While it is tempting to view these disputes as a natural part of differing opinion it should be remembered that behavior is often a result of how systems are run. In this view the provinces behave the way they do not because personalities clash (although they do) but because federalism itself creates the fuel which sets off these fiery disagreements.
About a month ago I finished re-reading my old university textbook on Medieval history (this being something I do periodically). Within the section on the Norman Conquest of England was an interesting fact. William the Conqueror, when he was dividing the captured estates between his supporters, never gave his followers large chunks of land in a single location but instead scattered the holdings throughout England. As a result a baron might have an estate in Northumberland, Mercia, and Wessex but no large 'base of operations'. This contrasts with the nobility of both Germany and France which had concentrated estates. From this difference arose a German and French nobles that had very regional loyalties & interests and an English nobility that took an active interest in the kingdom's affairs.
What if at Canada's very beginning we had taken that route?
Our provinces have a hard time adopting a national outlook because they are not national entities, they are regional ones. So when you hear a premier talking smack about another province or region try to have a little sympathy. They can't escape the system they were put into.
There is no way this kind of reorganization will ever take place but if we were ever to design Canada from the ground up I think Her Majesty's Dominion should have scattered provinces.