When Mark Carney insists on spelling colour with a “u” or writes centre instead of center, he shows he’s a Canadian. But in the wake of the controversy over the language used in the 2025 federal budget, those spelling choices have taken on new resonance. They point to a larger truth about Canada: language has always been political here, even in its smallest details.
The 2025 budget drew criticism not just for its fiscal choices, but for how it described them. The reality is that American spelling has been creeping back into Canadian usage for the past 50 years, and it is high time the government took action against it.
Carney’s action has been seen as unnecessary and reactionary in some quarters. In fact, it isn’t. Sir John A. Macdonald (born on 11 January 1815, 211 years ago) insisted that how the government of Canada wrote was an act of national self-definition. This is exactly the sort of policy needed in an age of growing American economic and cultural threats.
In June 1890, Macdonald ordered through an Order-in-Council (No. 1178) that “English practice be uniformly followed” in official federal government documents. This was not a stylistic preference or a nostalgic gesture. It was a deliberate assertion of identity by a prime minister deeply concerned about Canada’s political and cultural orientation. The United States was rising rapidly in influence, and Macdonald worried about Canada being pulled, economically and culturally, into its orbit.
For Macdonald, institutions mattered. And language was one of them. Using British spelling aligned Canada with parliamentary government, common law, and a constitutional tradition distinct from American republicanism. Writing labour instead of labor was a small but visible signal that Canada was charting its own course. Nationhood, in Macdonald’s view, was built not only through railways and tariffs but through habits that reinforced continuity and difference.
Patrice Dutil argues that Mark Carney’s use of British spelling, like “colour” and “centre,” is a deliberate reflection of Canadian identity, not merely a personal preference. The author connects this to Sir John A. Macdonald’s 1890 directive to use British spelling in official documents as a means of asserting national distinctiveness against American influence.
The recent controversy over the 2025 federal budget’s language highlights how language in Canada remains inherently political. Dutil posits that these seemingly small linguistic choices, including spelling, are crucial in shaping national identity and reinforcing Canada’s unique political and cultural orientation.
Should Canada actively promote distinct Canadian English spelling to assert national identity?
How does the debate over spelling in official documents reflect broader political sensitivities in Canada?
Can small linguistic choices, like spelling, genuinely impact national identity and resist foreign influence?
Comments (0)