Canada's stubby beer bottle finds new meaning in an age of American bluster
In a research paper published this spring, Heather Thompson, a recent graduate of the public history program at Carleton University in Ottawa, argues that the stubby — squat, refillable and therefore largely unappealing to foreign brewers — functioned as a quiet and distinctly Canadian form of protectionism.
"At the time, the Big Three, [Canadian Breweries Limited], Molson and Labatt's, they see the Americans coming and they knew they were very interested in the lucrative Canadian market. They needed something," she told CBC News. "The stubby is not a tariff, it's not government-imposed. It's as much an economic product as it is a cultural product."
In today's climate of rising tariffs, "buy Canadian" policies and deepening trade tensions, the story of the stubby might feel less like historic footnote and more like a blueprint — for how Canada can still navigate life beside an economically dominant and often unpredictable neighbour.
The stubby was introduced in 1961, at a time when Americans, who favoured non-recyclable aluminum cans, made their products in large centralized facilities and shipped their beer across the U.S. and to the world.
The stubby, by contrast, was glass, but it was also cheap, durable and lightweight, making it easy to transport. It was also able to be reused up to 100 times. It was the keystone in a closed-loop Canadian bottling system that kept costs down for domestic brewers while it kept foreign brewers out by raising the cost of market entry.
The bottle also fit neatly within Canada's fragmented domestic economy. Thanks to interprovincial trade barriers, brewers looking to sell in a given province often had to produce their beer there or face tariffs and restrictions when crossing provincial lines.
By 1962, the year after the stubby was introduced, Canada's Big Three brewers controlled about 95 per cent of the Canadian beer market. They owned nearly all of the country's 61 breweries, which gave them a physical presence in every region of Canada.
The Big Three also held a majority stake in Ontario's Beer Store, known then as the Brewing Warehousing Company Limited. When the stubby was made a packaging requirement for all beer sold at its stores in Ontario, Thompson argues, the Big Three effectively locked all foreign brewers out by creating an extra hurdle for entry into the market.
"To bottle in the stubby, [American brewers] are going to have to make their own line at their plant to bottle specifically for Ontario," she said, noting any cost savings for American brewers through the reusable stubby would be eaten up in transportation costs by first shipping the beer to Canada then shipping it back the U.S. for a refill.
Since almost all of Canada's breweries were owned by only three companies when the stubby was introduced in Ontario, the rest of the country followed suit in adopting the stubby because the bottle could be filled and reused in any bottling plant in any province by any Big Three brewer.
On par with bagged milk, says history podcaster
That kind of market consolidation meant for a generation of Canadian beer drinkers, from 1961 to 1984, the stubby was just about everywhere: on bar counters, fridges or sweating on the dock from St. John's to Victoria.
It was also immortalized as a symbol of Canadian identity by the beer-swilling, tuque-wearing McKenzie brothers, who were a parody of Canadian working class culture in the early 1980s, near the end of the bottle's industry dominance.
"When we think of the stubby, at least for me, I think of Bob and Doug McKenzie," said Craig Baird, host of the Canadian History Ehx! podcast, a show that looks back on the country's history.
Baird said the only thing that comes close to what the stubby did, in terms of uniquely Canadian design and function, is bagged milk. Like the stubby, it's efficient, cost-effective and largely incomprehensible to outsiders, making it both a practical solution and marker of national identity.
"If you look online, people say Canadians use bagged milk even though only Ontario and some other localized areas use bagged milk."
Canadian brewers dropped the stubby in 1984, switching to taller long necks as American brands like Budweiser and Coors entered the market thanks, first, to licensing agreements with American brewers and then free trade with the U.S. The new bottles held the same 341 millilitres but offered more branding appeal.
WATCH | Saying goodbye to the stubby:
The stubby began to be phased out in 1985 and now largely exists only in antique stores and our collective memory.
Reviving the spirit, if not the bottle
In a global market shaped by trade battles and foreign ownership, Thompson sees the stubby as more than nostalgia. It's a reminder of what Canadian brewers once did to protect their market — and what they might do again.
"We're seeing more interest in buying Canadian," she said. "It's a great opportunity for craft brewers to revive the stubby and its cultural power."
While few brewers have returned to the squat bottle, its spirit lives on in projects such as Glorious and Free, a patriotic IPA first brewed by Dominion City Brewing in Ottawa.
The recipe is shared with 40 breweries across Canada that have used hometown ingredients to create their own versions.
"The idea for the campaign really came from a walk in the snow," Dominion City co-founder Josh McJannett said with an obvious nod to former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, a politician whose retirement followed "a walk in the snow" in 1984, the same year the stubby was put out to pasture.
"The thought of stubby beer bottles around again is certainly appealing to the nostalgia in me," McJannett said, noting Glorious and Free is available in tallboy cans only.
He said the recipe was crafted as a direct response to some of the frustration he was feeling over U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs and talk of annexation.
"This was a way to harness that feeling and take some kind of an action," McJannett said.
Firm, but polite. A beer that, like the stubby, refuses to be poured into anyone else's mould.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
What's in Trump's big bill that passed Congress and will soon become law
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans muscled President Donald Trump's tax and spending cut bill through the House on Thursday, the final step necessary to get the bill to his desk by the GOP's self-imposed deadline of July 4th. At nearly 900 pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations. Democrats united against the legislation, but were powerless to stop it as long as Republicans stayed united. The Senate passed the bill, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The House passed an earlier iteration of the bill in May with just one vote to spare. It passed the final version 218-214. Here's the latest on what's in the bill. Tax cuts are the priority Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill, solidifying the tax cuts approved in Trump's first term. It temporarily would add new tax deductions on tip, overtime and auto loans. There's also a $6,000 deduction for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year, a nod to his pledge to end taxes on Social Security benefits. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200. Millions of families at lower income levels would not get the full credit. A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It's a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years. There are scores of business-related tax cuts, including allowing businesses to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research. Proponents say this will boost economic growth. The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, and the bill would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, mainly due to reductions in Medicaid and food aid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House's version. Money for deportations, a border wall and the Golden Dome The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump's border and national security agenda, including for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year. To help pay for it, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security. How to pay for it? Cuts to Medicaid and other programs To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back on Medicaid and food assistance for people below the poverty line . Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program's work requirements. There's also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services. More than 71 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama's Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits. Republicans are looking to have states pick up some of the cost for SNAP benefits. Currently, the federal government funds all benefit costs. Under the bill, states beginning in 2028 will be required to contribute a set percentage of those costs if their payment error rate exceeds 6%. Payment errors include both underpayments and overpayments. But the Senate bill temporarily delays the start date of that cost-sharing for states with the highest SNAP error rates. Alaska has the highest error rate in the nation at nearly 25%, according to Department of Agriculture data. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, had fought for the exception. She was a decisive vote in getting the bill through the Senate. A 'death sentence' for clean energy? Republicans are proposing to dramatically roll back tax breaks designed to boost clean energy projects fueled by renewable sources such as energy and wind. The tax breaks were a central component of President Joe Biden's 2022 landmark bill focused on addressing climate change and lowering health care costs. Democratic Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden went so far as to call the GOP provisions a 'death sentence for America's wind and solar industries and an inevitable hike in utility bills.' A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles would expire on Sept. 30 of this year, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law. Meanwhile, a tax credit for the production of critical materials will be expanded to include metallurgical coal used in steelmaking. Trump savings accounts and so, so much more A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities. The bill creates a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury. The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump's long-sought 'National Garden of American Heroes.' There's a new excise tax on university endowments and a new tax on remittances, or transfers of money that people in the U.S. send abroad. The tax is equal to 1% of the transfer. A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated. One provision bars for one year Medicaid payments to family planning providers that provide abortions, namely Planned Parenthood. Another section expands the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a hard-fought provision from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, for those impacted by nuclear development and testing. Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for the exploration of Mars, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee. Additionally, a provision would increase the nation's debt limit, by $5 trillion, to allow continued borrowing to pay already accrued bills. Last-minute changes The Senate overwhelmingly revolted against a proposal meant to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence. Republican governors across the country asked for the moratorium to be removed and the Senate voted to do so with a resounding 99-1 vote. A provision was thrown in at the final hours that will provide $10 billion annually to rural hospitals for five years, or $50 billion in total. The Senate bill had originally provided $25 billion for the program, but that number was upped to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that reduced Medicaid provider taxes would hurt rural hospitals. The amended bill also stripped out a new tax on wind and solar projects that use a certain percentage of components from China. What's the final cost? Altogether, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034. Or not, depending on how one does the math. Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already 'current policy.' Republican senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach. Under the alternative Senate GOP view, the bill would reduce deficits by almost half a trillion dollars over the coming decade, the CBO said. Democrats say this is 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the tax breaks. Some nonpartisan groups worried about the country's fiscal trajectory are siding with Democrats in that regard. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Senate Republicans were employing an 'accounting gimmick that would make Enron executives blush.' ___
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
‘Trump Has Betrayed His Working-Class Voters': What 7 Conservatives Really Think of Trump's Bill
With President Trump poised to sign his signature policy bill into law, Times Opinion asked seven of our conservative columnists and contributors a simple question: Will it be good for America or bad for America? The group we convened included libertarians, New Right thinkers and traditional conservatives — people from all corners of the conservative universe. Here's what they thought. ← Bad Good → Best Provision David Brooks The increase in the child tax credit (to $2,200 from $2,000) and the tax-advantaged savings accounts for children (with a government contribution of $1,000 per child born from 2024 to 2028). Those are policies proven to decrease child poverty, and they are consistent with the general trend we should be taking: Spend more on the young and less on the old. David French The defense spending increase — the bill adds $150 billion to the Pentagon's budget — is necessary and overdue. America's military spending as a percentage of its gross domestic product is near its post-Cold War lows, in spite of the fact that Russian aggression has escalated and China is engaged in an immense military buildup. Matt Labash Even if I hate the bill — and I do — it also seems to deeply irritate Elon Musk. And anything that irritates Musk as much as Musk irritates the rest of us should earn grudging credit as a karmic delivery system. Katherine Mangu-Ward Extending the income tax provision in Trump's 2017 tax cuts was a perfectly reasonable thing to do (though it should have been paired with more spending cuts). The fact that the extension is permanent means a modicum of stability in the fiscal chaos. At least we won't have to have this exact fight again soon. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
5 signs your credit card debt is too high for a DIY payoff plan
We may receive commissions from some links to products on this page. Promotions are subject to availability and retailer terms. There are warning signs that indicate your credit card debt has grown beyond what you can handle with do-it-yourself methods. Getty Images Credit card debt has become a defining financial challenge for millions of Americans, with the average cardholder carrying thousands of dollars in credit card debt currently. But with interest rates remaining stubbornly high — the average card now comes with an APR of over 21% and many have much higher rates — what starts as a manageable balance can quickly grow into an overwhelming financial burden that has a big impact on your financial health, especially in today's economic landscape. As the interest charges compound, paying off what you owe becomes increasingly difficult, especially if you're trying to do so via budgeting and disciplined repayment strategies. While these strategies can work for the right borrower, there comes a point where the do-it-yourself approaches simply aren't enough to combat your growing debt. The harsh reality is that some credit card debt situations are too complex or too large for self-help solutions to be effective, no matter how motivated or disciplined you are. That's why it's important to recognize when you've crossed that line. Doing so isn't about admitting failure. It's part of taking the necessary steps to regain control. But how exactly do you know when your credit card debt has grown too big to handle on your own? That's what we'll examine here. Chat with a debt relief expert about the solutions available to you today. 5 signs your credit card debt is too high for a DIY payoff plan Here are the key warning signs that your credit card debt may have outgrown your ability to tackle it alone: You're trying — but failing — to pay more than the minimum When you're genuinely trying to pay more than the minimum amount owed on your card debt but can't seem to make it happen month after month, that's a big red flag. If your budget analysis shows that you can barely cover the minimums, even with aggressive cuts to discretionary spending, you're in dangerous territory. This situation generally means you're essentially treading water while interest charges keep piling up, making it nearly impossible to chip away at the principal balance. Find out how to get help with your debt problems now. Your credit utilization ratio exceeds 50% Credit utilization, which is the percentage of available credit you're using, becomes a serious problem when it climbs above 50%. At this level, you're not just hurting your credit score; you're also signaling that you're heavily dependent on your credit cards to cover basic expenses. When your cards are maxed out or close to it, you lose the flexibility to handle unexpected expenses, creating a cycle where you're forced to rely even more heavily on credit. You're using credit cards for basic living expenses If you're regularly charging groceries, utilities or rent to your credit cards because you don't have the cash available, your debt problem has moved beyond discretionary overspending. This pattern indicates that your debt payments are consuming so much of your income that you can't cover your essential expenses. It's also a clear sign that the debt has become unsustainable and is actively preventing you from maintaining basic financial stability. Your debt-to-income ratio exceeds 40% Financial experts generally recommend keeping your total debt payments, including credit cards, car loans and other debts, but excluding mortgages, below 36% of your gross monthly income. So when credit card debt alone pushes you above 40%, you're in the danger zone. At this level, the debt is consuming such a large portion of your income that it's likely crowding out other essential expenses and making it extremely difficult to build a financial cushion. You're considering debt consolidation loans you can't qualify for When you start researching debt consolidation options but find that you can't qualify for loans with reasonable terms, it's often because lenders view your debt situation as too risky. So, if you're only being offered high-rate personal loans or secured loans that put your assets at risk, it suggests that your debt load has reached a level where traditional refinancing strategies aren't viable solutions. Other ways to get rid of your credit card debt When DIY methods are insufficient, there are several debt relief options that you can use to get the help you need. For example, credit counseling services offer personalized budgeting assistance and can help you create a debt management plan that reduces interest rates and fees while creating a more manageable payment schedule. For those with significant debt loads, enrolling in a debt settlement program, also known as a debt forgiveness program, can help you negotiate with your creditors to reduce the total amount you owe, making it easier to get rid of your debt. Though this approach does come with credit score implications, it could potentially reduce what you owe by 30% to 50% on average. Balance transfer credit cards with promotional 0% APR periods can also be effective tools, but only if you qualify for sufficient credit limits and have a realistic plan to pay off the transferred balance before the promotional rate expires. And, in extreme cases, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection may be the most appropriate path forward, as it can provide a fresh start for those whose debt has become truly unmanageable. The bottom line Tackling credit card debt on your own can work in some cases, but it's not always the smartest or most realistic choice. If you're struggling to make headway on your credit card debt, take it as a sign to explore other strategies that can help you regain control faster. After all, with the right plan in place, freedom from your overwhelming debt may be closer than you think.
