BORDERLINES

AN EXPLORATION OF THE EVOLUTION OF CANADA’S PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES

An exploration of the evolution of Canada’s provincial and territorial boundaries

MANY DECADES AGO, I ASKED myself how, if I could do so from scratch, I might draw the boundaries of Canada’s provinces and territories. Though never really answering that question to my own satisfaction, I have delved into Canadian geography, demography, economics and history. This article is about the history, and let me start in the middle, with the map of Confederation before 1905 (see map above). That is when the federal government had subdivided the old North-West Territories into nine districts. We can reasonably regard the districts as Ottawa’s plan for the creation of separate territories and, eventually, provinces. However, that map only loosely resembles the one we know today. Here is how and why Canada’s boundaries evolved the way they did.

THE NATURAL REGIONS OF CANADA

Most present-day Canadian jurisdictions originate in the British period (and are similar to those established under earlier French rule). One might think the imperial authorities would have divided the country into its natural regions (see map above). Indigenous Peoples who lived in what is now Canada had societies strongly shaped by these landforms, climates and the ecosystems they produced.

Europeans, on the other hand, did not fully understand such geography during the early phases of exploration and settlement. As the colonial powers began to make their own boundaries, they only loosely considered these natural regions. The leaders of British North America (and of New France before them) were, however, influenced by watersheds, the transportation routes by which early European development took place.

AS THE COLONIAL POWERS BEGAN TO MAKE THEIR OWN BOUNDARIES, THEY ONLY LOOSELY CONSIDERED THESE NATURAL REGIONS.

BRITISH ADMINISTRATION BEFORE CONFEDERATION

The British never had fewer than five jurisdictions in what is now Canada. In the Atlantic watershed, there were the original Crown colonies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec. The greater Hudson Bay drainage system constituted Rupert’s Land — the vast territory granted by charter to the Hudson’s Bay Company. The rest of the Arctic watershed and the Pacific watershed were eventually deemed the North-Western Territory. It was a residual entity, first opened by the North West Company and officially leased to the Hudson’s Bay Company when the two fur-trade empires were amalgamated in 1821.

In the decades following the American Revolution (the late 1700s and early 1800s), the British were inclined to divide their remaining Atlantic colonies as new population centres appeared. Newfoundland had already been broken up on two occasions, when a second jurisdiction — the latter being Placentia — briefly existed in the southern part of the island. Nova Scotia was apportioned four ways, creating Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick (which were to last), as well as Cape Breton Island (which proved temporary). Quebec was divided in three and reunited twice. With Confederation, the western third was split off permanently along roughly anglophone-francophone lines and named Ontario. Between 1763 and 1825, the eastern third — Labrador — was passed back and forth as a “dependency” of Newfoundland

and Quebec. Most of it ended up in Newfoundland, even though Quebec disputes the boundary to this day (see map above).

On the Pacific coast, the British began removing land from the NorthWestern Territory shortly after the 49th parallel boundary was extended west over the Rocky Mountains in 1846. They did so by creating three Crown colonies (Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands and British Columbia) and one directly administered territory (Stikine). However, fear of American invasion — the

same reason the British favoured Confederation — led them to just as quickly consolidate their Pacific jurisdictions. The unified colony retained the name British Columbia, although in 1863 the northern boundary changed to the 60th parallel.

The Arctic watershed presented a striking contrast. In the period prior to Confederation, the British never organized this landmass beyond just the two huge claims of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory. There, the fur-trade administration of the Hudson’s Bay Company was different from British authority in the farm- and fishery-based Crown colonies. The company generally did not pursue settlement, but instead built numerous lightly defended outposts, called (in order of importance) a factory, fort or house. A post consisted of anywhere from several dozen to a tiny handful of European personnel, along with their Indigenous “country wives,” shared offspring and any missionaries.

The Hudson’s Bay Company was establishing a presence through commercial interactions with First Nations. Its governance was correspondingly light, focused largely on the fur trade and stopping encroachment by foreign states. The upshot: the political geography in this region was unique at the time of Confederation. On the Atlantic and Pacific slopes, British authorities had laid out the boundaries of jurisdictions in all but a few particulars. Conversely, in the enormous Arctic basin, the federal government believed it would be able to draw its own map.

THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES AND MANITOBA JOIN CONFEDERATION

In 1870, the new Dominion of Canada purchased Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory from the Hudson’s Bay Company. They were to be combined under the name NorthWest Territories. Disputes soon arose, however, as to precisely what areas the N.W.T. included.

At the heart of these controversies was the Hudson’s Bay Company’s system of territorial administration (see map above), which diverged significantly from the British Crown jurisdictions. Its principal divisions were four “departments,” originally based on watersheds — the Southern (James Bay), Northern (other Arctic), Columbia/Western (Pacific) and

Montreal (Atlantic). The boundaries of these departments evolved over time. There were also two anomalous areas — the Arctic Archipelago and the Red River district.

The Arctic Archipelago was treated as an external territory, as the Hudson’s Bay Company did not then operate there. The region was only partly known to Europeans at the time of Confederation. The Royal Navy did periodically explore it, the voyages of, and searches for, Sir John Franklin being the most famous of such journeys. Thus, following the transfer of Company lands to Canada, while both the United Kingdom and the Dominion agreed the area was imperial territory, neither accepted jurisdiction. The situation became worrisome for both, however, with increased American interest in the region.

London finally resolved the issue in 1880 when “all British territories and possessions in North America, and the islands adjacent to such territories and possessions … with the exception of the Colony of Newfoundland and its dependencies” were transferred to Canada. Only then did the federal government recognize the “British Arctic Islands” to be part of the North-West Territories.

The Red River district proved to be more immediately challenging. There, the Hudson’s Bay Company had planted its one colony. It was officially dubbed Assiniboia — originally the 300,000-square-kilometre Selkirk Concession straddling the 49th parallel. By Confederation, its extent had been reduced to just one-tenth that size, roughly described as the zone within 80 kilometres of Fort Garry (the future Winnipeg).

How should Assiniboia be brought into Confederation? Crown colonies had been admitted as self-governing provinces, while other British claims were to be federal territories. Yet Assiniboia was neither a Crown colony nor a true territory. It was a Hudson’s Bay Company colony on territorial land. Even its population, mostly Métis, contrasted with both the European-dominated provinces and the overwhelmingly Indigenouspeopled territories.

Ottawa’s plan was to include the Red River Colony in the North-West Territories. For the federal government, a “postage stamp” containing a mere 12,000 settlers was an implausible province. But, for local residents, becoming a small part of a huge territory governed from afar was unacceptable. Even before the transaction with the company was complete, a local resistance broke out. Led by Louis Riel, a “provisional government” took over Assiniboia and demanded provincehood. Riel would be exiled for his role in the uprising, but it was essentially successful. The renamed “Manitoba” (also see sidebar, above) entered Confederation as a province.

TERRITORIAL DISTRICTS AND PROVINCIAL ENLARGEMENTS

In the quarter-century following their purchase, Ottawa comprehensively subdivided the North-West Territories. The first step occurred in 1876. New settlements quickly grew outside the boundaries of Manitoba. To provide additional administration, the federal government established the District of Keewatin. It was given separate territorial status, but it was to be headed by Manitoba’s lieutenant governor.

This proved a stopgap. Thus, in 1881, the federal government extended Manitoba’s borders. To the west and north, this restored something approximating the Canadian half of the Selkirk Concession. To the east, it would have greatly enlarged the province by taking in the entire southernmost portion of Keewatin. This immediately brought a longsimmering conflict with Ontario to a boil.

Both the federal and provincial governments disputed the watershed boundary. Unfortunately for Ottawa, an earlier administration had agreed to “provisionally” recognize an Ontario boundary to the north and west of the watershed in 1874. As a result, after a series of arbitrations, adjudications and enactments, the issue was resolved entirely in Ontario’s favour in 1889. Manitoba’s boundaries would go only a short distance eastward. By comparison, Ontario would stretch much farther west, to Lake of the Woods, and north to the Albany River.

In the meantime, the federal government had been further segmenting the North-West Territories by creating four districts — Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Athabasca — in 1882. All were west of Manitoba, of similar size to that province and in zones thought suitable for agriculture.

In 1895, Ottawa divvied the remaining portions. Keewatin and Athabasca were expanded, and four more districts established — Ungava, Franklin, Mackenzie and Yukon. All were in large northern regions and roughly paralleled the earlier departmental administration of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

A number of other adjustments occurred in this period, but two in 1898 deserve particular attention. First, Ontario’s enlargement generated an expectation of a similar extension in Quebec. It was fulfilled by the transfer of the southernmost portion of Ungava up to the Eastmain River. Second, due to the Klondike gold rush, Yukon became its own territory.

Thus, by the turn of the century, the North-West Territories had been dissected into a dozen parts — nine districts or territories and three provincial enlargements. However, as is evident, the federal government had

IN OUR MODERN ERA, BOUNDARY CHANGE IS FAR LESS CONCEIVABLE THAN EVER BEFORE.

not had an entirely free hand. Without the resistance in Manitoba and the disputes with Ontario, this history suggests Ottawa would have instead created 10 territorial districts, including one in the Red River area, before giving provincehood to any portion (see map above).

SASKATCHEWAN, ALBERTA AND MORE PROVINCIAL ENLARGEMENTS

Given the echoes of the Hudson’s Bay Company administration in Manitoba and the North, the four Prairie districts were the only genuinely novel entities that Ottawa had created. This is hardly surprising as agricultural settlement in this area was a clear federal objective in obtaining the lands.

As the 20th century dawned, the growing population was prompting calls for provincehood. The focus was on the districts of Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In the preceding dozen years, their political life had developed rapidly, with an elected assembly established in Regina to represent them.

This essentially made the area a separate territory. The premier, F.W.G. Haultain, had even proposed a name — Buffalo. Haultain wanted Buffalo to become a single province. He also wanted it to absorb a large part of Athabasca. His proposal had the support of the overwhelming majority of the legislature. Nevertheless, there was notable opposition within the N.W.T.

That resistance stemmed principally from capital-city ambitions of some of the region’s other prominent places. Calgary, the largest city in the N.W.T., badly wanted to be the seat of government of a separate Alberta. Prince Albert, then the leading centre in Saskatchewan, had a similar desire. And an emerging Edmonton believed it deserved capital status by virtue of its position as the “Gateway to the North.” Most such proposals mirrored Haultain’s in demanding the inclusion of Athabasca in their plans.

The federal government had the final say. It rejected the Buffalo proposal, claiming it would create too large a province. It also largely dismissed the local proposals. Ottawa instead enacted a compromise and, in 1905, divided most of the area of the four districts into two new provinces (see map above).

The broad strokes of the partition: Assiniboia and Saskatchewan were combined with the capital in the former (Regina, naturally), the name of the latter, and eastern Athabasca added in. Alberta became a separate province based in Edmonton and received Athabasca’s western part.

Some important adjustments were also made to the borders. To render the new jurisdictions equal in size — one of Ottawa’s stated objectives — the boundary between them was shifted about a hundred kilometres east. Lastly, the portions of Saskatchewan and Athabasca directly north of Manitoba were not included in the new province but placed in Keewatin, which was in turn re-attached to the N.W.T.

The inclusion of Athabasca in the new provinces quickly led to demands by the older ones for their own northern expansions. In 1912, these were granted. Manitoba and Ontario absorbed Keewatin up to the 60th parallel, while Quebec was extended to the Arctic coast, taking in virtually all of Ungava.

THE FINAL DIVISION OF THE TERRITORIES

After 1912, the reorganized (and now spelled) “Northwest Territories” no longer included any mainland south of 60. With further boundary adjustments by Ottawa, only Mackenzie, Franklin and a much-reduced Keewatin remained as districts. Nonetheless, the process of dividing the N.W.T. was not complete. Demands for further evolution were inevitable.

The first pressures arose in the 1950s. Residents in the more developed, mainly boreal Mackenzie sought to separate from the polar lands of Franklin and Keewatin. In 1963, the federal government tabled legislation to enact this. It would have established the western Mackenzie Territory, while Franklin would have absorbed Keewatin in the eastern Nunassiaq Territory (see map above). Under this proposal, the new boundaries would have deviated markedly from the older district limits.

While the federal bill never passed, pressure continued to grow for division of the N.W.T., particularly after territorial administration was patriated from Ottawa to Yellowknife in 1967. Compared with previous boundary changes, this process was both highly consultative and exceedingly slow. The end finally came in 1999, albeit with additional modifications to the lines. These established a split based largely on cultural demographics — the first such partition since the separation of Ontario from Quebec. In the east would be Nunavut, dominated by Nunavummiut (eastern Inuit). To the west were the areas populated mainly by Europeans, First Nations and Inuvialuit (western Inuit).

The inhabitants of the western jurisdiction, unable to agree on a new name, retained “Northwest Territories.” Despite its plural name, today’s N.W.T. is no longer a composite entity. It is a single territory, with the district system officially abolished.

THE PATTERNS OF BOUNDARY EVOLUTION

Today’s map of Canada bears a vague resemblance to the period when the territorial districts were established. For instance, comparing the subdivision of the old North-West Territories with the same area today, we can see that both contain five boundary lines splitting the area from east to west, even if those lines are not identical. Conversely, where as many as four boundary lines divided the territory from south to north, there is just a single boundary line today.

In fact, the south-north pattern of boundary-setting took shape before Confederation. In 1763, the British explicitly extended Newfoundland’s authority to the Arctic. Exactly 100 years later, B.C. assumed control up to 60 degrees north. Within the next

half century, these two decisions would become precedents for the federal government in setting boundaries for the five provinces in between. Once it was complete, the country consisted of only southern provinces and northern territories, with the “Middle Canada” jurisdictions eliminated (see map above).

Why were the colonies/provinces expanded so far north? In short, those local governments saw economic opportunities in extending their control, whereas British and Canadian authorities perceived only costs. Indeed, such authorities had often encouraged these expansionist ambitions.

In contrast, east-west boundarysetting was different before and after Confederation. British authorities had followed their imperial priorities. On the Atlantic coast, this meant geographically small jurisdictions, established during a period when the British desired weak colonies. On the Pacific side, it resulted in a single colony, for precisely the opposite reason. Later borders were established mainly by Canada’s federal government — a domestic and democratic administration. It sought to placate its jurisdictions by equalizing each’s area. This applied to the central provinces and, even more markedly, in the case of the Prairies.

This evolution prompts some intriguing questions. Have the varying sizes of provinces in the different eastwest regions been a help or a hindrance to governance? Or do they make any difference at all? Have the extensions of the various provinces into different northern geographies brought better administration to those areas? Or have they thwarted more appropriate development that might have occurred were they separate territories?

It is also interesting to note that these historical boundaries still have some resonance from time to time. At the height of the Quebec sovereignty debates, northern Indigenous groups cited the history of Ungava as an argument for remaining part of Canada. Today’s renewed sense of alienation in Alberta and Saskatchewan occasionally invokes the memory of Buffalo. And there is perennial sentiment in Quebec that aspires to absorb all or part of Labrador.

It is obviously true that, in our modern era, boundary change is far less conceivable than ever before. Still, it will always be worth imagining how we might “desire a better country.”