ON
← Back to feed
U.S. alcohol could be coming back to Canadian shelves. Here’s what Globe readers had to say
CA🏛️ PoliticsLean Progressive6 days ago

U.S. alcohol could be coming back to Canadian shelves. Here’s what Globe readers had to say

Prime Minister Mark Carney has urged Canadian premiers to reintroduce U.S. alcohol to provincial liquor stores, as part of ongoing trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. Currently, all provinces and territories except Alberta and Saskatchewan maintain bans on U.S. liquor sales, citing retaliatory measures against former U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs. In response to the potential resumption of U.S. alcohol availability, The Globe and Mail surveyed its readers, receiving over 1,700 responses within 24 hours. The majority expressed continued opposition to purchasing U.S. liquor, with many emphasizing broader boycott efforts against American products. Readers shared personal anecdotes and opinions, highlighting the emotional and financial aspects of resisting U.S. trade policies, while some noted that their decisions extend beyond alcohol to include other goods.

Cracks in Team Canada as some premiers openly question booze boycott strategy A paper notice lists the removal of bottles of U.S. alcohol from the shelves of an LCBO store in Toronto, on March 4, 2025. Arlyn McAdorey/Reuters As the clock ticked on a trade deal to avert U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat of a new round of punishing tariffs, clear cracks between Canada’s premiers and Prime Minister Mark Carney started to show. As of Friday afternoon, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, normally vocal about the need to stand up to Mr. Trump, had been completely silent on whether he would accede to a request from Mr. Carney to end the province’s ban on the sale of U.S. alcohol at its liquor stores. The premiers routinely refer to themselves as a unified “Team Canada,” and in recent weeks Mr. Ford and the rest had mostly avoided criticizing Mr. Carney or his negotiators as they rolled up their sleeves in Washington. If U.S. booze returns, will Canadians buy it or ‘let it rot’? In a conference call on Wednesday about the talks, Mr. Carney asked premiers to drop their retaliatory bans on U.S. alcohol sales at provincial liquor outlets, even while any potential reduction of the tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos and lumber remained the subject of down-to-the-wire discussion. The reception for the idea from certain premiers ranged from chilled to muted. B.C. Premier David Eby, who was on vacation with poor cell reception and did not dial into the call with the Prime Minister, had not indicated whether his province would comply. Alberta and Saskatchewan had already dropped their bans on U.S. booze sales. Manitoba’s Wab Kinew, in scrappy comments to reporters in Winnipeg on Thursday, suggested he would consider the Prime Minister’s request, which he described as “a step before begging.” He encouraged consumers not to buy U.S.-made alcohol if it did return to shelves. He said he believed Canada should instead “keep fighting,” and that the unpopular Mr. Trump was “weak,” facing midterm elections in a few months. Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette said she could restore U.S. booze sales, but only if the deal turned out to be positive for Quebec. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe suggested the booze climbdown was needed for the talks to advance. And Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Tony Wakeham said on Thursday that all the premiers had agreed to stand down “as a sign of good faith.” Proposed U.S.-Canada trade deal would introduce steel quota with lower 25% tariff, sources say Mr. Ford has in the past called for tougher “dollar-for-dollar” responses to the U.S. tariffs hammering his province, home to most of the country’s auto industry. And the Ontario Premier presides over the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which is one of the largest buyers of alcohol in the world and normally brings in nearly $1 billion worth of U.S. booze a year. But he has stood down on trade retaliation before, dropping a March 2025 surcharge on electricity exports to the U.S. just a day after its imposition had attracted the ire of Mr. Trump. Veteran trade lawyer Lawrence Herman, a senior fellow with the C.D. Howe Institute, said he predicts all the premiers will swallow their pride and restore U.S. booze to their liquor-store shelves. But Mr. Herman said the provinces’ booze bans may have indeed been useful at the bargaining table. “In some ways, that’s a strength on our side, because we can say, look, this deal isn’t going to get the provinces on side,” Mr. Herman said. “My sense is, if we have gone about as far as we can go on the tariff side, there is not much that can be done by holding out on alcohol.” Carlo Dade, director of the New North America Initiative at the University of Calgary’s school of public policy, argued that having the premiers back down and drop their booze bans is not much of a concession, as many Canadian consumers will likely keep away from U.S. products anyway. “It’s a bit of theatre with the Americans. It looks like we made a great concession. But…” U.S. alcohol could be coming back to Canadian shelves. Here’s what Globe readers had to say Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked Canadian premiers to restock American alcohol and end procurement policies that exclude United States companies on Thursday, in the midst of a tentative trade deal with the U.S. All provinces and territories except Alberta and Saskatchewan have maintained bans on the sale of U.S. liquor, and a number have imposed procurement restrictions in retaliation for U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs last year. The Globe asked our readers if they’d be buying U.S. liquor once it was on shelves in their local stores again. With over 1,700 responses in under 24 hours (one of our most popular callouts ever), and an overwhelming consensus to boycott, here’s what you had to say. Continuing the boycott: Until this whole mess is restored and Canadians are satisfied concerning future trade deals, American booze is a no-fly zone. Let me be clear: the Leafs will win the Cup before I ever buy any American booze. - Kerry Smith, Hoskin Township, Ont. An absolute no to any American-made product like wine or spirits and dairy. Our country may be forced to accept trading compromises to make a comprehensive trading pact with the U.S., but that does not mean that Canadian consumers have to accept any such deal. Canadian businesses deserve the support of Canadian consumers. - Marty Cross, Vancouver Island. You couldn’t force me to buy or drink US booze. I’d choke on it. - Lynne Thompkins, Fredericton. I am a dual citizen of Canada and Germany. I am not purchasing U.S. alcoholic beverages even though they can be purchased here. - Yanti Sutarno, Germany. Many argue that the people hurt by these boycotts are good, hard-working people, and that is likely true. However, we have only one way to express our resistance to American hostility, and that is financially. That is the only thing the American leadership cares about, the only thing they respond to. Their constant crying about the Canadian booze boycott shows us that clearly. - Casey Gaunt, Saskatoon. It would be like giving my ex-wife a bonus on her alimony for no reason. Sorry. Can’t do it. - Doug Reid, Kingston, Ont. Beyond the alcohol: I will absolutely still not be purchasing U.S. alcohol. I don’t miss it and there are other non-U.S. options out there. My purchasing choices aren’t just with alcohol. I will continue to avoid purchasing fruits and groceries from the U.S. as well. Wherever I can find non U.S. options, I will. - Anna Baker, B.C. We continue to boycott all American products in this family as much as possible. We live in a border town and no longer cross the bridge to Michigan where the smaller Sault Ste. Marie is hurting. We love Niagara wines, cider and produce. - Brenda and James Davies, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Just as many of us here are doing their best to not purchase U.S. broccoli, lettuce or fruits, I see no need to support U.S. alcohol. We are getting access to more Mexican produce at a better price! - Pamela Keating, Chester, N.S. We are boycotting nearly everything made in the U.S. We are not travelling to the States, not even for my husband’s 50th high school reunion this fall. - Nicole Narbonne, Powell River, B.C. I am boycotting. It is one of the ways we can make a difference. I’m a beer drinker, and even when I’m forced to travel for work, I’ll try to buy an import and spend as little as possible while I’m in the U.S. - Canadian premiers appear to back Carney’s decision to abandon ‘bad deal’ with United States After days of negotiations, Canada and the United States have failed to reach a trade agreement, with Prime Minister Mark Carney saying he was “walking away from a bad deal.” Premiers are standing by Carney’s decision, but are also bracing for job losses and calling for support. Touria Izri has the details. Canada’s premiers appear to be rallying behind Prime Minister Mark Carney’s decision to walk away from trade talks with the United States as 50 per cent tariffs hit billions of products across the country. After hope that a deal could be reached between Canada and the United States percolated, talks stalled and collapsed, escalating the trade war between the two countries. Tariffs of 50 per cent on billions of dollars in Canadian goods were levied by America on Saturday, while Canada has promised to hit back dollar by dollar next month. On Saturday afternoon, Carney briefed Canada’s premiers on the deal he had abandoned and tariff relief. “I’ve always said we need to fight these tariffs. Tariff to tariff, dollar to dollar,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters in Toronto. “I’m glad he didn’t sign that deal because it was a bad deal. It was a bad deal for Ontario. It was a bad deal for the auto sector, the steel sector and the manufacturing sector. We never started this fight, but I can assure you, we’re going to win this fight.” Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew agreed that Canada should adopt a harsh position on the United States. “History will not

7 reports

The Globe and Mail logoThe Globe and MailIndependent🔒CenterFactual 90Objective 707 days ago
Cracks in Team Canada as some premiers openly question booze boycott strategy

Premiers across Canada are showing signs of division over Prime Minister Mark Carney's request to lift provincial bans on U.S. alcohol sales as part of ongoing trade negotiations with the United States. While some provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan have already removed their bans, others remain hesitant. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, known for his tough stance against U.S. tariffs, has not publicly committed to ending his province's ban. Premiers such as Manitoba's Wab Kinew and Quebec's Christine Fréchette expressed conditional support, linking compliance to broader trade outcomes. The situation highlights growing tensions within 'Team Canada' as provinces weigh economic interests against national unity.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced view of differing perspectives among Canadian premiers regarding the U.S. trade deal and the lifting of alcohol bans. It does not overtly favor one side over another, instead highlighting the varied positions and conditions set by different leaders. The framing is non

Why factuality (90): The article provides detailed accounts of the situation involving the premiers and the Prime Minister, including specific mentions of Ontario Premier Doug Ford and B.C. Premier David Eby. These details align with the cross-source consensus, though the article lacks explicit confirmation of the Prime

Why objectivity (70): The article presents the situation with a somewhat critical tone towards the Prime Minister's strategy, using phrases like 'scrappy comments' and suggesting Manitoba's premier might be reluctant to comply. This introduces a slight bias in framing the events, even if it remains largely factual.

The Globe and Mail logoThe Globe and MailIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 85Objective 707 days ago
U.S. alcohol could be coming back to Canadian shelves. Here’s what Globe readers had to say

Prime Minister Mark Carney has urged Canadian premiers to reintroduce U.S. alcohol to provincial liquor stores, as part of ongoing trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. Currently, all provinces and territories except Alberta and Saskatchewan maintain bans on U.S. liquor sales, citing retaliatory measures against former U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs. In response to the potential resumption of U.S. alcohol availability, The Globe and Mail surveyed its readers, receiving over 1,700 responses within 24 hours. The majority expressed continued opposition to purchasing U.S. liquor, with many emphasizing broader boycott efforts against American products. Readers shared personal anecdotes and opinions, highlighting the emotional and financial aspects of resisting U.S. trade policies, while some noted that their decisions extend beyond alcohol to include other goods.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue through the lens of Canadian consumer resistance to U.S. trade policies, emphasizing the boycott as a form of protest against perceived American economic aggression. While the subject involves trade relations, the framing leans left by portraying the boycott as a moral,Ǧ

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that PM Mark Carney requested provincial leaders to restock American alcohol as part of a tentative trade deal with the U.S. It mentions the current ban in most provinces and the retaliatory procurement policies due to Trump's tariffs. The article also includes reader

Why objectivity (70): The article presents reader opinions with strong emotional language ('no-fly zone', 'choke') which reflects a biased perspective. While it provides context about the trade deal and procurement policies, the emphasis on reader sentiment introduces a subjective tone, making it less objective.

The Globe and Mail logoThe Globe and MailIndependent🔒CenterFactual 80Objective 958 days ago
U.S. alcohol could be coming back to Canadian shelves. Tell us if you will be buying or boycotting

Prime Minister Mark Carney has requested Canadian premiers to restock U.S. alcohol on store shelves as part of a tentative trade deal between Canada and the U.S. Previously, most provinces and territories had banned the sale of U.S. liquor due to retaliatory measures against former President Donald Trump's tariffs. The U.S. administration has pressured Canada to restore alcohol sales to avoid further tariffs. Manitoba's Premier, Wab Kinew, expressed openness to reintroducing U.S. alcohol but emphasized the need for more details on final tariff rates before committing. The Globe and Mail is seeking public opinion on whether Canadians will purchase the returned U.S. alcohol or opt for alternatives.

Bias read (Center): The article presents information about a potential shift in trade policy without overtly endorsing either side. It reports on the request by Prime Minister Carney and the cautious responses from provincial leaders, while also inviting public opinion. There is no clear ideological leaning in the tone

Why factuality (80): This article discusses the potential return of U.S. alcohol to Canadian shelves as part of a trade deal, citing the actions of Prime Minister Mark Carney and the status of provincial bans. It references the broader context of trade negotiations and the impact of previous tariffs. While it lacks a pr

Why objectivity (95): The article remains objective, focusing on reporting the situation and inviting reader input without injecting personal views or emotional language. It presents the issue neutrally and invites public opinion without endorsing any particular stance.

Toronto Star logoToronto StarIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 8510 days ago
Donald Trump delays planned 50% tariffs on Canada, cites trade deal

The article reports that former U.S. President Donald Trump has postponed his planned imposition of 50% tariffs on Canadian imports. The delay is attributed to ongoing negotiations related to a potential new trade agreement between the United States and Canada. This decision comes amid broader discussions about bilateral trade relations and economic policies affecting both countries. The postponement suggests a temporary halt to increased trade barriers, which could impact industries reliant on cross-border commerce. The move reflects the complex interplay of trade policy and diplomatic considerations.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual report on a policy decision without overtly favoring either side. It does not include biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorial commentary that would indicate a clear ideological lean. The focus is on the action taken and the stated reason for it, without delve

Why factuality (80): This article states that Trump delayed 50% tariffs on Canada due to a trade deal, which matches the broader narrative that tariff plans were postponed through diplomatic engagement. While no primary source is available, this claim is supported by multiple accounts from official statements and media

Why objectivity (85): The article presents information objectively, focusing on Trump’s decision and its rationale without expressing judgment or taking sides. It uses straightforward language to convey the facts without emotional appeal.

Global News logoGlobal NewsIndependentProgressiveFactual 80Objective 706 days ago
Canadian premiers appear to back Carney’s decision to abandon ‘bad deal’ with United States

Canadian provincial premiers have expressed solidarity with Prime Minister Mark Carney's decision to reject a proposed trade deal with the United States, citing it as a 'bad deal' that would harm key industries like automotive, steel, and manufacturing. The breakdown of negotiations led to the U.S. imposing 50% tariffs on Canadian goods, prompting Canada to threaten reciprocal tariffs. Premiers such as Ontario's Doug Ford and Manitoba's Wab Kinew criticized U.S. President Donald Trump's approach, emphasizing a firm stance against perceived American economic aggression. While some premiers supported Carney's decision, others acknowledged potential negative impacts on jobs and called for federal support.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the rejection of the trade deal as a principled stand against U.S. economic policies, particularly criticizing President Trump's approach. Language such as 'bad deal,' 'fight these tariffs,' and references to historical judgment of Trump suggest a left-leaning perspective. The phr

Why factuality (80): This article confirms the consensus that premiers supported Carney's decision to abandon the trade deal, noting the 50% U.S. tariffs and Canada's planned retaliation. It provides updates on the timeline and includes direct quotes from premiers like Doug Ford, supporting the broader narrative found i

Why objectivity (70): The article maintains a somewhat neutral tone but includes strong language from Premier Ford describing Trump as someone who 'steals your lunch money,' which introduces a subjective element. While informative, it frames the situation through a critical lens of the U.S. approach.

Toronto Star logoToronto StarIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 808 days ago
Premiers divided as Carney pushes to close Trump trade deal that keeps tariffs in place

The article reports on growing divisions among Canadian provincial premiers regarding Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland's push to finalize a trade agreement with the United States under former President Donald Trump. The proposed deal would maintain existing tariffs on steel and aluminum, which were imposed by Trump as part of his 'America First' economic policies. While some provinces support the agreement as a way to secure stable trade terms, others argue it undermines Canada's broader economic interests and international commitments. The disagreement highlights tensions between maintaining bilateral trade relationships and pursuing more comprehensive multilateral agreements.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the issue as a matter of debate among provincial leaders without overtly favoring one side. It describes both supporting and opposing viewpoints but does not emphasize any particular ideological stance. The framing remains balanced, focusing on the differing perspectives rather

Why factuality (75): The article reports that premiers are divided while Carney pushes to close a trade deal with Trump that maintains tariffs. This aligns with the cross-source consensus that there was disagreement among leaders regarding trade terms and that efforts were made to finalize agreements. However, the lack

Why objectivity (80): The tone remains neutral, presenting both sides of the debate without overt bias. The focus is on reporting the actions and statements of officials rather than injecting personal opinion or emotional language.

National Post logoNational PostIndependentProgressiveFactual 60Objective 556 days ago
Jivani calls Carney's dollar-for-dollar tariff response an 'overreaction' that will 'accelerate conflict'

The article discusses comments made by Jivani regarding Governor Mark Carney's response to trade tensions, specifically his 'dollar-for-dollar' approach to tariffs. Jivani criticizes this strategy as an 'overreaction,' suggesting it could lead to increased conflict between parties involved in the trade dispute. The focus is on the potential escalation of economic tensions due to retaliatory measures taken by Carney. This situation highlights concerns over how trade policies might affect international relations and economic stability.

Bias read (Progressive): The article presents Jivani's perspective, which frames Carney's actions as an overreaction likely to escalate conflict. This framing suggests a critical view of the current administration's trade policies, aligning more with left-leaning critiques of aggressive economic strategies.

Why factuality (60): This article presents a contrasting viewpoint, suggesting that Carney's tariff response is an 'overreaction' that will 'accelerate conflict.' It lacks detailed context or sourcing for the claim that the response is an overreaction, making it less aligned with the cross-source consensus that most pre

Why objectivity (55): The article takes a clearly opposing stance, using loaded language such as 'overreaction' and 'accelerate conflict,' indicating a clear editorial bias. It does not attempt to balance perspectives or provide counterarguments, resulting in a one-sided presentation.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories