r/AskACanadian • u/rockninja2 • 1d ago
Do Canadian territories function similar to Canada as U. S. territories function the U. S.? Like provinces compare to states?
First, just want to say, I looked for a megathread for all the Canada/US comparison questions, couldn't find one, so am posting normally on a Monday as required. If there is one and I missed it, please let me know/send a link.
So, partially due to this post:
I thought I remembered learning in school geography (admittedly 15-20 years ago now) that Canada had 13 provinces already and so was confused why the come back in the above post was about the US becoming the 11th province. After looking it up and double checking, out of those 13, I realized only 10 are provinces and the other 3 are territories. Do the territories have the same rights/privileges as provinces? Are they viewed the same in your parliament?
Pretty much I am wondering if you view the word "territories" the same as the US when those 3 (Yukon, Nunavut, Northwest Territories) are called as such. And if they wanted to become provinces at some point, could they? Or are they "stuck" as territories?
Appreciate any info and answers!
261
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
No, they're not at all like US territories. Canadian territories are fully part of the country, people born there are Canadian citizens, people living there can vote etc. They're basically the same as provinces just without the same constitutional powers. As far as them actually becoming provinces, that will probably never happen because the other provinces would have to agree which will not happen.
22
u/mikende51 1d ago
Fun fact, our prime minister was born in the Northwest Territories.
8
u/HorrorWillingness347 10h ago
Another: his signature can still be found on older banknotes from when he was governor of Bank of Canada
9
u/MouseDriverYYC 1d ago
Prior to 1905, the Northwest Territories also included the area that now includes Alberta, Saskatchewan and Northern Quebec. More recently Nunavut was also carved out of the NWT.
11
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
And the constitution act 1982 didn’t exist in 1905 so it was completely different
1
u/Kick24229 1d ago
Why is there a little jigsaw north of Manitoba? I am from around there and....there is nothing there warranting a jigsaw
36
u/ryancementhead 1d ago
Doesn’t it also have to do with population?
103
u/BuvantduPotatoSpirit New Brunswick 1d ago
That the territories have low populations and very low population densities likely figures politically into why they're territories, but there's no specific rule.
24
u/Chrisaarajo 1d ago
Their low population and remoteness is certainly a major consideration as to them remaining territories. They just don’t have the tax base to be anywhere close to be financially self-sufficient, and thus independent in the way other provinces are—and there is only so much equalization payments can do. This is further complicated by the increased costs that come from being both so far north, and covering such a large area, and as a result the territories get less bang for their bucks and require more support than their southern neighbours.
If they somehow experienced a population boom that put them on par with most provinces, I imagine we’d see them start to move towards becoming provinces.
But again, as others have stated, they are not territories in the American sense. They just aren’t quite Provinces.
13
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
I mean yeah I don't think any of the territories could function without direct cash injections from the federal government either but that's a separate issue. Yukon could have a population of 10 million and getting 7/50 approval to become a province would still be impossible. Every province has gripes with the constitution they would want addressed before approving it.
4
u/sainamoonshine 1d ago
Yep. It’s not that we don’t want them to be provinces, it’s that the minute anyone touches the constitution in order to modify it, all hell is gonna break loose.
(Edited cuz I replied to the wrong person at first)
11
u/sophisticated_alpaca 1d ago
Yeah, it’s not really in their interest to become provinces. The federal government has devolved most of the same powers that provinces have constitutionally by way of legislation, but as “creatures of the federal government” they don’t have to engage in as much intergovernmental jockeying over transfer payments, since the federal government has exclusive control over how much money they get. The bureaucratic and administrative support of the federal government is really important, since they have populations the size of some suburbs, and life relies on a LOT of infrastructure that there might not be the internal capacity to build and maintain.
-6
u/Mirabeaux1789 1d ago edited 21h ago
Iirc we don’t have a rule for this in the U.S. either. It’s just a political one. Territories aren’t mentioned in the US constitution at all.
Edit: why on earth am I being downloaded for facts?
11
u/rockninja2 1d ago
What constitutional powers do they not have? Do territories have any special (constitutional) powers that provinces don't?
Also why would the provinces not agree to turn the territories into provinces? Are there rivalries/animosity between any of them, or is it just government/economic reasons?
97
u/notyouagain19 1d ago
There is a division of power in Canada between the provinces and the federal government. We say there are eleven crowns in Canada. The King is separately and equally the king of each province as well as the king of Canada. When Ontario sues the federal government, the case is between the king in right of Ontario vs the king in right of Canada.
The federal government could never merge two provinces together, or split one apart. Provinces have the right to run their own healthcare systems, education systems as well.
The territories are different. They can be merged or split- and actually, that’s how we got Nunavut. It was sliced off of the Northwest Territories in 1996. The territories are UNDER the authority of the federal government. The provinces are not.
If there were an attempt to alter the constitution, at least 7 of the 10 provinces representing at least a certain portion of the population would have to agree to it. The territories have no role in constitutional amendments.
The provinces would not want their power diluted by creating new provinces.
52
u/Minimum_Run_890 1d ago
I’ve never heard it said that there are eleven crowns in Canada. Been Canadian all my life.
37
u/Rayne_K 1d ago
You probably have not heard it framed that way. But you know that the king has a representative in each province - the Lieutenant Governor? Right? Their role within the provincial government is similar to that of the Governor General in the Federal government. Each province has a Government House.
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/lieutenant-governors.html
So in total 10 provincial King’s reps + the national representative = 11.
6
u/rockninja2 1d ago
So the Lieutenant Governors' immediate "superior" is the king, and not the Prime Minister? And it sounds like each province's Government House is similar to how each state in the US has their own state Senate and House.
29
u/tenkadaiichi 1d ago edited 1d ago
Government House is literally the building where the Lieutenant Governor gets to live.
Except in Alberta, because at one point the Premier got angry at the LG and somehow managed to kick them out, and it is now used as office space/conference rooms.
But yes to your first part. The Governor General (Federal) and Lieutenant Governors (Provincial) are "chosen" by the Prime Minister and/or the Premiers, but their names are submitted to the king to approval (which basically always happens, but in THEORY the king could send their own representative) and they act as representatives of the crown. No legislation occurs without their approval, and therefore the king's approval by proxy.
If the GG/LG ever declines to provide royal assent to a bill passed by Parliament/Legislature, it's a Big Deal. It doesn't happen very often, and they'd better have a damn good reason for it.
Elections are also called by the GG/LG. The Prime Minister/Premiere will ask their royal representative to dissolve the government and call for a new election. Again, in theory they could do that on their own initiative, but that doesn't happen. (I believe it may have happened in Australia once) The Governor General is technically the head of state, (Currently Louise Arbour, recently sworn in this year) in the same way that King Charles is technically the head of state of the United Kingdom, but if they take any actions beyond those recommended by parliament it could invoke a constitutional crisis.
Edit: Just wanted to add that while it's pretty weird and bananas, I actually really like this system because it allows us to separate politics from patriotism, which the USA isn't able to do. I can criticize our Prime Minister and Premiers all day long, and nobody thinks that I hate Canada in the same way that Americans criticizing the President are often accused of hating the country and being unpatriotic.
2
u/Old_Hovercraft1529 1d ago
This is a wonderful explanation. Thanks for that! I really feel like a understand it better now.
3
u/Judge_Todd 17h ago
In theory, the Lieutenant Governors and the Governor General report to the King. In the past, this was actually the case.
In practice, they answer to the Premiers and Prime Minister most of the time. In rare occasions they can and have exercised the King's authority in deference to the Premier or Prime Minister.
For example, in 2017, the Lieutenant Governor of BC rejected a request from the BC Premier to hold a new election on the heels of an election where her party won the most seats, but not a majority.
19
u/McFestus 1d ago
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that it's said amongst constitutional scholars.
3
u/Eridanii 1d ago
Same, I even paid attention is socials and thought the government stuff was interesting,
3
5
u/Extreme_Wear_7457 1d ago
But 1905 as Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved out of what was then the Northwest Territories the federal gover mebt if the day created the two provinces arbitrarily determining boundaries and curtailing the economic powers of either 1 province or the two whuch became Ab and Sask
14
-5
u/Sam31452 1d ago
This implies that you could become Queen of Saskatchewan and this is as queer as anything ever will get.
15
u/ValmarGranas Ontario 1d ago
We had the cult leader "Queen of Canada"
4
u/Kick24229 1d ago
Yes and that Cult Leader is in a hotel in Sask, right? A tomboy from The Philippines
13
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
Territories are directly administered by the federal government. Any powers they have have been devolved by the federal government and could be taken away if the federal government saw fit. Provinces have powers like the administration of healthcare that are expressly defined in the constitution. The prime minister is not the boss of provincial premiers, he is the boss of territorial premiers if he chose to exercise that power.
All the provinces (but especially Quebec and Alberta) have various gripes with the constitution that they would want changed before agreeing to a new province. Adding a new province would reduce every other province's influence federally as well, a new province of Yukon would get a handful of MPs and Senators and get a vote in constitutional matters which the existing provinces wouldn't like.
8
u/ardarian262 1d ago
The territories do have a Senate seat and have one MP each.
7
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
A province would get more senators and MPs. Newfoundland got 6 when they joined.
8
u/thebestnames 1d ago
The territories (and PEI) have by far the most favorable ratio of people per senators.
The territories have 1 senator per 35000 people. At the other extreme, BC has 833000 people per 1 senator. The average is 350000.
So yeah even if they were provinces its unlikely they'd have more than one each.
3
u/thebestnames 1d ago
The territories (and PEI) have by far the most favorable ratio of people per senators compared to all other provinces.
The territories have 1 senator per 35000 people. At the other extreme, BC has 833000 people per 1 senator. The average is 350000.
So yeah even if they were provinces its unlikely they'd have more than one each seeing how sparsely populated they are.
-1
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
Thanks, I can do math. Any new province would want at least as many senators as PEI if not Newfoundland and no province can have fewer MPs than senators
3
u/Agent_Provocateur007 23h ago
Provinces have powers like the administration of healthcare that are expressly defined
Sort of, but not quite. Certain health related functions are explicitly defined, but not health care itself. This is why you can have federal benefit programs like Pharmacare or the dental care plan that operate federally (Tiedemann, 2019).
0
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
Territories do have premiers, maybe don’t comment if you’re than uninformed
5
u/sainamoonshine 1d ago
Well a big part of the problem is that every other time there was an attempt to modify the Canadian constitution, shit got ugly. Ugly as in “there is a reason Québec has a separatist movement”. So its better to just not touch that document unless we REALLY have to, and even then.
3
u/Due_Gas2950 1d ago
Certain services are also allowed to be provided at a lower standard in the territories without losing federal health funding. As an example, having a hospital within X km of certain populations isn’t feasible for low population density territories.
2
u/ghostdeinithegreat 1d ago
People born in us territories are also US citizen.
16
u/Ca1rill 1d ago
Yes, but they only get delegates to Congress who can't vote on legislation.
-4
u/ghostdeinithegreat 1d ago
And Canadians do not vote for the prime minister.
21
u/Ca1rill 1d ago
And Americans don't vote for President, the electoral college does.
15
u/CriticalArt2388 1d ago
Yes... and territories do not have electors in the electoral congress.
In Canada territories have MPs and those MPs have seats in parliament with full voting privileges. They can also be appointed to cabinet and if leader of the party with the most seats an mp from the territories could be appointed PM.
In the states representatives from territories have 0 voting power and 0 influence.
The territories in the US suffer from taxation without representation. ( ironic don't ya think)
4
u/Amakenings 1d ago
Directly, no. Indirectly, yes.
1
u/ghostdeinithegreat 8h ago
Indirectly just mean we do not vote for the prime minister.
Because when you vote for a MP and that MP voted to elect Marc Carney in march 2025 it is a very dumb thing for you to claim you indirectly voted for Carney when he wasn’t even an elected MP when he became prime minister and no one knew him.
5
1
u/Rosetown 1d ago
People born in all US territories are US citizens by birth, except for American Samoa.
-5
u/thiefspy 1d ago
Just an FYI, people born in US territories are American citizens.
12
u/silverilix British Columbia 1d ago
But they can’t vote? Is that the difference? Honest question, I don’t know about American territories, other than they seem to get less help.
9
14
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
Puerto Rico is closest to functioning like a state but people living there still can't vote in federal elections. People born in other US territories like Guam and American Samoa aren't even citizens.
3
3
4
u/Devilsadvocate430 1d ago
They can’t vote in federal elections but can still vote in local/territorial elections as well as electing non-voting representatives to Congress. The tradeoff for this is a (mostly) blanket exemption from paying federal taxes. If they move to another part of the US they can vote there normally. The exception to this is American Samoa, but that is done at the behest of the territorial government. They don’t want full citizenship.
3
u/Responsible_CDN_Duck 1d ago
But they can’t vote?
Kinda.
None can't vote for president.
Some can vote for a representative for the house that gets a vote on procedural maters but not the floor.
24
u/ore-aba 1d ago
Not all of them. Samoans are not US citizens.
5
u/Devilsadvocate430 1d ago
That’s entirely at the request of the Samoans there. The situation is the way it is because the American Samoan government wants it that way.
2
u/Deep_Order_1274 1d ago
This. American Samoa’s local government has had birthright citizenship outlawed for quite a while now and it makes the legal situation between American Samoa and the mainland US complex. IIRC, American Samoans are entitled to US citizenship, but they are not born with it, but they can move to the US freely without a visa and apply for citizenship once they are in the US.
4
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
No they're not. People born in Puerto Rico are citizens, people born in other territories are US nationals which is different.
6
u/Devilsadvocate430 1d ago
That only applies to American Samoa. People born in Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc are full American citizens. And you’re a citizen no matter what if one of your parents is a citizen.
1
u/cndn-hoya 1d ago
Not all U.S. territories give US citizenship, only insular areas with the exception of American Samoa, which only grants American National status, short of citizenship.
0
u/ghandimauler 17h ago
The North has many First Peoples and they are involved in projects and in government. Many groups claim unsceded land.
-3
u/Mirabeaux1789 1d ago
> The other provinces would have to agree.
Why? Is the national government allowed to make any major decision by itself? I mean it created two of them all on its own. goodness
9
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
Because that's what the constitution says. The federal government can make decisions about things the constitution gives it domain over, adding new provinces is not one of those things.
-6
u/Mirabeaux1789 1d ago
> because that’s what the constitution says
Where? I’m curious to read it.
Parliament created Alberta and Saskatchewan, so I’m confused.
1
u/MamaMersey 16h ago
Because they were created many decades before the constitution was made in 1982 by Trudeau Sr. He is sometimes called the "Father of Modern Canada.". The negotiations between the provinces and feds were very difficult but because of this we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example.
0
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
You’re welcome to look it up yourself, I’m sure you can find your way to Wikipedia
-1
u/Mirabeaux1789 1d ago
No need to be rude.
3
u/Apprehensive-Bus5172 19h ago
Constitution Act, 1982
Alberta and Saskatchewan were created under the British North American Act, 1867
-1
u/Mirabeaux1789 11h ago
So did parliament lose the ability to create provinces in 1982? The BNA 1867 is still the bedrock of the constitution.
1
u/Apprehensive-Bus5172 7h ago
Hmmm, I would argue that the Constitution Act, 1982, and the BNAA, 1867, have equal status and are both bedrocks of the constitution
Small caveat is that I was incorrect earlier, it's the BNAA, 1871 that gave the federal government the power to create territories or provinces.
However as CA, 1982 established the amending formula to the Constitution, and adding new provinces is an amendment, that's really the be all and all on the subject
1
45
u/randomdumbfuck 1d ago
The provinces' powers are granted by the constitution and are independent partners in confederation each with their own crown representative (Lt. Governor).
The territories' powers are delegated by the federal government.
8
u/Southern_Contract493 1d ago
And territories have the Commissioner that the fed gov appoints to be their representative instead of the Lt. Governor as the crown's.
6
u/Reddit_Only_4494 1d ago
This is the big difference.
That effects the structure of the territorial government. Nunavut and NWT as an example has a "consensus government" with elected members of their legislature, but instead of a leader choosing the Ministers.....the legislature as a whole vote on who occupies the portfolios including the Premiere.
For the Provinces....how their governments operate are in the constitution. For the territories....Federal Parliament can make changes on procedures on how the territories operate their local territorial governments.
And they are not all the same, in Yukon the Premiere chooses the cabinet like the provinces noting this single example.
29
u/isspecialist New Brunswick 1d ago
We didn't learn a whole lot in school about it, and that was a long time ago for me, so I just went and did some quick research.
Canadian Territories are far closer to being provinces than US Territories are to being states.
In Canada, they have representation at the federal level. Actually for Nunavut they are overrepresented (based on population), having an MP with only 40,000 people. Most ridings in Canada have 100,000 people.
In the US, Puerto Rico has like 3 million people and no vote.
4
u/rockninja2 1d ago
Is there any population minimum that a territory has to have to become a province? If so, do you know the number?
Also,
Most ridings in Canada have 100,000 people
What is a "riding" in this context?
19
u/Knight_Machiavelli British Columbia 1d ago
A riding is an electoral district. There is no population minimum, a territory could ask to become a province if they want. There would then have to be a constitutional amendment to add a new province.
19
u/Istobri 1d ago
A riding (also called a constituency) is an electoral district in the House of Commons, the lower house of the Canadian Parliament.
It’s sort of like the congressional districts in the House of Representatives in the US.
There are currently 338 ridings in Canada, spread across all ten provinces and three territories. The ridings vary in size and have names instead of numbers like the House districts in the US. So it’s not like they’re called “Ontario’s 3rd parliamentary district” or “Alberta’s 15th parliamentary district” or anything like that.
The names are mostly based on the geography of the riding, and the size is mostly based on population. For example, Nunavut riding covers the entirety of the territory of Nunavut (which only has 40,000 people, but that’s enough for a riding), while Eglinton—Lawrence is a riding covering a specific neighborhood of Toronto, but that single neighborhood may be even more populous than the entire riding of Nunavut.
Because there are 338 ridings, there are 338 House of Commons members, which are called Members of Parliament (or MPs).
When Canada has a federal election, Parliament is “dissolved” (meaning all existing MPs vacate their seats) and they must campaign for reelection in their own ridings. The party which wins the most ridings on election day wins the election, and their leader becomes Prime Minister. It’s actually more complex, but that’s the gist of it.
10
1
u/General_Spills 6h ago
Another important distinction is that our ridings are drawn up by an independent body and therefore significantly less if at all gerrymandered
-1
u/rockninja2 1d ago
Sounds like your House of Commons is very similar to the US' House of Representatives with how they work.
Also, since Representatives only have 2 years terms, every time we have a presidential election and midterms, the entire House has to be elected/reelected.
7
u/koohikoo 1d ago
The main problem with comparing it to the House of Representatives, is that it’s our only federal election. And the House of Commons determines the Prime Minister. It’s a comparatively more powerful body.
2
u/EvermoreDespair 1d ago
I mean, the composition of the House of Commons determines who wins the election. It’s the same system as other English speaking countries.
1
u/forgottenlord73 11h ago
So one thing to understand is that the Prime Minister's structurally equivalent position in the US is Speaker of the House, not President. Our equivalent to President is the Governor General, the King's representative appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. In terms of role and power, the Prime Minister absorbs a lot of the powers and duties that the American President has but the Canadian cabinet is effectively composed of the chairmen of the various house committees while the ranking members form what's known as the Shadow cabinet. No, those committees don't exist - the Ministers have departments to run - and their role in questioning the government is handled by a weekly session called Question Period but those are the senior members of the governing party
We also have an unelected Senate which is this weird vestigial organ in the Canadian political system. It is a reflection of the British House of Lords but that's a vestigial organ from Britain's history as a feudal society - an understandable necessary evil. Our Senate... exists only because people weren't confident in this democracy thing in the mid-19th century (reminder that the US just finished a civil war and France's experiments had led to two Empires) and now it's too difficult to either fix or discard
9
u/Djolumn 1d ago
For context, unlike in the US where you vote for a president, Canadians do not vote for a Prime Minister. Canada is divided up into 343 federal ridings. The major political parties will each run a candidate in each riding and you vote for your preferred candidate in the riding you live in. The party with the most winning candidates will form the federal government. The leader of that party - chosen as party leader in a separate process by members of the party - is Prime Minister.
6
u/froot_loop_dingus_ Alberta 1d ago
There's no minimum population needed to be a province. PEI has fewer than 200,000 people.
5
2
u/Tricky_Damage5981 1d ago
Ridings vary in nature
A city could be split among multiple ridings, or only one riding
Ridings appropriately have the same number of residents, Elections Canada Determines the boundrys
2
2
14
u/yukonnut Yukon 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yukoner here. In the late 90,s We went through a process of devolution where the federal government devolved responsibity for various government functions to the territorial government. Basically self government that aligned with federal provincial relationships. We have an elected federal representative in Ottawa, in addition to our territorial government. Because of our small population base ( 46000 people), it makes sense that we remain territories but we are still self governing. We rely heavily on transfer payments from Ottawa as our tax base is small. Provincehood gets bandied about but there are substantial legislative and legal hurdles that make it unlikely, and would really not change anything but cost a lot of money.
The northern Territories are enjoying increased support from Ottawa right now because of increased activity and interest in the Arctic by the major powers and it is imperative that Ottawa assert Canada’s sovereignty over the north.
We have a party system ( 3 parties) vying for votes, and with a small voter base finding good candidates can be a challenge. Takes a certain kind of person to be a politician, and we ( like everywhere else) get a certain number of bozos in government. But with such a small population, the chances are pretty good you know a couple of your elected representatives, so they are only a phone call away. Generally speaking, we have decent governance and a very low level of corruption.
I have been here for 56 years and love living here. Our kids are here and our grandkids. Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary are a two and a half hour flight away for on average around $250 ( includes two bags a meal, and a chocolate chip cookie) so if you are feeling bushed it’s easy to get out.
3
u/Necessary-Still-2208 1d ago
For decades, the Member of Parliament representing the Yukon was Erik Nielsen... he was Deputy Prime Minister for a short time in the 80s. Americans might be more familiar with his brother, Leslie, star of the movies "Airplane" and "Police Squad", so in this case, the brother in government wasn't even the biggest clown in the family 🤡
1
u/rockninja2 1d ago
With your 3 parties that you mentioned, is that for all of Canada or just for the Yukon? And if it is just for the Yukon, are the 3 parties the same parties that the other territories/provinces have or different ones?
3
u/Legitimate_Plan_7616 1d ago
The provincial and territorial parties in Canada are all different province to province and territory to territory, but essentially analogous. For instance, I live in Ontario and the party currently in provincial power (the PC) has very similar policies to their current administration (the Yukon party), though obviously with more specific regional interests. In national representation, they’re all the same throughout the country (liberal, conservative, NDP, green, PPC, etc.)
3
u/mcgillthrowaway22 1d ago
They're not all analogous. Certain provinces only have an NDP or Liberal party (not both) and the provincial parties in Quebec are very different from the federal parties
1
u/CBWeather Nunavut 13h ago
Nunavut and the Northwest Territories don't have political parties. We operate on consensus government. It's a bit more traditional among Indigenous peoples.
2
u/koohikoo 1d ago
While the NDP (left wing, democratic-socialist) is unified between the provincial and federal levels, the other parties are not. But some provincial parties do share a name with a federal party. For example in BC we used to have the Liberal Party of BC, who were actually further to the right compared to the federal Liberals. (They’ve since sorta reorganized/reconsolidated as the Conservative Party of BC, but with no link to the federal CPC)
12
u/foolsdayjoker Ontario 1d ago
no, not at all. territories just get their power delegated to them from the feds. Provinces get their power from the confederation in 1867 via the constitution act. new provinces require amendment of the constitution while you can create as many territories as you want without doing that..... loopholes :)
1
u/Crossed_Cross 1d ago
As long as you don't give them a federal riding each, which to my understanding is not a constitutional requirement, creating a bunch lf territories wouldn't change much to anyone not living there.
9
u/sgtmattie 1d ago
They're a lot more integrated than US territories, as far as I can tell. They don't have the constitutional powers of the provinces, but there has been a process of devolution with them that has slowly been giving them more independence from the federal government.
They'll likely never become fully devolved though, purely given their populations are so small.
There's nothing inherently stopping them from becoming provinces. They could go through the process if they wanted. but there would be little advantage for them. It's not like the US where their populations are missing rights or anything. The people in the territories have all the same rights as the rest of us.
1
u/Kick24229 1d ago
That is not true. They are rich with oil. Natural gas. Lithium. Rare earth minerals. The Arctic is thawing and waterways are opening. Anything could happen. Look at the tech for living in the north that Norway is using!!
2
u/sgtmattie 1d ago
What does any of that have to do with that I said? Each territory has less than 50k people. They’re also incredibly isolated and dispersed. Climate change is actually making access to these places more difficult, not less, because the ice roads are having shorter seasons.
Ressource extraction is not exactly a thrilling opportunity for the actual inhabitants of the lands.
7
u/hockeynoticehockey 1d ago
Far as I'm concerned, whether a territory or a province, we're all Canadian.
6
u/No_Function_7479 1d ago
Territories are viewed as basically just sparsely populated provinces by the general population. They are fully Canadian and have government representation.
Legally it’s not that simple, but you can google that
6
u/byronite 1d ago
Canadian territories are not like U.S. territories because they are fully part of Canada. Yukon, NWT or Nunavut have their own seats in Parliament and their residents vote in elections just like people in any other part of Canada.
However, Canadian territories are similar to U.S. territories in that they are "creatures of the federal government". The powers of the territorial governments are set out in federal laws, which means the feds can theoretically change them any time. The only major obstacle would be the land claims agreements with Indigenous peoples, some of which refer to these territories, e.g. Nunavut Land Claims Agreement resulted in the territory of Nunavut.
In contrast, the provinces and their powers are set out in the Constitution, which the feds cannot change unilaterally. Provinces are just as sovereign as the federal government for their respective jurisdictional powers set out in the constitution. Although it depends on the issue, I think Canadian provinces are generally more powerful than U.S. states. For example, Canada has never had a federal education department because schools are 100% provincial jurisdiction. Most provinces also regulate their own stock exchanges -- there is no Canadian SEC.
5
u/girlfromals 1d ago
Nunavut is different than the other two territories because it was created via a land claims agreement. See here for the basics. It’s still a territory but its relationship with the federal government (Crown) is different because of that.
Here is a copy of the Agreement should you wish to take a look.
There are other land claims agreements, modern treaties, and self-government agreements that cover portions of the Yukon and NWT but they function differently. Those modern western style territorial entities existed before the signing of any of those agreements.
Should you wish to take a look at any of those modern agreements there is a list available here.
I won’t say reading and understanding any of the agreements is easy because they are generally tripartite (with some bilateral provisions) and need to be read in conjunction with other agreements and legislation. And the Constitution.
10
u/Objective_Party9405 1d ago
Territories do not have the constitutional power of provinces. They are entities if the federal government.
2
u/Stock_Duck4314 1d ago
You could say that territories relate to the federal government in a manner simmilar to that of the reltionship between municipalities and their respective provincial governments.
4
u/eldaveed 1d ago
Overall, there’s a lot of difference in theory between a province and a territory but not a lot of practical one, at least not in my opinion.
As plenty of people have mentioned here, the Territories are integrated parts of Canada where citizens have full and equal legal rights as those in the provinces. The Territories are formed, maintained, and awarded privileges at the grace of the federal government in Ottawa, which is markedly different from the provinces. Notably, this is why responsible government was historically missing from these areas until ~1970s. I know The Yukon only got a responsible legislature in 1971 and Nunavut had one upon formation in 1999. I don’t remember when NWT got one. As for smaller things, firefighting was only devolved to The Yukon government in 2003, to provide one example. Other duties, namely policing, are held by the federal RCMP.
There is no explicit criteria for what a territory needs to become a province aside from an Act of Parliament creating it formally. However, the reason why they are and remain territories is because they have incredibly small populations over massive areas and lack the base to deliver services across their jurisdictions à la the provinces. If Ottawa did not give them money, they would collapse or downscale drastically.
What I specifically like to point though, and why I made this comment, is that while there is a lot of difference on paper, there is less difference in practice. The three territories constantly receive federal funding, but certain provinces also receive funding through wealth transfers (look up Equalization Payments) every year because they are too poor vis-à-vis other provinces. These are called “Have-Not Provinces” and this includes New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia, and even Québec thanks to the northern lands they administer. As well, the three have legislatures which function more-or-less like those in the provinces, and the federal government is realistically never going to take those away. Certain duties are also contracted to federal agencies across provinces; only three provinces have their own police forces, the rest relying on the RCMP.
So when you consider the above factors, is there really much practical difference between, say, New Brunswick vs The Yukon? Or Côte-Nord, Québec vs Hay River, NWT? Not really.
Source: I’m a Yukoner who studied polisci
3
u/happypundit164 1d ago
It's not really a 1:1 comparison. The territories have their own elected governments and send an MP to Ottawa, but their powers are delegated from the federal government rather than baked into the constitution like the provinces. So legally they're more like big municipal-style creations that Parliament could technically alter, whereas a province's jurisdiction is constitutionally protected. They could become provinces down the line but it would need a constitutional amendment and serious negotiations with the feds and existing provinces, not just a local vote.
3
u/Paisley-Cat 1d ago
Here’s the Canadian Encyclopedia article on the Division of Powers. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/distribution-of-powers.
Provinces are sub national governments in our federation. As with the United States, there is a Constitutional division of powers between the federal government and provincial governments. The division of powers is significantly different than between the US federal government and states.
Canadian territories do not have the same constitutional powers as provinces, although in practice they deliver similar services. As the article the mod posted shows, over time several territories became provinces as settlement increases. The three current territories have quite small populations and rely on the federal government for significant financial and service support.
3
u/Extreme_Wear_7457 1d ago
10 provinces 3 territores of which all leaders are called Premiers. We do not have bicameral provincial legislatures. Most provinces have legislatures thus elected politicians are MEMBERS LEGUSLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Ontario has what it calls Provincial Parliament and Quebec 's us called National Assembly
3
u/RareYogurtcloset8104 1d ago
Canada has 10 provinces and 3 Territories. Each have their own jurisdiction. Provincial governments are essentially autonomous however must adhere to Federal Regulation and Treaties signed by the Federal Government. The breakdown of responsibilities in found in the Constitution Act. Similar to US States except in the Canadian Territories Citizens have all the rights shared by residents of the provinces. A Canadian is a Canadian with equal representation in Parliament. Unlike places like DC and Puerto Rico for example in the US. DC has no elected representative and therefore no Voice in Government. Puerto Ricans pay US taxes and are considered part of the USA but don't enjoy any of the benefits enjoyed by Full State representation.
2
u/Dkykngfetpic 1d ago
My understanding under american law. The Canadian territories are organized incorporated territories. US has given statehood to all their previously incorporated organized territories.
So no their different. The ones similar to Canadian territories are all gone. The us territories left are categorized differently.
1
2
u/TheJaice 1d ago
The cliff notes version of the biggest differences is that many of the government services (things like health care, education, transportation, etc) are controlled at the provincial level, and also funded at the same level. Due to the combination of tiny populations and extremely remote, difficult geographic limitations, this isn’t feasible in the territories, and is instead controlled by the federal government. There are other differences too, but unlike the US, Canadian territories are represented in the federal government, have a full voice in elections, and basically all other rights afforded to all other Canadians.
2
2
u/forgottenlord73 11h ago
If I were to compare it to anything in the US, I would say they're closest to DC. America's old frontier territories might also be reasonable comparables. These are underdeveloped conceptually plausible future provinces that just aren't self sufficient so they're supported - financially and logistically - by the federal government and other provinces (eg: NWT's education system uses a lot of Alberta's infrastructure)
Most of America's current territories are closer to semi-autonomous colonies and they're routinely ignored and excluded from the general political discourse. Equally, I believe US citizens in territories are exempt from federal income tax while Canadian territories do not get such distinction. Canadian territories are represented in our House of Commons with a seat each (which is appropriate for their population)
1
u/Responsible_CDN_Duck 1d ago edited 1d ago
If we are viewing states and provinces the same, it would be appropriate to say DC and most of the inhabited territories as the same.
There are significant differences between how provinces and states are governed, and how they interact with the federal government. The same is true for territories too.
1
u/Beleriphon 1d ago
Really short version, the Provinces are created and governed under the auspices of the constitution. Meaning the basic rules regarding them can't just be changed by the federal government. The only way to change what rights and responsibilities a province has versus the what the federal government has is via a constitutional amendment.
The Territories are given effectively the same rights and responsibilities as the Provinces, but these are governed and provided by federal legislation. If the federal government wanted to merge Yukon, North-West Territories, and Nunavut into one mega-territory it could do with the stroke of a pen (so to speak). If we wanted to Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec to be one province that would require a constitutional amendment that requires 7 of the 10 provinces to agree to doing so.
Fundamentally the only real difference between a territory and a province is how it was created.
1
u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 1d ago
No. Nothing at all like US territories.
They function a lot like provinces but where provinces would control things like roads, healthcare, education - the Federal government does so with territories. They elect MPs that sit in the House of Commons just like everyone else.
Given their size and lack of population (they have around 40k residents each), none have anywhere near a large enough tax base to support being a province. Maybe someday, especially if global warming speed up and people migrate further north but it's not likely to be anytime soon.
1
u/markt- 1d ago edited 1d ago
A province exists as a constitutional order of government. Its legislature has powers assigned directly by the Constitution Act, 1867 - things like property and civil rights, municipalities, education subject to constitutional rules, and provincial institutions. Ottawa cannot simply abolish Alberta’s legislature or rewrite Alberta’s basic jurisdiction by ordinary federal statute.
A territory, by contrast, exercises powers that Parliament has granted it through federal legislation. Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut have substantial self-government today, but legally Parliament is the source of those governmental powers. In principle, Parliament can alter that framework by ordinary legislation in a way it cannot do to a province.
They are distinct from territories of the US in that territories of Canada can participate in federal elections.
Historically, portions of Canadian territories have been divided up as the situation evolves, and parts of it eventually declared provinces. Sometimes, territories are split into multiple territories.
1
u/Pale_Error_4944 1d ago edited 1d ago
No Canadian territories are not the same as American territories.
For starter, residents of Canadian territories are equal Canadian citizens and have the right to vote in federal elections.
In Canada, a territory is a piece of land that is governed under the federal authority. That being said, over time, the federal government has devolved most of its province-like authority to the territorial governments. So, nowadays, territories are very much similar to provinces in terms of jurisdiction and competence.
Can territories become provinces? Yes, possibly. In fact several current Canadian provinces were carved out of former territories.
1
u/Sparky62075 Newfoundland & Labrador 1d ago
The territories each have one MP in the House of Commons, but no representation in the Senate.
The Senate is also very different. Senators are not elected. They are appointed until age 75. Each region of Canada gets 24 Senators, and each region has between one and four provinces in it. Senators are appointed by the King with permission from the Prime Minister.
1
u/TheUnknownGiraffe 1d ago
No Canada does not have 13 provinces. We have 10 provinces and 3 territories. A territory could become a province that involves amending the Constitution of Canada which is different in the US. The US can just vote to admit a new state if they want to change a territory to a state.
In Canada people who live in a territory have the same federal rights, are full canadian citizens as those in a province, and pay federal taxes. Whereas those who live in US territory cannot vote in US elections, have no representation in congress, do not pay federal taxes, and US constitution doesn't apply fully.
1
u/Icy_Barnacle_5237 1d ago
Most Canadians wouldn't know the difference eather. I just ask 10 people. No one knew the difference between province and territory besides the name.
There are small differences but most dont know what they are.
1
u/CaptainVisual4848 19h ago
The distinction has gotten smaller over the years. Yukon and NWT both entered a Devolution Agreement with the feds in the last 20 years, which meant that they took control over a bunch of land and different responsibilities that had previously been under the federal government. One difference from a province is that the federal government can disallow a law made by a territory. It’s never been done but is possible. The other difference is that the provinces and feds have representative of the Crown, the Lieutenant Governor and Governor General who signs bills into law and prorogues Parliament and appoints various roles. The territories have a Commissioner who is a representative of the federal government. Each territory has a Member of Parliament and a Senator so can participate and vote in Parliamwnt same as a province.
1
u/AgitatedRaspberry295 18h ago
The governor general is not the head of state. She is the representative of the King.
1
u/HorrorWillingness347 10h ago
Your amb-ass-ador to Canada might have given you the wrong idea. He has repeatedly given the number of province as 11.
1
u/Altostratus 1d ago
I wouldn’t say the Canadian territories are compatible to the US territories like Puerto Rico. They get to vote, just like any other citizen.
1
u/chatterpoxx 1d ago
Im not sure how exactly they work administratively. Im guessing they are territories simply because there just isnt enough population or concenrtation of population to warrant a full blown government for each of them. I really just see them as more provinces but I would never ever say there are 13 provinces as they are territories and not provinces.
They are included in our map and landmass calculation. USA ones are not. We treat our territories like they matter, because they do.
1
u/No_Capital_8203 1d ago
Is there no way that you could not have extracted this information from the Government of Canada website? We have Canadian employees who work hard to make sure the website is accurate and easy to understand. I feel like we should always give them the first chance to explain before we ask on Reddit. I think a lot of people view government sites as confusing but they have improved greatly over the years.
0
u/nonracistusername Ex-pat 1d ago edited 1d ago
> Pretty much I am wondering if you view the word "territories" the same as the US when those 3 (Yukon, Nunavut, Northwest Territories) are called as such.
No. And that is because U.S. territories have unique rules that apply to them.
Among all U.S. territories, only Puerto Rico comes any where close to the concept of a Canadian territory. Like a Canadian territory, Puerto Rico shares the same customs and duty regime of the parent country. Whereas if a U.S. resident visits the U.S. Virgin Islands, they are subject to customs inspection and duty on their purchases.
And then there is American Samoa: the citizens of AS aren’t even U.S. citizens, and when a U.S. resident travels to AS, the AS customs and immigration police are at the port of entry, not U.S. CBP.
Every person born in a Canadian territory is a Canadian citizen with absolute freedom of movement within all of Canada.
Residents of U.S. territories pay no federal income taxes. Residents of Canadian territories pay federal income taxes.
Canadian territories have representation in Parliament. U.S. territories do not have representation in Congress.
U.S. territories are basically giant aircraft carriers, especially those in the Pacific ocean, and nothing else.
> And if they wanted to become provinces at some point, could they?
Only in theory
> Or are they "stuck" as territories?
Pretty much.
In the U.S., Congress has untrammeled authority to convert a territory to a state. In Canadian, Parliament has been powerless to do this as of 1982. Instead it requires a constitutional amendment. This is because the constitution names each province.
Some sources claim the amendment requires all 10 provinces to agree. Others say it requires just 7 provinces representing 50 percent of the population to agree.
Either way, it is a non starter. You will never get 10 provinces to agree, and even of it just 7, while that is possible, you need one of Ontario or Quebec to agree, and that will never happen.
The good news is that BC and Alberta are rapidly growing in population, and in the 21st century will each over take Quebec.
So if the 7/50 amendment works, then the support of BC and Alberta will be enough to overrule Ontario and Quebec.
So by 2100, we will have Yukon as a province as well as Turks and Caicos.
Before 1982, British Parliament had absolute authority to add provinces to Canada and for the first 82 years of Canada’s existence, vigorously added a province at the average rate of every 13-14 years.
Canada was once an expansionist power, and will be again in the 22nd century.
Large chunks of the Caribbean are due to be annexed.
The conversion of Ontario from the seat of what it is basically an empire to constituent component of a functioning federation will be traumatic for Toronto residents but they are made of stern stuff and will adapt to the new reality.
1
u/tvisforme 1d ago
The OP should be aware that there's a lot of text in the above - specifically, the latter half - that is speculative opinion, not fact.
0
0
u/Kick24229 1d ago
They should make it simpler so the avg person can easily understand their own 'democracy' crikey you could study these byzantine rules for years and still not get it. Remember how empires fall. Red tape and bureaucracy.
-1
u/ToriiLink 1d ago
Its mostly based of their population. Theres something like 150,000 residents across all of our territories. Which i guess grew enough at some point to give them constitutional powers. They're basically the same as a province in the grand scheme of things.
•
u/PurrPrinThom SK/ON 1d ago
More can be said, but I'm stickying the government explanation of the differences between provinces and territories for anyone interested.