Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member across the way. I agree that the focus on child poverty is misplaced. We are better to focus on the situation of the Canadian family overall if we really want to improve the lot of children. They are not disembodied entities. They are part of families.
Certainly the Reform Party shares the concern about the stresses of the economy on families. It is part of the reason that we see one of our critical mandates as being one of job creation. The head of the family, whoever it may be, must be able to find a job. We do not see increased government spending as the road to job creation, but lowering taxes and decreasing the bureaucracy on many of those small business people and others who provide jobs for people. That is the road to a healthier economy which in turn will benefit the children within these families.
I want to make one other point that we sometimes gloss over on this debate about the tax credit and recognition that is given to institutionalized care, but not to those who choose to care for their families at home. More critical than the financial impact on these families is the subtle message that this sends to them if they choose to stay at home and care for their children. There are some sacrifices involved in that. I realize not everybody wants to do it. However, if they choose to do it the message they are getting from the policies we have today is that there is absolutely no value in it. The government will not recognize it.
When we send these subtle messages they serve to undermine the strength of the families and they serve, in part, to cause some of the family breakdown we have had. That is why I think it is so critical that we not only worry about the financial impacts, but the message we are sending as far as the value of the parent-child bond.