The only reason this pleonastic conclave has not yet replaced the federal cabinet altogether as the locus of national government is the premiers' utter inability to agree on anything. Friday's meeting scored a rare double: not only did those in attendance fail to come to any sort of agreement, they disagreed even as to what they might have agreed to if they had. Any other group of statesmen would have just agreed to disagree: only the premiers could disagree to agree.

A joint communique issued at the end of the talks confirmed the confusion.

It announced the launch of negotiations on a framework agreement, setting out the respective roles the federal and provincial governments should play in administering social programs. The subjects for discussion, it said, would include a set of common principles, "collaborative approaches to the use of the federal spending power," and "appropriate dispute-settlement mechanisms between governments." To nine of the premiers, this meant that the talks might turn to joint federal- provincial enforcement of the Canada Health Act, or a ban on federal spending in areas of social policy without the provinces' say-so. Ontario premier Mike Harris crowed, "there's absolutely no doubt, they will not embark unilaterally." If true, this would mean a major devolution of power, more or less gutting the federal spending power of any usefulness.

To the prime minister, however, nothing had changed. Whatever the provinces might want to talk about, he would not agree to any limit on the right of the federal government to apply the Canada Health Act -- which is, after all, a federal law -- nor had Ottawa any intention of abstaining from proposed new spending programs for university students, home care or pharmacare.

(The Liberals did promise, in the wake of the 1995 referendum, not to launch any new shared-cost social programs, i.e. those that involve a top-up of provincial money, which is a different thing -- though what would happen if a province or provinces offered to match the unilateral federal program is an interesting question.)

As for Lucien Bouchard, he was alone in interpreting the agreement as a massive federal power grab, in as much as the provinces, by agreeing even to talk about a federal-provincial "partnership," had legitimized federal intrusion into the exclusive provincial field of social policy. Whatever its merits as a description of reality, this had the virtue of appearing, yet again, to leave Quebec isolated, this time over the precise etiquette to be observed when supping at the federal table. (The night of the short spoons?)

So: massive devolution, status quo, or another humiliation for Quebec?

Much will obviously depend on the progress of the talks. Certainly the legacy of "cooperative federalism," from the Pearson government's concession of the right to opt out of national social programs to the abolition of most conditional transfers under the 1977 Established Programs Financing agreement to the present government's Canada Health and Social Transfer, has been one of more or less continual federal back-pedalling.

So if this is not to be yet another installment in the ongoing process of national abnegation, the feds had better be prepared to come to the table with some demands of their own. It's not as if they don't have the bargaining leverage: all told, the federal government transfers some $20-billion to the provinces every year, $34-billion if you count tax points. If these transfers are to be maintained, it's time to attach more, not fewer conditions.

At a minimum, Ottawa might demand that the provinces refrain from charging higher tuition fees to students from other parts of the country. It might suggest, indeed, that the provinces convert the teaching portion of grants to universities into direct aid to students, preferably in the form of income-contingent loans, which would be portable between provinces. It should certainly stick to its guns on the the Canada Health Act -- and, what is more, declare that it will begin to enforce it with a little more vigor.

Indeed, the talks might offer the opportunity for all sorts of creative linkages. The provinces have had no shame in dragging in everything from national unity to the Kyoto conference on global warming. Could the federal government not seize the chance to reassert federal control over immigration policy and job training, so foolishly -- and fruitlessly -- given away to the provinces? And whatever did happen to the internal common market, anyway?