Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table a return to oral question, 607-13(5), provided to Mr. Roy Erasmus on June 1, 1998. Yesterday in this House the honourable Member from Iqaluit, Mr. Ed Picco, indicated this government was using a modified Hay Plan Job Evaluation System. The document I am tabling today indicates the GNWT implemented the Hay Job Evaluation System without modification. As well, during the last session of this Assembly, I tabled document 87-13(5) on May 25, 1998 entitled the Hay Job Evaluation System, and the GNWT Job Evaluation process.
Mr. Speaker, I trust this material demonstrates once and for all, for the benefit of the members of this Assembly that the GNWT implemented the Hay Job Evaluation System without modification. The job evaluation system that we are using is one of the two systems that the Human Rights Tribunal itself uses in determining the validity of pay equity complaints as indicated in its' recent treasury board decision.
In the case before the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Federal Treasury Board, the Human Rights Tribunal in its decision of July 28, 1998, sets forth the process that has been established for the investigation of complaints by the Commission. Under section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, clause 18 of the decision. It says, if an employer has an existing job evaluation system, or if you are listening, Mr. Ootes, the Commission uses section 9 of the guideline to analyze that the system and to determine its' suitability for a pay equity complaint. Otherwise, the commission uses the Aitken or the Hay Job Plan Evaluation System. Thank you.