So, does this idea make sense? Does it make more sense to describe regions of good beer by ignoring political boundaries? If you think about it, there is no real reason to relate saison to France rather than Belgium just because of the Treaty of London of 1839 and other non-beery factors.
Canada is a good example. Just as beer needs peace, beer needs people. Canada's people are not evenly spread so we find beer only in the bits where there are people. We only find brewing where there are enough people. If you click on the link above, an image taken from The Beer Mapping Project and handily upgraded in lime by me. You can clearly see that there are three good beer regions in Canada with a few outposts. Mainly, it's all in the St. Lawrence watershed, the Maritimes and the southern Rockies. Northern Ontario? Nada. Labrador? Nuttin'.
If we go one step further and compare St. Lawrence and the Maritimes to what is happening over the border to the States, you can see some patterns. The Gaspe gap extends into northern Maine. The upper reaches of the St. Lawrence proper are comparable sites of little brewing. But, just as with the fishing industry, you may see Nova Scotia connected to the Boston area and southern Maine. You may see Vermont connected to Quebec and their shared winter traveler trade.
Do the beers have connections? Is there a zone of extra maltiness that everything north and east of Lake George New York share? Perhaps a bit more interest in stouts? Do the brewers on the Great Lakes have a deeper interest in lager due to their shared immigrant past? Or other affinities more important? Shared attendance to trade and fanboy conventions? The name of the guy who taught you to brew?