How northerly could Canada be and still have both Atlantic and Pacific provinces?

Deleted member 97083

Focusing on logistical, geographic, and economic factors only, how many additional provinces could be created in Canada, and how populous could the north be?

What is the most northerly border that could sustain a Canadian presence on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts? If it helps, Canada can include Alaska, Maine, or Greenland.

Imagine a scenario where a latitude line is placed at the southernmost tip of Ontario province. This latitude line is gradually moved up, splitting Canada into two countries, Southern Canada and Northern Canada. How far north can you move up the latitude line to where the part of Canada north of the line can support itself as an independent and sovereign country?

Does this change if the POD is hundreds of years in the past, and Canada can be more populated or even have a different selection of crops prior to the time when industrialization gets going?

Z1wKwjt.png
 
Focusing on logistical, geographic, and economic factors only, how many additional provinces could be created in Canada, and how populous could the north be?

What is the most northerly border that could sustain a Canadian presence on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts? If it helps, Canada can include Alaska, Maine, or Greenland.

Imagine a scenario where a latitude line is placed at the southernmost tip of Ontario province. This latitude line is gradually moved up, splitting Canada into two countries, Southern Canada and Northern Canada. How far north can you move up the latitude line to where the part of Canada north of the line can support itself as an independent and sovereign country?

Does this change if the POD is hundreds of years in the past, and Canada can be more populated or even have a different selection of crops prior to the time when industrialization gets going?

Z1wKwjt.png
You can push the line up to Edmonton and North Canada would still have more than 98% of its oil. So in purely economic terms it could become snow-Saudi Arabia.
 
How north Canada could go depends entirely on how stubborn the British are being at the time. I could see them wanting to keep North America even if it would just be the Arctic as a matter of prestige.
 
Does Hudson's Bay count as an Atlantic coast? If so, I think you could have a sustainable country in the area between Hudson's Bay and the Pacific if the line of latitude was around Edmonton's latitude. It would be even easier if Alaska was included.

If Hudson's Bay doesn't count, I think the Atlantic coast is the bigger constraint because anything North of Newfoundland is not really useful except for mining and forestry. And the Canadian Shield is such the connecting a port on the Labrador coast to the farmlands of Manitoba (the farthest East good farmlands North of Newfoundland) would be REALLY difficult. And the Northern tip of Newfoundland is only at 51.5 degrees North.

So, if you want to include enough of the island of Newfoundland to create an economically sustainable Atlantic Province, the line of latitude can't be any farther north than about, say, 49 degrees N, which is already the Southern border of Western Canada.

A lot of people forget how much farther North Western Canada is than Eastern Canada.
 
Focusing on logistical, geographic, and economic factors only, how many additional provinces could be created in Canada, and how populous could the north be?

What is the most northerly border that could sustain a Canadian presence on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts? If it helps, Canada can include Alaska, Maine, or Greenland.

Imagine a scenario where a latitude line is placed at the southernmost tip of Ontario province. This latitude line is gradually moved up, splitting Canada into two countries, Southern Canada and Northern Canada. How far north can you move up the latitude line to where the part of Canada north of the line can support itself as an independent and sovereign country?

Does this change if the POD is hundreds of years in the past, and Canada can be more populated or even have a different selection of crops prior to the time when industrialization gets going?

Z1wKwjt.png
There is a gap in the population between Winnipeg and Toronto, I wonder why
 
There is a gap in the population between Winnipeg and Toronto, I wonder why
The demographic pull of the Quebec-Windsor Corridor and the negatives of the Canadian shield, you'll notice that Quebec also has relatively little population o the latitude of say Edmonton.
 
Last edited:
The only really viable port that isn't on the east coast is Churchill, Manitoba. And it wouldn't be too difficult to get a rail line through there to connect to Prince Rupert, British Columbia in the early days. Canada would be very thinly populated, but still have a strong resource sector as the backbone of its economy.
 
The only really viable port that isn't on the east coast is Churchill, Manitoba. And it wouldn't be too difficult to get a rail line through there to connect to Prince Rupert, British Columbia in the early days. Canada would be very thinly populated, but still have a strong resource sector as the backbone of its economy.
There is a closed thread about that port. James Bay, the southern end of Hudson Bay, borders both Ontario and Quebec and is thus closer to the Golden Horseshoe. james Bay is the last to freeze over in winter, and conversely the first to thaw in summer. If a community such as Moosonee was upgraded to a small port and rail and road links might be built, the maritime link opened up another trade route. However, would the Federal or provincial governments funded such endeavor? Churchill, Manitoba has been underused for its port facilities for a back door maritime route...
 
Top