Commentary
By Sylvain Charlebois

The decision by several Canadian provinces to remove American wines, beers and spirits from government liquor stores was intended to send a clear political message in response to U.S. tariffs. Symbolically, it resonated. Commercially, however, the consequences are now beginning to emerge.

The introduction of the CANADA Act (which stands for Combating Attacks on our National Alcoholic Drinks by Allies Act) in the U.S. Congress recently marks a significant development. The proposed legislation would require the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate provinces that continue to exclude American alcoholic beverages from their distribution systems. Should the investigation conclude that these measures constitute discriminatory trade practices, Washington could consider retaliatory action.

This initiative should not be dismissed lightly. Canada’s provincial liquor authorities are not ordinary retailers; they are government-controlled monopolies that regulate access to the marketplace. When these entities deliberately remove products from a particular country, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that the decision is purely commercial. From the perspective of many American stakeholders, this is a government intervention that may conflict with the spirit, if not the letter, of existing trade agreements.

Quebec provides a telling example. The removal of American products imposed significant costs on the SAQ (Société des alcools du Québec). More than one million bottles were pulled from store shelves and placed into storage, tying up inventory valued at more than $27 million. Warehousing costs quickly climbed into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Facing the risk that some products would deteriorate over time, the Quebec government ultimately authorized the liquidation of part of the inventory, recovering up to $8.6 million, with the proceeds directed to Quebec food banks. While the decision was pragmatic, it also underscored that the boycott carried real economic costs.

American producers, meanwhile, argue they have suffered substantial losses. U.S. spirits exports to Canada are estimated to have declined by more than 80 per cent since the provincial measures were introduced. In several U.S. states, these losses are now translating into growing political pressure on elected officials, who are demanding a response from Washington.

The timing could hardly be more sensitive. The U.S. has already declined to renew the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in its current form during the agreement’s mandatory six-year review, triggering years of annual negotiations over its future. Opening another front involving provincial liquor monopolies will only complicate Canada’s position at a time when trade relations with its largest trading partner are becoming more uncertain.

There is also a broader precedent worth considering. If governments use public monopolies to exclude foreign products for political reasons, other countries may feel justified in applying similar measures against Canadian exports. For a country whose prosperity depends heavily on international trade, that is a risky proposition.

The boycott of American alcohol may have served a legitimate political purpose. But symbolic actions often have a limited lifespan, while their economic consequences can endure. What began as a commercial dispute is increasingly becoming a diplomatic one.

The introduction of the CANADA Act does not mean U.S. sanctions are imminent. It does, however, send a clear signal that Washington no longer views the removal of American products as merely a provincial political gesture, but as a trade practice that could warrant a federal response.

With CUSMA now entering years of annual review after the U.S. declined to renew the agreement in its current form, Canada would be well served by reducing sources of friction rather than creating new ones. Markets value predictability. So do trading partners.

Ultimately, the most effective way to express disagreement in a market economy may also be the simplest: let consumers decide. If Canadians wish to boycott American products, they are entirely free to do so. But when governments remove those products from store shelves, an individual consumer choice becomes an official state action, with all the commercial, diplomatic and financial consequences that inevitably follow.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and visiting scholar at McGill University.

The Booze Boycott at a Glance

The most prominent U.S.-made labels affected by Canada’s alcohol boycott include:

• Jack Daniel’s

• Jim Beam

• Tito’s Handmade Vodka

• Bulleit Bourbon

• Bacardi rum produced in the U.S.

• Woodford Reserve

• Old Forester

• Maker’s Mark

• Josh Cellars

• Robert Mondavi

• Barefoot

• Apothic

• Meiomi

The clearest top-five list comes from British Columbia, which initially targeted its best-selling brands from Republican-led states: Jack Daniel’s, Jim Beam, Bulleit, Tito’s and Bacardi. Some Bacardi products made in Canada were exempt.

Jack Daniel’s appears to be among the most visibly affected individual labels. Its owner, Brown-Forman, said Canadian sales fell 62 per cent during one quarter and has repeatedly cited the absence of American-made alcohol from Canadian shelves as a drag on its ready-to-drink business.

Across the industry, U.S. spirits sales in Canada fell 66.3 per cent during the first phase of the boycott, including an 80 per cent drop in Ontario. U.S. spirits exports to Canada fell 85 per cent in the second quarter of 2025.

Brands such as Budweiser, Coors Light and some Bacardi products may carry American names but are brewed, bottled or produced in Canada. Their treatment depends on where the specific product was made, rather than where the parent company is based.