Canadian whiskey has long been a favorite tipple in the United States. Even before Prohibition, Americans associated Canadian whiskey with quality and consistency, sometimes reaching for it over locally made spirits, including bourbon.
But when asked to name the great whiskey-producing nations, most consumers rarely mention Canada first—and sometimes not at all. Part of the reason for this is that few Americans know what defines Canadian whiskey—and even fewer understand what makes it distinct from other world whiskeys.
Finding the Definition: A Quest into Bureaucracy and Alphabet Soup
Properly defining Canadian whiskey—normally spelled “whisky” there, in the Scottish style—has always been a difficult task. This is due in no small part to the Canadian government’s notoriously vague and convoluted structure surrounding regulation.
While there have pretty much always been rules in Canada about the operation and tax implications of distilling, the modern Canadian guidelines for whiskey first appeared in 1985 with a document simply known as the Excise Act. This act established a basic federal code that distillers were required to follow to produce any kind of distilled spirit, including Canadian whiskey.
Interestingly, although this act helped update and define the rules around production, the act itself doesn’t define Canadian whiskey—nor does it even mention it by name. Instead, it defers that duty to the newly updated Food and Drug Act, also ratified in 1985. Oddly, the Food and Drug act also doesn’t specifically mention a definition for Canadian whiskey, further deferring that responsibility to a set of documents known as the Food and Drug Regulations. The Canadian government creates and updates those regulations internally, and different agencies have overseen, updated, and enforced them over the years—each using its own specific wording and interpretation, of course, just to make sure no one gets too comfortable.
Currently, the department that oversees enforcement and interpretation of the Food and Drug Regulations is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. Established in 1997, the CFIA created another document known as the Food Compositional Standards Document, or FCSD. It is finally, in this document, where we can find the most recent definition of Canadian whiskey.
So, what does the document say?
Canadian Whiskey, Defined
Per the FCSD definition, Canadian whiskey:
(A) is a potable alcoholic distillate, or a mixture of potable alcoholic distillates, obtained from a mash of cereal grain or cereal grain products saccharified by the diastase of malt or by other enzymes and fermented by the action of yeast or a mixture of yeast and other microorganisms;
(B) is aged in small wood for not less than three years;
(C) possesses the aroma, taste and character generally attributed to Canadian whiskey;
(D) is manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the Excise Act and the regulations made thereunder;
(E) is mashed, distilled and aged in Canada;
(F) contains not less than 40 percent alcohol by volume; and
(G) may contain flavoring.
But What Does It All Mean?
At first glance, the above definition may seem straightforward and not dissimilar to other countries’ definitions of whiskey. As always, the devil is in the details. To fully understand the ramifications, it’s helpful to go through it line by line, starting at the very beginning.
Other Microorganisms
Like most other countries’ regulations, subsection A agrees that Canadian whiskey must be made from cereal grain that’s been saccharified through mashing. It allows for the use of exogenous enzymes to achieve this, much like the United States and Ireland.
However, it also states something that few other country’s regulations mention. Specifically, it notes that the resulting mash may be fermented by the action of yeast or a mixture of yeast and other microorganisms. This is extremely important because it allows distillers to add organisms other than yeast to complete fermentation. That allowance opens the door for distillers to add previously unused or unknown microorganisms, thus allowing for experimentation with novel bacteria that might have serious effects on the flavor of the spirit.
Small Wood
Subsection B is important, too. It says that Canadian whiskey must be aged for at least three years in “small wood.”
That would appear standard, to an extent because aging for three years is a common requirement consistent with countries such as Ireland and Scotland. But upon closer inspection, the use of the term “small wood “is unique. The Canadian government defines “small wood” as any cask or barrel whose capacity is not greater than 700 liters. It does not specifically state that these casks must be made from oak; instead, it allows any wooden vessel, so long as it meets the size requirements.
That’s an important departure from other country’s regulations, and—like the microorganisms—it allows for much experimentation when it comes to aging whiskey.
Another odd wrinkle that’s important to mention is that the current Food and Drug Regulations allow distillers to count any time up to six months that a spirit has spent in containers other than small wood toward the age of their spirit. That doesn’t exclude the requirement to age for a minimum of three years in small wood, but it can be used in addition to it. That means that a distiller could age their whiskey for three years and six months in small wood and then place it in a different container for another six months before claiming that the spirit had been aged for four years.
It’s Canadian, Eh
Subsections C, D, E, and F are perhaps the most straightforward, and they’re relatively congruent with other countries’ regulations. They ensure that Canadian whiskey tastes generally like Canadian whiskey, that it’s produced entirely within Canada, and that it’s packaged at an agreed-upon proof. Subsection D mentions that Canadian whiskey must be produced in accordance with the requirements of the previously mentioned Excise Act of 1985—a bit of circular logic. Despite that, the requirement has a purpose: It acts as an easy way for Canadian authorities to disallow any spirit that they deem to be improperly produced.
Flavoring
Finally, subsection G is perhaps the most important of the entire definition. It simply states that Canadian whiskey may contain flavoring. That simple allowance is a major departure from many other countries’ definitions, and it’s what some would argue makes Canadian whiskey unique.
It also begs questions: Where did such an allowance come from, and how much is allowed?
Well, the answers to both those questions are a little complicated.
About that Flavoring
According to Don Livermore’s Book, Blending 101, Canadian distillers have been blending flavors, wine, and other spirits into their whiskeys since the early 1800s.
Other sources say the practice appeared only after World War II, in response to U.S. legislation that gave such spirits a tax advantage. Regardless of when and where the practice originated, from the distiller’s perspective, there’s a bigger question: How much can be added?
The Canadian government has changed stance on this topic over the years, but the current standard is known colloquially as the 9.09 rule. The 9.09 rule allows for 9.09 percent of the absolute ethanol concentration of a whiskey to be composed of wine, spirits, or flavorings.
That means that in a 100-gallon container of 50 percent ABV whiskey, a bit more than four gallons of the alcohol could come from another sources, which might include sherry or even American bourbon. Distillers often use this rule to take advantage of certain tax credits, especially for export markets, as well as to produce more fully flavored and consistent whiskeys.
This rule is entirely unique to Canadian whiskey, and it’s part of the reason that Canadian whiskey is considered so distinct from other whiskeys around the world.
The Rye in Whiskey
There’s one last oddity of Canadian whiskey that we must address. In Canada, the above definition applies to all whiskeys labeled as “Canadian whisky,” “Canadian rye whisky,” or simply “rye whisky.”
Because of the wording of subsection A—which simply says that a whiskey should be made from cereal grains—it’s possible to make a product labeled “Canadian rye whisky” without any rye in the mash bill. The reason for that is a historical quirk: It stems from the fact that during the early days of distilling in Canada, whiskey containing rye became so popular that the term “rye whisky” began to be used as a general term for all whiskey.
Although theoretically problematic, it hasn’t been an issue because most Canadian whiskey contains at least some amount of rye—even if it’s typically in far smaller proportions than in American rye whiskey. If a Canadian whiskey doesn’t contain any rye, it’s doubtful that the word would appear on the label.
Recent international tariffs aside, Canadian whiskey has been experiencing a resurgence over the past decade, with consistent growth year after year. Consumers have become attracted to its relative accessibility, and its malleable definition has allowed distillers to create distinctive processes that create truly unique flavors.
Yes, there is still some argument among whiskey purists about the dubiousness of the 9.09 rule—but that’s just one aspect of a deep whiskey tradition. Perhaps it’s time for more Americans to learn what all the fuss is about.