Should Prince Edward Island and Nunavut even be separate provinces in Canada?

[blackbird]

The population of PEI is about 135,000.

The population of Nunavut is 40,758.

The population of Ontario is 14.2 million.

     Yet the Premiers of the provinces get together regularly to make vital decisions affecting Canada.

It seems ludicrous that provinces with only a very small population like PEI and Nunavut should have the same voice on this committee of provinces as the provinces like Ontario with 14.2 million and Quebec with 8.5 million people or even B.C. which has a population of 5 million.

This is contrary to the principle of democracy which is representation by population.

PEI, NS, Nfld, and NB should be combined into one province in the Constitution.  Than can still keep the same names they have but should be one province.

Nunavut shouldn't even be a province.  It is completely irrational that they be a province when their population is no larger than a small city or large town with 40,758 people.  Even the city of Prince George is almost twice the size with about 75,000 people.

Vancouver Island has a much better case to be a separate province than PEI, NB, and Nfld.  The population of Vancouver Island is 865,000.  The population of N.B. is 775,610, which is less than Vancouver Island.

We really need a fair Constitutional conference that gives everyone as fair voice and vote and draw up a new Constitution redrawing provincial boundaries based on fairness and population.

Nunavut gets around the system because they are called a territory, but they are given a seat at the conference of provinces just as if they are a province.  Same with the Yukon and NWT.  They should not be able to have a separate seat in conferences of provinces.  These provinces with small populations have just as much voice and vote in these meetings as the much larger provinces.   

What is just as bad is FNs groups demanding a seat at the conference of provinces.  5% of the population want to dictate to the other 95% of Canadians how things should be run.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2025 by blackbird

[Boges]

Nunavut is a territory not a province. It used to be part of the NWTs. It's certainly a unique region in this country. So is PEI. 

You could argue that the Maritimes could all be one single province based on their population. You could also argue Saskatchewan and Manitoba could be one province based on its population relative to the top four provinces. You could also argue that Ontario could be three or four provinces based on specific regions. 

Who's the arbiter though? 

Why are there two Dakotas in the US?  Why is Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland separate parts of the UK when the England is larger than all of them combined? 

Sorry for all the questions, but these issues aren't cut and dry. 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2025 by Boges

[Barquentine]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

PEI, NS, Nfld, and NB should be combined into one province in the Constitution.

I totally agree for NS, PEI, and NB, but I suggest they call the new province Acadia, given the area's history. And if they couldn't agree on a capital, have a floating legislature - 4 or 8 years in each of the present capitals. Easily doable these days.  Amalgamation would save a lot of money and give the area a little more clout. But NFLD is a distinct society and might want to stay that way.

Unfortunately, politicians don't like giving up power, even if it's for the greater good.

Edited July 30, 2025 by Barquentine
adding text

[TreeBeard]

The Maritime provinces should probably be a single province simply to avoid the bureaucratic duplication.  An entire government legislature, departments and all the associated staff and overhead for 135,000 people?  The size of a small city?  
 

Unfortunately,  the Constitution is not easy to amend, so this is likely a dead horse. 
 

Plus, whichever federal leader suggests it will lose every seat for their party in those provinces.  

Edited July 30, 2025 by TreeBeard

[WestCanMan]

Honestly, not a bad concept for a thread, but does anyone listen to PEI anyways? 

Who's their premier? 

Can you name any of the premiers of any of the maritime provinces, past or present?

Sure, some of them might have familiar names that you'd instantly recognize, but I doubt that the avg Canadian citizen from west of Labrador can come up with two names when confronted with that question. 

The only meaningful imbalance between the maritimes and the rest of Canada, imo, stems from the fact that they have too many MP's per capita, compared to other provinces. 

[Nefarious Banana]

Acadia sounds good.  Give them more clout, and streamline the Federal Government a little bit.  Canada needs some changes which brings up the Quebec problem(child) . . . 

[LinkSoul60]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

The population of PEI is about 135,000.

The population of Nunavut is 40,758.

The population of Ontario is 14.2 million.

     Yet the Premiers of the provinces get together regularly to make vital decisions affecting Canada.

It seems ludicrous that provinces with only a very small population like PEI and Nunavut should have the same voice on this committee of provinces as the provinces like Ontario with 14.2 million and Quebec with 8.5 million people or even B.C. which has a population of 5 million.

This is contrary to the principle of democracy which is representation by population.

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

PEI, NS, Nfld, and NB should be combined into one province in the Constitution.

  Than can still keep the same names they have but should be one province.

Nunavut shouldn't even be a province.  It is completely irrational that they be a province when their population is no larger than a small city or large town with 40,758 people.  Even the city of Prince George is almost twice the size with about 75,000 people.

Vancouver Island has a much better case to be a separate province than PEI, NB, and Nfld.  The population of Vancouver Island is 865,000.  The population of N.B. is 775,610, which is less than Vancouver Island.

We really need a fair Constitutional conference that gives everyone as fair voice and vote and draw up a new Constitution redrawing provincial boundaries based on fairness and population.

Nunavut gets around the system because they are called a territory, but they are given a seat at the conference of provinces just as if they are a province.  Same with the Yukon and NWT.  They should not be able to have a separate seat in conferences of provinces.  These provinces with small populations have just as much voice and vote in these meetings as the much larger provinces.   

What is just as bad is FNs groups demanding a seat at the conference of provinces.  5% of the population want to dictate to the other 95% of Canadians how things should be run.

 

 

For whatever the reason I'm having flashbacks to the Trump's monumental win for his base of getting the Gulf of Mexico renamed to Gulf of America for their US maps....  I understand your points but can't see how/why this would ever be a real consideration. 

It's not 'ludicrous' because Provinces don't get an equal say on 'Canada' matters.  The federal government governs Canadian matters.  Provincial governments govern provincial matters.  There's overlap and shared voices with topics like immigration but not for topics like military defence (Federal) or education (Provincial).  An example is the Atlantic provinces you mention in that they'll have a strong voice in federal fisheries and oceans policies where AB, SK and MB won't have a strong voice, if at all.  Conversely for agriculture, the Atlantic provinces will have a lesser voice where AB, SK and MB will have stronger voices in federal policy.

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

PEI, NS, Nfld, and NB should be combined into one province in the Constitution. 

I'd have to think the good folks of those provinces would disagree with that.

We could put AB, SK and MB together and they'd have slightly more people combined than that of the GTA.  

 

Canada is made up of 10 provinces and 3 territories. That's what we are and there's nothing unfair about that, that I'm aware of.  People generally choose to live where industry and jobs are and by way of geographic location some provinces will likely never be very populous.  

Can you cite any specific instances where federal policy has been unfair because of an 'equal provincial voice'?

[paxamericana]

This post bores me. You’ll all be Americans soon enough. The new driver licenses and lower taxes will come in the mail. 

Edited July 31, 2025 by paxamericana

[Nefarious Banana]

8 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

This post bores me.  

Life's full of choices. Grasp this concept and choose not to read this thread.  Kinda' simple somewhat like yourself.

[TreeBeard]

9 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Can you cite any specific instances where federal policy has been unfair because of an 'equal provincial voice'?

PEI actually has a disproportionate “voice” in terms of seats.  The ridings have a population of around 38,000 people while the average population in a riding in Canada is 123,000 .

[herbie]

Whatever you do, don't consult the people who live there, Snap your fingers and order it so, because that's democracy.

 

[Aristides]

25 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

For whatever the reason I'm having flashbacks to the Trump's monumental win for his base of getting the Gulf of Mexico renamed to Gulf of America for their US maps....  I understand your points but can't see how/why this would ever be a real consideration. 

It's not 'ludicrous' because Provinces don't get an equal say on 'Canada' matters.  The federal government governs Canadian matters.  Provincial governments govern provincial matters.  There's overlap and shared voices with topics like immigration but not for topics like military defence (Federal) or education (Provincial).  An example is the Atlantic provinces you mention in that they'll have a strong voice in federal fisheries and oceans policies where AB, SK and MB won't have a strong voice, if at all.  Conversely for agriculture, the Atlantic provinces will have a lesser voice where AB, SK and MB will have stronger voices in federal policy.

I'd have to think the good folks of those provinces would disagree with that.

We could put AB, SK and MB together and they'd have slightly more people combined than that of the GTA.  

 

Canada is made up of 10 provinces and 3 territories. That's what we are and there's nothing unfair about that, that I'm aware of.  People generally choose to live where industry and jobs are and by way of geographic location some provinces will likely never be very populous.  

Can you cite any specific instances where federal policy has been unfair because of an 'equal provincial voice'?

Well the Atlantic provinces get an inordinate amount of federal spending compared to the revenues they send to Ottawa. I don't know if we can change that and don't think amalgamation should be forced on them but that doesn't mean the pros and cons shouldn't be subjects of discussion.

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Well the Atlantic provinces get an inordinate amount of federal spending compared to the revenues they send to Ottawa.

 

Shouldn't poorer provinces receive more federal funding?

 

Edited July 31, 2025 by TreeBeard

[Aristides]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Shouldn't poorer provinces receive more federal funding?

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't but maybe there is a better way of doing it. Things like this get rubbed in when Ottawa cuts Atlantic ferry fares in half while donating 300 times as much to east coast ferry systems as west coast ferry systems under the convenient claim that one is federal and the other is provincial. Don't expect these things to just smoke through with no comment or feeling of double standards.. 

[CouchPotato]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The Maritime provinces should probably be a single province simply to avoid the bureaucratic duplication.  An entire government legislature, departments and all the associated staff and overhead for 135,000 people?  The size of a small city?    

There are way more people here in the Maritimes than you think. It's just so many of them wear camo all the time and it's hard to count them.

[TreeBeard]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I'm not saying they shouldn't but maybe there is a better way of doing it. Things like this get rubbed in when Ottawa cuts Atlantic ferry fares in half while donating 300 times as much to east coast ferry systems as west coast ferry systems under the convenient claim that one is federal and the other is provincial. Don't expect these things to just smoke through with no comment or feeling of double standards.. 

you’re ignoring that it’s federal jurisdiction on the east coast , but provincial jurisdiction (and a quasi-private company) in BC. 
 

You fell for Eby’s faux-outrage. 

[blackbird]

59 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Can you cite any specific instances where federal policy has been unfair because of an 'equal provincial voice'?

I am sure we could deviate and start debating various issues and the unfairness about various decisions, but that is not the main point.  I am simply pointing out the undemocratic nature of the present system.

Another issue is the unelected senate.  Also a Supreme Court that is out of touch with the Canadians on many of their rulings.  They are not elected either and just appointed by the party in power.  It is a very erratic system because of the way it is appointed.

The main point here is how decisions are made.  To be truly democratic, decision-making has to have a numerical fairness to it.  That is why the present system is not really democratic.  

Perhaps if the country was divided up into a number of regions and each region had a number of MPs based on their population, it would make more sense.   A regional system might be more fair if the numbers between regions were nearer to each other.  For example, The western region could be made up of Manitoba, Sask., Alberta, B.C. and include the Yukon, Northwest Territory and Nunavut.  Other regions could be Ontario as one region, Quebec as one region and the rest of the Atlantic provinces as one region.  We would then have four regions with populations much larger in each region.  That would make more sense.  Instead we have Nunavut with 40,758 people given the same voice at meetings of Premiers/provinces.  It is ludicrous really.

Now that provinces and territories are holding meetings periodically to make major decisions, that should at least be done on a democratic basis.  Not one province with 135,000 people or one territory with 40, 758 people given the same voice as provinces with 8.5 million people as Quebec has or 14.2 million people as Ontario has.  It is easy to see the inequity in this.  This is not democracy at all.  The larger provinces are being short-changed.

[LinkSoul60]

29 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Well the Atlantic provinces get an inordinate amount of federal spending compared to the revenues they send to Ottawa. I don't know if we can change that and don't think amalgamation should be forced on them but that doesn't mean the pros and cons shouldn't be subjects of discussion.

Full disclosure....no idea what federal spend % is by province or inequities.  Like I said to blackbird though, I understand his points but from my perspective whether right or wrong, I don't see why we should have amalgamation because of our populations. I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Amounts of Federal assistance wouldn't change because a province's name. If it was really a thought though, the most equitable way would be 3 provinces. That wouldn't change how the government allocates spending though. Again, my 2 cents....

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Full disclosure....no idea what federal spend % is by province or inequities.  Like I said to blackbird though, I understand his points but from my perspective whether right or wrong, I don't see why we should have amalgamation because of our populations. I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Amounts of Federal assistance wouldn't change because a province's name. If it was really a thought though, the most equitable way would be 3 provinces. That wouldn't change how the government allocates spending though. Again, my 2 cents....

These are 2018 numbers but I doubt they have changed much.

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E

[LinkSoul60]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am sure we could deviate and start debating various issues and the unfairness about various decisions, but that is not the main point.  I am simply pointing out the undemocratic nature of the present system.

Another issue is the unelected senate.  Also a Supreme Court that is out of touch with the Canadians on many of their rulings.  They are not elected either and just appointed by the party in power.  It is a very erratic system because of the way it is appointed.

The main point here is how decisions are made.  To be truly democratic, decision-making has to have a numerical fairness to it.  That is why the present system is not really democratic.  

Perhaps if the country was divided up into a number of regions and each region had a number of MPs based on their population, it would make more sense.   A regional system might be more fair if the numbers between regions were nearer to each other.  For example, The western region could be made up of Manitoba, Sask., Alberta, B.C. and include the Yukon, Northwest Territory and Nunavut.  Other regions could be Ontario as one region, Quebec as one region and the rest of the Atlantic provinces as one region.  We would then have four regions with populations much larger in each region.  That would make more sense.  Instead we have Nunavut with 40,758 people given the same voice at meetings of Premiers/provinces.  It is ludicrous really.

Now that provinces and territories are holding meetings periodically to make major decisions, that should at least be done on a democratic basis.  Not one province with 135,000 people or one territory with 40, 758 people given the same voice as provinces with 8.5 million people as Quebec has or 14.2 million people as Ontario has.  It is easy to see the inequity in this.  This is not democracy at all.  The larger provinces are being short-changed.

Yeah just replied to that...  Like I said, I understand it but don't see it happening as a serious National discussion.  If there was real parity on population only we'd have 3 provinces.  West, Ontario and East.   Your data is a bit old, but still the smaller numbers....  PEI has 178k.  SK has 1.2M and MB has 1.5M. These aren't big provinces at all....but that's who were are. I don't know the government spends by province or the inequities.  On my to do list...

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yeah just replied to that...  Like I said, I understand it but don't see it happening as a serious National discussion.  If there was real parity on population only we'd have 3 provinces.  West, Ontario and East.   Your data is a bit old, but still the smaller numbers....  PEI has 178k.  SK has 1.2M and MB has 1.5M. These aren't big provinces at all....but that's who were are. I don't know the government spends by province or the inequities.  On my to do list...

You asked about inequities.  Just look at the chart on the link on Aristides link.  It shows federal government expenditures were far more, nearly double in fact, to maritime provinces compared with the rest of Canada. 

To put it another way, although all Canadians paid roughly the same average income taxes, the federal government spent nearly double per capita on the people in the maritime provinces.  That is a major inequity.  I never knew this before. 

This is a major revelation.  I don't think most Canadians even know about this.

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If there was real parity on population only we'd have 3 provinces.  West, Ontario and East.  

I don't think you would ever get Quebec to agree to be lumped in with the maritime provinces.  They have a fairly large population of about 8.5 million anyway and we have to respect their will to govern themselves in certain areas such as language and culture.  They would never give that up.  That's why we would need Ontario and Quebec to each be a separate region.

[LinkSoul60]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You asked about inequities.  Just look at the chart on the link on Aristides link.  It shows federal government expenditures were far more, nearly double in fact, to maritime provinces compared with the rest of Canada. 

To put it another way, although all Canadians paid roughly the same average income taxes, the federal government spent nearly double per capita on the people in the maritime provinces.  That is a major inequity.  I never knew this before. 

This is a major revelation.  I don't think most Canadians even know about this.

Just looking at...  I can see the variations....why is what I'm looking for.  I think I recall reading in another thread about marine assistance for PEI and NS because is it's in the constitution...?? 

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Like I said, I understand it but don't see it happening as a serious National discussion.

I think it is a possible national issue.  Alberta is planning to have a referendum.  Quebec already held two referendums on separation.  Many provinces are not happy with the present situation.

I think immigration should fall under the power of each region to govern themselves.  The federal government has made a mess of it.

[LinkSoul60]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't think you would ever get Quebec to agree to be lumped in with the maritime provinces.  They have a fairly large population of about 8.5 million anyway and we have to respect their will to govern themselves in certain areas such as language and culture.  They would never give that up.  That's why we would need Ontario and Quebec to each be a separate region.

Know it well.... Quebec is Quebec.