Antonia Maioni is a professor of political science at McGill University.

------------------

As a professor of Canadian politics, I have the rare privilege of teaching a course in provincial politics. I say rare because most of my colleagues are more interested in federal politics, parties and elections. But over the years, students have come to realize that much of what happens in their lives is shaped by provincial policy. So much so, that often they wonder what, exactly, is a federal government for?

Story continues below advertisement

After nine years in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper may be happy to learn that many young Canadians see the new normal as a place in which the federal government no longer provides leadership on – or even seems to care much about – issues that, the world over, have shown to require some form of a national strategy. Instead, he is now the longest-serving prime minister in modern Canada to have never invited his provincial counterparts to a first ministers' conference, nor to have accepted an invitation to a premiers' meeting.

Still, this week, as the premiers meet in St. John's for their annual summer retreat, Canadians will be reminded that this situation is no longer tenable. Even though most provincial governments (not just Quebec) are wont to emphasize their autonomy in many areas, and not likely to hold a united front on every issue, the premiers are becoming more cognizant of the need for federal engagement to develop "national" – or at least co-ordinated – strategies on key issues that shape Canada's future.

The movement toward a Canadian energy policy is a case in point. Without a national policy to speak of, the premiers have attempted to build their own, one that is meant to reconcile the tangible need to get western oil to market, through new pipeline construction, with environmental concerns, namely in Central Canada. Yet despite the heavy-hitting rhetoric of Ontario's Kathleen Wynne and Quebec's Philippe Couillard, and with the arrival of new Alberta Premier Rachel Notley at the table, there are still intractable issues (such as emission reductions) that preclude coming to a robust interprovincial agreement on climate change. And without federal commitment or contribution on pipeline issues, provincial agreements on regulatory matters remain stymied.

The absence of commitment from the federal government extends to other crucial issues in health and social policy. For more than a decade, experts have pointed out that the increasing cost of, and reliance on, prescription drugs is a crushing burden on individual Canadians and provincial governments. Yet calls for a national strategy (most notably, a national pharmacare initiative) will likely be inoperable without mobilization of the federal government's regulatory and spending powers. Similarly, effective pension reform can hardly happen if the federal government refuses to at least discuss a wider menu of alternatives for an aging population.

Canada cannot properly function as a federation, even a decentralized one in which provinces loom large in their spheres of jurisdiction, without the active engagement of the federal government. Interprovincial agreement will only get you so far in many of the key policy areas that require the combined efforts of governments, a national focus and, dare it be said, international leadership.

Mr. Harper has made it his business to stay out of the provinces' business. But this has left Canada – and Canadians – adrift in the search for collaborative solutions to pressing policy issues. This risks not only casting doubt on the relevance of the federal government but, more profoundly, on what, exactly, is a country for?