Carney Asks Premiers to Lift U.S. Alcohol Bans as Trade Deal Nears

Prime Minister Mark Carney asked the premiers on a Wednesday conference call to drop their retaliatory bans on U.S. alcohol sales at provincial liquor outlets, as a Canada-U.S. trade deal that would lock in 15% auto tariffs appears close (The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; BBC).

As of Friday afternoon, Ontario Premier Doug Ford had been completely silent on whether he would comply. Ford presides over the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), one of the largest buyers of alcohol in the world, which normally brings in nearly $1-billion worth of U.S. booze a year (The Globe and Mail). An earlier Reuters report had characterized Ford's position as refusing to restore U.S. liquor to shelves unless tariffs are removed or a new trade deal is reached (Reuters). The more recent Globe and Mail reporting, dated Aug. 21, supersedes that framing with the simpler fact that Ford has not indicated either way.

Ford's silence is not without precedent in this file. He previously dropped a March 2025 surcharge on electricity exports to the U.S. a single day after its imposition drew the ire of Donald Trump (The Globe and Mail).

The premiers' responses ran across a familiar federal-provincial spectrum. Alberta and Saskatchewan had long ago dropped their bans. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe suggested the booze climbdown was needed for trade talks to advance. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Tony Wakeham said all the premiers had agreed to stand down on the ban "as a sign of good faith" (The Globe and Mail).

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said he would consider the request, describing it as "a step before begging," and encouraged consumers not to buy U.S.-made alcohol if it returned to shelves. Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette said she could restore U.S. booze sales only if the deal turned out to be positive for Quebec (The Globe and Mail).

B.C. Premier David Eby was on vacation with poor cell reception and did not dial into the call. He had not indicated whether his province would comply. Eby had previously encouraged consumer boycotts of U.S. goods during the trade dispute, saying "Keep it up" (The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail).

The broader context here is a trade negotiation moving toward conclusion under significant tariff pressure. A proposed deal would lock in 15% auto tariffs, meaning U.S. duties on Canadian-built vehicles would be set at that level as part of the agreement. BBC reporting from Aug. 20 indicated an agreement preventing a new wave of U.S. tariffs is close and could include an end to Canada's boycott of U.S. wine and spirits (BBC). Carney, for his part, has said: "We are intensifying our trade negotiations with the United States and will not hesitate to defend our interests if we have to" (Reuters.

The alcohol bans were a provincial lever pulled in retaliation against U.S. tariff actions. Lifting them is similarly a provincial decision, not Ottawa's to make. In Canada's federal system, provinces control their own liquor retail through government-run monopolies like the LCBO and Quebec's SAQ, so each premier must individually order the change through that apparatus. The premiers who moved earliest, Alberta and Saskatchewan, were also those whose economies are most tightly integrated with U.S. energy and agricultural supply chains. The holdouts, Ford and Eby, govern the two provinces with the largest liquor retail operations.

Quebec's conditional language from Fréchette is worth noting. The SAQ, like the LCBO, is a provincially controlled monopoly buyer. A premier who says she can restore sales "only if the deal turned out to be positive for Quebec" is preserving the right to interpret the trade agreement's terms through a provincial lens before acting. That is a different posture from Wakeham's characterization of a collective stand-down agreement, and it signals that consensus among premiers may be thinner than the Newfoundland premier's phrasing suggests.

Kinew's framing, "a step before begging," captures the political sensitivity several premiers face. Having publicly rallied consumers to boycott American products, reversing course risks looking like a concession extracted under duress. Kinew's solution — telling consumers to keep refusing U.S. products even if the government lifts its ban — splits the difference between policy compliance and political face.

Ford's silence, then, is the variable to watch. The LCBO's purchasing power gives Ontario outsized weight in any collective provincial gesture. If Ford declines or delays, the premiers' "good faith" stand-down becomes a patchwork rather than a unified signal to Washington. His track record of rapid reversal under Trump pressure, as with the electricity surcharge, suggests pragmatism will likely prevail, but the premier has not said so himself.