In Sarnia recently, a reporter asked me whether the CHP found the Speech from the Throne encouraging.

"They mentioned both same-sex marriage and child-care. Those were campaign issues for the CHP," he said. "Are you encouraged to see those included in the Throne Speech?"

The answer is, "No. Because their policies on those issues are weak. But they deserve credit for two other things."

It was reported to me that the new government opened Parliament with the Lord's Prayer. Returning that prayer to the House of Commons reflects Canada's heritage and it strengthens Canadian culture. Good for them.

The Speech from the Throne also included a reference—very imprecise—to electoral and parliamentary reform. We can hope that it will include Mixed Member Proportional Representation and senate reform; it should also include reform of the corrupt election finance regulations imposed by the Liberals' Bill C-24, and fixed election dates.

What about the new government's child-care and marriage policies?

Deeply disappointing.

The Conservatives' child-care plans—originally a grant of $1,200 a year per child under six; now expanded to a promise to create institutional child-care spaces—will not benefit families. The increase of $1,200 a year won't help parents who spend that much in a month or two on child-care. The promises of federal funds for institutional day-care is a step towards spreading the Quebec plan all across Canada. A California study of the Quebec plan was headlined Universal pre-school: a recipe for universal disaster.

The CHP's "Family-Friendly Tax Credit"—which would give five or ten times as much as the Tories' plan to voluntarily participating families—would be far more beneficial, because it is focused on better care for children and strengthening families—and it would be revenue-neutral because it would reduce employment insurance and welfare payouts by as much as the revenue loss from the tax credit.

The Tories' cynical approach to the definition of marriage will achieve nothing—unless there is a miracle. Most Liberals will vote against defending the traditional definition; so will most Bloquistes and all the NDP (Jack Layton gave the boot to Bev Desjarlais for opposing same-sex "marriage"). Even some so-called "Conservatives" will vote against the traditional definition of marriage.

If a bill to defend traditional marriage should somehow pass the House of Commons, it would still face a hostile Liberal-dominated Senate; and if it cleared both houses of Parliament it would face pro-gay courts—and Prime Minister Harper has said he would not use Section 33 (the "notwithstanding" clause of the Charter of Rights) to protect the definition of marriage.

In such a situation, protecting the traditional definition of marriage needs real leadership; what's being offered is just cynical window-dressing.