. No estimate is available.
- Larger employers would have to publish reports and keep them for at least five years.
- The government may face costs for inspectors, enforcement, data handling, and Bureau reports. No estimate is available.
- Administrative penalties could be imposed for failing to follow an inspector’s order. The amounts would be set by regulation.
- Offences could lead to fines. The bill does not state the fine amounts. If an offence continues for more than one day, the applicable minimum and maximum fines could be multiplied by the number of days.
- The bill does not identify new fees for employees or employers. Regulations could establish fees for appeals.
Proponents' View#
No specific supporter statements were supplied. Based on the bill’s stated purposes and design:
- The bill appears intended to make pay information clearer before people apply for jobs.
- Showing pay ranges could help applicants compare jobs and reduce the effect of different past wages on new offers.
- Preventing employers from asking about compensation history could help avoid carrying forward earlier pay differences.
- Protecting discussions about pay could make it easier for employees to identify possible unequal treatment.
- Annual reports could give employers and the public more information about compensation differences among equity groups.
- Inspections and penalties could encourage employers to follow equal-pay and human-rights obligations.
Opponents' View#
No specific critic statements were supplied. Possible concerns based on the bill’s design include:
- Employers with 50 or more employees would face new reporting, record-keeping, and privacy-related duties. The bill does not estimate these costs.
- The bill leaves important details to future regulations, including what employee information must be collected, how pay differences will be calculated, and how reports must be prepared.
- Employees’ information would be voluntary, so reports may be incomplete if many employees do not provide it. The bill does not explain how incomplete data would be handled.
- Collecting information about identity, disability, and other personal matters may raise privacy concerns, even though the bill includes confidentiality rules.
- Inspectors would have broad powers to inspect workplaces and require records or written answers. The bill does not provide all inspection procedures in the Act itself.
- Administrative penalty amounts, offence categories, and appeal procedures are not yet specified. This makes the possible consequences harder to assess.
- Publishing pay information could reveal details about small groups or individual employees if reports are not designed carefully. The bill does not set out all protections against that risk.