Canada's Carney Called Out for 'utilizing' British Spelling
Key topics
The linguistic identity of Canadians is being poked and prodded after Mark Carney, Canada's former central bank governor, was called out for using British spellings. As commenters weighed in, it became clear that Canadians have a unique linguistic blend, with some defending the use of British spellings like "Harbour" and others poking fun at the quirks of Canadian English. One witty commenter quipped that Canadian English is what happens when a country moves out of England's attic and ends up with America as a roommate, highlighting the fascinating cultural mashup. Amidst the lighthearted jabs, some commenters shared personal anecdotes and historical tidbits, revealing a rich linguistic heritage that's still evolving.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
8h
Peak period
79
18-24h
Avg / period
20
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 15, 2025 at 4:15 PM EST
21 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 16, 2025 at 12:28 AM EST
8h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
79 comments in 18-24h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 18, 2025 at 8:48 AM EST
18 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Some parts of Canada inexplicably used "gaol" for "jail" until fairly recently. For example, the "Headingley Gaol" near Winnipeg. The jail has been renamed to Headingley Correctional Center, but the road to it is still Gaol Road, preserving the linguistic curiosity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headingley_Correctional_Instit... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gaol+Rd,+Headingley,+MB,+C...
Fellow Winnipeger here! I remember driving by that sign as a kid and being baffled by that word.
This being said, I would suspect the english word gaol comes from the french word geôle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Jail_Hostel
Why is that inexplicable? It would have originally been called that with that spelling.
Carney is the most popular politician Canada has had in decades. The opposition party is starting to fall apart (two members defected, which means Carney's party is one seat away from a majority).
Whole thing sounds like an attempt to manufacture an 'Obama beige suit' moment.
All thanks to Trump's silly tariffs. There's a silver lining to everything. I hope that the association makes protectionism politically taboo for decades to come.
That is waaaay too black and white. Trump's actions != protectionism, Trump's actions ⊂ protectionism (and have been stupid). Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital). Protectionism is important, it just needs to be conducted in a smarter way (instead of indiscriminately tariffing everyone all the sudden)
> That is waaaay too black and white.
We're talking about Trump here: of course it's black and white.
> Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital).
I don't know: extreme poverty has been driven down quite effectively AFAICT:
* https://www.gapminder.org/questions/gms1-3/
* https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/epovrate/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China
Wealth inequality also dropped after the Gilded Age and post-WW2 until the 1970s (in the US); nothing said it couldn't have been kept down (say, if Reagan was not elected). There's nothing inherent to free trade and globalization that should lead to it if are willing to redistribution (e.g., through taxation and social programs).
Trump might portrait things that way, but that doesn't mean we need to analyse anything involving him that way.
> Wealth inequality dropped after the Gilded Age and post-WW2 until the 1970s (in the US); [...]
Well, if you take on a more global perspective: global inequality absolutely skyrocketed until the 1970s and has only gradually been climbing down since then. Numerically, the biggest contributor was Mao strangling the Chinese economy (and people) until his death, and then Deng Xiaoping took over and relaxed the grip around their throats. But outsourcing and container shipping and lower tariffs helped a lot, too. Not just in relation with China, but for everyone on the globe.
I'm sick of portraying the era until the 1970s as some kind of golden age. It was the nadir for most people on the globe in terms of equality, not the zenith.
Probably because pre-WW2 and globalization most people on the planet were equally poor.
> I'm sick of portraying the era until the 1970s as some kind of golden age. It was the nadir for most people on the globe in terms of equality, not the zenith.
The 1970s were mostly the zenith of recent technological advancement: certainly personal computing and the Internet came after, but there really hasn't been any major invention.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_...
Post-1970s technology has become more equally distributed (à la Gibson), and that has been through globalization.
Globalization benefits capital in rich countries and labor in poor countries. As someone who is from a poor and corrupt country, I have seen many people around me come out of poverty due to globalization.
I can agree that globalization can be bad for labor in rich countries.
This is definitely true and Phil Knight of Nike fame even said that without the opportunity to join his slave workforce in Vietnam, those people would be worse off.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic here. But without Amazon many people in my country will be worse off, however bad the working conditions maybe.
They went from dirt poor to merely poor. That's to be celebrated, and I hope we see Bangladeshis continue making themselves richer through their own hard work.
> (Related: As is so often the case, if you want things better for your folks back home, lift everyone out of poverty and make everyone safe. People are less likley to take "slave-wage" jobs if the alternative is not subsistence and high risk of unpredictable outcome due to localized supply disruption, disease outbreak, or war).
I assume by 'folks back home' you are referring to people who live in rich countries? Having people in Bangladesh and Vietnam become richer is definitely good from a moral point of view, but it has only second order effects on the 'folks back home'. To a first approximation, it doesn't matter economically how well off or poor foreigners are. As a second order effect, if an economy is booming next door (ie they are getting richer), some positive effects often spill over, and global security probably goes up, too.
> Exploitation of labor is a complicated topic (and really, the meta-fight is, as is so often the case, not between nations; it's between labor and capital. Offshoring is just another form of scabbing, but the world is not yet small enough that one should expect a fresh-off-the-farm factory worker who just had their prospects opened up to join a global strike because people in the US want to make $15/hr).
I'm not sure what you mean by exploitation? In any case, labour and capital are working together, you need both to produce anything in a modern economy. In fact, you need labour, capital and land working together.
If you want to get worked up about anything, it's not labour vs capital. But it's labour+capital vs land. In recent decades in the US the share of GDP going to labour has dipped a bit, capital's share has stayed stable, and the share of land went up.
Many economic analyses mix up land into capital. But that's misleading at best. We can produce more capital to compete with the old capital. We can't make more Land. (Well, not until we are building space habitats.)
(By Land with a capital L, I'm including the oceans. The Netherlands (or even more Singapore) reclaiming big swaths of land just means they are converting ocean floor Land to dry Land.)
See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPUSA156NRUG for the US labour share. I'm not sure if Fred has a graph that drills into the non-labour share and tells you what goes to capital and what goes to Land. But see eg https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_r...
If so, I hope we get exploited even more :)
The reason South Korea graduated to higher wages quicker than Vietnam seems to be doing, is partially because South Korea is more capitalist, so they see more economic growth quicker.
Nothing ironic about any of that.
It's way more complicated than that. It may seem that way if you restrict your view to say, China, but there's more to the world than that. IIRC, Africa has had problems with local producers getting run out of business by Chinese knock-offs without the "benefit" of foreign sweatshop employment you've seen elsewhere.
It's not like protectionism and the government directing economies hasn't been tried in Africa..
I thought it already was, before Trump. I still can't believe they ended de minimus and tariffed everything.
Not in the US, at least. Every administration since at least Bush jr slapped tariffs on a few things here and there, and mostly kept the previous admin's ad hoc tariffs in place.
In more practical places, like Singapore where I live, you'd be right: tariffs are by and large unthinkable.
The tariffs were just half of it, the attacks on national sovereignty were the other, and Pierre being his usual shallow and despicable self on the campaign trail were the third.
If Carney (or almost anyone but PP, really) were the head of the CPC, they'd have had a majority today. But looking at where the party's going, it's doubtful that the CPC will ever again elect a leader who can both read and write.
> Canadian English has been the standard in government communications for decades. But eagle-eyed linguists and editors have spotted British spellings — like "globalisation" and "catalyse" — in documents from the Carney government, including the budget.
In popular writing, the s forms dominate - I've not heard the MS Word explanation before, but the most popular UK-produced word processors and spellcheckers in the 1980 (eg. Locoscript/Locospell, Protext/Prospell, 1st Word) tended to come from companies in the Cambridge area or which were founded by Cambridge grads, so would naturally have used the s spellings by default.
'z' forms are generally used for writing for an international audience, it hasn't really caught on more generally than that.
In Britain, aeroplanes are made of aluminium and they have tyres. The Ministry of Defence sends them out on manoeuvres in theatres of combat, where the pilots have generally excelled due to regular practice.
In America, airplanes are made of aluminum and they have tires. The Department of Defense sends them out on maneuvers in theaters of combat, where the pilots have generally exceled due to regular practise.
In Canada, airplanes are made of aluminum and they have tires. The Department of National Defence sends them out on manoeuvres in theatres of combat, where the pilots have generally excelled due to regular practice.
dueled, paralleled, canceled, pedaled, but controlled, compelled, extolled, appalled
levered, snickered, but occurred, deferred
focused, biased, censused, but compressed, embussed, outgassed
worshiped, but entrapped (although even in America kidnapped seems more common than kidnaped—one of Webster’s less successful reforms)
I've been here for more than a decade and can never figure out the formatting syntax.
See Formatting Options: https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc
"Period" tends to be used in day-to-day speech when referring to the punctuation; you'll hear "full stop" if it's meant to emphasize a previous statement (though not universally), like with "you'll do the dishes, full stop."
Generally, the correct spelling of a word is determined by those that use it. Canadians have used 'colour' for a long time. If enough people start using 'color', that will eventually be the correct spelling in Canada.
You set the thermometer in C (usually), and cook in F. You can measure in cm or inches.
Also, with respect to the metric/imperial systems of measurement… officially the government is all metric, but due to the history of it all there will be a bunch of regulations that say things like “the toilet must be at least 228.6mm away from the wall” because the pre-metric standard was 9 inches.
And a final one for the prairies: in the 1800s there was the Dominion Land Survey, which carved us up into 1 mile x 1 mile squares. They did a truly impressive job of it. However, the edges of these squares is where the road allowances are, which means that despite the speed limit being in km/h, you are almost certainly going to be travelling N miles down the highway to get to your destination.
Oh! Didn't know! Is there regional variation in that?
I was forced to unlearn centre when we moved to America in my second grade. But everyone–from Virginia to New Jersey to California–was cool with me keeping analyse and defence.
I am making the assumption that any instances of British spelling in the document(s) were accidental.
The petition implies that Carney's office has adopted a policy of using British spelling. This explanation is more surprising than mine.
It makes a difference.
If the conventional explanation is the right one, then the whole petition and this article about it are akin to complaints over a few minor spelling mistakes, or poorly punctuated paragraphs.
That's just blatantly untrue?
Jean Chrétien is the most recent Canadian Prime Minister that I remember a wide spectrum of Canadians liking (and by 2000, not as much). Justin Trudeau appealed many American journalists, but only to some Canadians.
If I missed an obvious politician, I will happily concede.
https://angusreid.org/prime-minister-mark-carney-first-month...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_prime_m...
I don't enjoy this sort of internet bickering. It's exactly what I wanted to avoid. I'm not an expert on Canadian pollsters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_prime_m...
It is worth noting, polls aside, that the Carney election both finished off the NDP, and resulted in Conservative Poilievre losing his seat. And recently, Conservatives have started crossing the floor to join Carney. Justin Trudeau was popular with Liberals. Carney is generally popular.
The timing of the last election was perfect for Carney when there was a window where the whole country was going WTF with Trump and PP was still railing against various "woke" grievances and mentioning Trudeau by name. The fact that he wasn't turfed after not only losing the election that was his to win, but also losing his seat, is everything wrong with the myopic federal Conservative Party (whose core members refuse to "compromise" with the rest of the country).
There is a real generational tilt happening and young Canadians no longer defaulting to left leaning ways of thinking (not that they ever were as much as people thought).
To transition to a new economy that doesn't rely on the USA is something that take years, but the tariffs are sort of mystery surprise tariffs, and Canada doesn't have years to adapt.
So in the meantime, the government will have to keep citizens alive. That is the kind of thing that leads to hyperinflation, or something equivalent.
Canadians probably should not expect this administration do anything, in the next three or four years, beyond keeping Canada from turning into a wasteland. Hopefully that much is possible.
Conservatives have had best showing at a federal election in decades. 41.3% of the popular vote. Over 3.1 million CPC voters in Ontario alone.
1: https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/is-pierre...
This is as stupid as starting a war over cracking the big end or little end of an egg. Or, using whatever book was about that subject as a spelling style guide.
FTFY
(Yeah, but somebody doesn’t know that.)
Ludicrous! Absolutely ludicrous! :)
Bro don't even joke about that
I'd never heard about that until now. Crazy what gets attention. Who cares what color his suit is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_tan_suit_controve...
So they complained about Obama "destroying presidential norms"
Liberals didn't win majority and it was a close race, I'm not sure where you are getting your data from.
TRUMP managed to change the election results but it was close.
Since the election, some polls show that Canadians, including Conservatives, are happier with Carney than any previous PM ever.
But I also agree with GP that many words like this are chosen just to sound more impressive, in the same way that people say 'at this time' instead of 'now.'
The words are typically used in two different contexts, one more professional (utilize) and one more casual (use). The words can be chosen to hint at which context we’re in or shift the context locally if needed.
For example, a story about a group of drunk guys could say that one of them utilized a flat stone to dig, to add humour since we’re clearly not in that professional context.
Personally, anytime I see the word "utilize" it makes me think the writer is just trying to sound smart or "put on airs." For me it has the opposite effect that the writer is trying to achieve.
But «utilise» is almost always interchangeable with «employ», which almost always has the same meaning.
This assumes your company doesn't have an official policy on the matter.
I feel like Canada is of two minds, awkwardly and indecisively straddling North American English and British English. It wasn’t until I worked overseas that I realized North America has a very distinctive English that imprints on people, even if they lived there a few years. As in Londoners who spent a few years in North America as toddlers have obvious North American tonality, which is baffling to me.
I have native relatives in Canada and the UK and I find the language dynamics across the anglosphere fascinating.
Does Canadian English still use "gotten"? IIRC, that's a vestige of British English that's been lost in Britain.
I see it from time to time online, and immediately assume they're a non-native speaker who doesn't understand the nonsensical nuances of the language.
Eg people will say something like "I've 3 apples", which is just "I have 3 apples", which is perfectly gramattical. But, for some reason, we use "I've got 3 apples". But I think we'd also say "I have 3 apples" and not "I have got 3 apples".
Language is weird.
or it's got it's own dialect, which has inherited features from both british and american english but is now evolving on its own.
Due to my somewhat international career, I had to learn to code-switch between American and British English. My default is American but can do British as needed. Spelling, vocabulary, dialect to some extent, etc.
For a global audience, I find American is the best default. Nonetheless, actual Americans barely notice if you use British English-isms in American contexts. They may notice but no one cares. Everyone knows what you mean. Using British dialect may confuse them occasionally but even then no one cares.
It boggles my mind that someone from a Commonwealth country using British spelling would even warrant a news article. Why is anyone talking about this?
But to me, who cares, there was a time ages ago people spelt a word the way they wanted and no one cared. Just look at old documents from the 18th century in the US.
Even decades later, once in a great while, I end up using colour instead of color :)
A "news" article was written, doesn't mean any real people actually care.
Put another way, neither Carney nor Freeland has a post-high school degree of any kind from a Canadian school.
14 more comments available on Hacker News