Mr. Speaker, on March 16, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister how she could justify abolishing the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. My amazement and that of many women's groups at the government's decision was caused by the fact that this agency is known for its excellent research in areas of concern to women.
As you know, the CACSW also analyzed the impact of policies and legislation on the status of women. Furthermore, it had acquired an excellent reputation as an independent agency that, although it was largely dependent on public funding, managed to maintain an arm's length relationship to government.
In reply, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the following to justify her government's decision, and I quote: "Women's councils across the country were telling us that they were in a better position to do political analyses than people appointed by order in council". This reply was surprising on two counts. First, I will deal with the so-called preference expressed by women's groups for doing their own political analyses.
I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to reveal the names of these groups to the House. My request is perfectly reasonable, since all the reactions we have heard so far would indicate that the opposite is true. Whether we are talking about the Fédération des femmes du Québec and its affiliates or the groupe relais-femmes of the Association des collaboratrices et partenaires d'affaires, whether we are talking about the biggest national women's organization in Canada, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, better known as NAC, the AFEAS, the University of Ottawa and Carleton University, grouped under the aegis of the joint department of women's studies, and finally, about certain editorial writers, they all regret the decision made by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women and her government.
So where are the groups that supported the government when it announced this decision? Women's groups and the official opposition would be very interested to know who these groups are.
They also want to know where the funding needed to resume research will come from. The government may have claimed that it decided to merge three agencies in order to save one million dollars, but when we realize that the budgets of existing organizations will not be increased in any way, we have every right to ask where the money needed for research will come from and where it will go.
In concluding, I must mention the other reason given by the Deputy Prime Minister in answer to my question. She said it was important to let research be done by people who were not appointed by order in council.
We were absolutely flabbergasted. The question automatically comes to mind whether the present government intends to get rid of all organizations and councils whose board members are appointed by order in council.
There will be a revolution. One also wonders how open-minded her department will be when research findings fail to reflect what this government wants in terms of progress on issues concerning the status of women.