EventAction
Provincial liquor boards, including Ontario's LCBO and Quebec's SAQ, pull US alcohol from their shelves
On 4 March 2025, the day US tariffs on Canada took effect, Ontario's LCBO began removing more than 3,600 US alcohol products, and the SAQ, at the Quebec government's request, began withdrawing all US products and stopped importing them. In July 2026 the White House cited provincial halts on purchases of US alcohol as one ground for its Section 338 tariffs on Canada.
- Date
- Kind
- Tariff action
- Where
- Canada
- Evidence
- Action: Something was done: a law switched on, a tariff imposed, money committed. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- United States federal government (target); Government of Ontario (acted)
Articles that cite this record
Sources
- CP24, “Ontario removing U.S. alcohol from LCBO as 'first round of retaliation' against Trump's tariffs” (external site), . source record
- SAQ (Société des alcools du Québec), “Retrait des produits des États-Unis de la SAQ” (external site), . source record
- The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Additional Tariffs on Canada” (external site), . source record
Quotes
“nous retirons à partir d’aujourd’hui, tous les produits en provenance des États-Unis, de nos succursales et de notre site SAQ.COM”
Translation: “starting today, we are withdrawing all products from the United States from our stores and our SAQ.COM website”
From SAQ (Société des alcools du Québec): Retrait des produits des États-Unis de la SAQ, notice of 4 March 2025
Laws and agreements
Claims that rest on this event
- Canadians' rally against the US shows in behaviour, not just polls: return trips from the US fell 25.4% in 2025 (all modes; car trips were still 27% below 2024 in August 2026), spending on US visits fell by C$3.3 billion, boycotts spread, and two premiers called snap elections citing the US threat. This shows the effect, not what caused it.
Boycott with cost.
- Counted as Americans' income, Canada's build-out adds about US$1.5 billion a year by 2034, mostly US owners' profits from Canadian oil, gas and LNG, but the trade war costs more. The US comes out ahead in 2034 only if about a tenth or less of today's tariff damage is still in place (Canada: unless about 57% is), which happens in about 14% of our runs if the tariffs fade the way past US tariffs did. Either way the amount is small for the US, about 0.006% of its economy in 2034. This counts income; the forecast that more Canadian supply reaches the US counts volume.
Provincial liquor boards pulled US alcohol from their shelves: part of the boycott cost the trade war puts on Americans' income.
Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment
Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.
Non-discriminating: this event fits the plain self-interest reading and the foresight reading equally. It does not tell them apart. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Fits weak | The White House citing provincial alcohol bans as a ground for tariffs over a year later is consistent with grievance driving policy, though it could also be a pretext. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A provincial retaliation measure says nothing about US foresight of Canada's build-out or about goals for Canada's integrity. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A provincial retaliation measure says nothing about US foresight of Canada's build-out or about goals for Canada's integrity. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A provincial retaliation measure says nothing about US foresight of Canada's build-out or about goals for Canada's integrity. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A provincial retaliation measure says nothing about US foresight of Canada's build-out or about goals for Canada's integrity. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Neutral weak | A provincial retaliation measure says nothing about US foresight of Canada's build-out or about goals for Canada's integrity. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Neutral weak | A provincial retaliation measure says nothing about US foresight of Canada's build-out or about goals for Canada's integrity. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Neutral weak | A provincial retaliation measure says nothing about US foresight of Canada's build-out or about goals for Canada's integrity. |