Is Canada losing its linguistic identity? That’s the bold question being asked as Canadian language experts urge Prime Minister Mark Carney to ditch British spelling in official documents and embrace Canadian English instead. But here’s where it gets controversial: while Canadian English has been the standard in government communications for decades, linguists and editors have spotted British spellings—like 'globalisation' and 'catalyse'—creeping into documents from Carney’s government, including the budget. And this is the part most people miss: this isn’t just about spelling; it’s about national identity, history, and pride.
In an open letter dated December 11, shared with BBC News, linguists and editors argue that Canadian English is a unique blend of American and British influences, shaped by geography and history. It also includes distinctly Canadian terms like 'toque' for a winter hat and 'washroom' instead of 'bathroom' or 'loo.' For instance, while Canadian English uses 'z' in words like 'analyze,' it borrows British spellings like 'colour' instead of the American 'color.' However, some British terms, like 'tyre' for 'tire,' are never used in Canada.
The letter, signed by four linguistics professors, the editor-in-chief of the Canadian English Dictionary, and Editors Canada, warns that deviating from Canadian English could lead to confusion about what constitutes Canadian spelling. They even tie this to national pride, suggesting that using Canadian English is a way to take an 'elbows up' stance—a hockey term Carney himself has used to describe Canada’s resilience against U.S. tariffs and political jabs.
But is this a misunderstanding or a deliberate shift? Kaitlin Littlechild, president of Editors Canada, notes that it’s unclear whether this is an oversight or a targeted directive. Meanwhile, Professor JK Chambers of the University of Toronto points out that Carney’s years in the UK, including his time as governor of the Bank of England, may have influenced his language. 'He obviously picked up some pretensions while he was there,' Chambers said, though he added humorously that Carney hasn’t gone so far as to use 'gaol' instead of 'jail.'
Professor Stefan Dollinger of the University of British Columbia emphasizes the emotional core of the issue: 'Language expresses identity.' He argues that reverting to British spellings feels counterproductive, especially as Canada has evolved beyond its colonial past. With at least two notable instances of British English in Carney’s documents—the November budget and an October news release—the debate is heating up.
So, what do you think? Is this a harmless linguistic quirk, or a threat to Canada’s unique identity? Should Carney stick to Canadian English, or is there room for flexibility? Let us know in the comments—this is one conversation where every voice matters.
