you’re so old
What, Littlest Hobo isn’t good enough for ya?
My lovely and talented spouse, Ms. Attack is from Newfoundland. Newfie is somewhat like the other N-word. If you are one, you can use it. If you aren’t one, you should use it with extreme care or not at all. I might point out that the other N-word is commonly used by black people, but probably not used so much by their white friends.
In Hawai’i, people of European ancestry are commonly referred to as ‘Haoles’. If you’re a Haole, you can use it. If someone who is not a haole uses it, it is assumed to be an insult, so even “hey, haole!” is fighting words. Newfie is similar, but Newfoundlanders are generally really nice, really easygoing people, and tend to blow it off, or gently explain appropriate usage rather than to kick the shit out of tourists.
I don’t use it. I use Newfun-LANDer, but hey, I’m at best a Mainlander.
28 this coming Sunday. I suppose I am so old. 
It’s gotta be the geese.
awww
so you mean, they actually play beachcombers reruns somewhere?
Thing is, federal and provincial responsibilities are spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution–we don’t have an unless-otherwise-specified clause like the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution in ours. We’ve quibbled over who looks after what through our history, and we still do sometimes; but it’s often very plain when the feds step on the provinces’ toes, and vice-versa. It may not be so much “decentralization,” (though that certainly is the result) as it was good advance planning for a federated system when the Constitution was first drafted.
That’s what I find interesting. The Constitution is written as a decentralized multi-mini-state plan, but the US is very centralized and driven from the capital. Canada is descended from a monarchical state, but is relatively decentralized.
Well, actually:[
In other words, the federal government can exercise jurisdiction over any and every thing not explicitly listed as being under provincial jurisdiction. So we do have an ‘unless specified’ clause, but it has the opposite effect to the US version (the tenth amendment) which gives unspecified powers to the states.
I find it interesting too. Why did things work out the way they did? I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the US was examined by the British lawmakers who drafted our Constitution (then known as the British North America Act and passed as an act of the UK Parliament). They probably noticed that a set of smaller jurisdictions (states or provinces) joined together in a federation provided a good way to look after more local matters in a geographically-large area; but that in order to avoid some of the squabbles over who does what–like the US Civil War, which ended only a few years prior to the passing of the BNA Act–it might be best to spell each body’s responsibilities out. I don’t know for sure if the US and its Constitution was used as a model, but it would make sense.
Even odder is the fact that the BNA was designed for a stronger federal government when compared to the US. Remember the American Civil War had just ended when Confederation was being framed.
Or what Spoons said. 
I feel much better since I gave up trying to have a Canadian one that simply didn’t fit and realized that our regional ones are just fine.
Like I said earlier, don’t offer to share.
My disclosure: Grew up in Canada, came south after college, now live in the US. My parents and brother (and his family) still live up in Saskatoon.
I would agree with all the above and add:
[ol]
[li]More of a live and let live attitude in Canada[/li][li]Less tolerance for fundy religious moralizing/legislating[/li][li]Gay marriage (an outshoot of points 1 and 2, I think)[/li][li]Better maternity and other leave[/li][li]OK, I know you (and others) already mentioned health care but… health care dammit![/li][/ol]
we came up with the name Canada like so,
C A?
N A?
D A?
When they look south they see Maine not Mississippi.
the CBC. You get the CBC on TV. If you’re gonna claim to be like us, you still have a long way to go! 
That’s exactly how it was explained to me by my (also lovely and talented) spouse, who is also from Newfoundland.
Da Vincis Inquest was based on a real Canadian cop. He now is pushing hard for legalization of drugs, all drugs. Police sometimes figure things out correctly.
Canadians do say aboot. But the best word is “organization”. It is a dead giveaway.
I have lots of Canadian friends and relatives. They laugh at our medical insurance system and wonder why we are so stupid as to allow that crap to happen. It gives them an air of superiority that they don’t mind showing when it comes up.
They have better beer . Canadian women have bigger boobs. (personal observation). They drive well over the speed limit.
True, but I’d suggest that in Canada, it is not so much “freedom from religion” as the First Amendment to the US Constitution is often interpreted (rightly or wrongly); as “freedom of conscience and religion,” as is stated at s. 2(a) of our Constitution. Emphasis mine in both cases, BTW.
The American approach seems to give rise to a number of disagreements. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” reads the First Amendment, and while we have seen such issues as school prayer settled, we have also seen arguments over whether “In God We Trust” should be on US currency, and whether “one nation under God” should be in the American Pledge of Allegiance. Those advocating the removal of such phrases often argue “freedom from religion” as their rationale; which, given the wording of the First Amendment, is a perfectly reasonable approach. (Emphasis added again.) Those advocating for the retention of such phrases point to more traditionalist approaches. Either way, what’s being argued is a phrase on dollar bills, something schoolchildren say, or a sculpture on a courthouse lawn. The question arises: just what does the existence of such things mean to the average American in day-to-day terms? How are the average American’s beliefs (or lack of them) compromised (or enhanced) by the existence (or not) of such things?
“Freedom of conscience and religion” is interpreted in more practical terms in Canada. It has been used to allow Orthodox Jewish furriers and grocers to open their stores on Sundays, to allow Sikhs and other whose religion requires them to wear special headgear to become police officers, and to allow a number of other practices that accommodate the people that make up Canada’s multicultural mosaic. Parliament can still open its sessions with a prayer (it really does), but does not require members’ attendance at such times. Nobody thinks anything of the members of Parliament who don’t attend because–guess what?–the members who choose not to attend (and even those who do) are exercising their Charter rights according to their conscience. Remember, “of” not “from.”
It is true that we recognize and mention God in the preamble to our Charter (“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”), but few are lobbying to get rid of it because, let’s face it, the meat of the matter (which doesn’t mention God and in which God doesn’t factor anyway) is contained further down in the document. Nobody cares what the Charter’s Preamble says when the police are at the door without a search warrant–the rights granted by s. 8 of the Charter grant the occupant the right to tell the police to get lost, God or no God. In other words, it seems to me that we tend to look at things more practically, rather than philosophically.
Overall, I’d suggest that we have less tolerance for religious, or other, extremism, as with fundamentalists; and more tolerance for other customs, religions, and points of view. In the end, we tolerate and accommodate each other, warts (and religion) and all. I’d suggest, in reference to the OP, that’s another thing that makes us great.
seriously where do these Canadians come from exactly that say “aboot”, I really would like to know and hear it for myself.
and how do these said canadians pronounce “organization”?
I pronounce it OR-ga-nee-zay-shun or Or-ga-neye-zay-shun. No real and set way I say it, depends on the speed of speech. Like the toronto maple leafs are an oR-gan-ee-zay-shun that is inept. and The Or-gan-eye-zay-shun that runs the maple leafs are retarded jackasses.
from Organization Definition & Meaning | YourDictionary
there are 2 ways of saying it.
or·gani·za·tion (ôr′gə ni zā′s̸hən, -nī-)
so i doubt that there’s a “proper” way to say it.