you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 3 months ago (5 children)

This might actually be a genius malicious compliance play, seeing how the boycotts of American made goods and alcohol are largely a grassroots movement by the citizens.

Appeasing the US by allowing their alcohol back on the shelves, only for it to largely sit there as unmoving product would definitely be a great way to honour the contract without reducing the impact of the message.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    The issue with that is, by the time the US liquor is sitting on the shelf for sale the US producers already got paid. The liquor is first bought by provincial distributors, even in Alberta via the AGLC, and then sold to the public from government stores, or sold to private liquor stores who then sell to the public. So if that US liquor hits the shelf and we boycott it, it's either our provincial governments or local liquor stores that take the hit. That's why the provincial level bans are angering the US liquor industry so much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    They'll make the money on Canadian booze as the USA stuff slowly sells. Alberta already started selling US stuff in June since they are privatized distribution and not provincial--and want to join the USA

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Appeasing the US by allowing their alcohol back on the shelves

    Except that we should have learned by now that trying to appease a country who won't honour their own agreements is pointless.

    What guarantees can there be that the US won't just reneg again after we appease them again?

    They should have to demonstrate some level of trustworthiness before we even think about backing down.

  • source
  • parent