After weeks of speculation about how Paul Martin will govern with only a minority of seats in the House of Commons, the Speech from the Throne provided some answers. The Prime Minister will attempt to implement the Liberal campaign platform as if Canadians had handed him a majority of seats in the recent election.

When Mr. Martin's first Throne Speech was unveiled last February it was criticized (rightly) for abandoning a more balanced approach his successor Jean Chrétien had followed, which partially offset new spending with some debt reduction and modest tax relief. The Martin government instead signaled its priority was to use the growing surplus to crank open the spending taps, and perhaps apply whatever little remained to pay down debt. There was no plan to provide Canadian families with any tax relief whatsoever.

Fast forward 8 months to this week's speech, which broadly represents the government's legislative agenda. It is a carbon copy of the old one, updated only to reflect the new spending promises the Liberals made in the recent election.

But does Prime Minister Martin have a mandate to press ahead with his agenda The answer from government members - be it ranking cabinet ministers right down to backbench MPs - is yes.
This is the height of hubris, since the Liberals failed to secure a majority, and therefore a clear mandate in this summer's election. Voters elected a minority government and in doing so denied giving any party the ability to pass laws without first consulting with opposition members. As Prime Minister, Mr. Martin has the authority to govern, by dint of having the most seats, but he does not have a mandate of any kind to pass legislation freely.

"Welcome to the 1980s," thundered Pierre Trudeau on election night in 1980 when voters returned him, and his party, to office. He, of course, went on to patriate the Constitution and implement the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Similarly, when opponents to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement demanded Brian Mulroney "let the people decide" he did and went on to enact the trade deal. Voters handed these two leaders the authority to govern, and gave the opposition a mandate to challenge them in Parliament.

Prime Minister Martin cannot pass legislation, and govern, without the support of opposition MPs. As such, he will need to win bipartisan support and find a middle ground acceptable to Parliament and Canadians. But the Throne Speech has not done this.

Consider its main themes of billions of dollars in more spending, no tax relief, greater federal intrusion into provincial jurisdictions, more business subsidies, support for Kyoto, and a foreign policy based on soft power. Certainly some Canadians support these policies as they contrast sharply with those of Conservative and Bloc MPs.

This juxtaposition is perfectly normal in an election campaign or a majority Parliament, but not when a weakened prime minister needs to win support from MPs who might favour lower taxes, less government spending, asymmetrical federalism, an end to corporate welfare, the repeal of Kyoto, and a more muscular foreign policy. Is it really Mr. Martin's intention to be Prime Minister for half the country

"Minority government can work and I do believe minority governments can have mandates, and I do believe we have a mandate to act on the programs we set out," the Prime Minister said after the June 28th election. Yet if Liberal policy could not win a majority of seats from voters by what logic should it win majority support in the Commons today

Despite his position, Mr. Martin no longer commands a majority of MPs. But if the Prime Minister wants to test his mandate by opposing amendments to the Speech from the Throne that could topple his government, who are we to argue with him