Canada

Her argument is basically (from what I understand), that the way Pierre Poilievre is calculating stuff to prove his point is too simplistic and wrong.

I think she is right - the calculation is unadjusted for discrepancies in the data. To adjust, much more has to be considered e.g where people work and live (you might earn more in a big city, but have higher living costs), how many or what percentage of people live where (more people living in cities naturally means a higher GDP), how long people work (time can be included the calculation service values), inflation (higher inflation in one country can lead to a reduce in purchasing power and reduction of the value of the currency), how the GDP is calculated (GDP calculated by one institute can include/exclude data compared to calculations by other institutes and the formulas can be different) and so on. However, and I admit this is a tangent, when the gender pay gap is brought up, most often the unadjusted value is brought up and treated as proof of injustice, when it shouldn't.

In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average woman's annual salary is 79–83% of the average man's salary, compared to 95–99% for the adjusted average salary.

wiki